Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I really wonder if they will try for a shutdown. It's always really annoying for my family as my dad works for the park service.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I really wonder if they will try for a shutdown. It's always really annoying for my family as my dad works for the park service.

The main thing that annoys me is that the majority of my coworkers have no idea how we are funded and always freak out about it.

 d-usa wrote:
I think this will hurt the GOP in the long run. He is good enough of a politician who managed to minimize some of the damage the hardcore members were willing to dish out, but with him gone the nation will see what it is like to have the "new" GOP govern and I don't think they will like it.

I don't know about that. The "new GOP" is what a growing chunk of people want. The same people that have zero idea what a functioning government is suppose to look like and the same people that refuse to pay attention to anything but extreme non-issues.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I really wonder if they will try for a shutdown. It's always really annoying for my family as my dad works for the park service.

The sad thing is, shutting down the government every October 1 seems to be the routine now. Even if we don't actually shut down, the threat of it is still there up to the last minute. And that doesn't include the expense of resources in preparing for it, as management still has to prepare plans for it, decide who is essential and who isn't, etc., even if it doesn't happen.

Shutting down the government should NEVER be the routine, it should never even be considered, much less accepted, as an option. It is the ultimate proof of Congress's failure to do their job. In my opinion, a shutdown should result in the immediate "firing" of everyone in the House and Senate.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
In my opinion, a shutdown should result in the immediate "firing" of everyone in the House and Senate.

IMO, since it seems to go to a vote every year, only those who vote for a shutdown should be fired

There will be no shutdown. Boehner said in the closed meeting that he would be willing to step down if he could get a vote in return. Evidently his opposition agreed to do so in the meeting. Of course wether or not they stay to their word remains to be seen.

I'm amazed at how doom and gloom folks are about shut downs. The Federal Gov't largely 'shuts down' every weekend and from Thanksgiving to New Year annually, with only 'essential ' folks really working/providing services. And the world doesn't end.

As mentioned, we've 'shut down' due to the budget not being passed multiple times, and yet we're all still here and frankly not worse off in the grand scheme of things. Each time it is a possibility the side against it tries to scare the feth out of folks and when it does happen tries to make it as painful as possible (like increasing workers in order to visibly 'shut down' access to monuments/memorials) but the reality is all essential services continue, and once the congress critters and current POTUS unscrew themselves they even pay for folks who didn't work during the shutdown.

And lets be honest about it. If the congress critters pass a budget or continuing resolution defunding planned parenthood but paying for most of everything else the Pres wants, Obama COULD sign it. Instead, you expect the Rs to sell out their principles and will get shrill over it yet demand Obama sticks to his even at the cost of a shut down. In the end, it is Obama's choice to shut it down or not.

No, "in the end" it is Congress's duty, one of their primary fething job requirements, to pass. a. damned. budget.

Pretty much.

Fun fact: The speaker doesn't need to be current elected Representative.

Shall we begin with Speaker Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
No, "in the end" it is Congress's duty, one of their primary fething job requirements, to pass. a. damned. budget.

Both parties are disinclined to do that Tanner... wanna know why?

The first Stimulus.

After that was passed, it was included in the baseline budget. One trillion smackaroos. In a sense, we've had a stimulus every year (just spent on different things).

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
No, "in the end" it is Congress's duty, one of their primary fething job requirements, to pass. a. damned. budget.

Yep, and POTUS shouldn't get to dictate what is in it. He does not hold the 'power of the purse strings'. If he is so offended that congress won't fund Planned Parenthood that he decides to veto and shut down the gov't over it, that is on him.

Tell the thousands of small business owners who rely on the fed govt. agencies being open to make money that it doesn't hurt them "in the grand scheme of things" coffee shops and restaurants across the street from federal buildings? No customers. Pvt. Businesses that rent out canoes or bait shops near federal land? Sorry, you don't get customers because a few representatives are throwing a hissy fit and not doing their job over something that would never pass a veto anyway. They do not get reimbursed when the govt. reopens.

The kicker is, when federal employees get fuloughed, once they return to work, they get paid for all the time off , so when the Republicans threaten to shutdown the government, they are giving massive loads of people a paid vacation


I'm mentioning this, because sometimes I don't think it is widely known by fans of this kind of political tactic.

 CptJake wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
No, "in the end" it is Congress's duty, one of their primary fething job requirements, to pass. a. damned. budget.

Yep, and POTUS shouldn't get to dictate what is in it. He does not hold the 'power of the purse strings'. If he is so offended that congress won't fund Planned Parenthood that he decides to veto and shut down the gov't over it, that is on him.

If Congress did their job like they're supposed to, and not just act like a bunch of partisan hacks, then the budget would pass with a veto-proof majority. That is the ideal, anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
The kicker is, when federal employees get fuloughed, once they return to work, they get paid for all the time off , so when the Republicans threaten to shutdown the government, they are giving massive loads of people a paid vacation


I'm mentioning this, because sometimes I don't think it is widely known by fans of this kind of political tactic.

That's never a guarantee, though. It has to be written in to whatever budget or CR is passed to end the shutdown. There isn't even a guarantee that those who did work will get paid. In fact, the only guarantee is that Congress still gets paid.

And, keep in mind, nobody is getting paid during the shutdown. It's like the workers having to still go to work, while the company is on strike instead of them.

Well....certain federal agencies are funded in separate vehicles, and are for all intents and purposes "already paid for", and are non-essential, but continue to work and get paid through shutdowns.

You're right about no garuntee for being paid for lost work, but I don't think they've ever not gotten paid in my lifetime.

It still hurts any federal employee living paycheck to paycheck


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well....certain federal agencies are funded in separate vehicles, and are for all intents and purposes "already paid for", and are non-essential, but continue to work and get paid through shutdowns.

You're right about no garuntee for being paid for lost work, but I don't think they've ever not gotten paid in my lifetime.

It still hurts any federal employee living paycheck to paycheck

True, every time so far we've all been paid, but with the partisanship getting worse every year, and one side or the other threatening a shutdown every year, who knows what will happen eventually? Maybe one side will get the idea they can hold our paychecks hostage in order to get something they want.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
True, every time so far we've all been paid, but with the partisanship getting worse every year, and one side or the other threatening a shutdown every year, who knows what will happen eventually? Maybe one side will get the idea they can hold our paychecks hostage in order to get something they want.

You know thats the very definition of "power of the purse". Something that was deliberately given to Congress. You may not like a shutdown, I don't think anyone likes them, but the ability and power to cause them is 100% intentional.

No, what is intentional is that they pass a budget. Shutdowns happen because they FAIL to do their job. Unless you somehow think "not doing their job" is doing their job.

Withholding money is one of the checks and balances granted to congress. Its a perfectly valid use of their power.

If they couldn't elect to withhold money power of the purse wouldn't exist.

The budget is one thing neither side should play politics on to pass, shoving in special interest stuff and playing a game of chicken.

What is egregious to me about this federal shutdown tactic is that it is a direct assault on the life and livelihood of government workers. If the Republicans shut down the government, Planned Parenthood will not suffer, but the people who will suffer most is that segment of the federal workforce that lives paycheck to paycheck...and these are just regular people, middle to lower-middle class, not abortion doctors or family planning nurses.

It's all fun and games for some bumpkin out in Wichita whose pastor tells him weekly that abortion and the federal government are evil, but in the end, its just more little people who suffer for it.

What gets me is not the government workers aspect, it's everybody else that nobody seems to notice that gets affected (and I am a government worker). I live in Little ole South Dakota, you might know it for Mt. Rushmore. Near Rushmore is a small town called Keystone. 80% of the residents there are migratory (around 2000 people). In the summer they open up shops to sell trinkets and wares and in the winter they go south for warmer weather and presumably spend money there as well, if they have any. When the government shuts down, tourism shuts down: the lifeblood of this community and the economic engine of state is gone. Why? Because a few (small minority of the majority) pissants can't figure out that their special cause is no better than anybody else's special cause. Because a few people (who would not vote for somebody because of their religious views even allowing that their ultimate sacred document says don't do that) cannot get their heads out of their nether-yahas. At the same time they extoll the virtues of small businesses, evidently too clueless to realize what they are doing to small businesses (no, they do realize they just don't care for political expediency). Hypocrites. All of them.

 jasper76 wrote:
... If the Republicans shut down the government...

Lemme stop you there.

Republicans controls BOTH the House and Senate.

If they DO get off their arses and actually pass a true budget, but obama doesn't like it and vetoes it...

Who shut down the government?

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
... If the Republicans shut down the government...

Lemme stop you there.

Republicans controls BOTH the House and Senate.

If they DO get off their arses and actually pass a true budget, but obama doesn't like it and vetoes it...

Who shut down the government?

Umm... The legislative branch of government. Easy question there. Ever actually read the document? And the fact that you used the word "if" even though they control both houses should tell you everything you need to know right there. They had to force out their somewhat rational leader to actually get anything done.

Rule 1 needs to be followed, motyak

 whembly wrote:
Who shut down the government?

I guess that depends.

Who is advocating for ridiculous bs in the budget that may or may not exist? If Congress sends a "budget" with outrageous stuff in it they know the President will veto, then they aren't acting in good faith and can shoulder most of the blame. If they send a reasonable budget without any wingnut bs and the President still refuses to sign it, then Obama is not acting in good faith and can shoulder most of the blame.


However, I have the feeling that no matter how much poutrage the Republicans throw and how unreasonable they behave, you'll still blame Obama because of course you will.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Who shut down the government?

I guess that depends.

Who is advocating for ridiculous bs in the budget that may or may not exist? If Congress sends a "budget" with outrageous stuff in it they know the President will veto, then they aren't acting in good faith and can shoulder most of the blame. If they send a reasonable budget without any wingnut bs and the President still refuses to sign it, then Obama is not acting in good faith and can shoulder most of the blame.


However, I have the feeling that no matter how much poutrage the Republicans throw and how unreasonable they behave, you'll still blame Obama because of course you will.

The problem is they don't even realize that have any wingnut BS. Look at the primary. The wing nuts are the ones turning the screws.

Edit: excellent word "poutrage" thanks for expanding my vocab today, SPJ.

Considering that the Republicans ran on the message of "give us the Senate, and we will govern responsibly and there will be no more gridlocks and stuff will get done" and are insisting on not passing a budget that doesn't defund PP (a move that the majority of the country actually disagrees with), it will be pretty easy to see who will shoulder the blame.

 d-usa wrote:
Considering that the Republicans ran on the message of "give us the Senate, and we will govern responsibly and there will be no more gridlocks and stuff will get done" and are insisting on not passing a budget that doesn't defund PP (a move that the majority of the country actually disagrees with), it will be pretty easy to see who will shoulder the blame.

Obama, obviously.

 d-usa wrote:
Considering that the Republicans ran on the message of "give us the Senate, and we will govern responsibly and there will be no more gridlocks and stuff will get done" and are insisting on not passing a budget that doesn't defund PP (a move that the majority of the country actually disagrees with), it will be pretty easy to see who will shoulder the blame.

Also.. the majority of people don't know what's "best" for them


(Isn't that what libertarians and uber right wingers say "liberals" do... tell folks they need more government because youre too stupid to live on your own?)

 Grey Templar wrote:
Withholding money is one of the checks and balances granted to congress. Its a perfectly valid use of their power.

If they couldn't elect to withhold money power of the purse wouldn't exist.

I could almost accept your point of view of it being a "valid use", except for one small point: Congress still gets paid during a shutdown while nobody else gets a fething dime.

I blame the schools