Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

Yes it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

I have a feeling the article you posted makes the bipartisan CR more likely. McCarthy is running out of options to do this with just the Rs.

[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: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?

Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.

Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.

A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.

So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.

And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.

1. You don’t get to decide what chances are taken

2. Your way has failed. Repeatedly. If it doesn’t work, then it won’t happen again. But after two prolonged shutdown in the last 10 years and multiple near misses or short ones, your way clearly does not work. We have now entered the “definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result zone.” It’s time for a new plan. If you don’t like the new plan, propose and alternative— besides let’s just do what has repeatedly failed in the past.

[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: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?

Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.

Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.

A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.

So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.

And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.

So we let the terrorists win? You do realize this just encourages them to take more hostages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

I have a feeling the article you posted makes the bipartisan CR more likely. McCarthy is running out of options to do this with just the Rs.

McCarthy's overriding political goal seems to be remaining speaker no matter what. If this deal is bipartisan, then he will be removed by the freedom caucus and everyone knows it. The democrats have no incentive to bail him out

[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'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?

Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.

Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.

A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.

So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.

And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.

So we let the terrorists win? You do realize this just encourages them to take more hostages.

Remember when Biden absolutely wouldn't negotiate on the debt ceiling? Then they agreed to a deal with cuts, but those cuts were going to be the only cuts and the budgets would pass easily? Now we're here and there is no reason to believe that the democrats won't cave (again)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

I have a feeling the article you posted makes the bipartisan CR more likely. McCarthy is running out of options to do this with just the Rs.

McCarthy's overriding political goal seems to be remaining speaker no matter what. If this deal is bipartisan, then he will be removed by the freedom caucus and everyone knows it. The democrats have no incentive to bail him out

I thought part of the bipartisan negotiation was that Ds would support his speakership. But who knows how this will all play out

[Anonymous]

Unless the House passes a clean CR I don't know how they'll get the Senate to agree to their version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

I have a feeling the article you posted makes the bipartisan CR more likely. McCarthy is running out of options to do this with just the Rs.

McCarthy's overriding political goal seems to be remaining speaker no matter what. If this deal is bipartisan, then he will be removed by the freedom caucus and everyone knows it. The democrats have no incentive to bail him out

I thought part of the bipartisan negotiation was that Ds would support his speakership. But who knows how this will all play out

Oh that would be absolutely stupid, the democrats have 0 reason to support a Republican for speaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

I have a feeling the article you posted makes the bipartisan CR more likely. McCarthy is running out of options to do this with just the Rs.

McCarthy's overriding political goal seems to be remaining speaker no matter what. If this deal is bipartisan, then he will be removed by the freedom caucus and everyone knows it. The democrats have no incentive to bail him out

I thought part of the bipartisan negotiation was that Ds would support his speakership. But who knows how this will all play out

Oh that would be absolutely stupid, the democrats have 0 reason to support a Republican for speaker.

I don't know - maybe I misread something. Its all such a sh*t show right now I have no idea how next week is going to go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

I have a feeling the article you posted makes the bipartisan CR more likely. McCarthy is running out of options to do this with just the Rs.

McCarthy's overriding political goal seems to be remaining speaker no matter what. If this deal is bipartisan, then he will be removed by the freedom caucus and everyone knows it. The democrats have no incentive to bail him out

I thought part of the bipartisan negotiation was that Ds would support his speakership. But who knows how this will all play out

Oh that would be absolutely stupid, the democrats have 0 reason to support a Republican for speaker.

That's why Biden and the Democrats are going to get blamed for this. McCarthy can get the vast majority of his party behind him. Or he can have some of his party rebel if he gets enough Democrats to get a majority.

So the Democrats cause the cause the shutdown by refusing to support McCarthy as Speaker when the inevitable motion to vacate comes along. So if they won't endorse McCarthy as Speaker, then why should McCarthy do anything but work with Republicans.

Biden and the Democrats instead undermine McCarthy when he's the only person who can serve as Speaker.

[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: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?

Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.

Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.

A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.

So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.

And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.

You kidding me? Shut down air travel and you’ll have the government funded so fast your head will spin. Get real.

[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: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.

We live in a representative democracy. My fellow Americans voted for the buffoons who are voting for a shutdown. Many of them are cheering these clowns on. If my fellow citizens vote for people who don’t hide the fact they want shutdowns, like the FC, then they should get actual shutdowns. Why would we protect people from the consequences of their votes? Nobody held a gun to their head and made them vote for Matt Gaetz. If they become the dogs who catch the car, they should have to live with the consequences. Maybe they will contact their Rep and tell them to cut it out. And then the Rep will, or lose the next election. It’s how democracy works.

I don’t believe it’s healthy to give people a choice on — anything really— and then work as hard as we can to protect them from the downsides of that choice. That’s called enabling. And no, we shouldn’t enable the crazy caucus on the backs of GS7s.

Exactly - people think federal employees do nothing - let them see what happens when feds really aren't working.

Everyone thinks everyone does nothing....we are a egocentric society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

I have a feeling the article you posted makes the bipartisan CR more likely. McCarthy is running out of options to do this with just the Rs.

McCarthy's overriding political goal seems to be remaining speaker no matter what. If this deal is bipartisan, then he will be removed by the freedom caucus and everyone knows it. The democrats have no incentive to bail him out

I thought part of the bipartisan negotiation was that Ds would support his speakership. But who knows how this will all play out

Oh that would be absolutely stupid, the democrats have 0 reason to support a Republican for speaker.

That's why Biden and the Democrats are going to get blamed for this. McCarthy can get the vast majority of his party behind him. Or he can have some of his party rebel if he gets enough Democrats to get a majority.

So the Democrats cause the cause the shutdown by refusing to support McCarthy as Speaker when the inevitable motion to vacate comes along. So if they won't endorse McCarthy as Speaker, then why should McCarthy do anything but work with Republicans.

Biden and the Democrats instead undermine McCarthy when he's the only person who can serve as Speaker.

Lol no. Even the Republicans know they’ll be blamed for any shutdown.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/20/republicans-villains-government-shutdown-00117191

[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: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.

We live in a representative democracy. My fellow Americans voted for the buffoons who are voting for a shutdown. Many of them are cheering these clowns on. If my fellow citizens vote for people who don’t hide the fact they want shutdowns, like the FC, then they should get actual shutdowns. Why would we protect people from the consequences of their votes? Nobody held a gun to their head and made them vote for Matt Gaetz. If they become the dogs who catch the car, they should have to live with the consequences. Maybe they will contact their Rep and tell them to cut it out. And then the Rep will, or lose the next election. It’s how democracy works.

I don’t believe it’s healthy to give people a choice on — anything really— and then work as hard as we can to protect them from the downsides of that choice. That’s called enabling. And no, we shouldn’t enable the crazy caucus on the backs of GS7s.

Exactly - people think federal employees do nothing - let them see what happens when feds really aren't working.

Everyone thinks everyone does nothing....we are an egocentric society.

Speak for yourself. I see inefficiency everywhere but I am not stupid enough to believe that just because something is inefficient it shouldn’t exist.