Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[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.

Ha ha ha no

[Anonymous]

[twitter] I’m

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'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)

He can hardline this. Defaulting on debt is a whole nother kettle of fish.

[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.

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.

NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to defund only parts of the government do it the right way and pass legislation. My office works on interagency issues. If we are closed but my counterparts are open, then our equities get ignored and those agencies will proceed without properly consulting with us. Total nightmare. People really don’t get how government works. A sustained shutdown with things limping along is a disaster.

Which is why I left the government. So tired of the eternal CRs and shutdowns. Impossible to accomplish anything.

At this point, my hope is that if it has to happen it’ll be a complete shutdown so that people can understand that federal government makes their lives better for the most part. And that constituents will be angry enough that the House learns a lesson and does its job funding the government in a timely way.

[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.

The Democrats can support the budget bill and vote against him when the freedom caucus tries to remove him. They aren't mutually exclusive. McCarthy is trying to work with only republicans, but he can't get the votes. Anything the freedom caucus support loses moderates and anything moderates support can't get the freedom caucus votes.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand how the furlough works. My agency is basically saying we are on call. So furloughed but they could call us to do an assignment and work and then back to furloughed. It doesn’t sound like we totally get furloughed. It sounds like we basically work - even if not deemed essential.

My last agency was so strict about it. If you were not essential you did not work and did not check email.

[Anonymous]

How are you on call? It's illegal for a non-excepted employee to check their work e-mail or answer their work phone

[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'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.

NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.

No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.

Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.

[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:

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.

NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.

No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.

Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.

Blame the contractors. Do you think Booze Allen executives will miss a single pay check

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how the furlough works. My agency is basically saying we are on call. So furloughed but they could call us to do an assignment and work and then back to furloughed. It doesn’t sound like we totally get furloughed. It sounds like we basically work - even if not deemed essential.

My last agency was so strict about it. If you were not essential you did not work and did not check email.

Furloughed means that you have work that is non-essential and can be deferred while the appropriations bill has not passed. If you get called in, it means that work has been assigned that is deemed essential for your agency. So you return to work to perform the essential work and then go back on furlough status.

[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:

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.

NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.

No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.

Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.

Blame the contractors. Do you think Booze Allen executives will miss a single pay check

Why should contract companies have to pay their employees because the federal government can't pay its bills? Why can't the contractors sue the federal government for breach of contract? The federal government has contracted work at a negotiated pay scale that typically cover years. They hired staff to fulfill their end of the deal.

Perhaps contracts need to be written in that there are penalties for failure to pay on time for contractual work. And then the contract companies can use the penalties paid to pay their staff that cannot work because the legislative branch of the federal government is dysfunctional.

[Anonymous]

A shut down is not happening folks.

[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:

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.

NP, but I think a good middle alternative is that Feds would get back pay with interest. I say this as a fed who has been furloughed or excepted depending on which way the wind blows. It really sucks. But at least knowing we’d get some extra pay out of this whole thing would help with low morale and perhaps provide an incentive to Rs not to let it drag our long lest they owe even more money to federal employees. I wish this would be codified into law with APR like a credit card.

No. A good middle alternative is to set up some form of compensation for the federal contractors to be able to work or get compensation. Overcompensating the civil service when there are twice as many contractors and more them are out of work than civil service, gettng zero back compensation, is terrible. Start making sure that the other 2+M who get nothing, get some compensation, before adding more compensation to the civil service who already get back pay for the time they are not working.

Enough civil service already considered this paid time off or vacation while contractors are going to soup kitchens to feed their family. Start putting priorities on those getting nothing rather than those already getting delayed paid to stay home.

Blame the contractors. Do you think Booze Allen executives will miss a single pay check

Why should contract companies have to pay their employees because the federal government can't pay its bills? Why can't the contractors sue the federal government for breach of contract? The federal government has contracted work at a negotiated pay scale that typically cover years. They hired staff to fulfill their end of the deal.

Perhaps contracts need to be written in that there are penalties for failure to pay on time for contractual work. And then the contract companies can use the penalties paid to pay their staff that cannot work because the legislative branch of the federal government is dysfunctional.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The contracts are paid and honored. No future work or new contracts come in though. Bids and projects that are prepped for future funding are dropped. Many small contractors don't have much of a cash buffer when the contracts dry up during a shut down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A shut down is not happening folks.

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A shut down is not happening folks.

Head in the sand