United States Federal Government Shut-Down

Its a PDF. Try doing a right click and "Save link as..."

 

I don't care to download from sites I'm not familiar with, the text isn't available to be viewed on the site?

Copy and paste what is significant. Or better yet create a new thread as it is a topic of its own, and since the shut-down has ended this thread should dry up.

 

Ok. That was a different issue related to the the republicans being obstinate about Obama's appointments. Changing the filibuster rules is a way of circumventing the obstruction of appointments but is not considered a good way of doing things. It's similar to the secret change of rules that the republicans did in the House during the shutdown to preclude a vote being taken on a budget resolution.

The minority party needs to being willing to compromise to some degree. Otherwise, the majority party starts resorting to nuclear options such as changing Senate filibuster rules or precluding votes on bills in the House.

Playing a game of chicken again and again by using the debt limit deadline is a desperate measure and not an answer either.

The job approval of the Congress dropped a few more points to about 8% after this recent junior high school drama match.

 

In a related matter, it looks like the personal mandate of the Affordable Care Act will be delayed. There are too many problems right now with the government's healthcare exchange website.

A few weeks back, the mandate for businesses was delayed a year.

 

Reid did allow a vote on a clean bill. That's how this current impasse ended.

Reid blocked votes on the selective, piecemeal re-funding of only particular programs that the republicans were trying to do during the shutdown to try to score political points with the general public and its emotions and frustrations over those particular programs not being funded during the shutdown.

Republican House member Randy Neugebauer from Texas even did a political glamor stunt of trying to enter a closed National Park. He insulted the lady park ranger in front of a crowd of people, telling her that she should be ashamed of herself.

In the end, Boehner gave in and submitted a clean bill to the Senate which passed it.

 

It's oxfam - you don't trust oxfam?

The cost of inequality: how wealth and income
extremes hurt us all


The world must urgently set goals to tackle extreme inequality and extreme wealth

It is now widely accepted that rapidly growing extreme wealth and inequality are harmful to
human progress, and that something needs to be done. Already this year, the World Economic
Forum’s Global Risk Report rated inequality as one of the top global risks of 20131
. The IMF and
the Economist2
agree. Around the world, the Occupy protests demonstrated the increasing public
anger and feeling that inequality has gone too far3
.

In the last decade, the focus has been exclusively on one half of the inequality equation - ending
extreme poverty. Inequality and the extreme wealth that contributes to it were seen as either not
relevant, or a prerequisite for the growth that would also help the poorest, as the wealth created
trickled down to the benefit of everyone.

There has been great progress in the fight against extreme poverty. Hundreds of millions of
people have seen their lives improve dramatically – an historically unprecedented achievement
of which the world should be proud4
. But as we look to the next decade, and new development
goals we need to define progress, we must demonstrate that we are also tackling inequality- and
that means looking at not just the poorest but the richest5
. Oxfam believes that reducing
inequality is a key part of fighting poverty and securing a sustainable future for all. In a world of
finite resources, we cannot end poverty unless we reduce inequality rapidly.

That is why we are calling for a new global goal to end extreme wealth by 2025, and reverse the
rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last twenty years, taking
inequality back to 1990 levels67
.

Extreme wealth and inequality are reaching levels never before seen and are getting
worse

Over the last thirty years inequality has grown dramatically in many countries. In the US the
share of national income going to the top 1% has doubled since 1980 from 10 to 20%. For the
top 0.01% it has quadrupled8
to levels never seen before. At a global level, the top 1% (60 million
people)9
, and particularly the even more select few in the top 0.01% (600,000 individuals - there
are around 1200 billionaires in the world), the last thirty years has been an incredible feeding
frenzy10. This is not confined to the US, or indeed to rich countries. In the UK inequality is rapidly
returning to levels not seen since the time of Charles Dickens11. In China the top 10% now take
home nearly 60% of the income. Chinese inequality levels are now similar to those in South
Africa,12 which are now the most unequal country on earth and significantly more unequal than at
the end of apartheid13. Even in many of the poorest countries, inequality has rapidly grown14
. Globally the incomes of the top 1% have increased 60% in twenty years.15 The growth in income
for the 0.01% has been even greater16
.

Following the financial crisis, the process has accelerated, with the top 1% further 17 increasing
their share of income18. The luxury goods market has registered double digit growth every year
since the crisis hit19. Whether it is a sports car or a super-yacht, caviar or champagne, there has
never been a bigger demand for the most expensive luxuries.

The IMF has said that inequality is dangerous and divisive and could lead to civil unrest20. Polling
shows the public is increasingly concerned about growing inequality in many countries, and by
people across the political spectrum2122
.

Extreme wealth and inequality is economically inefficient

A growing chorus of voices is pointing to the fact that whilst a certain level of inequality may
benefit growth by rewarding risk takers and innovation, the levels of inequality now being seen
are in fact economically damaging and inefficient23. They limit the overall amount of growth, and
at the same time mean that growth fails to benefit the majority. Consolidation of so much wealth
and capital in so few hands is inefficient because it depresses demand, a point made famous by
Henry Ford24 and more recently billionaire Nick Hanauer in his much-discussed TED talk25
.
There quite simply is a limit to how many luxury yachts a person could want or own. Wages in
many countries have barely risen in real terms for many years, with the majority of the gains
being to capital instead26. If this money were instead more evenly spread across the population
then it would give more people more spending power, which in turn would drive growth and drive
down inequality27. The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012- enough to
end world poverty four times over.28. As a result growth in more equal countries is much more
effective at reducing poverty. Oxfam research has shown that because it is so unequal, in South
Africa even with sustained economic growth a million more people will be pushed into poverty by
2020 unless action is taken29
.

Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Politically Corrosive

If, in the words of the old adage ‘money equals power’ then more unequal societies represent a
threat to meaningful democracy. This power can be exercised legally, with hundreds of millions
spent each year in many countries on lobbying politicians, or illegitimately with money used to
corrupt the political process and purchase democratic decision making. Joseph Stiglitz30 and
others31 have pointed out the way in which financial liberalisation led to huge power for the
financial industry, which in turn has led to further liberalisation. In the UK the governing
Conservative party receives over half its donations from the financial services industry32. Capture
of politics by elites is also very prevalent in developing countries, leading to policies that benefit
the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies. 33


Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Socially Divisive

Extreme wealth and inequality undermines societies. It leads to far less social mobility. If you are
born poor in a very unequal society you are much more likely to end your life in poverty. As
Richard Wilkinson, co- author of the Spirit Level34, has said, the American dream is more real in
Sweden than it ever has been in the United States35. Social mobility has fallen rapidly in many
countries as inequality has grown36. If rich elites use their money to buy services, whether it is
private schooling or private healthcare, they have less interest in public services or paying the
taxes to support them. Those from elites are much more likely to end up in political office or other
positions of power, further entrenching inequality. Their children are likely to be as rich, if not
richer, than their parents, with inter-generational inequality increasing37. Inequality has been
linked to many different social ills, including violence, mental health, crime and obesity38
.
Crucially inequality has been shown to be not only bad for the poor in unequal societies but also
the rich. Richer people are happier and healthier if they live in more equal societies39
.
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Environmentally Destructive

As the world is rapidly entering a new and unprecedented age of scarcity and volatility, extreme
inequality is increasingly environmentally unaffordable and destructive. The World Bank has
shown that countries with more equal distribution of land are more equitable and more efficient,
and grow faster40. Those in the 1% have been estimated to use as much as 10,000 times more
carbon than the average US citizen41. Increasing scarcity of resources like land and water mean
that assets being monopolised by the few cannot continue if we are to have a sustainable future.
Poverty reduction in the face of extreme wealth will become harder as resources become more
scarce. More equal societies are better able to cope with disasters and extreme weather events.
Studies show that more equal countries are also better able to reduce carbon emissions42
.

Extreme Wealth and Inequality is un ethical

Gandhi famously said “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's
greed.” From an ethical point of view, it is extremely difficult to justify excessive wealth and
inequality. In fact, most philosophers and all of the major religions caution against the pursuit of
excessive wealth at all cost and prescribe sharing of income with less fortunate members of the
community. For instance, the Koran bans usury and says that the rich should give away a portion
of their money. The decision of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to give away their fortunes or to call
for greater taxation of excess wealth is an example to the rest of the world’s billionaires.

Extreme wealth and inequality is not inevitable

After the Great Depression in the US in the 1930s, huge steps were taken to tackle inequality
and vested interests. President Roosevelt said that the ‘political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality’43. These steps were echoed in Europe after
World War Two, leading to three decades of increasing prosperity and reduced inequality.
Similarly the growth of the Asian tiger economies like Korea was achieved whilst reducing
inequality and meant the benefits were widely spread across their societies44. More recently,
countries like Brazil45, once a poster child for extreme inequality, have managed to buck the
global trend and prosper whilst reducing inequality.

The policies required to reduce inequality are also well known. Decent work for decent wages
has had a huge impact. The rise in the power of capital over labour has been identified by Paul
Krugman46 among many others as a key cause of the recent crisis47 and one that means that
assets are not being used productively, in turn reducing demand.
.
Free public services are crucial to levelling the playing field. In countries like Sweden, knowing
that if you get sick or that you will receive good treatment regardless of your income, is one of the
greatest achievements and the greatest equalisers of the modern world. Knowing that if you lose
your job, or fall on hard times, there is a safety net to help you and your family, is also key to
tackling inequality. Similarly, access to good quality education for all is a huge weapon against
inequality.

Finally, regulation and taxation play a critical role in reining in extreme wealth and inequality.
Limits to bonuses, or to how much people can earn as a multiple of the earnings of the lowest
paid, limits to interest rates, limits to capital accumulation are all only recently-abandoned policy
instruments that can be revived. Progressive taxation that redistributes wealth from the rich to the
poor is essential, but currently the opposite is the case – taxation is increasingly regressive and
the poor pay higher effective tax rates than the rich, a point recently highlighted by Warren Buffet
among others, who has called for greater taxes on the rich48. Cracking down on tax avoidance
and tax evasion goes hand in hand with more progressive taxation. Closing tax havens and
ending the global race to the bottom on taxation, for example with a globally agreed minimum
rate of corporation tax would make a huge difference It is estimated that up to a quarter of all
global wealth – as much as $32 trillion - is held offshore49. If these assets were taxed according to capital gains taxes in different countries, they could yield at least $189 billion in additional tax
revenues50
.

End extreme wealth and inequality

Whatever the combination of policies pursued, the first step is for the world to recognise this as
the goal. There are many steps that can be taken to reverse inequality. The benefits are huge,
for the poorest – but also for the richest. We cannot afford to have a world of extreme wealth and
extreme inequality. We cannot afford to have a world where inequality continues to grow in the
majority of countries. In a world of increasingly scarce resources, reducing inequality is more
important than ever. It needs to be reduced and quickly.

An end to extreme wealth by 2025. Reversing increasing extreme inequality and aim to return
inequality to 1990 levels.







1
http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-risks
2
http://www.economist.com/node/21564413 and http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2011/04/08/inequality-and-growth/
3
http://occupywallst.org/
4
Paradoxically this means that whilst inequality in many countries has increased, overall global inequality has reduced-
http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=12888
5
Inequality is traditionally measured using the Gini co-efficient. However, this fails to capture in many instances the extraordinary rise in the
incomes of the top 1% or even 0.01%, so a combination of both Gini and the amounts accruing to different sections of society is needed to
fully understand the scope and scale of inequality. See for example Palma, J http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2006/wp35_2006.pdf for a
non-Gini view.
6
1990 could be the base year for a global goal of inequality reduction, but individual countries may also have peak equality years that differ that
they would choose to get back to if 1990 is not sufficient in terms of reducing inequality. There is a parallel here to be drawn with global
agreement to reduce carbon emissions.
7
Cornia and Addison (2003), for example, found that between the 1960s and 1990s inequality increased in about two-thirds of the 73 countries
they studied (accounting for about 80 per cent of the world’s population). They also found that in those where inequality increased, this was
normally equivalent to at least 5 points in the Gini scale. http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe1111.pdf
8
http://www.economist.com/node/21564414
9
Milanovic, Branko, 2012. "Global income inequality by the numbers : in history and now --an overview--," Policy Research Working Paper Series
6259, The World Bank.
10 See also Crystia, F The Plutocrats
11 http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk...-rising-cost-of-living-public-spending-228591
12 http://www.economist.com/news/finan...tes-extent-chinese-income-inequality-each-not
13 http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/left-behind-by-g20
14
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/africe-economic-growth-jeopardised-rising-inequality
15 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=12888
16 Inequality is usually measured using incomes, and the data for the super rich is notoriously hard to get, as very few fill in surveys. Focusing on
incomes also hugely underestimates inequality- if inequality of assets is also taken into account levels are even higher as asset growth has
been far greater than incomes.
17
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/14/britons-stuck-in-perfect-storm-inequality
18 http://www.smh.com.au/executive-sty...-just-keep-getting-richer-20130102-2c5m8.html
19 http://www.bain.com/about/press/pre...ods-market-will-grow-ten-percent-in-2012.aspx
20 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...civil-wars-as-global-inequalities-worsen.html
21
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/taxing-the-rich-poll_n_2203400.html,
22
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/20...-review/pg_12-18-12_yearslides_02_capitalism/ and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19953634
23 See for example the IMF- Berg and Ostry 2011 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf
24 http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day
25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQi6xJ3-7l4"]Nick Hanauer, billionaire, tells us that the real job creators are the middle class, NOT the rich - YouTube
26 http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm
27
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/b...-take-toll-on-growth.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 and
http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2011/04/08/inequality-and-growth/
28
http://www.globalresearch.ca/billionaires-gain-as-living-standards-fall/5318471 and http://topics.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-billionaires-index/
the top 100 billionaires added $241 billion to their income in 2012. The Brookings institute had estimated it would take around $66 billion
annually to bring everyone above the $1.25 dollar a day line- see page 13
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...l poverty chandy/01_global_poverty_chandy.pdf
(This footnote was revised 21 January 2013.)
29 http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp157-left-behind-by-the-g20-190112-en.pdf
30
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/b...ity-by-joseph-e-stiglitz.html?pagewanted=all-
31
See also Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class by Jacob Hacker and Paul
Pierson
32 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations
33
http://tinyurl.com/aq9k7nk Democratisation and the Dynamics of Income Distribution in Low and Middle-income Countries, 1985 -- 1995
34 Wilkinson, R and Pickett K, The Spirit Level
35 http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
36
. http://www.economist.com/node/21564417
37 World Bank Word Development Report 2006,page 47
38 World Bank Word Development Report 2006, Equity and Development and Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K, The Spirit Level
39 Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K, The Spirit Level
40 World Bank Word Development Report 2006, Equity and Development
41
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/bill-gates-microsoft,5242.html
42
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2013039 and http://oep.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/4/651.abstract
43
Great Speeches (Dover Thrift Editions) [Paperback] Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Author), John Grafton (Editor)
44
‘the experience of today’s Asian tigers is in striking contrast to that of an earlier pack. In Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan growth
rates soared in the 1960s and 1970s and prosperity increased rapidly but income gaps shrank. Japan’s Gini coefficient fell from 0.45 in the
early 1960s to 0.34 in 1982; Taiwan’s from 0.5 in 1961 to below 0.3 by the mid-1970s. That experience launched the idea of an “Asian
growth model”, one that combined prosperity with equity.’ http://www.economist.com/node/21564408
45
http://www.economist.com/node/21564411 .
46
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/opinion/krugman-robots-and-robber-barons.html?_r=1& and
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2012/int061412a.htm
47 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10268.pdf
48 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/15/warren-buffett-higher-taxes-super-rich
49 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097
50 http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_Presser_120722.pdf

 

No. Erm, sometimes, yes.

 

The Republicans WERE willing to compromise, by delaying Obamacare for 1 year, but the Democrats were unwilling to compromise at all.

The job apporval of Congress is low from my point of view because of the Republicans compromising. Those Congressmen/women who were willing to stand firm have my highest approval.

 

odonII,

I don't know anything about oxfam, and I don't necessarily trust sites I know 100%.

That's a lengthy read, and no matter what, those with money are going to acquire more no matter what actions government take to try and reduce inequality, and even when more is taken from the richest they will not see their wealth diminish, but those in the middle class will find upward mobility more difficult.

 

Do you trust wikipedia?

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

You are probably right...

 

The site security, mostly, the content, depends on the subject matter.

 

Not true. The personal mandate will not be delayed. However due to the website problems, no one will have to pay the penalty if they sign up by March 31.

 

Oh, wait! they MAKE us sign up for it?



That's Awesome! Cause I'm not gonna sign up!


You know I love the government, and I love giving my personal information to the government. However, I don't need or want healthcare. Government healthcare is shitty, and drives medical prices up. That's what happened with medicare; But, instead of letting the free market work, Obama, decides to tack on another government healthcare system. It really doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint. I would bet that this is a big scam, to make some insurance industries very wealthy. That's why they were backing the bill.

But trust me, I've been on medicade, and it's awful! It takes over 3 hours to speak with an actual person; Sometimes they can deny you painkillers, if you have anything as simple as marijuana in your system. When the government runs something, they take power over it. I can give you other somewhat unrelated examples.

But, for lack of a better sentence, I'll say; When government gets involved with anything, they create a monopoly. People are able to raise prices, cause government will always pay it. That's why college prices are so high. I mean, you can't work yourself through college anymore, and that's directly caused by government involvement.

There's many other examples. It's good to help people, but you're not helping people by forcing your will unto them. I mean in healthcare, and other freedoms the government imposes on.

 

The deadline for signing up to avoid the penalty was extended by 6 weeks. That's not really a delay of the mandate itself. The news was sketchy when it was first breaking.

 

That's one of the problems that occurs when the government subsidizes private entities with taxpayer money. What's needed is promotion of competition in the healthcare market to keep costs down. How to do that is the question. It's not good when one or two private insurance companies are controlling 80% or more of the market in a particular region.

The new government healthcare exchange was touted as increasing competition, but it's really mostly a marketplace venue.

 

Obama and the democrats did compromise on the ACA a number of times this year, including delaying the mandate for businesses by one year.

The approval rating of Congress at 8% is mostly because Congress is accomplishing so little. The general public would rather see some compromise that results in tangible accomplishments rather than both sides being totally defiant, doing nothing, and having a fantasy of thinking that they can score 'spoils of war' points with the general public for not giving in on anything.

The job approval of Congress dropped from about 13% to 8% during the shutdown when the republicans weren't compromising. A similar thing happened during the Gingrich shutdown in the mid-90s. The republicans lost Congressional seats in the next election and Gingrich stepped down from his Speaker position a couple months after the election.

There are always the diehards that will support a particular party no matter what. The percentage of those diehards is usually more than 8%. Even the diehards are frustrated with Congress now.

 

Here's an article that covers some of the nitty gritty details about Senate rules and a secret change that was made by the democrats in the Senate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65383.html

 

That was a compromise with themselves, not with the Republicans.

You seem to think there is a single issue resulting in the disapproval of Congress?

 

Only in America would universal healthcare end up being a government run marketplace for private companies.

 

Only in canada is Howard Stern forbidden to franchise. Can you say free press? I guess not. Is this the price that the northern sheeple have had to pay for sub par health care?

Gubmint run anything does just not work well America , as we see. Send barry north.