Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to continue to work while furloughed. Fortunately I was able to print off a lot of stuff to read and mark up during the furlough so I do not expect to be too far behind when we return.

Technically, that is illegal and I would not brag about it.

Dp. Pffft. I would absolutely continue working. I love this country and won’t do anything that supports the right wing anarchists who want to burn it down. Previous poster - you go girl!

You have to have a job that does not require logging in to your laptop. Very little I can do even if I felt like ignoring the law. We were told very specifically last time that IT would monitor all logins on a daily basis. DS was supposed to travel tomorrow for a Monday class. Cancelled due to uncertainty. DH was bringing someone in to town for a meeting Tuesday, It was also cancelled already,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to continue to work while furloughed. Fortunately I was able to print off a lot of stuff to read and mark up during the furlough so I do not expect to be too far behind when we return.

Technically, that is illegal and I would not brag about it.

Dp. Pffft. I would absolutely continue working. I love this country and won’t do anything that supports the right wing anarchists who want to burn it down. Previous poster - you go girl!

I love my job so much I break into the office at odd hours and do extra work that I am not supposed to be doing!

This is basically what you’re saying. Maybe you get away with it but it’s illegal and also a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

What does this mean? Who is bribing who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

What does this mean? Who is bribing who?

Think about it for just another second. Who would benefit the most if Ukraine lost funding…and who would be bribing US govt representatives to support the reduction of that funding. Come on, jut PUT IN some effort to thinking this through, PP. You can do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

I believe it too. The wapo called this “the shutdown about nothing.” It’s about something and this is it.

“I think if we had a clean one without Ukraine on it we could probably be able to move that through,” McCarthy said after a lengthy GOP conference meeting on Friday when asked about a clean continuing resolution.

Finally getting around to the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

What does this mean? Who is bribing who?

Think about it for just another second. Who would benefit the most if Ukraine lost funding…and who would be bribing US govt representatives to support the reduction of that funding. Come on, jut PUT IN some effort to thinking this through, PP. You can do it.

And yet I’m fine with that. Secure our damn border so migrants aren’t laying in the streets of midtown Manhattan and pay the HR person at HUD on time. If that means Vlad gets another country and some GOP folks get some bribe money - that’s how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

What does this mean? Who is bribing who?

Think about it for just another second. Who would benefit the most if Ukraine lost funding…and who would be bribing US govt representatives to support the reduction of that funding. Come on, jut PUT IN some effort to thinking this through, PP. You can do it.

And yet I’m fine with that. Secure our damn border so migrants aren’t laying in the streets of midtown Manhattan and pay the HR person at HUD on time. If that means Vlad gets another country and some GOP folks get some bribe money - that’s how it goes.

No intelligent person would accept a foreign country taking control of their country’s budget. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

I believe it too. The wapo called this “the shutdown about nothing.” It’s about something and this is it.

“I think if we had a clean one without Ukraine on it we could probably be able to move that through,” McCarthy said after a lengthy GOP conference meeting on Friday when asked about a clean continuing resolution.

Finally getting around to the point.

He said that yesterday but apparently some folks at the 930 meeting are reaching out to less reputable news orgs saying — “current House GOP plan doesn’t include any sort of CR.

They will put a plan to pay troops on floor, FAA extension, flood insurance, and border patrol.”

Might just be me but if we get a plan that pays military but not people at Labor, FERC or wherever doesn’t this drag longer? Now suddenly the number of unpaid goes from like 3.5 mil to like 1.5 mil roughly and the sob stories from some army wife taking on credit card debt for groceries are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

What does this mean? Who is bribing who?

Think about it for just another second. Who would benefit the most if Ukraine lost funding…and who would be bribing US govt representatives to support the reduction of that funding. Come on, jut PUT IN some effort to thinking this through, PP. You can do it.

And yet I’m fine with that. Secure our damn border so migrants aren’t laying in the streets of midtown Manhattan and pay the HR person at HUD on time. If that means Vlad gets another country and some GOP folks get some bribe money - that’s how it goes.

Looks like the troll farms are busy working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

What does this mean? Who is bribing who?

Think about it for just another second. Who would benefit the most if Ukraine lost funding…and who would be bribing US govt representatives to support the reduction of that funding. Come on, jut PUT IN some effort to thinking this through, PP. You can do it.

And yet I’m fine with that. Secure our damn border so migrants aren’t laying in the streets of midtown Manhattan and pay the HR person at HUD on time. If that means Vlad gets another country and some GOP folks get some bribe money - that’s how it goes.

You’re cool with Vlad getting this country? Cool cool

[Anonymous]

Would Dems - both House and Senate - vote for a clean CR w no Ukraine aide? I thought that was a condition for them - has that been dropped now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would Dems - both House and Senate - vote for a clean CR w no Ukraine aide? I thought that was a condition for them - has that been dropped now?

And would Biden sign it?

[Anonymous]

For those who don’t follow politics - is this the only way to get aide to Ukraine? We’ve been aiding them for a while. I assumed it was individual bills - not tied to a CR? Or is it that as there now appears to be a divide regarding how much more to aid Ukraine, it’s become an issue of - better tie it to keeping the government open bc who knows if another funding bill for Ukraine passes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

I believe it too. The wapo called this “the shutdown about nothing.” It’s about something and this is it.

“I think if we had a clean one without Ukraine on it we could probably be able to move that through,” McCarthy said after a lengthy GOP conference meeting on Friday when asked about a clean continuing resolution.

Finally getting around to the point.

He said that yesterday but apparently some folks at the 930 meeting are reaching out to less reputable news orgs saying — “current House GOP plan doesn’t include any sort of CR.

They will put a plan to pay troops on floor, FAA extension, flood insurance, and border patrol.”

Might just be me but if we get a plan that pays military but not people at Labor, FERC or wherever doesn’t this drag longer? Now suddenly the number of unpaid goes from like 3.5 mil to like 1.5 mil roughly and the sob stories from some army wife taking on credit card debt for groceries are gone.

That was what happened in 2018-2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN - House GOP meets at 930a as a plan has been under discussion: a CR until Nov. 17 extending current funding with disaster aid, per sources. Put it under suspension (2/3 majority) and rely on D votes, something McCarthy’s hard-right has told him not to do.

So I haven’t followed the politics of this so could someone explain - I though the reason a clean CR wasn’t an option weeks ago is bc the MAGA caucus demanded that any CR/budget have huge spending cuts. Granted maybe a clean CR passes without them - w Dems + moderate GOP. But then I thought the MAGA caucus has said if McCarthy gets it done that way with Dems, they’ll come after his speakership. Is McCarthy now implying he’d give up speakership? Maybe he would but I’m kind of surprised he’d offer that up pre shutdown.

I think they're hoping if they can separate Ukraine aid from the CR, that's enough cover for the MAGA to call it a win.

There's been a poster in another forum claiming that pulling Ukraine funding has always been the main issue due to kompromat. I'm starting to believe it.

I believe it too. The wapo called this “the shutdown about nothing.” It’s about something and this is it.

“I think if we had a clean one without Ukraine on it we could probably be able to move that through,” McCarthy said after a lengthy GOP conference meeting on Friday when asked about a clean continuing resolution.

Finally getting around to the point.

He said that yesterday but apparently some folks at the 930 meeting are reaching out to less reputable news orgs saying — “current House GOP plan doesn’t include any sort of CR.

They will put a plan to pay troops on floor, FAA extension, flood insurance, and border patrol.”

Might just be me but if we get a plan that pays military but not people at Labor, FERC or wherever doesn’t this drag longer? Now suddenly the number of unpaid goes from like 3.5 mil to like 1.5 mil roughly and the sob stories from some army wife taking on credit card debt for groceries are gone.

That was what happened in 2018-2019.

Military got paid in 2018-19? Bc I just saw stories on the news with a coast guard family talking about how they were so hurt by the last shutdown etc.

Does paying military drag out shutdowns longer? Not that most Americans care at all but support the troops at least resonates with some % of Americans while most don’t know or care what FERC does.