pull down to refresh

Oh well, what a tragedy.
Good if they solve their shit; good if would have stayed shut.
Technically Congress missed the midnight deadline to head off the shutdown, but not by enough to cause disruption. The federal government had ceased preparing for a shutdown before the Senate voted and no agencies halted operations, the White House said.
The bill that passed did not include any change to the debt ceiling, despite president-elect Donald Trump’s call for lawmakers to use the legislation to scrap the mechanism, which limits the federal government’s borrowing.
Pathetic drama every time
this territory is moderated
Pathetic drama every time
The public is largely dumb but the media and politicians know exactly what is going on. Such a joke.
reply
shrug
It seems to play out the same way every time. I'm not sure why anyone thought a shutdown would actually have happened.
reply
The longest goverment shutdown in US history happened only 6 years ago. It can happen again, that's why.
reply
Maybe we wont be seeing shutdowns for the next 4 years if Trump is able to organize everything correctly.
reply
You probably won't see any for the next two years because republicans control the presidency, house, and senate, so they have no opposition. Once mid-term elections happen, which typically swing against the party in power, that may change.
reply
Would have been so much fun if Trump had gotten his way and there had been no bailout.
reply
I would have preferred a government shutdown until the inauguration. Let the new administration handle the clean-up, the firings and the forced resignations. They are going to do it anyway if they produce on their promises. They could have had a head start that way.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Shugard 22 Dec
I would have preferred a government shutdown until the inauguration.
That would have been fun! A broken government for over a month.
reply
Yes, the bellyaching would have been non-stop and at the top of THEIR voices.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 22 Dec
Doesn't this happen every 6 months of so?
reply
Typ, pretty much.
Wikipedia said 76 times since 1961 for a neat 1.25 a year
reply
10 sats \ 5 replies \ @oklar 22 Dec
I don't really understand the premise of these shutdowns. Is this US tradition or a new thing?
The horror.. The horror!
reply
It's a function of the structure of the US govt. Both parties do it pretty regularly, though the R party has been responsible for most of them in the past decade. It's kind of an "instant win" button a party can press to get legislation passed that ordinarily would have no other chance to get passed.
In order for the government to get funded, the funding bill has to pass the senate, house, and president, any one of those parties refusing to pass the bill can cause a shutdown. Trump, for example, used this power while president to try to force the addition of a border wall to the budget, but the democrats who controlled the senate refused to fund it. (At this point, senate and house had both passed a funding bill, it was the president's veto that caused the shutdown). Given that democrats controlled the senate, there was basically zero chance of this getting funded at any other time, as the funding bill would have to pass house + senate + get a presidential signature, so this was the point where Trump had the most leverage to get it done.
Other governmental systems have ways of dealing with this problem, all with their pros and cons. For example, in some representative democracies, if the legislature can't pass a budget within x days, the legislature is dissolved and snap elections are held. But this strategy only works if the legislative makeup changes as a result of the election which is no guarantee.
reply
reply
12 sats \ 2 replies \ @oklar 22 Dec
Ah, I think I was missing a piece of the puzzle of why it occurs, thanks.
I was thinking why is it not possible to do a PR/merge and get all the state departments to update their codebase without a shutdown.
So, it's feature specific to the presidential system, not a bug?
reply
I miscalculated! 76 times in 63 years is of course MORE than once a year.
Thank god I don't teach maths @Shugard
reply
It was Sunday, so you are excused for bad math xD
reply