4 ms·

My wife came home yesterday and told me that her work said if the shutdown continues in late February - March that they'll probably have to cut her position alo

by ok_coo 8y ago

My wife came home yesterday and told me that her work said if the shutdown continues in late February - March that they'll probably have to cut her position along with others at her workplace (they're federally-funded). If that happens, I will likely be forced to quit my current job as well and find a higher paying job to help compensate while she looks for new work. I'm currently paid under market rate, but I love my job, so I'd prefer to stay where I'm at instead of look for other work to make up for our loss of income. If this shutdown continues, I think people severely underestimate the negative impact it's going to have on this country. There's going to be a lot of pain and transitions that will have to happen. If he really wants this wall funded, he should go through the normal channels. It's difficult to see how this isn't anything but a temper tantrum.

dragontamer 8y ago
His base wants the temper tantrum and the shutdown. The fact of the matter is, Trump hasn't lost any ground in his approval rating over this yet. With that being said, Democrats don't want the wall. They were pretty much elected to stop the wall and have a huge majority in the House. I don't see how this gets resolved at all. To have the shutdown end, the House (Democrats), Senate (Republicans), and President have to agree on a singular solution. In the past, the general agreement has been "Lets keep the budget numbers the same and argue about this later". But the typical plan has failed, Trump is doubling down on the wall (+$5.7 Billion added to the budget), and his base loves it.
- admax88q 8y ago
  > House (Democrats), Senate (Republicans), and President have to agree on a singular solution The House and Senate can override the president with a super majority. They don't technically need the president's approval. However getting a super majority in the senate to override a veto will be difficult as most Republicans see loyalty to Trump as important for re-election.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    > The House and Senate can override the president with a super majority. They don't technically need the president's approval. Senate is the place where bills die. You've got not only the Republican-controlled majority, but Democrats can filibuster anything they disagree with in the Senate. So to pass the Senate normally, you need to have Republicans agree, Democrats "Not Protest". A Supermajority Senate override of a veto is 67 votes (out of 100). Frankly, I don't see that ever happening in the current political climate.
    - tzs 8y ago
      The Senate unanimously agreed to a spending bill near the end of 2018. The 2019 House passed a version of that bill, and that went to the 2019 Senate, where McConnell won't let it come up for a vote. So, we do have a spending plan available that does have widespread approval among both parties in the Senate, enough to override a veto if the Senators who support it would also support overriding a veto.
      - dragontamer 8y ago
        That was before Trump put forth his intention to veto. Republicans don't want to fracture the party and embarrass themselves with such a vote. McConnell will never let the bill come back to the floor.
- rbritton 8y ago
  I think it’s more accurate to say the Democrats (and many of their supporters) don’t want a Trump success. Most or all of the current players that were in office in 2006 voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and the same applies to the 2013 Senate immigration overhaul. It has little to do with the subject of the budget allocation and everything to do with obstructing (for better or worse depending on your own views). Politics in the US has devolved into a strictly two-party system where it’s more important for the other side to fail than be able to hold their success up, where it has ceased to be about what’s best for our civilization and more about grabbing and holding on to as much power as possible, our rights be damned. I don’t hold the Republicans or Democrats any higher in this.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    > I think it’s more accurate to say the Democrats (and many of their supporters) don’t want a Trump success. Most or all of the current players that were in office in 2006 voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and the same applies to the 2013 Senate immigration overhaul. The Democrats offered +$1.3 Billion to boarder security. Its literally passed the House already. Proof is in the pudding, Democrats ALREADY passed such a bill weeks ago. The Democrats are have already accepted +Fences at the boarder. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-res... https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/21/text?r=1&s=5 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/21/t... If Trump dials back his rhetoric and asks for a fence, I bet you this shutdown will end. Heck, if the Senate takes up the Democrats's +$1.3 Billion offer, this whole thing could be over on Monday. Senate hasn't passed a bill yet in any case. As I said earlier: the Senate is where bills typically die. Nothing new there. But Republicans don't want a fence, they want a wall. Otherwise, they would have passed H.J Res.1 / HR 21 already. Trump's base wants a wall. That's where the debate is stuck right now. They aren't accepting a fence.
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    The way to view this and previous shutdowns is to blame the party that isn't willing to vote for the CR. That's the party taking the government hostage to achieve their political goals.
sparkie 8y ago
Firstly, I'm sorry for you and your wife's situation, and don't intend to sound like an insensitive dick, but I'm a bit fed up of this appeal to emotion about the livelihoods of federal workers missing a paycheck as if these cases are somehow unique and couldn't happen to anyone at any time. No job is secure, and anyone could lose their jobs for a huge range of reasons. Government workers have some of the most secure jobs out there - they're almost guaranteed work in the future so long as they don't commit some misconduct that gets them fired, because the government doesn't have to "lay off" a bunch of staff if it performs badly. There are a great deal of people out there who would jump at the opportunity to be a government employee and have such job security, good pay, and good pension, even if it meant that they might have to survive the odd few weeks without the pay during a shutdown. I think the appeal has the opposite effect on people who genuinely struggle to keep jobs, have lost the jobs because of market conditions or the effects of bad government policy, etc. It stinks of entitlement.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  What, exactly, does your comment add other than complaining about some imaginary entitlement strawman? Government jobs are far from secure depending on the department you work in and the fact that a lot of people are suffering because of pure political grandstanding is something I would hope anyone can relate to. Whether it's through having bad management hurt the workers, CEO nonsense or more. Of course anyone can lose their job and if you've ever gone through the pain of being laid off, you should be able to relate.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    It's not imaginary. How often do you see people being interviewed on the news and bringing their babies into view? I'm not complaining that people are hurt by their funding, I'm complaining about how they're using their alleged personal struggles as political weapon. Anyway, I'm not intending to get into a flamewar again. Let's just agree to disagree.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago

by ok_coo 8y ago

dragontamer 8y ago

His base wants the temper tantrum and the shutdown. The fact of the matter is, Trump hasn't lost any ground in his approval rating over this yet. With that being said, Democrats don't want the wall. They were pretty much elected to stop the wall and have a huge majority in the House. I don't see how this gets resolved at all. To have the shutdown end, the House (Democrats), Senate (Republicans), and President have to agree on a singular solution. In the past, the general agreement has been "Lets keep the budget numbers the same and argue about this later". But the typical plan has failed, Trump is doubling down on the wall (+$5.7 Billion added to the budget), and his base loves it.

admax88q 8y ago
> House (Democrats), Senate (Republicans), and President have to agree on a singular solution The House and Senate can override the president with a super majority. They don't technically need the president's approval. However getting a super majority in the senate to override a veto will be difficult as most Republicans see loyalty to Trump as important for re-election.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  > The House and Senate can override the president with a super majority. They don't technically need the president's approval. Senate is the place where bills die. You've got not only the Republican-controlled majority, but Democrats can filibuster anything they disagree with in the Senate. So to pass the Senate normally, you need to have Republicans agree, Democrats "Not Protest". A Supermajority Senate override of a veto is 67 votes (out of 100). Frankly, I don't see that ever happening in the current political climate.
  - tzs 8y ago
    The Senate unanimously agreed to a spending bill near the end of 2018. The 2019 House passed a version of that bill, and that went to the 2019 Senate, where McConnell won't let it come up for a vote. So, we do have a spending plan available that does have widespread approval among both parties in the Senate, enough to override a veto if the Senators who support it would also support overriding a veto.
    - dragontamer 8y ago
      That was before Trump put forth his intention to veto. Republicans don't want to fracture the party and embarrass themselves with such a vote. McConnell will never let the bill come back to the floor.
rbritton 8y ago
I think it’s more accurate to say the Democrats (and many of their supporters) don’t want a Trump success. Most or all of the current players that were in office in 2006 voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and the same applies to the 2013 Senate immigration overhaul. It has little to do with the subject of the budget allocation and everything to do with obstructing (for better or worse depending on your own views). Politics in the US has devolved into a strictly two-party system where it’s more important for the other side to fail than be able to hold their success up, where it has ceased to be about what’s best for our civilization and more about grabbing and holding on to as much power as possible, our rights be damned. I don’t hold the Republicans or Democrats any higher in this.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  > I think it’s more accurate to say the Democrats (and many of their supporters) don’t want a Trump success. Most or all of the current players that were in office in 2006 voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and the same applies to the 2013 Senate immigration overhaul. The Democrats offered +$1.3 Billion to boarder security. Its literally passed the House already. Proof is in the pudding, Democrats ALREADY passed such a bill weeks ago. The Democrats are have already accepted +Fences at the boarder. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-res... https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/21/text?r=1&s=5 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/21/t... If Trump dials back his rhetoric and asks for a fence, I bet you this shutdown will end. Heck, if the Senate takes up the Democrats's +$1.3 Billion offer, this whole thing could be over on Monday. Senate hasn't passed a bill yet in any case. As I said earlier: the Senate is where bills typically die. Nothing new there. But Republicans don't want a fence, they want a wall. Otherwise, they would have passed H.J Res.1 / HR 21 already. Trump's base wants a wall. That's where the debate is stuck right now. They aren't accepting a fence.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  The way to view this and previous shutdowns is to blame the party that isn't willing to vote for the CR. That's the party taking the government hostage to achieve their political goals.

sparkie 8y ago

Firstly, I'm sorry for you and your wife's situation, and don't intend to sound like an insensitive dick, but I'm a bit fed up of this appeal to emotion about the livelihoods of federal workers missing a paycheck as if these cases are somehow unique and couldn't happen to anyone at any time. No job is secure, and anyone could lose their jobs for a huge range of reasons. Government workers have some of the most secure jobs out there - they're almost guaranteed work in the future so long as they don't commit some misconduct that gets them fired, because the government doesn't have to "lay off" a bunch of staff if it performs badly. There are a great deal of people out there who would jump at the opportunity to be a government employee and have such job security, good pay, and good pension, even if it meant that they might have to survive the odd few weeks without the pay during a shutdown. I think the appeal has the opposite effect on people who genuinely struggle to keep jobs, have lost the jobs because of market conditions or the effects of bad government policy, etc. It stinks of entitlement.

fzeroracer 8y ago
What, exactly, does your comment add other than complaining about some imaginary entitlement strawman? Government jobs are far from secure depending on the department you work in and the fact that a lot of people are suffering because of pure political grandstanding is something I would hope anyone can relate to. Whether it's through having bad management hurt the workers, CEO nonsense or more. Of course anyone can lose their job and if you've ever gone through the pain of being laid off, you should be able to relate.
- sparkie 8y ago
  It's not imaginary. How often do you see people being interviewed on the news and bringing their babies into view? I'm not complaining that people are hurt by their funding, I'm complaining about how they're using their alleged personal struggles as political weapon. Anyway, I'm not intending to get into a flamewar again. Let's just agree to disagree.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago