Government Shutdown: Don’t Believe the Hype

Life goes on without all 3.4 million federal workers.

Government wants you to play a role in the "shutdown" of the federal government. Your role is to panic.

Republicans and Democrats both assume that shutting some government is a terrible thing. The press concurs. "Shutdown threatens fragile economy," warns Politico. "Federal workers turn to prayer," laments The Washington Post.

If the public starts noticing that life goes on as usual without all 3.4 million federal workers, we might get dangerous ideas, like doing without so much government. Politicians don't want that.

They'd rather have us worry about how America will cope.

President Obama gave a speech where he actually said we need to keep government open for the sake of people like the person working for the Department of Agriculture "out there helping some farmers make sure that they're making some modest profit," and the Department of Housing and Urban Development "helping somebody buy a house for the first time."

Give me a break. Farmers don't need bureaucrats to teach them how to make a profit, and Americans can buy first homes without HUD helping a chosen few. Americans would make more profit and afford better homes if they didn't have to spend a third of national income on federal taxes.

Bureaucrats, acting like bullies, protest the partial closures by doing things like cutting off access to public parks -- even privately funded ones. Federal cops block access to outdoor war memorials and much of Mt. Rushmore. They block access to motels and order people out of private homes that happen to sit on federal land. The Washington Free Beacon reports, "The closure of a Virginia park that sits on federal land, even though the government provides no resources for its maintenance or operation."

This is shutdown theater.

It's similar to the fake "austerity measures" in other countries. We're told that Europe's slow economic growth is a result of  "austerity" embraced by European governments.

But there hasn't really been any austerity. England, where a "conservative" government is in charge, (SET ITAL) increased (END ITAL) government spending by 4 percent.

"Austerity" in Greece -- supposedly so drastic that the public has little choice but to riot in protest -- meant changes like reducing mandatory severance pay to one entire year (instead of two!).

In the U.S., Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) told CNN the federal government has cut so much spending that there's just nothing left to cut: "The cupboard is bare! There's no more cuts to make!"

What? The federal government spends almost 4 trillion dollars! The government cupboard overflows! We fund entire cabinet departments that are worse than useless. The Labor Department (SET ITAL) interferes (END ITAL) with actual labor. Commerce would flow more smoothly without Commerce Department bureaucrats channeling money to their cronies.

The government hasn't cut spending -- it never does. After the last shutdowns, politicians even voted to award retroactive pay to government workers who didn't work. Bet they do it again this time. The federal government remains the biggest employer in the country. President Obama says so with pride.

Compare this to what happens in the private sector in tough times: AT&T cut 40,000 workers. Sears cut 50,000. IBM: 60,000. They weren't easy decisions, but they enabled the companies to stay profitable. With fewer workers, leaner companies found more efficient ways to get things done.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • rts||

    SET ITAL ... to stun!

  • Its Amazing||

    hy frnd

  • Its Amazing||

    I just want to add my story. I get paid over $87 per hour working online with Google! I work two shifts 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening. And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids. Its by-far the best job I’ve had. I follow this great link http://cuttr.it/ukvczrq

  • gaoxiaen||

    The best thing about work is that you're away from the kids.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Your role is to panic.

    OK, give me a chance to get worked up. This could take a few minutes.
    .
    .
    .
    HOLY CRIMINEY-CRUD!
    DAG-NAB IT ALL TO HECK!
    WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

    Nope. Sorry. I'm not feeling this role. Find someone else for the part.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, we were looking for someone that evoked a little more "california". But thanks for coming in today.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Let my people go.

  • CE||

    Why not just leave the debt ceiling law unchanged, lay of the non-essential government workers, and spend less?

  • UnCivilServant||

    BLASPHEMER!

    /govtroll.

    People never listen to be when I suggest that either.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Exactly. And that's the play the House should've made. If, in fact, they were concerned about out-of-control spending.

  • Rich||

    How can spending be "out of control" when so many laws and regulations govern it?

    So, no concern.

  • Pro Libertate||

    We're so screwed.

  • Wizard4169||

    There are no non-essential government workers, we've already cut spending to the bone. Don't you listen to Nancy Pelosi? Do you WANT to live in Somalia?

  • Cdr Lytton||

    The budget process is not a suicide pact!!!1!

  • JohnD||

    Nancy is the poster woman for non essential workers.

  • Agoraphobic||

    Looks like Stossel's proofreaders were furloughed because of the shutdown.

  • Almanian!||

    No, fuck you, cut spending.

    Also: ERMAHGERD! GERVERNMERNT SHERTDERRRRRRRN!!!11!

  • CE||

    What's the worst case scenario here? The government actually shuts down, defaults on the debt, stops paying social security and federal pensions, stops collecting taxes and enforcing sugar quotas? GDP would take a huge hit (on paper) this year, stocks would crash, then slowly, people would realize they don't need the government, everyone would have more money to spend, entrepreneurial energies would be unleashed as if the Hoover Dam had burst, and economic growth would hit levels not seen since the late 19th century.

  • ||

    stops collecting taxes

    Yeah, that will never happen, even if everything else was stopped.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I doubt it would even be that bad. We can service the debt with existing revenues, even without raising the debt ceiling. What's really at risk is some small amount of government spending.

    Bring it on, I say. We need a fundamental change in how our stupid, evil government does stupid and evil things. Especially how it pays for them.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "We can service the debt with existing revenues, even without raising the debt ceiling."

    Well, yeah, we can. Except the Treasury has decided that they will not prioritize interest payments. They'll pay out as "bills" come in. Basically, contractually obligated interest is nothing more, in the government's view, than another category of spending, no more obligatory than swag for their supporters.

  • sarcasmic||

    entrepreneurial energies would be unleashed as if the Hoover Dam had burst

    Except for all those local and state regulations designed to retard economic activity.

  • jmortensen@tarbell.com||

    Well maybe the States will have to shut down .. their federal funding may not come through !I know this would affect California (it's a welfare State)
    And they have all those illegals to feed !

  • gaoxiaen||

    If we got rid of government employees most of them would become useful. They'd make good forklift drivers or agriculture store clerks. Accountants not so much.

  • Almanian!||

    Sorry....

    Also: (SET ITAL) ERMAHGERD! GERVERNMERNT SHERTDERRRRRRRN!!!11! (END ITAL)

    fixed

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

  • ||

    PEOPLE! We have citizens DYING in the streets because
    of contaminated chicken! All the brilliant government salmonella inspectors are no more. It's obvious you people don't even care about teh children.
    http://goo.gl/x5yuIU

  • UnCivilServant||

    Properly cooked, chicken won't have any salmonella left alive in it. Who willingly eats undercooked chicken?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    teathuglicans force the childrenz to eat the raw chickenz after a 16 hour day in the slave minez.

  • Almanian!||

    this is true

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I like my fowl a little pink.

    /Kramer

  • ||

    Purposely eating undercooked chicken in order to demonstrate the horrors and chaos of a government shutdown is not something I would put pass the progtardz.

  • Swiss Servator, Kneel to Zug!||

    Maybe we could encourage a mass demonstration of such?

  • ||

    Then who would clean up all the vomit and diarrhea off the already ravaged roadz???

  • Drake||

    What a shocking fucking coincidence!

  • jmortensen@tarbell.com||

    When all else fails , say it's for the children .. if this Government (Obama) cared about the chidren there would be no Abortions !

  • Alice Bowie||

    Clearly Stosseol and the rest of you can care less of the government workers Jobs.

    What Libertarians/Conservatives will have to do first is take away the voting capability of the general public. You can make a rule like only those with assets and those who run businesses can vote. Then, you guys can have your Cato Paradise.

    As jobs keep escaping the US and as salaries keep shrinking, let's see how many people will vote conservative/libertarian to remove the safety nets. I saw how well it worked in the Romney Camp.

    The bad thing about libertarian policies is that they sound real great and disrupt what's currently going on. The good thing is as you disenfranchise more and more, those people will vote against you.

  • UnCivilServant||

    What you said makes no sense.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Simply put, unless you take voting rights away from the people exiting the middle class, these people will eventually put jesus and other idologies aside and will vote for the people that will feed/house/medicate when they aer down-out.

  • Almanian!||

    I'd get off teh drugz, cause you're trippin'.

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean the people who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul?!?

    Oh!
    My!
    God!

  • Square||

    I don't think Alice is totally off base, although I don't think she's thought it through all the way.

    I think she underestimates the number of people into "jesus and other idologies" who are Union Democrats.

    There is real tension on the Left these days between the Union left and the socially liberal left. The only thing that keeps the average socially conservative union worker on the Democratic side is mental and electoral inertia on all sides.

    As the Republicans become less and less interested in free market capitalism (which they have been, clearly), and the socially liberal lefties get less hostile to free market capitalism (which they also have been), the landscape will change, and we may will wind up with something that looks a lot like a libertarian party against something that is pro-government, pro-union, pro-mega-business, and anti-individualist (a Weekly Standard party).

    But I think Alice's vision of the result will be a bigger party supporting big government and big government handouts, and she may well be right.

  • ||

    "and the socially liberal lefties get less hostile to free market capitalism"

    That is one wholly ungrounded assumption.

  • Floridian||

    I have the same sympathy for government workers being fired as I have for a thief being caught in the act and not being able to steal enough to feed his crack habit.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    OMG you're so right!!! Libertarians have been in charge all these years and that is why jobs keep leaving and salaries keep shrinking!! All of those libertarian policies causing all of these problems!! Thank you for opening my eyes!!!

  • sarcasmic||

    Can someone translate that? I checked the Google translator and translating from Stupid to English is not an option.

  • Drake||

    Something about jobs leaving the U.S. so we need more government jobs to make up - so we can raise taxes and create more regulations to get the rest of the jobs to leave. Or something.

  • Almanian!||

    EYYY TUK RRR JERRRBZZ11!

  • Nephilium||

    DERK ER DERRRR!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Even in this economy, there are private sector jobs out there for educated people. Why should I fund government programs for the sole purpose of keeping them in government jobs? If my employer lays me off, it's not like anyone outside of me and my family are going to cry about it or do anything for me.

    Most of us are at-will employees of one kind or another. There's nothing sacred or even special about government employees. They can and should suffer when the economy is bad, just like the rest of us.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Even cops, firemen, and teachers?

  • Floridian||

    Yes

  • sarcasmic||

    Those people aren't federal employees.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!!111eleventytimesazillion!!!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Federal teachers!

    *Screams and runs out of his office.*

  • From the Tundra||

    Particularly cops, firemen and teachers. C'mon Alice, you can do better than this.

    Also, obligatory:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQaVIoEjOM

  • Pro Libertate||

    Why would they be affected by the federal "shutdown," anyway? In any case, yes, them, too.

  • wwhorton||

    Even cops, firemen, and teachers?

    Is this Olympic-caliber trolling, or do you actually not realize that none of those positions are affected by a partial shutdown of the Federal government. Or a full one, really.

  • INFORG||

    (SET ITAL) wow (END ITAL)

  • Agoraphobic||

    I care more about my job than someone else's job, particular the govt worker's. That's human nature, not Libertarian greed/callousness, btw. His salary comes out of my paycheck, which is already pretty shitty to begin with. So why don't you care about MY job? I'm not really asking, just using your logic. Furthermore, this isn't a game of business owners vs. the general public. We're all in this together. Bloated govt hurts us all the same. I wish you wouldn't frame the debate otherwise. For what it's worth, some in Big Business do have more influence than the general public. It's called crony capitalism, and it's made possible by a bloated bureaucracy.

  • Alice Bowie||

    We are in this together. However, the neo-liberal movement is about us "not being together". It's about us caring for ourselves and, in hopes, in the long run, no one needing to care for anyone as everyone is responsible for themselves. Crony Capitalism involves the same greed/callousness that comes out of this fundamental sentiment. And, with no government oversite and intervention, people Crony Capitalism will flurish.

  • Floridian||

    How will crony capitalism flourish if there is no government agency to grant monopolies?

  • #||

    Lefties don't understand that crony capitalism requires an intrusive government. Sometimes I wish I could get into one of their heads to figure out whats actualy going on in there.

  • Floridian||

    How do you pronounce your handle? Pound sign, number sign, hash tag, ....

  • Mustaf Herod Apyur Poup'r||

    "It's spelled '#', but it's pronounced 'Throat Warbler Mangrove."

  • Simon9_1956||

    Oh, you wouldn't like that. It ain't pretty.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Yeah...

    ...except...

    ...exactly the opposite of what you said.

  • Agoraphobic||

    People should be responsible for themselves and their actions. I don't think there's any disagreement about that. Do you argue otherwise?

    Crony capitalism is a synergy of business and government, made possible by the very agency that you mention provides oversight and intervention. How, then, can you trust it if has proven to engage in corruption?

  • sarcasmic||

    We are in this together.

    Collectivists say that a lot, usually followed by some straw man argument about how individualists believe everyone is a island.

    Here's the part that broken-brained progressives simply cannot comprehend. I'll try to spell it out with small words.

    Individualists do not oppose collective action. We oppose coerced collective action. We have no problem with voluntary collective action.

    Do you understand the difference?

    We oppose people working together because they are being forced to do so.

    We support people working together because they want to.

    Comprende?

  • #||

    Go slow for him. A lefty brain can't handle that much at once.

  • ||

    Voluntary...collective...action...Does not compute...Must use force

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie|10.9.13 @ 12:43PM|#
    "We are in this together. [...] And, with no government oversite and intervention, people Crony Capitalism will flurish."

    Uh, ^?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    We are in this together.

    As demonstrated by our selfless public servants voluntarily taking pay cuts in bad times so as to not burden WE with tax increases.


    Oh, you mean that won't do that? Then I guess WE really aren't all in this together.

  • Free Society||

    Nothing says "we're in this together" like a man with gun telling you "we're in this together". What a fairytale notion of government you have.

  • wwhorton||

    Do you actually know what the phrase "crony capitalism" means? It is literally impossible to have crony capitalism without the type of government "oversite" you're advocating.

  • Square||

    Government oversite and intervention are crony capitalisms most powerful tools.

    Check how and against whom the laws are enforced.

  • Simon9_1956||

    okay...but...it's "oversight" dammit....

  • DH||

    I would like to be the first in a long line of commenters here who will apologize for caring about ourselves. You see, we're just not as enlightened as you. If it weren't for gubment we would all be out there trying to kill each other and take other peoples stuff. Gubment has shown me the collective way to live. That it's better to sacrifice all that I am for others. That what's mine isn't really mine . That this terrible greed to provide for myself is wrong and evil libertarian thought patterns that need to be adjusted. Hopefully we'll all be much wiser when we realize this. If only the current partial government shutdown would end so gubment could return to its rightful place, graciously accepting the gains of my hard work and spreading them amongst others who shouldn't have to work. Save us oh all powerful gubment from ourselves.

  • ||

    Hahahahaha, that's some epic fucking retard there Alice. I mean, that's almost Tony levels of derp.

  • wadair||

    Alice Bowie|10.9.13 @ 12:43PM|#

    We are in this together. However, the neo-liberal movement is about us "not being together".

    Methinks you are the neoliberal. Seems that most of the people here are classical liberals. Find out what the difference is and you will better understand why we disagree.
  • SweatingGin||

    The good thing is as you disenfranchise more and more, those people will vote against you.

    But they'll be disenfranchised! They won't be able to vote!

    Mu-ha-ha-ha

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    @AB

    Wow. I truly have no legitimate argument to this, except to say:

    derp

  • Free Society||

    Clearly Stosseol and the rest of you can care less of the government workers Jobs.

    The dollars in their paychecks are taken by force from other people who you obviously presume, wouldn't spend their money more productively than bureaucrats doing jobs of questionable utility.

    What Libertarians/Conservatives will have to do first is take away the voting capability of the general public. You can make a rule like only those with assets and those who run businesses can vote. Then, you guys can have your Cato Paradise.

    That sounds great! Keeping people like you from exercising political power over me does sound like paradise.

    As jobs keep escaping the US and as salaries keep shrinking, let's see how many people will vote conservative/libertarian to remove the safety nets. I saw how well it worked in the Romney Camp.

    Romney is a conservative/libertarian? He wanted to remove "safety nets"? That should come as a surprise to everyone who actually knows shit from shinola.

    The bad thing about libertarian policies is that they sound real great and disrupt what's currently going on. The good thing is as you disenfranchise more and more, those people will vote against you.

    Limiting government's power over individuals is quite different from disenfranchising voters. But when basing your arguments off progressive talking points from Racheal Maddow, it's easy to miss the difference.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Alice,

    I believe I speak only for myself when I say: Do us all a favor and ask your mother for a retroactive abortion.

  • wwhorton||

    Well, speaking for myself, you're not just speaking for yourself.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    I didn't want to presume.

  • Finrod||

    Ditto that, wwhorton.

  • wwhorton||

    So, the thing is, I find your ideas ridiculous and your logic faulty at best. At least you're not burdening facts or data with the Herculean task of supporting your tortured reasoning. But, you know, there are a lot of people I disagree with and yet still respect.

    Except for you and your statist friends, because fundamental to our disagreement is that you are willing to use force to compel me to comply with your beliefs, whereas I have absolutely no problem with our agreeing to disagree and will never, ever even suggest that I should be able to use force to compel your actions or beliefs.

    Essentially, our disagreement is over whether I should be forced to submit to your will. It's the old saw about three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, only I'm not willing to be a sheep.

    So, don't waste your energy trying to persuade me that it's my moral responsibility to be a slave. That dog don't hunt.

  • Wizard4169||

    Yeah, 'cause it's clearly moral to give authority to those who have failed. Can't produce anything people actually want? Not a problem! We'll cheerfully hold a gun to people's heads until they give you the power you crave.

  • wwhorton||

    How's the line go?

    "Who are 'the people'? Everybody but you."

  • jmortensen@tarbell.com||

    WOW ! another ostrich with her head in the sand ..
    THe welfare and illegals are the only ones that vote for liberals .. they like that "Free stuff" that "We the People " pay for ..

  • gaoxiaen||

    If you work for government at any level then you should be ineligible to vote. Government is now it's own biggest special-interest group.

  • The Original Jason||

    Media gives you more reason to panic: Shutdown means no new beer from craft brewers

    Maybe if the government were more incorporated with society, the media would have a real case (not of beer, though).

  • SweatingGin||

    hypothetically speaking, if some craft brewer were to defy the TTB shutdown, and offer for sale a beer with an unapproved label, I might, hypothetically be in the market for it.

  • sarcasmic||

    No chance. They halted approving labels, but the people who pull beer with unapproved labels off the shelf are still employed.

  • Floridian||

    I hope if the shut down last people will start defying all these stupid laws. Right now people expect the government to reopen soon so no one wants to rock the boat.

  • ||

    Maude! Go n git mah bootleggin clothes out duh closest, time teh make sum real coin agin!
    But seriously, if I lived during the 30s, I would've hands down been a bootlegger with all the money those people made.

  • Free Society||

    plenty of prohibition going on right now in America. Get to it then.

  • Raven Nation||

  • Raven Nation||

    Don't need the state when you have kids like this:

    http://www.space.com/23125-six.....video.html

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Stupid from Facebook:

    This whole the federal government is anti veteran narrative has got to fucking stop.

    The park service being vilified for doing a job that CONGRESS is making them do is pissing me off.

    This is just dopey fucking exploitation of veterans to prove a point about a problem that was created by the same people that claim to be pro solider.

    Congress, stop making the NPS barricade monuments!

  • Pro Libertate||

    This isn't debatable. The president alone is exercising the discretion about what is and isn't being temporarily shut down. I assume he doesn't have total discretion, as there's a law that governs these situations, but I also assume his discretion is considerable. Certainly, no one is making him suspend funding for most of the visible things being suspended or to continue funding the odd things that are still getting funded.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I mean if there is a law that states in the event of a shutdown parks must be barricaded and tarped over, I wouldn't be surprised.

    But I am not aware of one.

  • Pro Libertate||

    From the administration's point of view, apparently anything uttered by His Emptiness is equal to a constitutional provision.

  • jmortensen@tarbell.com||

    Well Said .. now that should be grounds for impeachment in itself !

  • Finrod||

    Reminds me of the idiot that said (paraphrasing) "A constitutional amendment can be amended, but Obamacare is the law!"

  • wareagle||

    in the case of implementation of O-care, it would indeed seem that his discretion is considerable.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Really, unlimited. "I pardon you. But not you."

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    He responded to my comment pointing out congress does not tell NPS what to do:

    closed is closed. if my buisness is closed, people are not just allowed to wander in. even from a liabillity standpoint. one of these old codgers falls and breaks a hip at the memorial, who can be sued.

    regardless if its executive or legislative the park service being blamed is horse shit.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    closed is closed. if my buisness [sic] is closed, people are not just allowed to wander in. even from a liabillity [sic] standpoint. one of these old codgers falls and breaks a hip at the memorial, who can be sued.

    Yes, because all the National Forest Lands have a big problem with this.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I think this is when I walk away. I have no idea how to respond to him without hurting myself.

  • Finrod||

    How about responding to him by hurting him?

  • Square||

    The people who are paid to follow the old codgers around and make sure they don't fall are on furlough.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You should point out to this retard that 80-85% of the government is still operating, and ask him who has discretion over which agencies and departments to shut down, and to what degree.

    If he's crying about the parks being closed--which is, financially speaking, a very small part of the actual federal budget--then he needs to start asking himself why President Cornball would target agencies for shutdown that cost relative peanuts in the grand scheme of total spending.

  • wadair||

    So we now need federal police to prevent some "old codger" from falling.

    Where would we be without 24/7/365 babysitting by the central government?!

  • Tony||

    I know I was waiting for John Stossel's take on all of this.

    On the shutdown: Like a mustachioed Peggy Noonan, I look out my window and see that everything seems to be OK, therefore it is. Also, I just noticed, it's almost as if the democratic process is a hindrance to enacting the anarchic wacko nonsense world I've always wanted. Why decide using our normal processes what things government should be doing, when we can just shut it all down against the will of pretty much everyone?

    On austerity: Not spending as much as Keynesians think we should results in stagnation (just as Keynsians predict). Therefore the solution is to cut spending so drastically that magic takes over. It's not real austerity until it starts doing what I say it will do. Cut more!

  • Agoraphobic||

    Is this austerity? If not, how do you define it?

  • Tony||

    Austerity is the focus on the reduction of budget deficits in adverse economic conditions. It has been more pursued in Europe than in the US during the last few years, though lately we're catching up.

    Austerity policy (reducing government debts) increases unemployment in the short-term (as demonstrated in Europe). This in turn leads to more spending on safety net programs.

    You may ask, if austerity leads to higher unemployment and more difficulty in reducing government spending, what's the point? The point--and this is really the only point--is to reassure creditors that the country won't default on its obligations. The US doesn't need to worry about this of course and can focus on the bigger problems of unemployment and poverty.

    But of course those pushing for austerity policy in the US, against all macroeconomic reasoning, aren't worried about default (they're the ones pushing us closer to a deliberate default), but about gutting social spending as a part of a multi-decade political plan that has nothing to do with current economic circumstances.

  • Sevo||

    "Austerity policy (reducing government debts) increases unemployment in the short-term (as demonstrated in Europe)."
    Good!

    "This in turn leads to more spending on safety net programs."
    Cut unemployment benes and amazingly people find work!

  • Tony||

    ?

  • Sevo||

    It's English, Tony.
    I'm sure you don't like the facts clearly stated, but there they are.

  • Brian||

    The only austerity program that Tony likes is raising taxes during a crap economy.

    Other than that, it's all bad.

  • Tony||

    It's a fact that unemployment is good, and it's a fact that when you cut people off from unemployment benefits, the unemployment rate somehow magically goes down?

  • Sevo||

    "a fact that when you cut people off from unemployment benefits, the unemployment rate somehow magically goes down?"

    Isn't it strange how slimy turd lefties use incentives to affect behavior, but when they are used by intelligent people, they somehow become "magic".
    Take a hike, idjit.

  • wareagle||

    tony,
    it is a fact that when you cut people off from unemployment benefits, all those jobs they used to refer to as "shit" start to look pretty good. In some cases, more than one of those jobs. It's not magic. When subsidize something, you tend to get more of it.

  • Tony||

    Except people are willingly filling jobs below their skill level, and there aren't enough jobs for job seekers.

    Unemployment insurance is a fantastic program because it is a) human, b) creates demand by putting money in people's pockets they wouldn't otherwise have, which in turn c) helps increase jobs. Without unemployment insurance we'd have exactly the same problem only worse: lots of people far too overqualified for the street-corner begging they'd be doing.

  • Brian||

    Actually, there have been studies showing that, when unemployment benefits are calculated by a worker's previous income potential, and a shock to the system lower's that worker's income potential, he can exist in a state where his unemployment benefits are higher than his potential income, making it advantageous for him to avoid employment. Hence, unemployment benefits can, in some situations, exacerbate unemployment.

    I believe it was a Thomas Sargent paper.

    It would be an incredibly over-simplified world, if "just spend money" was the answer to every problem.

  • #||

    Also Mr Derp, this currnet year is the firts one in which the deficit has actually declined in any meaningful way. And the biggest single contributor to that were all of the tax increases that went into effect in Jan, which I'm sure you supported.

  • Tony||

    But I learned on reason dot com that tax moneys don't actually pay for anything, they are stolen from people's pockets and dumped in the ocean. Are you seriously suggesting a tax hike lowered the deficit? Like what is this, math?

    Anyway, I wouldn't say I supported the tax hikes as good overall policy, but I do support tax hikes if we're talking about an inevitably deficit-cutting policy. Because, you know, math. But at that time I don't think deficit cutting should have been the priority.

  • #||

    Nice job Mr. Derp

    1. ignore the stated fact that deficits have not been reduced at all until this current year, meaning there has been no austerity even by your definition prior to 2013.

    2. Oh but actually tax increases are ok now sorta, that type of austerity isnt all that bad.

  • Tony||

    I didn't say the US was pursuing austerity policy in the wake of the GR. In contrast to the even more stagnant Europe, we pursued moderate stimulative policies. Deficits have been cut since all that went away, but that doesn't mean the employment picture is improving or that people's lives are improving at all.

    I'm not sure what you think you're getting at with the tax increase thing. I didn't support austerity, so I didn't support tax increases, especially not the one middle class people saw when the payroll tax holiday ended.

    However, in contrast to libertarians, during a theoretical period in which deficit-cutting is the appropriate policy, I do support tax increases.

    Libertarians don't actually support austerity policies because they don't ever support any tax increase. They don't pay attention to macroeconomic circumstances at all, in fact, because they are not interested in solving current problems but in enacting their utopia, so the same policies are always in order no matter the circumstances.

  • sarcasmic||

    They don't pay attention to macroeconomic circumstances at all

    We understand that the economy is something created by human action but not by human design. We understand that knowledge is so dispersed that any attempts at central planning are doomed to failure due to a lack of centralized knowledge. No one person can make something as simple as a pencil.

    because they are not interested in solving current problems

    When you define 'solving current problems' as 'central planning,' then yes. We are not interested in that. Because it will always fail.

  • wwhorton||

    Thank god somebody stepped in with some basic econ. I was too stunned after seeing Tony invoke the Holy Reverend Keynes to say anything.

    And, meanwhile, are we seriously still floating Keynesian economics as viable? Will we be recommending the drainage of bilious humours to cure cancer next?

  • sarcasmic||

    I took Econ in college back in the 90s, and the macro was all Keynesian. No mention of Hayek or Friedman. Had to learn that on my own.

  • gaoxiaen||

    No one in my economics classes ever heard of Hayek, Nozick, or Mises until I mentioned them. Most of the students in Poli Sci never heard of the Libertarian Party (or Ron Paul, this was a while ago). Many who had believed that Lyndon LaRouche was the Libertarian candidate. The professors discussed my views in class, often asking me about my view first and we good-naturedly argued in class because we usually disagreed. The other students were shocked that I received better grades than them. Lambple.

  • Finrod||

    No more of that talk or I'll put the fucking leeches on you. (/fearandloathing)

  • Finrod||

    (that was a reply to wwhorton, for the record)

  • Tony||

    Of course it will, because your ideology demands it, damn the evidence.

  • Brian||

    Tony:
    Anyway, I wouldn't say I supported the tax hikes as good overall policy, but I do support tax hikes if we're talking about an inevitably deficit-cutting policy.

    But earlier, you said:
    The point [of austerity]--and this is really the only point--is to reassure creditors that the country won't default on its obligations.

    But, then you said:
    You're right: the European economies had a real risk of default, so they didn't have much of a choice. This is not the case in the US where we have the unique ability to borrow more or less indefinitely.

    If we can borrow indefinitely, why do we need to worry about potentially reassuring creditors, or reducing the deficit at all?

    In one breath, you're acting like we only need to worry about having a tough time with credit. The next minute, you're acting like we can never run out of credit. Which is it?

    Because if your plan is to deficit spend until we're in the same situation as Europe, i.e., risk of default, when there could be a problem with future credit (apparently, the only kind?), then that sounds really short-sighted and foolish.

  • Agoraphobic||

    It seems to me, though maybe I'm wrong, that the austerity that European nations are experiencing is out of necessity, i.e. Someone finally realized, oh shit, we have to do something drastic after decades of profligate spending or we're going to crash hard. That suggests an inevitability to it rather than "the crazies finally got their way."

    Also, why do you suggest that the push for default by some in this country is "deliberate?"

  • Tony||

    You're right: the European economies had a real risk of default, so they didn't have much of a choice. This is not the case in the US where we have the unique ability to borrow more or less indefinitely. In Europe that means taking high unemployment as the price for a whole country not defaulting. In the US it means the crazies have taken over.

    House Republicans are trying to extract concessions for raising the debt ceiling. The talking point du jour is that breaching the debt ceiling wouldn't be that big of a deal. If they actually believe that, that's scary. I think most are not crazy anarchists, but I think some are and would actually like to see us default. At the very least they aren't doing the easy and prudent thing to avoid it, and our stock portfolios are paying for their childishness.

  • wareagle||

    how is "more or less" indefinite borrowing a good thing? As it is, we have unfunded obligations that are off the books - things like SS, Medicare, and federal employee benefits - that make the debt look like tip money. At some point, you have to stop pretending that the debt ceiling matters in any meaningful way and focus on what does - the continued escalation of spending AND the continued borrowing required to satisfy those commitments.

    Exactly no one is making the point that you claim - that a default would be good, mostly because they understand what default means and that the debt ceiling decision will not cause it. You folks do that a lot, attacking arguments that are not being made.

  • wwhorton||

    how is "more or less" indefinite borrowing a good thing?

    Personally, I think you're asking the wrong question. Before you discuss subjective merits of borrowing money "infinitely", you have to explain where all of this money is coming from. The government can print money, yes, but it can't magically create value. But the solution to the problem--"Just make more"--seems par for the course. Scarcity is something that happens to other people, apparently.

  • Brian||

    But of course those pushing for austerity policy in the US, against all macroeconomic reasoning, aren't worried about default...but about gutting social spending as a part of a multi-decade political plan that has nothing to do with current economic circumstances.

    Pretty much.

    I don't want the government to drastically reduce federal military spending because it will be awesome for the short-term economy. I want them to do it because, in the long term, we can't keep funding various versions of the Iraq war every decade. If some defense contractors don't get work, and the military grows somewhat more slowly, sorry about that, and any economic impacts that has (unemployment, consumption, etc.)

    I don't want the government to end the drug war because I think reducing the size and scope of police power is awesome for the economy in the short term. While (possibly) laying off police, or simply not hiring new ones quite as fast, might have some employment/consumption impact, I don't think it's in our long-term interest to have an incarceration rate that challenges the gulag archipelago.

    I could go on and on.

    Can't cut anything, though, because that would reduce size and scope the government. Hence, it's austerity, and bed-wetting morons who care about short-term employment above all else disagree.

    Enjoy funding the next invasion of Syria, or Pakistan, or wherever, while we send kids' parents to jail for smoking pot. For the sheer, macroeconomic rationality of it all.

  • Tony||

    Of course it's more efficient stimulus to spend domestically on safety nets, infrastructure, education, etc., than dumping money into the Middle East. Of course I agree with you on all those policy matters, but there's no reason those can't be dealt with at the same time we are dealing with the problem of high unemployment and poverty. Stimulus is not actually being used as the excuse for those policies.

  • Brian||

    But we can't even have a conversation about cutting the government without Keynesian lectures about short-term employment and consumption.

    So, let me get this straight:
    1. We can't cut these programs during an economic downturn (even when it starts to look like the new normal).
    2. We can't cut these programs because of a debt ceiling, because actually responding to a debt ceiling with cuts is just so ... horribly conservative.
    3. When the economy's rocking, there's no reason to cut anything, so no one cares.

    OK. So, we'll get around to cutting these programs when people in the US learn to give two farts worth of a care about people in foreign countries they don't know, and people in jail they don't know.

    I won't be holding my breath.

  • Tony||

    Just breathe and vote for Democrats if you want the drug war, foreign policy, and criminal justice reform to go more your way. I'm serious. You won't get tax cuts for the rich and sweetheart deals for corporations as much, but I think it's about time you guys declared what your real priorities are anyway.

  • Brian||

    Just breathe and vote for Democrats if you want the drug war, foreign policy, and criminal justice reform to go more your way. I'm serious.

    Voting? Are you serious?

    You might as well tell me to influence the outcome of a football game by attending and cheering really loudly. Sorry, but if you have time for that, I assume you've got a surplus of time.

    We already gave democrats the presidency and both houses of congress. I don't remember ending the drug war, scaling back foreign war, or criminal justice reform coming up. They were too busy making 15% of the population buy health insurance, while they ramped up foreign engagements, and pretended that the drug war and criminal justice were A-OK.

    And we all know that democrats never give sweetheart deals to corporations. Ever. Forcing everyone to buy insurance == really sticking it to corporations.

    They didn't get a single Republican vote, which implies that the only political compromises they needed to make were with themselves.

  • wadair||

    Austerity is the focus on the reduction of budget deficits in adverse economic conditions. It has been more pursued in Europe than in the US during the last few years, though lately we're catching up.

    No it's not. Austerity means severe. This "partial" shutdown is far from severe. But severity will eventually come if the central government does not stop growing the national debt.

  • #||

    Spending only twice as much as previously anticipated as opposed to three times as much is austerity!

    Also mr derp doesn't quite understand keynsian theory. Fiscal stimulus is only supposed to be employed to lessen the inital shock that causes the recession, and then mixed with sticky wages causes unemployment. But once the shock is over, the economy is supposed to accelerate back to trend growth, as real prices then adjust over time (hense why all of the macro forecasts in recent years always forcasting stronger growth a year later). A slow growth path, which is what we are on now, as opposed to a recession, is not easily explained by typical neo-keynsian models. Sticky wages 4 years later can not explain the high levels of unemployment. Mr derp just hears Spending! yeah lets do that!

  • Floridian||

    What are sticky wages?

  • Tony||

    A glut in aggregate demand can explain it, can it not? How do we fix that?

  • #||

    A glut, meaning lots of aggregate demand? You know what yoru talking about Tony?

    The reason why Keynsian theory argues for greater aggregate demand stimulus is because the intial negative shock.

    Let's do a little econ lessen for Mr. Derp who thinks hes an expert.

    1. The old classical eocnomics said that prices including wages adjust really quickly. So if there was a negative shock to demand, the primary effect would be lower wages, not unemployment. Once, the shock was over, wages would grow again.

    2. But turns out that prices, and wages in particular exibit this phenomena of "sticky wages." Rather that companies cutting all their workers pay, they lay a bunch off. So without the wage cut, the labor market doesn clear.

    3. In comes the keynsians. They say, well we can dampen the effect of the unemployment by artificially created a posative demand shock via government spending/ monetary policy. This will push the market clearing wage back up to where the current stick wage is stuck.

  • #||

    4.So the mechanism is all about driving the market clearing wage to where the current wage is. This can be used according to theory to make the first negative shock less.

    5. But once the shock is over, and the eocnomy starts growing again, the market clearing wage rises on its own on one side and ont he other side the sticky wage becomes less sticky because now wages slowly get cut/ inflation occurs lowering the real wage even if the nominal price stays sticky. So an eocnomy shoudl accelerate in growth as it leaves the shock behind.

    6 We have now had 5 years since the shock. About 4 years since the recession eneded. Nominal prices, due to inflation are up about 10% cummulatively since then. Compared to a recession drop of about 6% of GDP. Yet the total amount of unemployed are still the same. So the standard sticky wage keysian explanation as to why unemployment has bearly changed (as measured by the topline number plus those who dropped out of the workforce) is not easily answered.

  • #||

    As mentioned before, this is why basically every large macro forecast from the CBO too the Fed to the Blue Chip forecast over the last 5 years has always forecast that 6 months out growht would accelerate without any aditional government action.

    But these predictions always fail to come true. Because the underlying neo-keysian/ neo-monertarist models that they are based off of, are based on the sticky wage/ nominal output expansion dynim previously mentioned. And that dynamic is failing to explain what is happening right now.

  • #||

  • Tony||

    Keynesians pretty much all think the initial stimulus was about half of what it needed to be. The number was arrived at via politics and not economic math, after all. Remember that this is not a normal part of the cycle but a depression-level shock (wherein unemployment is persistent). Keynesians still advocate stimulus policy to increase demand, the lack of which they would say is the underlying problem causing high unemployment.

  • sarcasmic||

    Keynesians still advocate stimulus policy to increase demand, the lack of which they would say is the underlying problem causing high unemployment.

    Magic!

  • Brian||

    You must be frustrated, then, that Keynesian policies are never implemented by the people claiming to love them. Instead, you get the politically motivated one.

    This is what I don't understand about you people: you read lots of papers by academics explaining the policies that should be taken. You elect the people who claim to support said policy. You then watch as they do whatever is politically advantageous, instead of what all the eggheads advocated. Then, you repeat next election.

    I hope you're still not expecting democrats to actually grind the economy to a halt trying to stop global warming, are you? You'll have to wait until that becomes politically advantageous for them.

  • #||

    No Tony,

    1. only a handful of keynsians may have wanted a biger stimulus, but many said this was about right, including all the ones in the Obama admin.

    2. even if the initial stimulus was too small, it still doesn't explain why economic growth isnt excelerating right now. A larger stimulus would have only reduced the decline by more, it wouldnt change the growth shape of the recovery. Nominal prices have risen considerably. Why isn't the labor market clearing?

    Even without any stimulus, baseline projections were for the eocnomy to recover and accelerate, just that the initial trough would be larger. Afterall, recesions happened before the government did anything about them. It's natural for them to spring back. Why isn't it springing back?

  • Tony||

    The point is to lessen the impact of the natural business cycle (both upswings and downswings). Recessions are considered part of this cycle, but we experienced an extreme version of a recession, and in these depressions or depression-like events, unemployment stays high for long periods of time. During the normal modern business cycle, the smoothing out is taken care of by automatically countercyclical policies like a safety net and progressive taxation. That the economy is not springing back suggests more aggressive measures are needed--as much more aggressive measures were the only thing that ended the great depression. I'm not sure how aggressively procyclical policies are any more justifiable.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ever wonder how economies ever recovered before Keynesian theory justified government action?

    Ever wonder why recessions and depressions only become prolonged when the government steps in to fix them?

    Before Keynesian theory justified government action, the average recession lasted about eighteen months.

    Keynesian theory is not economics. It's an excuse for politicians to spend other peoples' money.

  • Tony||

    Before modern macroeconomic policy, both recessions and booms were more exaggerated. Things only started returning to this state after the era of Reaganomics undid many of the Keynesian policies that not only kept things more even but saw the greatest increase in human prosperity the world had ever known. Your bullshit fails. It is a failure, not least because it doesn't seem to think it is required to base itself on any math or real-world evidence.

  • Brian||

    Tony:
    Before modern macroeconomic policy, both recessions and booms were more exaggerated. Things only started returning to this state after the era of Reaganomics

    Please define the beginning of modern macroeconomic policy. I assume this is somewhere between the great depression, around 1930, and 1980.

    How long, exactly, is this period that establishes the wonderful stability of modern macroeconomic policy? 20 years? all 50?

  • Brian||

    Tony:
    Before modern macroeconomic policy, both recessions and booms were more exaggerated. Things only started returning to this state after the era of Reaganomics undid many of the Keynesian policies...

    Really?

  • KDN||

    excelerating

    There goes John's monopoly on awesome typos.

  • wadair||

    Wish I were a keynesian--they're never wrong.

  • Wizard4169||

    My definition of "austerity"? Well, you know, actually spending LESS. Cutting back to only the overspending we've planned for doesn't quite cut it. But I'm old-fashioned that way.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Just when we thought this thread had seen peak stupid...

    Heeeeeerrre'ssss Tony!

  • Sevo||

    In the AM Links, I showed where that piece of shit Obama closed a restaurant on fed land and canceled a sand-castle contest on a fed beach.
    Tony commented that the GOP is not being nice!
    What a fucking idiot.

  • mplspolitics||

    Do you have a link for that? I'd love to waive that in the water carriers faces.

  • sarcasmic||

    Too funny! First you claim that Keynesian magic hasn't worked because not enough funny money has been pumped into the economy, then you say that those who don't believe that funny money is the cure are the ones who believe in magic!
    You go on to say that it's not real Keynesian magic because not enough funny money has been pumped into the economy, and accuse austerity people of claiming it's not real austerity until they say so!

    Derptastic!

  • Tony||

    Every macroeconomic trend in the wake of the great recession has accorded with Keynesian predictions, and none have accorded with Austrian predictions. Yes, Keynesians advocate for more stimulus to reduce unemployment. Europe may not have as much flexibility as the US to do that, but that's too bad for them: the traditional view of the macroeconomic consequences of austerity policy is being borne out.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.9.13 @ 1:01PM|#
    "Every macroeconomic trend in the wake of the great recession has accorded with Keynesian predictions,"
    Cite(s) missing.

  • #||

    He must be refering to the keynsian models that produced this:

    http://tinyurl.com/kkffpst

  • sarcasmic||

    Empty assertions are empty.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except, of course, Keynesian theory completely, utterly, and totally failed to predict the crash itself. The Austrian notion of malinvestment, on the other hand, describes it to a tee.

    And, of course, the Keynesian model predicted a period of extended personal savings would suppress aggregate demand further. So far, the only gains we've seen have been from improving consumer balance sheets.

  • Brian||

  • waffles||

    Can't that magical thinking argument also work in the reverse?

    Like too much government involvement causes stagnation. Therefore the solution is to have more government spending and boost it so much that magic takes over. It's not real stimulus until it starts doing what I say it will do. Spend more!

  • Tony||

    Not if you pay attention to what's actually happening in the world or have the slightest understanding of basic macroeconomics.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.9.13 @ 1:02PM|#
    "Not if you pay attention to what's actually happening in the world or have the slightest understanding of basic macroeconomics."
    As an econ ignoramus, you would be the last source any reasonable person would consider.

  • waffles||

    Am I really that uninformed? I consider myself to have a fairly solid understanding of microeconomics. But macroeconomics? I don't think there are an indisputable laws of macroeconomics that are violated by the belief that government spending crowds out and can poisonously influence private investment.

  • Tony||

    When the clear problem is a lack of demand in the economy, the problem is not would-be investors being crowded out. The problem is people don't have enough money in their pockets (i.e., there is not enough demand). The best known way to fill that gap is to increase government debt in the short term to attempt to return demand to satisfactory levels (with higher employment following).

  • waffles||

    Then, at what point does government get out of the way and let the natural demand sweep back in? It seems government fills the gap permanently while insisting it is a short term measure. At least this is what I see going on in the treasury right now.

  • SugarFree||

    Let it go, waffles. He's just a troll.

  • waffles||

    I'm just trying to figure out why everyone calls him names then chooses to interact. I just want to make sure I'm not the crazy one.

  • Floridian||

    I get it. By devaluing the dollar and destroying peoples savings they are forced to spend more of their savings on basic necessities thus increasing demand. The down side is retirees have to work at walmart to buy enough cat food to eat.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    The problem is people don't have enough money in their pockets

    But you don't have a problem with the federales TAKING more money from said people via those higher taxes you support?

    You do know the definition of 'contradiction', yes?

  • Tony||

    I only support higher taxes when the issue is reducing debt. As does everyone who is not using debt as the excuse to enact a social agenda.

  • sarcasmic||

    I only support higher taxes when the issue is reducing debt.

    Since in practice nothing is ever done to reduce the debt, you must universally oppose higher taxes! Good to know!

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    So you support higher taxes to reduce debt, which takes money from the economy hindering growth, which causes the derps to spend more on social agendas (to "stimulate" the economy), which raises the debt?

    Just want to make sure I have your circular logic right.

  • Tony||

    You reduce debt to keep growth in check when such circumstances necessitate such action, but in the current circumstances the risk is deflation, so we need high debts. You guys are for cutting debt no matter the circumstances because you don't care about whether people can feed themselves, you care about your silly utopian social agenda.

  • sarcasmic||

    Just out of curiosity, do you pay your mortgage with your credit card? Probably not, for obvious reasons.

    So why do you want the government to essentially do the same thing?

  • Tony||

    Because it can, and because the real problems are unemployment and poverty, not the US government running out of credit.

  • sarcasmic||

    the real problems are unemployment and poverty.

    Funny how no matter what the government does, it can never seem to fix those things. I wonder if it's because, I dunno, because it can't? Because force serves some legitimate and useful purposes, but fixing poverty and unemployment aren't among them?

  • sarcasmic||

    As far as the government's credit goes, wait until the consequences of printing billions of dollars a month kick in. It ain't gonna be perty.

  • MoMark||

    Tony|10.9.13 @ 2:02PM|#

    “Because it can, and because the real problems are unemployment and poverty, not the US government running out of credit.”

    Tony,

    Do you ever wonder how government liabilities influence business investment decision in the private sector? Or put another way that your desire to expend ever more resources on government programs might have unintended consequences in the productive sector and their fear of having to service huge debts. Do you ever wonder?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "You reduce debt to keep growth in check when such circumstances necessitate such action, but in the current circumstances the risk is deflation, so we need high debts."

    If you accept this, numbnuts, then you, by extension, accept that the Obama tax hikes were lousy policy.

  • Juice||

    I only support higher taxes when the issue is reducing debt.

    So you oppose the penaltax, of course.

  • wadair||

    Tony|10.9.13 @ 1:35PM|#

    I only support higher taxes when the issue is reducing debt. As does everyone who is not using debt as the excuse to enact a social agenda.

    Higher taxes takes money out of the hands of taxpayers thus forcing them to either shrink their standard of living of take on more debt.

    Why must taxpayers choose between a lower living standard or more debt (which will lead to a lower living standard), when it is the government's fault?

    Why can't the government choose a lower living standard instead of choosing between more taxes or more debt?

    What you're really saying is that government spending is more important than that of citizens and taxpayers. This is really the choice, isn't it? You believe that government knows best. You believe that somehow government spending is more important than that of individuals. Government is central and staffed by so-called experts, which is what I think brings you to the conclusion that government know better than citizens how, and on what, to spend. And this is where you're wrong.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "The problem is people don't have enough money in their pockets"

    Actually, that's not true. Corporate balance sheets are at their strongest in decades. They're not investing due to an uncertain business climate engendered by the very policies you advocate.

  • mplspolitics||

    Petulant shithead is petulant.

  • KDN||

    Indeed; reading Tony's comments on economics is like listening to the retards that call into WFAN.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The Federal Highway Administration is still sending out recruiters to rack up travel expenses and bloat the payroll even more.

  • ||

    Holy shit this thread is a whole lot of stupid. (And there's only one retard throwing the poo.)

  • jmortensen@tarbell.com||

    This is no shut down .. it is a shut out of "We the People"
    no one that has been furloughed will go without pay and the ones still working, are working against the citizens of this Nation

  • gaoxiaen||

    It's anarchy! No one to inspect poultry or check for undersized lobsters! If they started with cutting the Secret Service and fuel for Air Force One it would give them a little credibility.

  • tlapp||

    Actually as suggested I do hope this goes on a while longer. Even with the attempts by the administration to make the shutdown as visible as possible most americans see no impact.
    Justification in itself for less government.

  • thorax232||

    Anything to keep the livestock thinking that the fence that surrounds them is somehow magically impassable.

  • herbisonmatilde||

    my friend's step-sister makes $84/hr on the computer. She has been laid off for nine months but last month her check was $21144 just working on the computer for a few hours. Continue Reading
    ==================

    http://www.works23.com

  • Teaganl||

    Since I started fre+lancing I've been bringing in $90 bucks/h… I sit at home and i am doing my work from my laptop. The best thing is that i get more time to spent with my family and with my kids and in the same time i can earn enough to support them... You can do it too. Start here.for more work detail go to tech tab.
    =========================
    http://www.JOBS72.com
    =========================

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement