Government Shutdown - Sep 2025 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This time they won't reopen it.
And no one is going to get paid that ship has sailed.

Prepare now.

theskyisfalling.jpg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay for government employees who work during a shutdown; no pay for employees who don't work.

I am a liberal democrat, and can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?

Because I'm not allowed to go out and get other work while we're furloughed. I can't substitute teach or doordash or work at 7/11. I can't have outside employment.
So yes, I'd like my paycheck when I come back.

Also, it’s not like it’s laying off or furloughing a select / small group. At my agency it’s pretty much everyone and many of us have specialized skills. It’s expensive to interview, hire and train so not a good idea to lose large portions of your workforce by refusing to pay them for undetermined amounts of time for reasons that have nothing to do with agency strategic plan, mission needs, etc.

Your first point, re not being able to work, is a good one.

The second is not. First, no one is indispensable. Second, the likelihood of en masse resignations is pretty low.

True, but I’m in a job area that is super specialized and niche. I put out feelers in my network when it became clear how bad things were going to be for Feds and received a great offer in June. When DH and I discussed what to do, getting away from shutdowns, especially under Trump and DOGE (and remembering the last Trump shutdown) was definitely in the pro-leave column. I started my new job three weeks ago. Starting a new job is usually stressful, but I have been more relaxed this month than at any point in the prior year. I knew it was bad. Which is why I explored leaving. But I didn’t realize how bad until I was out. Frog in a pot of water with the temp being turned up stuff.

I am so thankful that I am not staring down yet another shutdown. For the first time since 2008, I am not eyeing the next possible shutdown on the calendar. And it isn’t even the money (which I fully acknowledge makes me lucky). We have savings and I always end up being essential. It’s all the time and energy wasted even on very short shutdowns and near misses. You can’t get work done efficiently when you are jumping from shutdown crisis to shutdown crisis.

And you can say good riddance. But my agency didn’t. My position was “mission critical” and was not permitted to VERA (I was about 16 months short anyway), VSIP or FORK with most other positions in the agency. I had to outright resign. And, even then, they came back and tried to convince me to stay. Which was ridiculous. Because mission critical/ we spent years training you in this technical area where even DOGE says we need more people, not fewer, did not exempt me from Elon’s mass chaos, 5 things emails, a made national news repeatedly bad Acting, RTW or a work environment that went from being mission oriented to collegial to super toxic very fast.

So— mass resignations, likely not in this economy unless it goes past a tipping point where people need the paycheck to keep their house. But the work environment is bad enough already. They do this very and over, it becomes a factor in people’s decisions to leave. And contrary to what Elon said, not every government employee is expendable and replaceable. I was replaceable. But my agency expects people versant in the gerealities of my area to take 3 years to reach journeyman status. So, churn becomes a big problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay for government employees who work during a shutdown; no pay for employees who don't work.

I am a liberal democrat, and can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?

Because I'm not allowed to go out and get other work while we're furloughed. I can't substitute teach or doordash or work at 7/11. I can't have outside employment.
So yes, I'd like my paycheck when I come back.

Well, that’s just wrong. If you want a second job at 7-11 or door dash you can do that. What’s restricted are jobs in conflict with your federal duties. There’s lots to discuss on this issue without introducing silliness

I don’t know about everyone else, but at my agency we have to get specific ethics approval for any job outside of federal employment (even Door Dash). So we would have to go through the process to get approval before the shutdown happens.

+1, not every agency has the same rules. Just because yours allows Door Dash doesn't mean they all do. Mine has only specifically approved dog walking.

Also, the kind of jobs that don't conflict (like dog walking) are not realistic alternatives in terms of pay. So you're back to just being fine with a significant portion of the government quitting every autumn to do something where the pay is comparable, and then managers needing to hire and train from scratch. Every year. That's not efficient and it's not good policy.

If you want to make a policy argument, why don't you look at where the problem lies - Congress? As a matter of policy, should the lack of a budget shut down the government? Other countries don't work that way, they continue to run on last year's budget automatically.

As a matter of policy, essential should mean— a lot of people will die if you don’t work. Everyone else sits out. We’ve made shutdowns too comfortable for Americans by forcing everyone who makes life convenient to work. So, the people guarding nukes, working intensive care at the VA and 1 ATC/ 1 TSA per airport for life flights stay. Not the people who process social security checks and get them out during shutdowns, most of ATC and TSA, etc work so people aren’t inconvenienced. Maybe if seniors were looking at not getting checks (like feds are) this cr*p would stop.

Also, it infuriates me that somehow the executive branch is not funded but Congress is. If Congress can’t do their one most basic task of funding the government, they and their staff shouldn’t get paid either. And no backpay for Congressmen and Senators when it’s resolved (staff shouldn’t get backpay). It’s ridiculous that they decide this is something all feds should deal with— except them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay for government employees who work during a shutdown; no pay for employees who don't work.

I am a liberal democrat, and can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?

Because I'm not allowed to go out and get other work while we're furloughed. I can't substitute teach or doordash or work at 7/11. I can't have outside employment.
So yes, I'd like my paycheck when I come back.

Well, that’s just wrong. If you want a second job at 7-11 or door dash you can do that. What’s restricted are jobs in conflict with your federal duties. There’s lots to discuss on this issue without introducing silliness

I don’t know about everyone else, but at my agency we have to get specific ethics approval for any job outside of federal employment (even Door Dash). So we would have to go through the process to get approval before the shutdown happens.

+1, not every agency has the same rules. Just because yours allows Door Dash doesn't mean they all do. Mine has only specifically approved dog walking.

Also, the kind of jobs that don't conflict (like dog walking) are not realistic alternatives in terms of pay. So you're back to just being fine with a significant portion of the government quitting every autumn to do something where the pay is comparable, and then managers needing to hire and train from scratch. Every year. That's not efficient and it's not good policy.

If you want to make a policy argument, why don't you look at where the problem lies - Congress? As a matter of policy, should the lack of a budget shut down the government? Other countries don't work that way, they continue to run on last year's budget automatically.

As a matter of policy, essential should mean— a lot of people will die if you don’t work. Everyone else sits out. We’ve made shutdowns too comfortable for Americans by forcing everyone who makes life convenient to work. So, the people guarding nukes, working intensive care at the VA and 1 ATC/ 1 TSA per airport for life flights stay. Not the people who process social security checks and get them out during shutdowns, most of ATC and TSA, etc work so people aren’t inconvenienced. Maybe if seniors were looking at not getting checks (like feds are) this cr*p would stop.

Also, it infuriates me that somehow the executive branch is not funded but Congress is. If Congress can’t do their one most basic task of funding the government, they and their staff shouldn’t get paid either. And no backpay for Congressmen and Senators when it’s resolved (staff shouldn’t get backpay). It’s ridiculous that they decide this is something all feds should deal with— except them.

Sorry— congressional staff SHOULD get backpay.

[Anonymous]

welp. idk whats next. house is out.

[Anonymous]

This whole thing is ridiculous. The Rs are offering a clean CR. If the Dems can get some assurances that the administration will not rescind funds, they should take it. But no, the Dems are insisting on policy riders restoring Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid, and Schumer is talking tough because he was a weak weasel back in the spring and has no idea what to do. A shutdown is not the place for changes in policy - if the Dems want to be back in power, they need to persuade more people to vote for them.

I’m so sick of federal workers being pawns in this stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay for government employees who work during a shutdown; no pay for employees who don't work.

I am a liberal democrat, and can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?

Because I'm not allowed to go out and get other work while we're furloughed. I can't substitute teach or doordash or work at 7/11. I can't have outside employment.
So yes, I'd like my paycheck when I come back.

Well, that’s just wrong. If you want a second job at 7-11 or door dash you can do that. What’s restricted are jobs in conflict with your federal duties. There’s lots to discuss on this issue without introducing silliness

I don’t know about everyone else, but at my agency we have to get specific ethics approval for any job outside of federal employment (even Door Dash). So we would have to go through the process to get approval before the shutdown happens.

+1, not every agency has the same rules. Just because yours allows Door Dash doesn't mean they all do. Mine has only specifically approved dog walking.

Also, the kind of jobs that don't conflict (like dog walking) are not realistic alternatives in terms of pay. So you're back to just being fine with a significant portion of the government quitting every autumn to do something where the pay is comparable, and then managers needing to hire and train from scratch. Every year. That's not efficient and it's not good policy.

If you want to make a policy argument, why don't you look at where the problem lies - Congress? As a matter of policy, should the lack of a budget shut down the government? Other countries don't work that way, they continue to run on last year's budget automatically.

As a matter of policy, essential should mean— a lot of people will die if you don’t work. Everyone else sits out. We’ve made shutdowns too comfortable for Americans by forcing everyone who makes life convenient to work. So, the people guarding nukes, working intensive care at the VA and 1 ATC/ 1 TSA per airport for life flights stay. Not the people who process social security checks and get them out during shutdowns, most of ATC and TSA, etc work so people aren’t inconvenienced. Maybe if seniors were looking at not getting checks (like feds are) this cr*p would stop.

Also, it infuriates me that somehow the executive branch is not funded but Congress is. If Congress can’t do their one most basic task of funding the government, they and their staff shouldn’t get paid either. And no backpay for Congressmen and Senators when it’s resolved (staff shouldn’t get backpay). It’s ridiculous that they decide this is something all feds should deal with— except them.

Leg branch also requires appropriations, which haven’t happened yet. Congress will shutdown too. I was on the Hill in January 2018, and our office did actually close during the three-day shutdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay for government employees who work during a shutdown; no pay for employees who don't work.

I am a liberal democrat, and can someone please explain why this shouldn't be the policy?

Because I'm not allowed to go out and get other work while we're furloughed. I can't substitute teach or doordash or work at 7/11. I can't have outside employment.
So yes, I'd like my paycheck when I come back.

Well, that’s just wrong. If you want a second job at 7-11 or door dash you can do that. What’s restricted are jobs in conflict with your federal duties. There’s lots to discuss on this issue without introducing silliness

I don’t know about everyone else, but at my agency we have to get specific ethics approval for any job outside of federal employment (even Door Dash). So we would have to go through the process to get approval before the shutdown happens.

+1, not every agency has the same rules. Just because yours allows Door Dash doesn't mean they all do. Mine has only specifically approved dog walking.

Also, the kind of jobs that don't conflict (like dog walking) are not realistic alternatives in terms of pay. So you're back to just being fine with a significant portion of the government quitting every autumn to do something where the pay is comparable, and then managers needing to hire and train from scratch. Every year. That's not efficient and it's not good policy.

If you want to make a policy argument, why don't you look at where the problem lies - Congress? As a matter of policy, should the lack of a budget shut down the government? Other countries don't work that way, they continue to run on last year's budget automatically.

As a matter of policy, essential should mean— a lot of people will die if you don’t work. Everyone else sits out. We’ve made shutdowns too comfortable for Americans by forcing everyone who makes life convenient to work. So, the people guarding nukes, working intensive care at the VA and 1 ATC/ 1 TSA per airport for life flights stay. Not the people who process social security checks and get them out during shutdowns, most of ATC and TSA, etc work so people aren’t inconvenienced. Maybe if seniors were looking at not getting checks (like feds are) this cr*p would stop.

Also, it infuriates me that somehow the executive branch is not funded but Congress is. If Congress can’t do their one most basic task of funding the government, they and their staff shouldn’t get paid either. And no backpay for Congressmen and Senators when it’s resolved (staff shouldn’t get backpay). It’s ridiculous that they decide this is something all feds should deal with— except them.

Sure, but between the two, you're more likely to change the system to keep the government open without a budget, than change the system so that lack of a budget hurts a lot more people including congress. The second one's not going to happen and probably shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is ridiculous. The Rs are offering a clean CR. If the Dems can get some assurances that the administration will not rescind funds, they should take it. But no, the Dems are insisting on policy riders restoring Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid, and Schumer is talking tough because he was a weak weasel back in the spring and has no idea what to do. A shutdown is not the place for changes in policy - if the Dems want to be back in power, they need to persuade more people to vote for them.

I’m so sick of federal workers being pawns in this stupidity.

The administration is in front of SCOTUS saying they want to be able to rescind funds. Where are you getting this fantasy of “assurances”?

Honestly the dems should let the subsidies expire and let people have the government they voted for, but don’t pretend there’s some deal they're walking away from.

[Anonymous]

Democrats have nothing to lose. If they buckle and help keep the government running, I'm done with them. Forever. They have been absent and silent as our nation has fallen apart in less than a year. At this point they need to keep doing nothing and let everything come to a grinding halt. And I live in DC and have for 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is ridiculous. The Rs are offering a clean CR. If the Dems can get some assurances that the administration will not rescind funds, they should take it. But no, the Dems are insisting on policy riders restoring Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid, and Schumer is talking tough because he was a weak weasel back in the spring and has no idea what to do. A shutdown is not the place for changes in policy - if the Dems want to be back in power, they need to persuade more people to vote for them.

I’m so sick of federal workers being pawns in this stupidity.

There is no dealing with Trump's Republican Party. They are morally bankrupt liars with black souls. Dems better not lift a finger. Just let it all burn down and let Trump's supporters experience what they voted for. Stop shielding them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is ridiculous. The Rs are offering a clean CR. If the Dems can get some assurances that the administration will not rescind funds, they should take it. But no, the Dems are insisting on policy riders restoring Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid, and Schumer is talking tough because he was a weak weasel back in the spring and has no idea what to do. A shutdown is not the place for changes in policy - if the Dems want to be back in power, they need to persuade more people to vote for them.

I’m so sick of federal workers being pawns in this stupidity.

The administration has said they intend to keep using recession. The Democrats got enough votes that their agreement is needed to pass a budget. This is EXACTLY the time to try for policy changes. When else would they?

You won't get an argument from me that it's stupid or that Dems were weak in the spring. But this isn't a simple majority vote, so why should they give up votes for policy they disagree with?

[Anonymous]

I just wish we’d find out ahead of time one way or the other. I have people from industry flying in from Europe for early October meetings that I can’t cancel but won’t be able to attend if we shut down. And they can’t accomplish their goals without me there. Honestly I’d rather work than not, shutdowns create so much more work for me down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not going to happen, but nothing will happen before 11:59 and the dems will pretend not to play ball.

this.

they control all 3 branches of gov. v embarassing if they cant keep it open. dems will pretend to not help. 11th hour it stays open.

it's gonna stay open for a CR but they probably won't address the debt ceiling which is supposed to hit sometime in the next month or so.

also a CR will weirdly give agencies more money that DOGE cut out of 2025 allocated operating funds, can't have that long term.

Contractor here hoping for a 6 month CR. That means we all get more work, LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats have nothing to lose. If they buckle and help keep the government running, I'm done with them. Forever. They have been absent and silent as our nation has fallen apart in less than a year. At this point they need to keep doing nothing and let everything come to a grinding halt. And I live in DC and have for 30 years.

Fetterman is already saying that he is voting to keep the government open no matter what.