Shutdown costs pegged at $3 billion as U.S. government reopens

[Rogue Valley]

That's $3 billion that cannot be recouped. Overall it was $11 billion for the 35 days. It is unknown how much of the remaining $8 billion can/will be recouped.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Government shutdown cost economy $11 billion, budget office says

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, the misuse of FICA money was certainly a cause, but the cause of congressional misuse does not alter reality that entitlements are the single biggest budget problem we have. And the truth is we always knew that, I was listening to Jim Bohannon last year and he referenced reporting on deficits coming on social security in 1980s, voters didn’t care then, they don’t care now. So again voters repeatedly sent representatives who raided FICA Tax surpluses, but those surpluses wouldn’t have lasted forever anyway. When most women will tie their tubes after two kids and that’s if they have children at all a social security system like we have is simply unsustainable, and changing society and demographics spell doom for the system as structured. It makes no sense for an entitlement system that was created in an era of large poor families and short lifespans to not change now that families are smaller and lifespans far longer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Punishing current retirees for their offspring allegedly not having produced enough workers or *gasp* living too long is ridiculous. The reluctance of congress critters to raise the FICA payroll tax rate (or any federal taxes for that matter) is obvious but the political cost of cutting "promised" benefits is even more serious so they have elected to "compromise" and simply borrow from future generations.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

I didnt feel affected by the shutdown at all we should cut fed's funding in half.

 

[WillyPete]

Not sure what any of this has to do with the fact that Democrats would prefer to pour billions down the toilet than upgrade the border fencing they voted for.

I guess they changed their minds.

Maybe they learned it from Trump, back when he was a Democrat.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Punishing current retirees for their offspring allegedly not having produced enough workers or *gasp* living too long is ridiculous. The reluctance of congress critters to raise the FICA payroll tax rate (or any federal taxes for that matter) is obvious but the political cost of cutting "promised" benefits is even more serious so they have elected to "compromise" and simply borrow from future generations.

I reject entirely that cutting government benefits is “punishment” since I view benefits paid for by taxes to be immoral in the first place.

I mean the reality is people “promise” things they don’t mean all the time. Young people “promise” to pay back money to go to university and then as soon as they’re out and voting look for politicians who will reduce or “forgive” their loans. And while in ethics class it may not be “right” to “punish” older people for their offspring having fewer kids or their own longevity, in the real world these changes have impacts on the system that you ignore at your own peril. If you have two people paying 500 dollars a month for every pensioner collecting 1200 a month there’s a deficit there that must be made up somehow or somebody has to lose out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grokmaster]

Simple, try paying someone not to mow your lawn and then tell me how that did not cost you more.

OK...it DID NOT COST ME MORE. It cost me the SAME , the next time I paid him to do it, LESS the time I didn't.

That is LESS...not more.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...llion-as-u-s-government-reopens-idUSKCN1PM1EU

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy was expected to lose $3 billion from the partial federal government shutdown over President Donald Trump’s demand for border wall funding, congressional researchers said on Monday as 800,000 federal employees returned to work after a 35-day unpaid furlough.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the cost of the shutdown will make the U.S. economy 0.02 percent smaller than expected in 2019. More significant effects will be felt by individual businesses and workers, particularly those who went without pay.
================================================
Trump's vanity project, the unnecessary southern border wall that he campaigned on, will cost the U.S. economy $3B. This result shows a complete lack of leadership & compassion. And he has darkly promised more to come.

V. Putin must be laughing his donkey off.

What I dont get is they say that its TRUMPS DEMAND for a wall that closed the government. But isnt it the house thats shutting down the government by refusing to pass anything with wall funding in it? Fun fact: Democrats voted for 350 miles of new fence when democrats were in office. Democrats shut down a bill that would have standalone funded the Coast Guard, with no wall bills in it just to fight with Trump.

 

[iguanaman]

Democrats would rather pour billions down the toilet than upgrade the border fencing they voted for.

They won't waste billions on a ridiculous script cue invented by Roger Stone.

In 2014, Trump’s plan to run for president moved into high gear. His political confidant was consultant Roger Stone. “Inside Trump’s circle, the power of illegal immigration to manipulate popular sentiment was readily apparent, and his advisers brainstormed methods for keeping their attention-addled boss on message,” writes Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Nationalist Uprising. “They needed a trick, a mnemonic device. In the summer of 2014, they found one that clicked.”

Joshua Green had good access to Trump insiders, including Sam Nunberg, who worked with Stone. “Roger Stone and I came up with the idea of ‘the Wall,’ and we talked to Steve [Bannon] about it,” according to Nunberg. “It was to make sure he [Trump] talked about immigration.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/04/where-the-idea-for-donald-trumps-wall-came-from/#4b94d0064415

 

[ttwtt78640]

I reject entirely that cutting government benefits is “punishment” since I view benefits paid for by taxes to be immoral in the first place.

I mean the reality is people “promise” things they don’t mean all the time. Young people “promise” to pay back money to go to university and then as soon as they’re out and voting look for politicians who will reduce or “forgive” their loans. And while in ethics class it may not be “right” to “punish” older people for their offspring having fewer kids or their own longevity, in the real world these changes have impacts on the system that you ignore at your own peril. If you have two people paying 500 dollars a month for every pensioner collecting 1200 a month there’s a deficit there that must be made up somehow or somebody has to lose out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That (bolded above) is true for sure. You can either cut the pension to $1K/month (a 17% reduction in benefits) and/or raise "contributions" to $600/month (a 20% payroll tax increase). Perhaps a fair compromise would be to cut SS retirement pensions by 9% (to $1,092/month) and to raise payroll taxes by 10% (to $550/month) and still have a (small) surplus.

 

[Taylor]

They won't waste billions on a ridiculous script cue invented by Roger Stone.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/04/where-the-idea-for-donald-trumps-wall-came-from/#4b94d0064415

No doubt made up to sell books to people like you.