The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
US Government Shutdown 2018/2019 - read mod post on pg 23
Great, now to go with a government shutdown, we have a thread shutdown, and to go with half assed proposals and bullshit, we have a...n appropriately concise thread OP leading us into the discussion.
>.>
It was asked in the last thread, but I may have missed the answer; is there a deadline we should be watching for at which point the next paycheque is also likely fucked (delayed for most, that is, but if people are already looking to sell stuff on Craigslist, I'm guessing a second cheque getting held back would be catastrophic for a bunch of them, and push even previously semi-comfortable folks into uncomfortable territory).
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
It's not even compromise. It's agreeing to what they already agreed to before.
Your government seems to have shutdown unexpectedly.
Would you like to restart?
Talk about it all here.
Can we just install a different operating system instead?
So with Trump basically holding on to the idea of declaring a national emergency, when is that likely to happen? He's already done the performative "negotiation" with Schumer and Pelosi following his address, and Lindsey Graham is egging him on, so I kind of assumed it would come down today.
Not even a poll? I know your country is committing ritual suicide at the moment, but if you're going to ask a question in the OP there should be a poll.
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
Three weeks with half the Government unfunded and no end in sight. Maybe we should stop running the Government like a business and run it like a Government.
+65
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
edited January 2019
Huh...I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the argument he's making there.
Like yes, it's a thing these people shouldn't have to worry about, but also, something that kind of exacerbates the whole shutdown problem while it looks like something that might get pulled out more and more frequently. So I'm torn, but would still probably vote for it.
Ilpala on
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Huh...I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the argument he's making there.
He's not wrong. Putting safeguards in effect to mitigate damage from shutdowns just makes it easier to justify shutting down the government. This idea is a step towards normalizing the practice.
Broken clocks being right twice a day and all that.
Huh...I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the argument he's making there.
He does have a point that a move like this will likely make shutdowns more common.
But it’s not the employees who should be punished if the government shuts down.
It will make them less likely because they won't have leverage. There will be no reason to shut down the government because it won't provide them leverage
Psn:wazukki
+6
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
At the end of the day, the fact that shutdowns like this are possible at all is the problem, so making them more likely by taking away a possible consequence (and thus lever for pressure to end it) isn't a concern if legislation can be crafted to prevent them in the first place.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
The logic in that is backwards. The law should make shutdowns less likely, not more likely, because a shutdown is only as useful as long as it hurts people in order to get the other side to blink. If people are less hurt by a shutdown (minor as this may be), then the incentive to do one decreases.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
Wait, if they can do that, can they just pass something that says "in the event of budget disagreement, funding levels will continue an existing levels". Just do that, and this never happens again.
Or does that fall into "binding future Congress" territory?
Eventually the TSA people and the ATC people are going to have to quit. Just because they will get a future paycheck will not get them a current paycheck to put food in their stomachs and a roof over their head.
And when the Airports either shut down or slow to a crawl, Republican Senators are going to get calls from very rich people who can legitimately say things like "You're afraid of Trump? You should be afraid of me!"
It should not be possible to shut down the government. The two options would be to immediately hold elections, which is not really feesable in our system and for our size, or make it so a "shut down" doesn't actually mean anything.
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
Wait, if they can do that, can they just pass something that says "in the event of budget disagreement, funding levels will continue an existing levels". Just do that, and this never happens again.
Or does that fall into "binding future Congress" territory?
That falls into "Trump would have a tantrum" category.
Under the bill, workers won't get paid until the "earliest pay date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends".
It does not relieve any pressure during the shutdown or help employees make ends meet. Still dont like normalizing shutdowns but it doesnt relieve any pressure during them.
If people start quitting, do they forfeit the backpay they would have otherwise gotten? Can you even quit when the people you would give notice to aren't working either?
Exciting new questions we've never had to face before because this bullshit has never lasted this long.
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
Wait, if they can do that, can they just pass something that says "in the event of budget disagreement, funding levels will continue an existing levels". Just do that, and this never happens again.
Or does that fall into "binding future Congress" territory?
It doesn't bind future Congress as they would likely throw a waiver condition in there that they could use to ignore it, but would have to take a vote to do so. Same as how PAYGO works
Nah, more like criminal courts. The Supreme Court and the main appellate courts will still be working. This would probably hurt what they want more than help. Also though judges are suppose to be non-partisan this probably won't make the Judiciary look at them and their arguments with a kind eye.
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
I kind of figured there was some backroom pressure going on, because the classic Trump tell on if he's actually not going to do a thing is if he drops a word salad of "might, maybe, definitely will's when talking about that thing. I'm sure what's left of his white house staff is saying this would go badly, the DoD is grumbling to the right people about not paying for this boondoggle, and the political move of pulling funds from disaster relief for states has got to be politically DOA.
Democrats would never pull an emergency act to push funding for a pet project. Like even if Trump did it, that Trump did it would make the idea DOA to any one sane ever.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Huh...I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the argument he's making there.
I'm not because he's complaining about us taking the gun out of his hand
Taking away people's money for weeks or months is still a powerful and damaging move, even if they get paid at the end now.
Gun is still there, they're just offering medical assistance after the bullets fly, now.
It is still damaging but a step in the right direction. Having a law on the books would probably help them secure financial assistance during shutdowns though
Huh...I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the argument he's making there.
I'm not because he's complaining about us taking the gun out of his hand
Taking away people's money for weeks or months is still a powerful and damaging move, even if they get paid at the end now.
Gun is still there, they're just offering medical assistance after the bullets fly, now.
It is still damaging but a step in the right direction. Having a law on the books would probably help them secure financial assistance during shutdowns though
On the other hand it might guarantee they can't get unemployment benefits in the here and now.
+2
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
What does the judiciary shutting down mean exactly?
Huh...I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the argument he's making there.
I'm not because he's complaining about us taking the gun out of his hand
Taking away people's money for weeks or months is still a powerful and damaging move, even if they get paid at the end now.
Gun is still there, they're just offering medical assistance after the bullets fly, now.
It is still damaging but a step in the right direction. Having a law on the books would probably help them secure financial assistance during shutdowns though
On the other hand it might guarantee they can't get unemployment benefits in the here and now.
I had not considered that, but I believe the states could handle this by asking for reimbursement when the check came
It should not be possible to shut down the government. The two options would be to immediately hold elections, which is not really feesable in our system and for our size, or make it so a "shut down" doesn't actually mean anything.
Or if it is "shut down" have everything already appropriated keep getting funded as normal. So all a shut down should do is stop new stuff from going into effect not throwing people out of their homes or depriving poor people of food.
The bill to protect government workers from shut downs should be the one that says that "in the event the legislature can not pass a budget the previous budget's spending levels are maintained".
so that the United States doesn't have to put up with the conservatives deciding that they're happy to see the republic crumble
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
I mean, we can make it so that Government Shutdowns don't happen and this sort of hostage-taking showmanship can't be attempted again
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
>.>
It was asked in the last thread, but I may have missed the answer; is there a deadline we should be watching for at which point the next paycheque is also likely fucked (delayed for most, that is, but if people are already looking to sell stuff on Craigslist, I'm guessing a second cheque getting held back would be catastrophic for a bunch of them, and push even previously semi-comfortable folks into uncomfortable territory).
Can we just install a different operating system instead?
So with Trump basically holding on to the idea of declaring a national emergency, when is that likely to happen? He's already done the performative "negotiation" with Schumer and Pelosi following his address, and Lindsey Graham is egging him on, so I kind of assumed it would come down today.
I don't know if a restart will fix this. We're in reinstall territory at least.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
What if we just replace the exe?
Three weeks with half the Government unfunded and no end in sight. Maybe we should stop running the Government like a business and run it like a Government.
Like yes, it's a thing these people shouldn't have to worry about, but also, something that kind of exacerbates the whole shutdown problem while it looks like something that might get pulled out more and more frequently. So I'm torn, but would still probably vote for it.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
I'm not because he's complaining about us taking the gun out of his hand
He does have a point that a move like this will likely make shutdowns more common.
But it’s not the employees who should be punished if the government shuts down.
He's not wrong. Putting safeguards in effect to mitigate damage from shutdowns just makes it easier to justify shutting down the government. This idea is a step towards normalizing the practice.
Broken clocks being right twice a day and all that.
It will make them less likely because they won't have leverage. There will be no reason to shut down the government because it won't provide them leverage
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Wait, if they can do that, can they just pass something that says "in the event of budget disagreement, funding levels will continue an existing levels". Just do that, and this never happens again.
Or does that fall into "binding future Congress" territory?
Eventually the TSA people and the ATC people are going to have to quit. Just because they will get a future paycheck will not get them a current paycheck to put food in their stomachs and a roof over their head.
And when the Airports either shut down or slow to a crawl, Republican Senators are going to get calls from very rich people who can legitimately say things like "You're afraid of Trump? You should be afraid of me!"
That falls into "Trump would have a tantrum" category.
It does not relieve any pressure during the shutdown or help employees make ends meet. Still dont like normalizing shutdowns but it doesnt relieve any pressure during them.
Federal Prison guards are not paid and like the TSA folks are calling out sick and they are using non-standard personnel to make up for it.
FEMA put stop orders out on many preparedness contracts
A good timeline of what is happening and will happen
We are 7 days from the Judiciary shutting down.
Exciting new questions we've never had to face before because this bullshit has never lasted this long.
Taking away people's money for weeks or months is still a powerful and damaging move, even if they get paid at the end now.
Gun is still there, they're just offering medical assistance after the bullets fly, now.
It doesn't bind future Congress as they would likely throw a waiver condition in there that they could use to ignore it, but would have to take a vote to do so. Same as how PAYGO works
oh, now I see their plan
Nah, more like criminal courts. The Supreme Court and the main appellate courts will still be working. This would probably hurt what they want more than help. Also though judges are suppose to be non-partisan this probably won't make the Judiciary look at them and their arguments with a kind eye.
I kind of figured there was some backroom pressure going on, because the classic Trump tell on if he's actually not going to do a thing is if he drops a word salad of "might, maybe, definitely will's when talking about that thing. I'm sure what's left of his white house staff is saying this would go badly, the DoD is grumbling to the right people about not paying for this boondoggle, and the political move of pulling funds from disaster relief for states has got to be politically DOA.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It is still damaging but a step in the right direction. Having a law on the books would probably help them secure financial assistance during shutdowns though
On the other hand it might guarantee they can't get unemployment benefits in the here and now.
I had not considered that, but I believe the states could handle this by asking for reimbursement when the check came
Or if it is "shut down" have everything already appropriated keep getting funded as normal. So all a shut down should do is stop new stuff from going into effect not throwing people out of their homes or depriving poor people of food.
so that the United States doesn't have to put up with the conservatives deciding that they're happy to see the republic crumble
I mean, we can make it so that Government Shutdowns don't happen and this sort of hostage-taking showmanship can't be attempted again