The government shuts down. Another spectacular MAGA failure.

[SkyBubble]

Oh, but it is.

 

[Baztrachian]

Are you sure you’re paying attention?

You know you can read the Constitution for free online:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 

[dmallord]

No funding. Good enough. We're 35 trillion in debt anyhow. Something's gotta go. 90% of the Feds would be a good starr.

There are about 3m civilian employees working Fed jobs. So what happens when 2.7m of them are unemployed by your calculations?

Do they easily slide into the current 2.227 million job vacancies that the US Labor Department calculates? Not likely, as those federal employees are not construction, manual labor, or farming hands.

The job market isn't doing so well. Can the civilian economy absorb 2,700,000 new workers without a severe impact on the US economy?

Are those workers living paycheck to paycheck? What's that cost on welfare, lost homes, etc., impacting the economy?

Healthcare for them?

Easy to say axe the 'deadwood' if your limb isn't in the mix.

 

[Lazaran]

There are about 3m civilian employees working Fed jobs. So what happens when 2.7m of them are unemployed by your calculations?

Do they easily slide into the current 2.227 million job vacancies that the US Labor Department calculates? Not likely, as those federal employees are not construction, manual labor, or farming hands.

The job market isn't doing so well. Can the civilian economy absorb 2,700,000 new workers without a severe impact on the US economy?

Are those workers living paycheck to paycheck? What's that cost on welfare, lost homes, etc., impacting the economy?

Healthcare for them?

Easy to say axe the 'deadwood' if your limb isn't in the mix.

Chloe isn’t a “big picture” slut…



Chloe



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

There are about 3m civilian employees working Fed jobs. So what happens when 2.7m of them are unemployed by your calculations?

Do they easily slide into the current 2.227 million job vacancies that the US Labor Department calculates? Not likely, as those federal employees are not construction, manual labor, or farming hands.

The job market isn't doing so well. Can the civilian economy absorb 2,700,000 new workers without a severe impact on the US economy?

Are those workers living paycheck to paycheck? What's that cost on welfare, lost homes, etc., impacting the economy?

Healthcare for them?

Easy to say axe the 'deadwood' if your limb isn't in the mix.

I agree with you while acknowledging that life isn't fair. There are worse fates than losing one's job. You've mentioned at least one. Still sucks to get canned.

 

[dmallord]

As usual, the heat here is too intense for any sane conversations. Why are we in this mess in the first place? The answer may not be to your liking, but here it is in a nutshell: it's because of the budgeting process—the difference between reconciliation and filibuster procedures.

Reconciliation is the process that lets the majority party pass a budget with just 51 votes in the Senate, avoiding the filibuster. But it only works if both chambers agree on a budget framework. Currently, House Republicans are divided over spending levels and policy riders, so they haven’t been able to produce a unified plan. Without that, reconciliation isn’t an option, and the process defaults back to regular order—which requires 60 votes in the Senate. That’s why they need Democratic support. The stalemate isn’t mainly about procedure but about internal disagreements within the Republican caucus.

In short, we lack a budget because Republicans are disorganized and can't agree within their own ranks on a cohesive plan. Attempting to save face, they blame Democrats. Why not? It's an easy way to shift blame for their internal failures.

Republicans mostly own this, as they control the government at this point. I made that clear above: they couldn't bring a clean CR to either house. It's not the Democrats blocking this, contrary to Mike Johnson blaming them for holding the budget hostage.

Now, bear with me, as many economists acknowledge there's federal bloat that needs to be cut to help balance the national debt. Both sides should agree on that reduction. The real topic should be how much to cut and the timeline to do so. Approaching it like trying to put out a raging forest fire isn't sane.

Economists warn that cutting specific areas of spending can harm long-term economic prospects. For example, "a 2025 analysis by American University economists found that a 25% cut to federal research and development (R&D) would cause a GDP decline comparable to the Great Recession. Others, including at the Brookings Institution, call for increased federal investment over the next decade, funded by tax hikes and reduced benefits for high-income retirees."

In this sea of weeds, we need a balanced approach that cuts more than we've been willing to and ensures the health and welfare of our citizens, just like other sensible countries do. We shouldn't see people dying in the greatest nation on earth because they can't afford healthcare or are overwhelmed by debt from insurance costs, food, and housing increases. We don't need radicals ranting that illegals are getting Medicare or Medicaid or free health services for routine issues. Those are outright lies and pandering to a base. Yes, some emergency healthcare is provided at hospitals in life-or-death situations. Damn it, people are hurting and need help, even if they're illegal residents.

What we need is a sit-down to find common ground and develop a plan to temporarily get people back to work. A plan that calms tensions. A plan that's economically sound and crafted by individuals who are not frontline political adversaries. It's time for economists to chart the road ahead, and for everyone else to get on board.

My $0.02. And release the Epstein files!

 

[SkyBubble]

There are about 3m civilian employees working Fed jobs. So what happens when 2.7m of them are unemployed by your calculations?

Do they easily slide into the current 2.227 million job vacancies that the US Labor Department calculates? Not likely, as those federal employees are not construction, manual labor, or farming hands.

Easily? No. Could they do it? Yes. And having them on private payrolls is better for teh economy than having them on the government payroll.

 

[jomar]

You know you can read the Constitution for free online:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Way to spectacularly miss the point. And you surely have to know that a government shutdown is far more than simply running out of money, don’t you?

 

[SkyBubble]

The job market isn't doing so well. Can the civilian economy absorb 2,700,000 new workers without a severe impact on the US economy?

Are those workers living paycheck to paycheck? What's that cost on welfare, lost homes, etc., impacting the economy?

Healthcare for them?

Easy to say axe the 'deadwood' if your limb isn't in the mix.

So why aren't you concerned about these questions for private sector employees? Why didn't any of that bother you the last 4 years?

 

[SkyBubble]

There are about 3m civilian employees working Fed jobs. So what happens when 2.7m of them are unemployed by your calculations?

Has it ever occurred to you that the government is too big?

 

[SkyBubble]

You know you can read the Constitution for free online:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

And you can learn about it here:

https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/promo/constitution-101

 

[YDB95]

So why aren't you concerned about these questions for private sector employees? Why didn't any of that bother you the last 4 years?

No one said we weren't.

 

[dmallord]

Easily? No. Could they do it? Yes. And having them on private payrolls is better for teh economy than having them on the government payroll.

Where is the balance? Got a plan other than just waving a magic wand? Which cuts and where and when to start?

 

[SkyBubble]

As usual, the heat here is too intense for any sane conversations. Why are we in this mess in the first place? The answer may not be to your liking, but here it is in a nutshell: it's because of the budgeting process—the difference between reconciliation and filibuster procedures.

Reconciliation is the process that lets the majority party pass a budget with just 51 votes in the Senate, avoiding the filibuster. But it only works if both chambers agree on a budget framework. Currently, House Republicans are divided over spending levels and policy riders, so they haven’t been able to produce a unified plan. Without that, reconciliation isn’t an option, and the process defaults back to regular order—which requires 60 votes in the Senate. That’s why they need Democratic support. The stalemate isn’t mainly about procedure but about internal disagreements within the Republican caucus.

In short, we lack a budget because Republicans are disorganized and can't agree within their own ranks on a cohesive plan. Attempting to save face, they blame Democrats. Why not? It's an easy way to shift blame for their internal failures.

Republicans mostly own this, as they control the government at this point. I made that clear above: they couldn't bring a clean CR to either house. It's not the Democrats blocking this, contrary to Mike Johnson blaming them for holding the budget hostage.

Now, bear with me, as many economists acknowledge there's federal bloat that needs to be cut to help balance the national debt. Both sides should agree on that reduction. The real topic should be how much to cut and the timeline to do so. Approaching it like trying to put out a raging forest fire isn't sane.

Economists warn that cutting specific areas of spending can harm long-term economic prospects. For example, "a 2025 analysis by American University economists found that a 25% cut to federal research and development (R&D) would cause a GDP decline comparable to the Great Recession. Others, including at the Brookings Institution, call for increased federal investment over the next decade, funded by tax hikes and reduced benefits for high-income retirees."

In this sea of weeds, we need a balanced approach that cuts more than we've been willing to and ensures the health and welfare of our citizens, just like other sensible countries do. We shouldn't see people dying in the greatest nation on earth because they can't afford healthcare or are overwhelmed by debt from insurance costs, food, and housing increases. We don't need radicals ranting that illegals are getting Medicare or Medicaid or free health services for routine issues. Those are outright lies and pandering to a base. Yes, some emergency healthcare is provided at hospitals in life-or-death situations. Damn it, people are hurting and need help, even if they're illegal residents.

What we need is a sit-down to find common ground and develop a plan to temporarily get people back to work. A plan that calms tensions. A plan that's economically sound and crafted by individuals who are not frontline political adversaries. It's time for economists to chart the road ahead, and for everyone else to get on board.

My $0.02. And release the Epstein files!

Funding bills must originate in the House. The House passed a "clean" CR extending the Biden funding levels (which Democrats had all voted for) through November to allow time to work out the new budget. It was not passed as a reconciliation bill. It's not a budget; it's a temporary funding measure. That requires 60 votes in the Senate. The Democrats wouldn't agree to a clean CR. They want added spending, even though we're $35 trillion in debt. How about just passing it and continuing to negotiate?

And no, illegal aliens should not receive assistance, because it only encourages more illegal immigration. They can come here and live off the American citizens and legal immigrants. We need to enforce our immigration laws.

I agree with you about the Epstein files. Just release them. Everything.

 

[SkyBubble]

Where is the balance? Got a plan other than just waving a magic wand? Which cuts and where and when to start?

I don't believe in central planning.

 

[dmallord]

So why aren't you concerned about these questions for private sector employees? Why didn't any of that bother you the last 4 years?

I am. The focus of this thread is government-related, so I addressed it. Four years ago, the president addressed healthcare and economic growth in the business community. He addressed that without a chainsaw nut on stage or a felon in charge of the White House. There was a difference then; it was being worked on. Now, the solution is to set it aflame and watch with glee. Not my cup of tea, Lee.

 

[SkyBubble]

So how do you propose to reduce the size of government?

 

[SkyBubble]

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” ― Barry Goldwater

 

[ll74]

Very little. At least 90% of what it does shouldn't be a government function and absolutely shouldn't be Federal.

Wrong

 

[dmallord]

Funding bills must originate in the House. The House passed a "clean" CR extending the Biden funding levels (which Democrats had all voted for) through November to allow time to work out the new budget. It was not passed as a reconciliation bill. It's not a budget; it's a temporary funding measure. That requires 60 votes in the Senate. The Democrats wouldn't agree to a clean CR. They want added spending, even though we're $35 trillion in debt. How about just passing it and continuing to negotiate?

Yep. The House did the CR 'budget' as I said. It's an extension of the budget, right? Even had a Democrat sign on. That the House couldn't formulate an acceptable budget is on them; they screwed up their original budget and had to resort to this temporary one. How did that go over in the Senate? Like a ton of bricks. Like I said, the Republicans couldn't get their act together. The Senate Republicans couldn't accept much of what the House Republicans sent up, so it fell to the filibuster route.

I noticed you didn't try to defend that again with some logic other than blaming the other party.

Regrettably, a nation doesn't have to live by a balanced budget. You basically quoted my post on that.

As to just passing it and continuing to negotiate, provide some strong language that Republicans will agree to sit down and accommodate a bipartisan approach that the President will accept. As it stands, Republicans have rejected every detail a Democrat proposed. If you are a Democrat, now having 'some strong cards in the game' and playing against a guy saying, "only going to cut Democrat programs" and that the layoffs of federal workers would be "Democrat-oriented". The layoffs will be "a lot of people, all because of the Democrats." That's not a time to fold and count your money later. It doesn't work that way in The Art of the Deal.

Be better. Be a politician who puts the citizens before the party, honest, and trustworthy in keeping his word. You know that felon in the White House has a known lie count of over 30,000, and that was months ago. I haven't seen fact-checked stats on Mike Johnson's count, but it is growing exponentially as well.

Yeah. Ask me about pass it now and talk later goes over. I hear sex workers get paid in advance, so what makes you think American soldiers, etc, should wait to get paid later, especially when the President says some of those furloughed Dems don't deserve to get paid.

And no, illegal aliens should not receive assistance, because it only encourages more illegal immigration. They can come here and live off the American citizens and legal immigrants. We need to enforce our immigration laws.

I believe in enforcement.

I also believe people who go to hospitals cannot be rejected for serious treatment regardless of their status. That's the law. That's part of the Hippocratic Oath, which medical professionals swear to uphold. Everyone gets triage and stabilization, whether American-born, immigrant, or illegal. Sorry that sucks for you, but that's how it should be when people are in pain or dying, they should be treated like a human being.

I agree with you about the Epstein files. Just release them. Everything.

 

[ll74]

Why is that a government function? Why is it your responsibility and mine to pay for this? And why should we use the most inefficient, most ineffective possible agency (government) to do it? This simply makes it more expensive and less efficient.

its actually a side effect of the agency

More statist BS. It shows the world America is a sap that will hand them money while they stab us in the back.

It shows the world that we participate in global progress.

Eliminating disease is a good thing. Why is eliminating disease in some faraway country America's responsibility? The US government's job is to protect the interests of the US, not the world.

Eliminating disease I foreign countries also eliminates it here.

That's an intelligence and military function.

Yep.....and USAID provided information to both those departments

1. It's more important that they respect us enough not to mess with us than that they like us. I don't care about friends. I care about being respected.

Got it.
Do you respect people who offer help when you need it? Or do you just beat them?

2. It doesn't actually accomplish that; it just hands out money, even to bad guys.

It does actually.

History shows that Peace Through Strength works.

Not always.

We became a leader in the world not because of our "generosity" but because of our strength and our willingness to use it.

We became a leader because of our economic problems.

People trust us because we help people and keep our promises. (Not anymore)

No, those are your people.

Lol

 

[SkyBubble]

You never make any argument for your viewpoint. The Constitution is on my side on this, as the Framers would tell you. At least 90% of what it does shouldn't be a government function and absolutely shouldn't be Federal.

Most of the Executive Branch departments shouldn't be in existence. Centralized power is a bad thing. Power should rest with the people, or as close to them as possible. Your local and state governments should have most of the power. That's how our Union is structured. And that's the best possible structure.

 

[dmallord]

So how do you propose to reduce the size of government?

Who are you asking, Bubba?

If it's me, then I answered that. I said gather together the economists, work out a plan among them, and act on it. You want details? What would you do with my $0.02 of details? I don't have that much time to humor you.

 

[dmallord]

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” ― Barry Goldwater

Barry was one official with a voice. Same as all of us. Add a few more voices and you form a quorum. Have a quorum and you have a strong voice. Barry's voice wasn't that strong.

 

[ll74]

You never make any argument for your viewpoint. The Constitution is on my side on this, as the Framers would tell you. At least 90% of what it does shouldn't be a government function and absolutely shouldn't be Federal.

Most of the Executive Branch departments shouldn't be in existence. Centralized power is a bad thing. Power should rest with the people, or as close to them as possible. Your local and state governments should have most of the power. That's how our Union is structured. And that's the best possible structure.

The reply button dude.

I disagree. Our government exists to support and protect our citizens but also to be a leader imto promote our values in the world.

The "fuck you I got mine crowd" misses the point of existence