Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Money is not just being thrown away in the event of a shutdown.

EVERY agency now is having to utilize their lawyers and leadership to make contingency plans. Those guys (and they are mostly guys) make big bucks and could actually be doing their jobs if they were not having to make plans for the possible shutdown.

That money is being wasted as I type this.

This. I don’t even work for the government but a shutdown will directly impact our work. So lots of planning and meetings and resources being thrown at something that still May or May not happen, should not happen, and is presenting lots of people from doing their actual job

[Anonymous]

Politico has an article that was posted about an hour ago: looks like the Dems might work with McCarthy to avoid the shutdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+2! I also will have to work with no pay and think literally everything should grind to a halt. You vacation is not essential, airports should close, trains should stop, because these things require the federal government to operate. Literally everyone should feel the pain of their idiotic votes.

Just stop. No you won't.

pp will have to work while having their pay suspended for an indefinite period of time.

"work, and we will pay you eventually, when we get our head out of our ass, which could be in two weeks or could be three months, who knows?"

meanwhile mortgage is still due and kids have to be fed, but somehow pp is irresponsible if they have to run up credit card debt because their employer won't pay them in a timely fashion.

[Anonymous]

House Democrat files the My Constituents Cannot Afford Rebellious Tantrums Handle Your Shutdown Act (MCCARTHY Shutdown Act) to keep legislators from drawing a paycheck if there's a shutdown.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/house-democrat-files-mccarthy-shutdown-act-suspending-pay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hey i figure if i plan for the worst than maybe things will go ok.

on that note, if you think there might be any need to take a loan from your tsp during an extended shutdown, go ahead and add a checking/bank account as a linked financial institution in tsp.gov now, as there is a 7-day waiting period to disburse funds electronically to newly configured/changed bank accounts.

Thanks for the tip. That’s helpful. What are the consequences of taking out a TSP loan though?

I took one out for a down payment. There is a calculator that shows how much you can take out. Basically, most of your contributions. You pay back with regular deductions from your paycheck. You are charged interest (but much less than a credit card). Once you pay it back, there is a waiting period before you can take out a new one. Can pay it back early with no penalty if the shutdown doesn’t materialize.

It’s a good alternative to carrying a credit card balance. Lower interest rate, doesn’t hurt credit score. The big downside is don’t earn interest on the pretax money until you pay it back (because it isn’t in your account).

Who carries a credit card balance? Don't spend what you don't have.

So to be clear -- I will not be paid on time, but I also shouldn't run up credit card debt.
I can't pick up a comparable replacement job if furloughed (wouldn't get approved by ethics + no good job can be turned on and off like a faucet), and in fact I might have to keep going to my usual job even though it isn't paying right now.
Also if I am not furloughed I have to cancel my planned leave, but if I am furloughed it's uncouth to say "well, at least I get a break."
Did I get all that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+2! I also will have to work with no pay and think literally everything should grind to a halt. You vacation is not essential, airports should close, trains should stop, because these things require the federal government to operate. Literally everyone should feel the pain of their idiotic votes.

Just stop. No you won't.

pp will have to work while having their pay suspended for an indefinite period of time.

"work, and we will pay you eventually, when we get our head out of our ass, which could be in two weeks or could be three months, who knows?"

meanwhile mortgage is still due and kids have to be fed, but somehow pp is irresponsible if they have to run up credit card debt because their employer won't pay them in a timely fashion.

I never suggested that the PP would be irresponsible. But there's a material, significant difference between having pay delayed, and not getting paid at all. If you have to resort to misrepresentations to make your point, perhaps it isn't worth making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:House Democrat files the My Constituents Cannot Afford Rebellious Tantrums Handle Your Shutdown Act (MCCARTHY Shutdown Act) to keep legislators from drawing a paycheck if there's a shutdown.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/house-democrat-files-mccarthy-shutdown-act-suspending-pay

Good.

[Anonymous]

Fetterman states that he will wear a suit if the GOP / jagoffs will get their act together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+2! I also will have to work with no pay and think literally everything should grind to a halt. You vacation is not essential, airports should close, trains should stop, because these things require the federal government to operate. Literally everyone should feel the pain of their idiotic votes.

Just stop. No you won't.

pp will have to work while having their pay suspended for an indefinite period of time.

"work, and we will pay you eventually, when we get our head out of our ass, which could be in two weeks or could be three months, who knows?"

meanwhile mortgage is still due and kids have to be fed, but somehow pp is irresponsible if they have to run up credit card debt because their employer won't pay them in a timely fashion.

I never suggested that the PP would be irresponsible. But there's a material, significant difference between having pay delayed, and not getting paid at all. If you have to resort to misrepresentations to make your point, perhaps it isn't worth making.

Says the person at no risk of having their pay delayed by months… or even completely losing paychecks, like contractors.

You are exactly the type of person who should directly experience pain from a government shut down so you aren’t so flippant about it in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)

They will force TSA to work unpaid.

That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?

As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?

Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.

That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.

So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .

It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.

It is more absurd to have millions of Americans working without pay because the political leadership is dysfunctional. No other industry has to do this, but every few years we expect millions of civil servants and members of the military to quietly do their jobs with no pay because their jobs are very important to the daily functioning of our country and the public couldn't be inconvenienced. Shut down all of the airports, absolutely. Business leaders with influence would force the politicians to find a solution. Instead we have a bunch of GS-7 TSA employees bearing the cost of this dysfunction and they are the least to blame with the most to lose.

Can we please stop with the "working without pay" nonsense? No government worker is "working without pay." The pay is delayed. (Contractors, of course don't get paid, and I really feel sorry for them.) What is really happening is that all government workers get paid late, and many get paid for not working.

You all are coming at this form the point of view of the workers, which is understandable. But from the perspective of a person not involved, it's far more important to minimize disruption to the rest of the country, and economy, than it is to take draconian measures to try to prevent shutdowns. And it's unfortunate that federal employees' pay is *delayed* - but that's far better, for the country as a whole, than shutting down entirely.

My mortgage is still due on time. We need food and the water bill paid and gas in the car because we are still expected to go to work. These don't get "delayed". And yes, we have savings for emergencies. And yes we have credit cards. However, you are still putting the onus of the shutdown on workers.

Far better for the country would be not to have this type of instability to begin with.

Even worse, you are likely a GS-13 or higher being paid in the six figures (which is the majority of federal workers who post on DCUM). The same thing is happening to GS-1 through GS-10 workers who are making low to mid five figures. Many of them don't have emergency options like savings to pay bills due while not getting a paycheck. Some of them might be able to swing one month of missed mortgage payments, but many do not have two months of mortgage and utilities and food bills, etc to cover more than a month of delayed payment.

And while the PP feels really sorry for the contractors, the federal contract workforce is almost double the federal civil service workforce. There are roughly 1.2M civil service employees and well over 2M federal contractors. Of those federal contractors, only a small portion have forward funded contracts that allow them to work. There are millions of contractors who will not get paid for time off during a shutdown. So, PP's sympathy is pretty much worth the same as conservatives "thoughts and prayers" when children are slaughtered by guns.

What we really need is to have rules on automatic continuance of federal pay for employees (both civil service and contractors) during a shutdown. Pay for employees needs to be pulled from discretionary spending and put into essential funding that is not covered by lack of appropriations. There are many things that are not included in discretionary spending and we need to move employee pay from one side of the ledger to the other so that federal employees (both civil service and contractor) are no longer political pawns of the childish Congress.

If not, then perhaps a rule that the Congressional appropriations bill should be the last bill to pass. In several of these shutdowns, the Congressional appropriations was passed when others were not, so that the Congress and their staff were paid to work through the shutdown while others were not. Congressmen should learn to work without pay or have their pay delayed until after they do their jobs and if they have to do their jobs with no staffers to help them, then maybe they'll actually feel like acting more like an adult than like a toddler.

I am the PP everyone hates, and I don't have a problem with this. I would note, however, that you are arguing that the government should mitigate the effect of the shutdown, not make it worse. That's exactly what I'm saying. Your fellow travelers, on the other hand, want to shut down everything - make the consequences for the country much worse if a shutdown happens.

DP. I don't hate you but I think you're veru incorrect.
PPs are trying to deal in incentives. Either make a shutdown so bad nobody does it / they pass legislation to make it impossible, or make it so toothless it's not a bargaining chip.
Your suggestion - that the less visible parts of government shut down (including payroll) - is the staus quo. It enables one side to hold the other hostage by making human shields out of SSA recipients and others, and is therefore no solution. It also has contributed to the slow denigrating of government services that allows people to say government doesn't do anything, because anything above the bare minimum keeps getting shut down every couple years.

I understand that they're dealing in incentives, or disincentives, and that the status quo sucks. No argument there. And I'm fine with making the shutdown so toothless that it ceases to be a bargaining ship. But I also think that making a shutdown "so bad nobody does it" is wildly optimistic, bordering on naive. Congress has shown no indication that they would be constrained in that way.

And from a partisan political standpoint, this would completely screw the Democrats, and the programs they support. Only one party has shown that it is willing to take the country hostage, and shoot the hostage, to get what they want. Making a shutdown catastrophic for the country would only give the GOP *more* leverage, and force the Democrats to make more and more concessions, and further gut government programs. Best case scenario, they would have to depend on rational republicans, the few that remain, to prevent disaster (and they'd get primaried during the next election).

Yes, the status quo sucks. But it's better than that alternative. This is a harsh way to say it, but we're making an omelet here, and federal workers are the eggs. I'm sorry about that, but there it is.

I disagree. As it is, one side is breaking eggs but nobody is getting any omlettes. The side breaking eggs is acting like they have some moral high ground but they're just making a mess. In that situation, you don't continue to give them eggs.

I'm a Fed but I'm also a voter, and I wouldn't vote for somebody who, like you, has no plans to improve the situation. I'm not interested in continuing to placate these people while they tear down anything good.

You've mischaracterized your proposed "solution." You aren't talking about taking their eggs away, you're talking about giving them a lot more eggs, including ones that can lead to grave consequences for individuals and the country. You just believe that they won't be willing to break those particular eggs, because of the consequences. In other words, you think a lot more highly of the GOP, and in particular the House GOP, than I do.

I think House GOP will act quite quickly if SS and disa-hillbilly checks dont go out.

+ 1. And honestly, if they don’t, how is that really different from the lower grades GS employees who may go months without pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)

They will force TSA to work unpaid.

That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?

As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?

Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.

That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.

So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .

It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.

It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.

Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.

What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?

If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.

In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.

I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.

It’s not just because I’m in the effected group, I don’t think that anyone should work without getting paid for an undetermined amount of time. No other part of our economy does this, why don’t you try going to a local restaurant tonight and when you leave offer to pay the bill some weeks or months from now. Why would the cooks and servers work like that and why do you expect civil servants to do the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)

They will force TSA to work unpaid.

That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?

As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?

Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.

That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.

So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .

It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.

It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.

Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.

What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?

If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.

In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.

I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.

No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.

But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)

They will force TSA to work unpaid.

That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?

As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?

Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.

That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.

So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .

It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.

It is more absurd to have millions of Americans working without pay because the political leadership is dysfunctional. No other industry has to do this, but every few years we expect millions of civil servants and members of the military to quietly do their jobs with no pay because their jobs are very important to the daily functioning of our country and the public couldn't be inconvenienced. Shut down all of the airports, absolutely. Business leaders with influence would force the politicians to find a solution. Instead we have a bunch of GS-7 TSA employees bearing the cost of this dysfunction and they are the least to blame with the most to lose.

Can we please stop with the "working without pay" nonsense? No government worker is "working without pay." The pay is delayed. (Contractors, of course don't get paid, and I really feel sorry for them.) What is really happening is that all government workers get paid late, and many get paid for not working.

You all are coming at this form the point of view of the workers, which is understandable. But from the perspective of a person not involved, it's far more important to minimize disruption to the rest of the country, and economy, than it is to take draconian measures to try to prevent shutdowns. And it's unfortunate that federal employees' pay is *delayed* - but that's far better, for the country as a whole, than shutting down entirely.

My mortgage is still due on time. We need food and the water bill paid and gas in the car because we are still expected to go to work. These don't get "delayed". And yes, we have savings for emergencies. And yes we have credit cards. However, you are still putting the onus of the shutdown on workers.

Far better for the country would be not to have this type of instability to begin with.

Even worse, you are likely a GS-13 or higher being paid in the six figures (which is the majority of federal workers who post on DCUM). The same thing is happening to GS-1 through GS-10 workers who are making low to mid five figures. Many of them don't have emergency options like savings to pay bills due while not getting a paycheck. Some of them might be able to swing one month of missed mortgage payments, but many do not have two months of mortgage and utilities and food bills, etc to cover more than a month of delayed payment.

And while the PP feels really sorry for the contractors, the federal contract workforce is almost double the federal civil service workforce. There are roughly 1.2M civil service employees and well over 2M federal contractors. Of those federal contractors, only a small portion have forward funded contracts that allow them to work. There are millions of contractors who will not get paid for time off during a shutdown. So, PP's sympathy is pretty much worth the same as conservatives "thoughts and prayers" when children are slaughtered by guns.

What we really need is to have rules on automatic continuance of federal pay for employees (both civil service and contractors) during a shutdown. Pay for employees needs to be pulled from discretionary spending and put into essential funding that is not covered by lack of appropriations. There are many things that are not included in discretionary spending and we need to move employee pay from one side of the ledger to the other so that federal employees (both civil service and contractor) are no longer political pawns of the childish Congress.

If not, then perhaps a rule that the Congressional appropriations bill should be the last bill to pass. In several of these shutdowns, the Congressional appropriations was passed when others were not, so that the Congress and their staff were paid to work through the shutdown while others were not. Congressmen should learn to work without pay or have their pay delayed until after they do their jobs and if they have to do their jobs with no staffers to help them, then maybe they'll actually feel like acting more like an adult than like a toddler.

I am the PP everyone hates, and I don't have a problem with this. I would note, however, that you are arguing that the government should mitigate the effect of the shutdown, not make it worse. That's exactly what I'm saying. Your fellow travelers, on the other hand, want to shut down everything - make the consequences for the country much worse if a shutdown happens.

DP. I don't hate you but I think you're veru incorrect.
PPs are trying to deal in incentives. Either make a shutdown so bad nobody does it / they pass legislation to make it impossible, or make it so toothless it's not a bargaining chip.
Your suggestion - that the less visible parts of government shut down (including payroll) - is the staus quo. It enables one side to hold the other hostage by making human shields out of SSA recipients and others, and is therefore no solution. It also has contributed to the slow denigrating of government services that allows people to say government doesn't do anything, because anything above the bare minimum keeps getting shut down every couple years.

I understand that they're dealing in incentives, or disincentives, and that the status quo sucks. No argument there. And I'm fine with making the shutdown so toothless that it ceases to be a bargaining ship. But I also think that making a shutdown "so bad nobody does it" is wildly optimistic, bordering on naive. Congress has shown no indication that they would be constrained in that way.

And from a partisan political standpoint, this would completely screw the Democrats, and the programs they support. Only one party has shown that it is willing to take the country hostage, and shoot the hostage, to get what they want. Making a shutdown catastrophic for the country would only give the GOP *more* leverage, and force the Democrats to make more and more concessions, and further gut government programs. Best case scenario, they would have to depend on rational republicans, the few that remain, to prevent disaster (and they'd get primaried during the next election).

Yes, the status quo sucks. But it's better than that alternative. This is a harsh way to say it, but we're making an omelet here, and federal workers are the eggs. I'm sorry about that, but there it is.

I don’t think it’s better than the alternative and I don’t think your political analysis is correct. My rural in-laws used to vote Democrat but after Clinton they’ve been increasingly voting for angry culture warrior republicans. Despite the fact they get federal agricultural payments, disability, Medicaid and are paying off federal student loans they say the federal government has never done anything for people like them. They should live with the choice they made, their congressman has been outspoken about shutting down our useless federal government so I think we should stop shielding them from the consequences of their actions, same for the businessmen who voted for this and are waiting to get through TSA right now. Why are my colleagues and I the only ones to pay for this?

And what about their next door neighbors, who have voted D for the last 40 years? Should they live with the choice your inlaws made?

Yes. We live in a democracy and we deserve to get the government we’re willing to pay for based on our votes. Right now everyone gets to have their choices consequence free and the result is someone silently carries the burden for them. The current system isn’t working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fetterman states that he will wear a suit if the GOP / jagoffs will get their act together.

Lol

[Anonymous]

Wasn’t aware of this:

“In past government shutdowns, federal employees have always eventually received backpay. But backpay was not fully guaranteed until 2019. If there is a shutdown this year, it would be the first time all federal employees are firmly guaranteed backpay.

The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act, which former President Donald Trump signed into law, covers both furloughed and excepted federal employees. It ensures they’ll receive retroactive pay during lapses in appropriations once a shutdown ends.”

(https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2023/09/what-happens-to-furloughed-employees-during-a-government-shutdown/?readmore=1)