USA Govt Shutdown

[MalanoMan]

Yeah so I wanna post this thread because I'm sick and tired of the BS surrounding the recent US government shutdown. This thread should provide a brief summary of the details surrounding this shutdown. Hopefully you readers will also see that some Americans like myself are totally dumbfounded by our disgraceful president's actions.

Since December 22nd 2018, two men, that's right, just TWO MEN, Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, have been holding the USA hostage. They refuse to accept any budget deal passed forward by Congress and the House. They want $5.6 billion to fund a border wall with Mexico. A wall that Trump himself has said would be paid by Mexico. The budget proposals that have been passed attribute something like $1.3 billion to border security, but Trump and McConnell wont budge.

On January 9th, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi held a meeting with Trump. He asked, "Will you agree to my wall?" and when she replied she would not, Trump said "bye bye" and walked out of the meeting. And despite this, Trump continually points his finger at Democrats and blames them for the government shutdown. He is totally unwilling to comprimise.

This shutdown affects nearly 3% of the labor force in the United States. These people missed their first pay checks last Friday. It has been estimated that the shutdown has cost the US economy $2.8 billion of its GDP, meaning that this shutdown has cost us MORE than what Democrats offered for border security, or exactly half of what Trump was requesting.

Our National Parks are at risk. Without workers there to monitor activity and ensure safety, anyone could walk right in and start causing chaos. That's exactly what happened to Joshua Tree National Park, where a group of people in offroad vehicles toppled protected Joshua Trees and vandalized others.

Finally, and most importantly in my opinion, There is a $3 billion contingency fund for the American food-stamp program, but if the shutdown continues through March 2019, those funds will be exhausted, leaving 38 million Americans without food.

All in all, this has been a very frustrating time for Americans. When I was young, I learned in elementary school that our government is set up with many "checks and balances" to ensure that one branch of government doesnt have too much power. It appears to me that this isnt true, because two men have held our country hostage for almost a month now. Im starting to think that this is almost some James Bond villain level of BS. I am very frustrated with this situation, and nobody knows when it will come to an end.

 

[Sucumbio]

We can't buy a house cause of it. Well, not how we want, with a USDA first time home buyer's mortgage. And I'm taking 2 round trip flights in the next 30 days. I am really not looking forward to looking those TSA workers in the eyes.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Nancy and Chuck are being equally bullheaded in the situation. Trump is dumb as well but I don’t think this is something on him as much here.

This is why I hate the current state of the USA. It’s turned into a dumb high school click where no one wants to get anything done so it’s turned into walking each other off in standstill where nothing get accomplished or done.

What needs to be done is getting something negotiated one way or another. Not taking a flight on vacation.

If trump really wanted this, he should have done it when the right had power to get it done. The left now refuses to come to the table or hear a word. So both sides end up at a standstill.

This is two children having temper tantrums.

I hold them both on this, no one is backing down and people are suffering. People need to get their paychecks. Someone needs to give in, and I think the left refusing to talk and then try go on vacation to Afghanistan is something I find to be worse in my eyes at this situation.

The shut down does need to stop. And both sides had a part in this one way or another.

 

[young grasshopper]

Honestly, I think the real problem is that our government is way too big. Shutdowns like this show how we really can't depend on a system with such centralized power. If that is all it takes to cause such a big problem across the country, then we really shouldn't have so many vital systems of our country under the control of the federal government.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I prefer smaller level government as well.

It’s easier to get something done and if people are bullheaded it’s easier to get a middle ground.

 

[young grasshopper]

I think that at least 99% of government should either be replaced with charities and businesses, or shouldn't be done at all, tbh.
Of course, that might be a little radical.

 

[---]

Smaller government I think is ideal, but I think it's unrealistic in today's society at least until money is handicapped & a universal movement towards long term goals take place. Continuously creating short term problems through ignoring long term ones I think can create overreach.

I personally blame Trump more than anyone, at least for few reasons:

1. DACA for Wall $. It would have given him $25 Billion in exchange for giving "Dreamers" their citizenship. He agreed at first but backed away at the insistence of his aides/Steven Miller. The Fed closed down, re-opened shortly after, and both issues were put on the back-burner.
2. He openly stated he'd be willing to shut the Fed down. Whether or not he walked into Schumer's trap, there was a lot of evidence pointing to him being in favor of having one in order to flex his mussels for his base.
3. By nature it's hard to negotiate in good faith with him. He changes his mind so quickly and has been on the record for multiple sides of multiple issues.
4. His base. The unwillingness of Ryan & now McConnell to play the veto override game I think is a double-edged sword that is more likely to harm the GOP at this time than it will Democrats. The GOP need Trump more than Trump needs them.

It was absolutely stupid for Democrats to walk out this week. Walking out does no one any favors and makes you look childish (or at least more than you already are). Going to NATO/Afghanistan, while important and the fall out was piety, should have been common sense to push back like the State of the Union address.

I think the only way either side is going to walk out of this while being able to claim "victory" is meeting halfway on the $5 Billion. Trump gets our tax dollars and Democrats can run in 2020 on the lies behind it as Homeland Security debates internally on what to do with the extra funding*. I think there is a deal to be made, the reports of internal lukewarmness to the wall & the similarities between the bills passed between the 115th & now 116th Congresses make that clear, it's just that neither Pelosi or McConnell want to take the gamble with their bases should the other side say yes if their side proposes a compromise.

*While they still technically try to carry out the sitting President's agenda, there is no legislative mandate for Homeland Security to build a wall as of yet.

EDIT: I mean walking out of this "legislatively." I can also see the "State of Emergency" card being played and GOP/Democrats being content to let things play out in court.

 

[Mic_128]

If trump really wanted this, he should have done it when the right had power to get it done. The left now refuses to come to the table or hear a word. So both sides end up at a standstill.

This is two children having temper tantrums.

No, this is one kid having a temper tantrum and the parent refusing to let them have the jar of cookies.

The dem's have tried to pass bills to restore funding, but they've been shot down. Trump's the one who wanted this, Trump's the one who claimed ownership of it in front of reporters and cameras, (before in typical fashion, blaming the democrats) The thing is, he needs this distraction. The Russian invetigation is getting closer and closer and this is a perfect way to take peoples eyes off that and onto how he is making America safe - despite weaking US borders in the process.

 

[InfiniteRE]

I just don't see how Democrats can be at fault at all for this one. This wall just won't work. If it were built, the only purpose it would serve as a national monument. Not to mention it would cost Billions and Billions, 5 billion is just to start it and once you start it there is no turning back, the cost of labor, yearly maintenance will skyrocket past that 5 billion. Here is a list of reasons why the wall won't work as intended:

• People can go over the wall either by flight or catapulting
• People can go under through tunnels (The proposed wall is supposed to go 7 feet under, these tunnels can go 30 ft under)
• People can use boats to transport drugs, commonly to Miami or somewhere in California.
• Most drug traffickers are LEGAL immigrants
• They can also go through the pipe drainage system that goes between border towns.

Democrats have tried to increase border security by upgrading technology to detect it, but thats apparently not enough. It seems like democrats are in a position where they must either answer to trumps demands or damage the government, no matter how illogical his demands are. I actually applaud the democrats in not backing down and wasting our taxpayer money.

 

[young grasshopper]

I don't really care too much about who's fault it is, because the whole government is full of corrupt people anyways. If you ask me, not enough of it is shut down.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

No, this is one kid having a temper tantrum and the parent refusing to let them have the jar of cookies.

The dem's have tried to pass bills to restore funding, but they've been shot down. Trump's the one who wanted this, Trump's the one who claimed ownership of it in front of reporters and cameras, (before in typical fashion, blaming the democrats) The thing is, he needs this distraction. The Russian invetigation is getting closer and closer and this is a perfect way to take peoples eyes off that and onto how he is making America safe - despite weaking US borders in the process.

I’m not really buying into the smoke screen argument. I think this is more so him trying to own up on a promise to his voter base.

Pelosi pretty much refuses to even discuss it as much as Trump will not consider an absolute no for an answer. He already said to concrete and went down to a different kind of fence like wall.

Both as acting like children, one party is willing to go on vacations instead of getting this resolves. The democrats as much as trump is being bullhead don’t even want to talk about adding 4.4 billion to an already large 4 trillion dollar budget. We all knew the wall part was coming, they knew it and they want to stonewall it.

He wants to for border security, i’m half and half on it tbh have concerns but see the benefits as I do value border security.

I can’t see this as one kid crying about not getting his toys, it’s just as much one kid telling another kid no and doing everything to cry about it.

 

[young grasshopper]

I’m not really buying into the smoke screen argument. I think this is more so him trying to own up on a promise to his voter base.

Pelosi pretty much refuses to even discuss it as much as Trump will not consider an absolute no for an answer. He already said to concrete and went down to a different kind of fence like wall.

Both as acting like children, one party is willing to go on vacations instead of getting this resolves. The democrats as much as trump is being bullhead don’t even want to talk about adding 4.4 billion to an already large 4 trillion dollar budget. We all knew the wall part was coming, they knew it and they want to stonewall it.

He wants to for border security, i’m half and half on it tbh have concerns but see the benefits as I do value border security.

I can’t see this as one kid crying about not getting his toys, it’s just as much one kid telling another kid no and doing everything to cry about it.

This isn't Trump trying to keep his promise, it's just a bunch of political theater. He had two whole years to do this, but he waited until the Dems were in control of congress. This is how it always goes: the side that looses congress pretends to care about an issue to gain votes for the next cycle. All the while, nothing fundamental changes. People are just kept busy buying into the charade while government slowly gets bigger and bigger.

 

[Mic_128]

I’m not really buying into the smoke screen argument. I think this is more so him trying to own up on a promise to his voter base.

If that's what it was, he would have done so immediately. Although to be fair, I suppose he has, he was constantly trying to wheedle the money out of Mexico despite non-stop announcements by Mexico's President that it would never happen.

Pelosi pretty much refuses to even discuss it as much as Trump will not consider an absolute no for an answer. He already said to concrete and went down to a different kind of fence like wall.

Do you complain when the police refuse to give a guy holding people hostage millions of dollars, release his buddies form prison and a helicopter?

We all knew the wall part was coming, they knew it and they want to stonewall it.

Yes, because it's a MASSIVE waste of money. Ignoring the repeated claims that Mexico was supposed to be funding it, it's not going to work. Here's the basic tl;dr

1. It was designed by contractors, not Engineers
2. Will mess with the land's ability to drain during flash flooding
3. Will have an environmental impact that is currently unknown, because there hasn't been any Environmental Site Assessments, and none planned.
4.The prototypes made don't even work. Hell, the fact he's changed the materials from concrete to 'slats' just shows that there is no plan. You can't just change concrete for steel and not expect budgets to change (which they will and massively)

Source
https://www.boredpanda.com/actual-engineer-wall-explanation-amy-patrick/

He wants to for border security, i’m half and half on it tbh have concerns but see the benefits as I do value border security.

Then why is he content to let TSA agents go unpaid, rejecting bills that would fund the? They're basically just turning up at work because they're legally required to and that's it.

I can’t see this as one kid crying about not getting his toys, it’s just as much one kid telling another kid no and doing everything to cry about it.

This is one man holding a country hostage and demanding those in charge give him all the monies so he can build a multi-million dollar monument to his ego, and the Congress standing up for the people. That's it. This isn't about something like Healthcare which would save peoples lives. This is him wanting to build a friggin wall.

 

[Momotsuki]

I honestly am against illegal immigration. But the fact is this wall is a stupid idea that wouldn't work, and would just be a huge waste of money. That's my big problem. It's a total waste of government funds on something that we know would not do what it's supposed to do. It would just waste huge amounts of money. You think 5 billion is a lot? How about maintaining it? And honestly, anybody who tries to say the democrats are at fault for the shutdown, they need to actually pay some attention. Trump himself owned the shutdown. He said he was proud to shut down the government for border security. This is his shutdown and you heard that from him before anyone else. I'd also pin a portion of the blame onto Mitch, since instead of actually governing, he's been eating lettuce from the comfort of his shell and not bringing anything to the floor, which totally hands over total control to our favorite Covfefe Boy. This whole thing is a ****show and absolutely not grounds to have 800,000 people go unpaid. Trump and Mitch need to get their act together, stat. There's not gonna be a wall. There shouldn't be a wall. It would be useless. They need to take this gigantic L and reopen the government.

 

[Erimir]

Honestly, I think the real problem is that our government is way too big. Shutdowns like this show how we really can't depend on a system with such centralized power. If that is all it takes to cause such a big problem across the country, then we really shouldn't have so many vital systems of our country under the control of the federal government.

I mean, that's basically why Republicans do stuff like this. Sabotage the government, then argue that government doesn't work, so you should elect them so that the government shrinks.

Yet people like their Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and the military and the VA healthcare system (despite its problems, most veterans would not choose private healthcare over it), etc. which together account for most government spending. People say they want "smaller government" yet they don't want most of the government to shrink!

The real solution is to simply end the practice of government shutdowns altogether. Other countries do not have government shutdowns, usually because they have parliamentary systems and an inability to fund government entails the collapse of the parliamentary government. Using Sweden as an example, if the government is run by the Social Democrats, and they fail to pass a budget, the Prime Minister's government collapses and they call a new election, which hopefully either results in a new government that can pass a budget or expands the Social Democrats' majority, enabling them to pass it. But even in non-parliamentary systems, the government doesn't shutdown if there's a legislative fight over the budget. Because it simply doesn't need to.

In the US, we've only had government shutdowns as a possibility since a bill passed in 1974 (the first shutdown occurred in 1976) changed the budget process. Before that government workers would simply keep working and getting paid until a proper budget was passed. There's no reason we can't simply go back to allowing the government to continue its work until the budget is hammered out.

This has nothing to do with "how big" government is and everything to do with a political choice to make budget fights higher stakes. Congress has the ability to simply make a different choice - to enable the government to continue at previous funding levels (or even to adjust it for inflation) until a budget is passed. There's no reason for a political fight over the budget to inflict major damage on the American people and the economy and create risks like food poisoning outbreaks or the like. Other countries don't do it because of how stupid it is.

 

[young grasshopper]

I mean, that's basically why Republicans do stuff like this. Sabotage the government, then argue that government doesn't work, so you should elect them so that the government shrinks.

Yet people like their Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and the military and the VA healthcare system (despite its problems, most veterans would not choose private healthcare over it), etc. which together account for most government spending. People say they want "smaller government" yet they don't want most of the government to shrink!

The real solution is to simply end the practice of government shutdowns altogether. Other countries do not have government shutdowns, usually because they have parliamentary systems and an inability to fund government entails the collapse of the parliamentary government. Using Sweden as an example, if the government is run by the Social Democrats, and they fail to pass a budget, the Prime Minister's government collapses and they call a new election, which hopefully either results in a new government that can pass a budget or expands the Social Democrats' majority, enabling them to pass it. But even in non-parliamentary systems, the government doesn't shutdown if there's a legislative fight over the budget. Because it simply doesn't need to.

In the US, we've only had government shutdowns as a possibility since a bill passed in 1974 (the first shutdown occurred in 1976) changed the budget process. Before that government workers would simply keep working and getting paid until a proper budget was passed. There's no reason we can't simply go back to allowing the government to continue its work until the budget is hammered out.

This has nothing to do with "how big" government is and everything to do with a political choice to make budget fights higher stakes. Congress has the ability to simply make a different choice - to enable the government to continue at previous funding levels (or even to adjust it for inflation) until a budget is passed. There's no reason for a political fight over the budget to inflict major damage on the American people and the economy and create risks like food poisoning outbreaks or the like. Other countries don't do it because of how stupid it is.

I don't support the GOP because they do not truly shrink the government. They are usually warmongers, which is quite possibly worse than the Dem's nanny state. The fact of the matter is that centralized systems make failures more critical, and government is one of the biggest, most inefficient centralized systems there is. It is, frankly, one of the worst monopolies known to mankind, and it is barbaric. Shutdowns are one of the big problems of government, but governments without shutdowns have just as many issues. I don't just want it to shrink, I want the entire system of this violent, compulsory, coercive "government" replaced with a decentralized network of voluntary contracts between private individuals.

 

[MalanoMan]

First of all, I am really glad that this conversation has erupted from my initial post. I actually didn't really expect too many replies but I am pleasantly surprised to see everyone's responses.

We can't buy a house cause of it. Well, not how we want, with a USDA first time home buyer's mortgage. And I'm taking 2 round trip flights in the next 30 days. I am really not looking forward to looking those TSA workers in the eyes.

Add that to the list! Cant buy a home with a USDA first time home buyer's mortgage. This could have huge implications in the housing market if the shutdown continues.

This is why I hate the current state of the USA. It’s turned into a dumb high school click where no one wants to get anything done so it’s turned into walking each other off in standstill where nothing get accomplished or done.

True. Dumb high school click where you get paid by lobbyists to push agendas which satisfy corporate interests. This is the true issue with the way out government works right now. We need to make lobbying illegal. Its literally bribery and most of America pretends like it doesn't happen.

Honestly, I think the real problem is that our government is way too big. Shutdowns like this show how we really can't depend on a system with such centralized power. If that is all it takes to cause such a big problem across the country, then we really shouldn't have so many vital systems of our country under the control of the federal government.

You have a really interesting view on government. I totally agree that power is way too centralized. In your latest post you mention contacts with people on a decentralized network... I am also a blockchain advocate. I own crypto. I just don't think it fits into this discussion here. I absolutely agree that banking is too centralized around our government and needs to change, but that's a different discussion.

Smaller government I think is ideal, but I think it's unrealistic in today's society at least until money is handicapped & a universal movement towards long term goals take place. Continuously creating short term problems through ignoring long term ones I think can create overreach.

I personally blame Trump more than anyone, at least for few reasons:

1. DACA for Wall $. It would have given him $25 Billion in exchange for giving "Dreamers" their citizenship. He agreed at first but backed away at the insistence of his aides/Steven Miller. The Fed closed down, re-opened shortly after, and both issues were put on the back-burner.
2. He openly stated he'd be willing to shut the Fed down. Whether or not he walked into Schumer's trap, there was a lot of evidence pointing to him being in favor of having one in order to flex his mussels for his base.
3. By nature it's hard to negotiate in good faith with him. He changes his mind so quickly and has been on the record for multiple sides of multiple issues.
4. His base. The unwillingness of Ryan & now McConnell to play the veto override game I think is a double-edged sword that is more likely to harm the GOP at this time than it will Democrats. The GOP need Trump more than Trump needs them.

It was absolutely stupid for Democrats to walk out this week. Walking out does no one any favors and makes you look childish (or at least more than you already are). Going to NATO/Afghanistan, while important and the fall out was piety, should have been common sense to push back like the State of the Union address.

I think the only way either side is going to walk out of this while being able to claim "victory" is meeting halfway on the $5 Billion. Trump gets our tax dollars and Democrats can run in 2020 on the lies behind it as Homeland Security debates internally on what to do with the extra funding*. I think there is a deal to be made, the reports of internal lukewarmness to the wall & the similarities between the bills passed between the 115th & now 116th Congresses make that clear, it's just that neither Pelosi or McConnell want to take the gamble with their bases should the other side say yes if their side proposes a compromise.

*While they still technically try to carry out the sitting President's agenda, there is no legislative mandate for Homeland Security to build a wall as of yet.

EDIT: I mean walking out of this "legislatively." I can also see the "State of Emergency" card being played and GOP/Democrats being content to let things play out in court.

While I do agree that both sides are at least partially to blame, the idea of spending any amount of money on a "wall" for border security in 2018, (when we have all sorts of advanced technology that may provide greater benefit us than a wall), is a stupid idea.

• People can go over the wall either by flight or catapulting
• People can go under through tunnels (The proposed wall is supposed to go 7 feet under, these tunnels can go 30 ft under)
• People can use boats to transport drugs, commonly to Miami or somewhere in California.
• Most drug traffickers are LEGAL immigrants
• They can also go through the pipe drainage system that goes between border towns.

People can also saw through the slats that are being proposed.

I don't really care too much about who's fault it is, because the whole government is full of corrupt people anyways. If you ask me, not enough of it is shut down.

Going back to what I said about lobbies... That is what causes corruption, in my opinion.

Do you complain when the police refuse to give a guy holding people hostage millions of dollars, release his buddies form prison and a helicopter?

...

1. It was designed by contractors, not Engineers

1. Good analogy. 2. Im pretty sure contractors can be engineers. The term "contractor" just means "someone who you sign a contact with to do X work for you", and that work could be engineering work.

...he's been eating lettuce from the comfort of his shell...

LMAO

The real solution is to simply end the practice of government shutdowns altogether. Other countries do not have government shutdowns, usually because they have parliamentary systems and an inability to fund government entails the collapse of the parliamentary government. Using Sweden as an example, if the government is run by the Social Democrats, and they fail to pass a budget, the Prime Minister's government collapses and they call a new election, which hopefully either results in a new government that can pass a budget or expands the Social Democrats' majority, enabling them to pass it. But even in non-parliamentary systems, the government doesn't shutdown if there's a legislative fight over the budget. Because it simply doesn't need to.

In the US, we've only had government shutdowns as a possibility since a bill passed in 1974 (the first shutdown occurred in 1976) changed the budget process. Before that government workers would simply keep working and getting paid until a proper budget was passed. There's no reason we can't simply go back to allowing the government to continue its work until the budget is hammered out.

This has nothing to do with "how big" government is and everything to do with a political choice to make budget fights higher stakes. Congress has the ability to simply make a different choice - to enable the government to continue at previous funding levels (or even to adjust it for inflation) until a budget is passed. There's no reason for a political fight over the budget to inflict major damage on the American people and the economy and create risks like food poisoning outbreaks or the like. Other countries don't do it because of how stupid it is.

Agree with you here. I did not know government shutdowns became a thing in 1974! I am definitely going to do a bit of reading this afternoon to find out more about that bill.

 

[Erimir]

I don't support the GOP because they do not truly shrink the government. They are usually warmongers, which is quite possibly worse than the Dem's nanny state. The fact of the matter is that centralized systems make failures more critical, and government is one of the biggest, most inefficient centralized systems there is. It is, frankly, one of the worst monopolies known to mankind, and it is barbaric. Shutdowns are one of the big problems of government, but governments without shutdowns have just as many issues. I don't just want it to shrink, I want the entire system of this violent, compulsory, coercive "government" replaced with a decentralized network of voluntary contracts between private individuals.

Well, it sounds like you're some kind of anarcho-libertarian, which is a whole other discussion*.

But the point is that government shutdowns are not caused by big government, because they are practically unheard of outside the US, and the US has a smaller government (relative to its size) than many countries. That point is unaffected by your other policy preferences.

*I do have a couple questions about this system of "voluntary contracts between private individuals", that would perhaps be better answered elsewhere.

The first can be answered yes or no: does this mean you want the elimination of corporate entities (i.e. corporations), given that they only exist as a legal artifice created by government? Discussing the implications of either answer would require going off-topic though.

The second is more complicated and best discussed elsewhere, but you can create a new thread if you're interested: where does land ownership come from under this system? Or, will there be no such thing as land ownership? (I think the lack of a satisfactory answer to this question basically undermines the whole libertarian ideology.)

 

[young grasshopper]

Well, it sounds like you're some kind of anarcho-libertarian, which is a whole other discussion*.

But the point is that government shutdowns are not caused by big government, because they are practically unheard of outside the US, and the US has a smaller government (relative to its size) than many countries. That point is unaffected by your other policy preferences.

*I do have a couple questions about this system of "voluntary contracts between private individuals", that would perhaps be better answered elsewhere.

The first can be answered yes or no: does this mean you want the elimination of corporate entities (i.e. corporations), given that they only exist as a legal artifice created by government? Discussing the implications of either answer would require going off-topic though.

The second is more complicated and best discussed elsewhere, but you can create a new thread if you're interested: where does land ownership come from under this system? Or, will there be no such thing as land ownership? (I think the lack of a satisfactory answer to this question basically undermines the whole libertarian ideology.)

My point was not that government shutdowns are caused by the size of government, but rather that the size of government exacerbates the effects of a shutdown, since a bigger government has more relying on it.