7 ms·

Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

46 points by 105e9 8y ago

mfoy_ 8y ago
The summary of his speech was: Government will re-open through to Feb 15th. Back pay will be paid ASAP. He spoke about the wall for quite a while. If congress doesn't agree to fund his wall, he will shut the government back down on Feb 15th.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  In other words, exactly what the Schumer bill voted down yesterday proposed, with an additional week added on.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  I feel like I've repeatedly been proven wrong when I have these kinds of thoughts, but surely, he can't be stupid enough to try this stunt again. After 35 days of hurting people, he got nothing. He must realize shutting the government down to try to force his will is counter-productive, right?
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    I haven't read it. What does "The Art of the Deal" say about negotiating in a lose-lose situation? Though giving in on the wall may actually be his best chance of being reelected (spend the next 22 months spinning a narrative that he tried and blocked by mean ole Congress)
    - JohnTHaller 8y ago
      Does it matter? I don't think Trump has read it.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    So, before he announced the details of the re-opening, he said that many of the furloughed employees strongly supported him and that many even encouraged him to continue the shutdown. He's living in his own version of reality.
    - syspec 8y ago
      I agree he is, but on the other hand those furloughed employees will receive back pay so an even more prolonged shutdown is essentially a paid vacation for the ones who have some savings. So I’m sure /those/ employees might encourage a shutdown, but it isn’t because they believe in his cause
      - mfoy_ 8y ago
        You're not wrong, but that's a very charitable interpretation. The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. Additionally, the ones who are deemed "essential" just have to work for free or quit.
        votepaunchy 8y ago
        > The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. The bill approving back-pay for the just-concluded shutdown also covers the remainder of the fiscal year (through September).
        kuhhk 8y ago
        Wait, so does that mean pay would be ensured in the case of another shutdown?
      - scarface74 8y ago
        With the widely reported stats that most Americans can’t handle a $400 emergency, you can’t have too much of a “vacation” when you are worried about your bills.
  - phillipcarter 8y ago
    This assumes he has the ability to self reflect, which by this point is clearly not the case
  - cmiles74 8y ago
    "There's no education in the second kick of the mule."
  - krapp 8y ago
    He's a narcissist. He believes he's winning a war of attrition and that the public is overwhelmingly on his side, with polls or news to the contrary just being more liberal "fake news."
    - scarface74 8y ago
      What’s amazing is that even conservative news outlets like Fox are saying the polls are against him and he still won’t believe it.
  - Supermancho 8y ago
    Ironically, this is the check in the balance of the three branches. The Congress and The President must agree on a budget. It's sad that political game theory supersedes common sense planning ahead, but turning it around to "forcing will" mischaracterizes the propriety of the system. One day the US will evolve into a proper parliamentary system, but that should be shortly after we get instant binding political polls and have people born on mars (give or take 100+ years). Anything he wants to spend on a wall, take from the military. If you're gonna spend it, shuffle it.
    - the_gastropod 8y ago
      The Senate can override the President's veto with a 2/3rds vote. As a reminder, the bill passed with a 100-0 vote in December, so this was absolutely doable.
  - ignoramceisblis 8y ago
    Negotiations fail to come to a close due to both parties, not one party. Saying one party is "stupid", has been "hurting people" and "got nothing" is far from the full picture. Both sides are attempting to "force [their] will". What may seem reasonable to one party may seem unreasonable to the other, whether or not either party shows it outwardly.
    - mfoy_ 8y ago
      Yes and no. In this case, Trump is basically holding government hostage. If congress doesn't want a wall, he cannot force a wall on them. EDIT: Better yet, according to that logic, a mugging is just a failed negotiation. If the victim was just more forthcoming with their money, it wouldn't have been a problem!
      - 64738 8y ago
        But the congressional/democrat leaders are on record from just a few years discussing the importance of border security including barriers. Now that Trump wants that, too, even the idea of doing so is considered immoral. For a lot of people (obviously, not all, and I have no clue as to a percentage), it really has absolutely zero to do a wall or barrier, and it is completely about thwarting the president. The behavior of both parties is starting to disgust me.
        alphabettsy 8y ago
        I think his rhetoric has a lot to do with how people view it now. But the funding that you’re talking about to repair and expand existing barriers was already used and the barrier exists to my knowledge. Dems also offered billions for immigration and border security that he rejected because he specifically wants a wall, despite the fact that it won’t have the greatest impact which is visa overstays.
        ramblerouser 8y ago
        Democrats dont want to stop visa overstays either (they want to abolish ICE), so how is that an argument against the wall?
  - towaway1138 8y ago
    I was thinking just that about the Democrats.
    - happytoexplain 8y ago
      I can see arguments for "it's all Trump", "it's mostly Trump", and "the difference in 'fault' isn't meaningfully large", but I can't see an argument for "it's all/mostly Democrats". Can you elaborate? Edit: I'm not being snide, I'm actually ignorant.
      - 64738 8y ago
        I am, too, but I would say the easiest argument to make for that case is that he eventually came around to offering them things they wanted, and a reduction of what he wanted. But, Pelosi and others simply hate him so much that they are willing to flip their position on the wall issue 180 degrees from where they were just a few years ago in order to spite him. Both sides need to be willing to compromise.
- donavanm 8y ago
  Im confused here. I thought “the shutdown” was wholly due to congress having the sole authority for funding federal bodies. How does that settle with “he will shut the government back down”?
  - Supermancho 8y ago
    He has made a deal to not agree to the budget, but to fund the non-essential (tm) parts of the government as if one (unseen) has been agreed to...or some other sort of shenanigans.
  - rjohnk 8y ago
    By law, the executive branch can't spend more money that what has been appropriated, so in theory any president has to "shut the government down" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act This is all subject to interpretation, mind you.
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    The president can veto unless they have enough votes to override?
- huy-nguyen 8y ago
  I think the 3-week thing is just a face-saving measure to allow Trump to back down and everyone involved will conveniently "forgets" about it in 3 weeks' time. Surely with the current breaking news cycle, will we even remember the shutdown in 3 weeks? If you don't believe me, come back to this comment in 3 weeks to see if I'm right.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    They can't just forget about it. A permanent bill has to pass the House and Senate, and Trump has to sign it (or get overridden, which definitely won't accomplish the "face-saving" thing). Otherwise, the government shuts down again.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nerdfest 8y ago
      You say that like reality is a significant factor in many people's decisions.
  - subculture 8y ago
    Presumably, it will also get him his venue back for the State of the Union address.
mfoy_ 8y ago
Off-topic, but damn HN... I submitted the CNBC and CBSNews versions of this. One got zero up-votes, and the other got flagged.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Now this one's flagged. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    Oh well, I can see why HN wouldn't want every passing Trump scandal to show up on the front page, but this is pretty big.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Yea it's off topic. It belongs on reddit, not HN.
- kikoreis 8y ago
  I think the BBC is pretty well regarded on HN; I can recall seeing many posts on the front page.
- detaro 8y ago
  Not surprising, given this is the perfect example of the "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." rule?
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    I can't argue with that
jdhn 8y ago
So if he's going to shut the government down on the 15th (because the wall isn't getting funded), what's the point of reopening it? His base will be ticked off, that's for sure.
- bradlys 8y ago
  Look at his approval ratings by party. Republicans are not that upset by his actions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- protomyth 8y ago
  His base wants their tax returns paid. I get the feeling the date wasn't selected out of thin air.
- maccio92 8y ago
  Full back pay off all work done during the shut down for now
- krapp 8y ago
  >His base will be ticked off, that's for sure. His base wants the wall, fully funded, and no quarter given to the Democrats or their agenda. His base also believes government is corrupt, bloated, wasteful and infested with leftists and globalist elites. This is exactly what his base wants.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    There's also a non-trivial percentage that love "liberal tears" and enjoy things like this that are petty and / or spiteful.
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    His base includes a number of people voted into office. It's really kind of odd that they can't even trust when their own party has the entirety of government. I don't understand why people dislike any government, yet don't like if you call them anarchists either. The arguments aren't consistent. The odd thing is most people do not disagree with a wall in places that make sense. A wall for a wall's sake is just pointless. I'd rather put that into tools or manpower (or heaven forbid pay increases). A single drone with heat vision could scan entire sectors, be controlled remotely and wouldn't require using eminent domain. Also it couldn't be dug out, cut down, or climbed over or through. As General Patton is quoted to have said "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
yingw787 8y ago
Top comment on New York Times says this is deflection from the Roger Stone indictment. I think it's likely this is true, since he didn't get anything solid politically. He might let the government shut down again and pull the same rabbit out the hat next time Mueller issues an indictment. On a related note, one article I really enjoyed a few months back was the decreasing relevance of the nation-state in an era of prolonged peace. It seems like solid logic: power cannot exist where it is not regularly exercised, and in an era of conflict and deadlock power can be exercised most at the local level, where the error kernel is smaller. https://aeon.co/essays/the-end-of-a-world-of-nation-states-may-be-upon-us https://aeon.co/essays/the-end-of-a-world-of-nation-states-m...
kevintb 8y ago
Why is this flagged?
e_spriggz 8y ago
Is this not an opportunity to disrupt subsistence wage service? Consider there are 800K workers not being paid, and approximately one million affected contractors. Since salaries and contracts are mostly public, a chain ledger could issue prudent coin credits upon demand. Participating workers could microtransact for basic food and shelter. I realize this sounds like Wilbur Ross' "get a loan" idea, but this has complete transparency, zero friction and the obvious gravitas of blockchain pedigree. Given the captive worker pool, the "proof of work" problem in traditional crypto coins can be solved---not by wasting power on hashing, but organically given the ability to document compulsory "essential services" (currently for no pay) by government workers. I.e., the government documents the "proof of work", first indirectly through FOIA and later through crafted transparency legislation to facilitate this scheme. This way, we could actualize the liquidity demand of unpaid workers. Yes, this sounds novel, perhaps even dystopian. But tech has always innovated new ways to "harvest people"---first labor itself (eg "task rabbit" plays), then any prospect of raises, benefits, or wage mobility (uber), non-dischargeable educational debt (fake universities and state mandated licensing), and now the very payment of subsistence wages itself. Technology can always "speed the harvest". I might try to register eatca.ke (someone will take my money regardless), and zhuzh up a pitch deck.

46 points by 105e9 8y ago

The summary of his speech was: Government will re-open through to Feb 15th. Back pay will be paid ASAP. He spoke about the wall for quite a while. If congress doesn't agree to fund his wall, he will shut the government back down on Feb 15th.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 8y ago
In other words, exactly what the Schumer bill voted down yesterday proposed, with an additional week added on.
the_gastropod 8y ago
I feel like I've repeatedly been proven wrong when I have these kinds of thoughts, but surely, he can't be stupid enough to try this stunt again. After 35 days of hurting people, he got nothing. He must realize shutting the government down to try to force his will is counter-productive, right?
- bdcravens 8y ago
  I haven't read it. What does "The Art of the Deal" say about negotiating in a lose-lose situation? Though giving in on the wall may actually be his best chance of being reelected (spend the next 22 months spinning a narrative that he tried and blocked by mean ole Congress)
  - JohnTHaller 8y ago
    Does it matter? I don't think Trump has read it.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  So, before he announced the details of the re-opening, he said that many of the furloughed employees strongly supported him and that many even encouraged him to continue the shutdown. He's living in his own version of reality.
  - syspec 8y ago
    I agree he is, but on the other hand those furloughed employees will receive back pay so an even more prolonged shutdown is essentially a paid vacation for the ones who have some savings. So I’m sure /those/ employees might encourage a shutdown, but it isn’t because they believe in his cause
    - mfoy_ 8y ago
      You're not wrong, but that's a very charitable interpretation. The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. Additionally, the ones who are deemed "essential" just have to work for free or quit.
      - votepaunchy 8y ago
        > The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. The bill approving back-pay for the just-concluded shutdown also covers the remainder of the fiscal year (through September).
        kuhhk 8y ago
        Wait, so does that mean pay would be ensured in the case of another shutdown?
    - scarface74 8y ago
      With the widely reported stats that most Americans can’t handle a $400 emergency, you can’t have too much of a “vacation” when you are worried about your bills.
- phillipcarter 8y ago
  This assumes he has the ability to self reflect, which by this point is clearly not the case
- cmiles74 8y ago
  "There's no education in the second kick of the mule."
- krapp 8y ago
  He's a narcissist. He believes he's winning a war of attrition and that the public is overwhelmingly on his side, with polls or news to the contrary just being more liberal "fake news."
  - scarface74 8y ago
    What’s amazing is that even conservative news outlets like Fox are saying the polls are against him and he still won’t believe it.
- Supermancho 8y ago
  Ironically, this is the check in the balance of the three branches. The Congress and The President must agree on a budget. It's sad that political game theory supersedes common sense planning ahead, but turning it around to "forcing will" mischaracterizes the propriety of the system. One day the US will evolve into a proper parliamentary system, but that should be shortly after we get instant binding political polls and have people born on mars (give or take 100+ years). Anything he wants to spend on a wall, take from the military. If you're gonna spend it, shuffle it.
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    The Senate can override the President's veto with a 2/3rds vote. As a reminder, the bill passed with a 100-0 vote in December, so this was absolutely doable.
- ignoramceisblis 8y ago
  Negotiations fail to come to a close due to both parties, not one party. Saying one party is "stupid", has been "hurting people" and "got nothing" is far from the full picture. Both sides are attempting to "force [their] will". What may seem reasonable to one party may seem unreasonable to the other, whether or not either party shows it outwardly.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    Yes and no. In this case, Trump is basically holding government hostage. If congress doesn't want a wall, he cannot force a wall on them. EDIT: Better yet, according to that logic, a mugging is just a failed negotiation. If the victim was just more forthcoming with their money, it wouldn't have been a problem!
    - 64738 8y ago
      But the congressional/democrat leaders are on record from just a few years discussing the importance of border security including barriers. Now that Trump wants that, too, even the idea of doing so is considered immoral. For a lot of people (obviously, not all, and I have no clue as to a percentage), it really has absolutely zero to do a wall or barrier, and it is completely about thwarting the president. The behavior of both parties is starting to disgust me.
      - alphabettsy 8y ago
        I think his rhetoric has a lot to do with how people view it now. But the funding that you’re talking about to repair and expand existing barriers was already used and the barrier exists to my knowledge. Dems also offered billions for immigration and border security that he rejected because he specifically wants a wall, despite the fact that it won’t have the greatest impact which is visa overstays.
        ramblerouser 8y ago
        Democrats dont want to stop visa overstays either (they want to abolish ICE), so how is that an argument against the wall?
- towaway1138 8y ago
  I was thinking just that about the Democrats.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    I can see arguments for "it's all Trump", "it's mostly Trump", and "the difference in 'fault' isn't meaningfully large", but I can't see an argument for "it's all/mostly Democrats". Can you elaborate? Edit: I'm not being snide, I'm actually ignorant.
    - 64738 8y ago
      I am, too, but I would say the easiest argument to make for that case is that he eventually came around to offering them things they wanted, and a reduction of what he wanted. But, Pelosi and others simply hate him so much that they are willing to flip their position on the wall issue 180 degrees from where they were just a few years ago in order to spite him. Both sides need to be willing to compromise.
donavanm 8y ago
Im confused here. I thought “the shutdown” was wholly due to congress having the sole authority for funding federal bodies. How does that settle with “he will shut the government back down”?
- Supermancho 8y ago
  He has made a deal to not agree to the budget, but to fund the non-essential (tm) parts of the government as if one (unseen) has been agreed to...or some other sort of shenanigans.
- rjohnk 8y ago
  By law, the executive branch can't spend more money that what has been appropriated, so in theory any president has to "shut the government down" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act This is all subject to interpretation, mind you.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  The president can veto unless they have enough votes to override?
huy-nguyen 8y ago
I think the 3-week thing is just a face-saving measure to allow Trump to back down and everyone involved will conveniently "forgets" about it in 3 weeks' time. Surely with the current breaking news cycle, will we even remember the shutdown in 3 weeks? If you don't believe me, come back to this comment in 3 weeks to see if I'm right.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  They can't just forget about it. A permanent bill has to pass the House and Senate, and Trump has to sign it (or get overridden, which definitely won't accomplish the "face-saving" thing). Otherwise, the government shuts down again.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nerdfest 8y ago
    You say that like reality is a significant factor in many people's decisions.
- subculture 8y ago
  Presumably, it will also get him his venue back for the State of the Union address.

mfoy_ 8y ago

Off-topic, but damn HN... I submitted the CNBC and CBSNews versions of this. One got zero up-votes, and the other got flagged.

ceejayoz 8y ago
Now this one's flagged. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  Oh well, I can see why HN wouldn't want every passing Trump scandal to show up on the front page, but this is pretty big.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Yea it's off topic. It belongs on reddit, not HN.
kikoreis 8y ago
I think the BBC is pretty well regarded on HN; I can recall seeing many posts on the front page.
detaro 8y ago
Not surprising, given this is the perfect example of the "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." rule?
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  I can't argue with that

jdhn 8y ago

So if he's going to shut the government down on the 15th (because the wall isn't getting funded), what's the point of reopening it? His base will be ticked off, that's for sure.

bradlys 8y ago
Look at his approval ratings by party. Republicans are not that upset by his actions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
protomyth 8y ago
His base wants their tax returns paid. I get the feeling the date wasn't selected out of thin air.
maccio92 8y ago
Full back pay off all work done during the shut down for now
krapp 8y ago
>His base will be ticked off, that's for sure. His base wants the wall, fully funded, and no quarter given to the Democrats or their agenda. His base also believes government is corrupt, bloated, wasteful and infested with leftists and globalist elites. This is exactly what his base wants.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  There's also a non-trivial percentage that love "liberal tears" and enjoy things like this that are petty and / or spiteful.
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  His base includes a number of people voted into office. It's really kind of odd that they can't even trust when their own party has the entirety of government. I don't understand why people dislike any government, yet don't like if you call them anarchists either. The arguments aren't consistent. The odd thing is most people do not disagree with a wall in places that make sense. A wall for a wall's sake is just pointless. I'd rather put that into tools or manpower (or heaven forbid pay increases). A single drone with heat vision could scan entire sectors, be controlled remotely and wouldn't require using eminent domain. Also it couldn't be dug out, cut down, or climbed over or through. As General Patton is quoted to have said "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

yingw787 8y ago

Top comment on New York Times says this is deflection from the Roger Stone indictment. I think it's likely this is true, since he didn't get anything solid politically. He might let the government shut down again and pull the same rabbit out the hat next time Mueller issues an indictment. On a related note, one article I really enjoyed a few months back was the decreasing relevance of the nation-state in an era of prolonged peace. It seems like solid logic: power cannot exist where it is not regularly exercised, and in an era of conflict and deadlock power can be exercised most at the local level, where the error kernel is smaller. https://aeon.co/essays/the-end-of-a-world-of-nation-states-may-be-upon-us https://aeon.co/essays/the-end-of-a-world-of-nation-states-m...

kevintb 8y ago

Why is this flagged?

e_spriggz 8y ago

Is this not an opportunity to disrupt subsistence wage service? Consider there are 800K workers not being paid, and approximately one million affected contractors. Since salaries and contracts are mostly public, a chain ledger could issue prudent coin credits upon demand. Participating workers could microtransact for basic food and shelter. I realize this sounds like Wilbur Ross' "get a loan" idea, but this has complete transparency, zero friction and the obvious gravitas of blockchain pedigree. Given the captive worker pool, the "proof of work" problem in traditional crypto coins can be solved---not by wasting power on hashing, but organically given the ability to document compulsory "essential services" (currently for no pay) by government workers. I.e., the government documents the "proof of work", first indirectly through FOIA and later through crafted transparency legislation to facilitate this scheme. This way, we could actualize the liquidity demand of unpaid workers. Yes, this sounds novel, perhaps even dystopian. But tech has always innovated new ways to "harvest people"---first labor itself (eg "task rabbit" plays), then any prospect of raises, benefits, or wage mobility (uber), non-dischargeable educational debt (fake universities and state mandated licensing), and now the very payment of subsistence wages itself. Technology can always "speed the harvest". I might try to register eatca.ke (someone will take my money regardless), and zhuzh up a pitch deck.