What are the negatives of shutting down the federal government?

1. 93

   peeplesposted 10 years ago

   What are the negatives of shutting down the federal government?
   
   What negatives are there if the states run themselves?

   replyreport
2. 82

   dashingscorpioposted 10 years ago

   Millions of people who work for the government are likely not to be paid which will have a "ripple effect" on the economy. Too often we view "government" as some evil power hungry group of people sitting in D.C.
   The truth of the matter is many people who work for the government are secretaries, clerks, delivery, and rank and file people. In addition most states get some government funds to supplement their programs. Without those funds the states would be placed between a rock and a hard place.
   The federal government also awards (multi-billion dollar) contracts to various aerospace companies located in several states. This in effect provides many jobs in the private sector. No (state) is going to place orders for fighter jets, tanks, other assorted big ticket items. Every component that goes into these items comes from companies whose employees make them. GSA contracts also lead to the purchase of office equipment, laptops, software, and so on. In fact many privately held companies count the federal government and all of it's agencies among their biggest customers. Speaking of agencies federal cuts would affect ones like The National Institutes of Health, FDIC (which insures your bank money), Health & Safety, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), so on.   
   
   Most states don't have enough money to fund the repairs of their own highways, subsidize their farmers, or provide for elderly people who depend on their social security checks, Medicare, and other assorted programs. Every state gets and needs federal aid of some sort.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If the federal government was shut down, would the states be forced into funding military items(jets/tanks)? Could the states do everything that the federal government is doing (all the things mentioned) if forced to budget their money accordingly?

      replyreport
3. 76

   CraftytotheCoreposted 10 years ago

   Our town (and others in CT) participates in the federally funded Summer Food Service Program.  The program offers free breakfast and lunch to all children under 18 and under (or 21 and under if disabled).  A child just needs to show up at the designated times and participating schools over the summer.
   
   I think it would be a tragedy to take away this program.  It allows children who have no other means of eating, to get free breakfast and lunch.  (A lot of the children I have seen participate in this program are children who are home alone as well.  Others are from families that qualify for the free lunch program when school is in session).  It helps children find a resource for food during summer months that have no other way of fending for themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That's a wonderful program, but could it be provided by the states?

      replyreport
   2. 76

      CraftytotheCoreposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I honestly don't think our state could afford it.  I don't really know if they would continue it if the federal funding ceased.

      replyreport
   3. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Our local church provides this same program for our city without any federal funding. It is capable of providing this through the generosity of many folks who are forced to give too much money to the government to support failed programs.

      replyreport
4. 68

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   The biggest negative is that it won't stay shut down. There are more services open when the gov't is shut down then we have on a national holiday.  Essential services remain open.  And non-essential services shouldn't exist to begin with.  As a general rule, the politicians will do what they did with the sequester.  They will use every means at their disposal to make sure that cuts are directed at the services that citizens feel the most, this way they can overstate the impact.  Why use common sense and eliminate the waste fraud and abuse we see across agencies.  They won't allow pet projects to be affected.  And it works perfectly from a political standpoint. 
   
   If the gov't were to stay shut down, most of the excess capital they take in could be reverted back to the private sector for more efficient distribution, as well as funding State and local projects directly without first running tax dollars through the DC monetary laundering machine..

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CalebSparksposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You hit the nail on the head, Landmark. It's all about show. Not much if any of the wasteful spending is being cut.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So what are you saying, you're opposed to the gov't spending millions of dollars to fund a study on how to train prostitutes in China to drink responsibility while working.LOL,That was actually a program.  They must be hysterical when they drafted it

      replyreport
   3. 0

      CalebSparksposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't matter to them because it's our money being spent, not theirs.

      replyreport
   4. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      From the few dealings I have had with congressman, they certainly don't care.  It's really just  a joke to them.  I have dealt with local politicians as well, and I thinks they're even worse.

      replyreport
5. 57

   taburkettposted 10 years ago

   There are no negatives with shutting down the federal government.  The political music played by the federal administrators is planned as a ploy to make us believe they provide something that we could not provide for ourselves.
   The mandatory spending still is open while all the discretionary spending that results in scandal is shut down.
   Less federal spending means less deficit and therefore provides a better future for the citizens.

   replyreport
6. 60

   Joseph041167posted 10 years ago

   You are asking very good questions lately. These are the same questions that I am asking myself lately. These things require more research and thought. The Founding Fathers planned on a small weaker Federal Government, and did not plan on the huge Federal monster that we have now. I support strong states and a weaker Federal Government. The constitution lays out what the purpose of the Federal Gov't is, I think it was to raise a militia, and a few others. I think the states could raise their own private militias, this possibly was done in the south during the civil war, idk? That might be a better idea too. I was just asking some friends on FB these same questions and related, we are all right of center. There may turn out reasons for our any Federal Government including the E.U. and the U.N. This is controversial too and not without problems. Some of the Europeans are not happy at all with their Federal Unions. We need strong states, strong individuals, and strong businesses. Sometimes the issue is end the Fed. Sometimes the issue is reform the Fed and do it right so states, individuals, business flourish. I am wrestling with these same issues and I do not fully know, I lean toward state's rights and sovereignty issues.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Joseph041167posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Originally we had no Federal Gov't. The states were separate & sovereign. Discussions were happening in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and we also had the 14th Amendment, please read that. All of that details reasonzz...

      replyreport
7. 83

   gregasposted 10 years ago

   As much as we hate to admit it, where would the military protection come from if the states became individuals. There is no way each state could defend themselves. The one thing that has made this country strong is the unity of the states, hence the name "United States of America". Without our Federal Government we would NOT have the strong military we now have. Other countries would move in immediately and take over. "United we stand, divided we fall." Just my opinion and something to think about. Greg

   replyreport
   1. 57

      taburkettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Military protection comes from the consolidated Guard and Reserve units just like it does today.  Gov would not eliminate this ready reserve and always utilizes it when confronted with conflict.  Besides, the military is a mandatory expense under law

      replyreport
8. 72

   lone77starposted 10 years ago

   The biggest negative would be that the psychopathic elite who depend on their Corporate Party link to the halls of power would be broken. It would be a negative for them, but a major plus for the rest of us.
   
   They wouldn't be able to buy off national politicians and would have to buy state politicians (as if they weren't already doing that).
   
   Perhaps the second biggest negative would be that the military would have to adjust to being a state-run cooperative instead of a presidential power tool.

   replyreport