Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NTEU is now saying the IRS may have to at least partially close. They can not spend their extra funding to stay open

They are all asssholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the SEC affected in the event of a shutdown? Curious if people were furloughed the entire time back in 2019.

Everyone I know who works there worked. They are funded differently than the rest of the government.

Gee, I guess you know important people there. Many SEC employees were furloughed in early 2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:News reported that the House is on recess until Tuesday. Should I assume nothing will happen until next week? I’m still hopeful for the bipartisan deal.

nothing will happen until next week. and even then, still nothing. there is not enough legislative time for the House to pass their funding bill (or bills), for the Senate to take those up, amend them, vote as a body, and then send back to the House for conference.

its shutting down.

I think it could still happen.

[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.

1. Of course not. No one posting here does, unless there's the stray member of Congress wasting time on DCUM. What a stupid comment.

2. If depends on what you mean by failed. I don't think any shutdown has caused massive, catastrophic damage to the country. Unlike many posting here, my goal isn't to minimize the disruption to the federal workforce. It's what I believe to be the best for the country as a whole.

You are repeating yourself and you are wrong.

Of course I'm repeating myself - everyone is coming at me with the same thing. "But if you make a shutdown hurt everyone enough, the politicians won't let it happen." Are you trying for the record for most consecutive inane comments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:News reported that the House is on recess until Tuesday. Should I assume nothing will happen until next week? I’m still hopeful for the bipartisan deal.

nothing will happen until next week. and even then, still nothing. there is not enough legislative time for the House to pass their funding bill (or bills), for the Senate to take those up, amend them, vote as a body, and then send back to the House for conference.

its shutting down.

I think it could still happen.

they can pass a very quick and clean 5 day CR to buy more time for a longer CR if they can manage to get a framework in place both sides will agree on, but I think MTG is playing the Cruz role from 2018 so I kind of think we're headed to another shutdown, maybe not as long though.

[Anonymous]

damn--well there goes getting my passport in time for xmas travel. ugh

[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.

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)

Apples and oranges. The debt ceiling would have destroyed the economy. Even for Feds, this is much less serious. And Republicans are always the ones who force a shutdown. And they always take the political hit. Newt, Ted Cruz. Trump. Shutdowns have never been winners and they’ve always had to give up.

Zero reason for Dems to do anything but sit back and watch them vote against the military again and again.

Besides, short of Biden Harris and the Speaker Pro Tem resigning and handing Rs the presidency, there is nothing Dems can do. McCarthy doesn’t want their help right now. And they are the minority party.

[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.

McCarthy can’t get enough of his party behind him to even get military appropriations to the floor. And has said he doesn’t want Dem votes. And he’s not getting them for an 8% decrease that the Senate doesn’t want, his caucus doesn’t want and Biden won’t sign.

[Anonymous]

Senate can pass a CR using a passed house bill and adding the CR to it. I don’t think there will be a shutdown

[Anonymous]

Can a lawyer explain how the senate will
Now propose a bill? Does this increase odds?

[Anonymous]

The senate plans to use a bill passed by the house previously, as a vehicle/shell, to get around the requirement that the bill originate in the house. They will add the CR to the shell/vehicle and send it back to the house. Then they’ll pass it without the freedom caucus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The senate plans to use a bill passed by the house previously, as a vehicle/shell, to get around the requirement that the bill originate in the house. They will add the CR to the shell/vehicle and send it back to the house. Then they’ll pass it without the freedom caucus

Even if they’re able to pass a CR, we’ll be back to the same problems in a few weeks.

[Anonymous]

Will they get the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will they get the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill?

That’s not clear. Going to be a wild week.

[Anonymous]

I believe they intend to use the senate bill to fund the government thru January, not a couple weeks as above poster said. Democrats have been crowing all week about averting a shutdown, so they’ll probably vote for it in the house, I’m sure they can pick off a few republicans to vote for this