10 ms·
US gov shutdown leaves IT projects hanging, security defenders a skeleton crew
- Veliladon 1y agoWhat could possibly go wrong? /s
- ToucanLoucan 1y agoI didn't have "One of the larger global nuclear powers elects the dumbest man alive as president" as a Great Filter in my paper back in college, but it increasingly feels like a distinct possibility.
- chris_wot 1y agoThe U.S. will never recover from this. Why? Because when foreign nations decide whether to do a deal with the U.S. they will do it with only a maxmimum of 4 year timeframes in mind. Because any deal you do with a sane administration could quite possibly be ended by the American people electing someone who is batshit insane, and who is backed by a bunch of cronies, sycophants and morons.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoSix years is a better bet, due to some legislature terms and the fact that a president will be in office for eight years unless they do something really stupid. But considering the counterparties can be countries like South Korea, Italy, the Philippines, Argentina, and Brazil, it's not like disruption isn't already baked in.
- jedberg 1y ago>? the fact that a president will be in office for eight years unless they do something really stupid. The last two terms (and this one assuming the law is actually followed) will all be 4 years. Going back to the beginning, only 34% of the terms have been 8 years or more.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoImho going back before Reagan isn't really relevant. In the modern era we have Reagan (8), Bush I (4 because he raised taxes), Clinton (8), Bush II (8), Obama (8), Trump (4 because he botched covid), Biden (4). Biden would probably have been re-elected were it not for the cognitive decline, so he didn't exactly do anything wrong enough to be a single-term president.
- jedberg 1y agoDon’t forget Trump-47 will be another four. So of the last eight Presidents, 4 were one term. That’s still 50%
- asdff 1y agoIt isn't like foreign nations are immune to this either. Look at places like Hungary.
- OkayPhysicist 1y agoHungary isn't trying desperately to hold onto "single most powerful country in the world" status. The US being as relevant as Hungary is one of the most extreme scenarios of "The end of Pax Americana".
- asdff 1y agoWell, stands to reason that more significant nations can lose the hat at any time.
- chris_wot 1y agoWell, when it happens to the level that it has under Trump, that country is in big trouble also. But noone (and I mean noone) has damaged a democratic nation as badly as Trump. There are a lot of contenders, but they all miss the mark by quite a bit.
- monkeydreams 1y ago[flagged]
- MangoToupe 1y agoI'm all in favor for releasing them, but do people really think this document will change much? Distraction, projection, and denial are so effective it's not clear what impact people would imagine it has. If you frequent conservative forums you'll notice people are more committed to the fascist project than they are to Trump. He may in the end be disposable to them.
- maplethorpe 1y ago> I'm all in favor for releasing them, but do people really think this document will change much? The government seems to fear that it would.
- jennyholzer 1y agoWith this in mind, I have to assume that they were killing children on Epstein's island.
- HumblyTossed 1y agoNah that was in Romania. It’s all linked together though.
- MangoToupe 1y ago"The government" is tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. I have a hard time imagining this list being released would change much about how it operates, frankly. This strikes me as resistance borne of individual—if deep—fear.
- kemayo 1y agoHe seems to be the glue that's holding together the current coalition. The fascist project set is absolutely there, but they've never really won over the MAGA crowd who flocked to Trump's rallies. It's certainly possible that someone will manage to hold them together post-Trump, but nobody in conservative leadership right now seems to have his charisma and ability to draw those people in. (I absolutely believe that Vance thinks he can do it, but I am extremely skeptical.) Which does make it challenging for them, since Trump's an elderly man who doesn't look to be in particularly good health.
- chris_wot 1y ago[flagged]
- Rebelgecko 1y agoHistorically (it might have even been codified in law after the last shutdown?), furloughed and non-furloughed workers receive back pay after the shutdown ends. It's really the worst of both worlds
- Jtsummers 1y agoGuaranteed backpay was codified in 2019. It makes the shutdown pointless. We're paying everyone regardless of whether they work through the shutdown or not, but not getting the benefit of their work.
- spike021 1y agoExcept many people's livelihoods rely on being paid on time, which is not happening in this case.
- Jtsummers 1y agoUSAA and other banks offer 0% loans up to the salary, which helps. But yes, a lack of pay is incredibly disruptive for the furloughed individuals and those like law enforcement officers (who Republicans claim to support...) who are required to work without pay for the duration.
- johnnyanmac 1y agoThe solution of "Just take out a loan to cover for governmental incompetence" is about as American can you can get. But yes, USAA has been nothing but great for me overall. Very fortunate I have it.
- quadragenarian 1y agoWhat about if the administration lays off staff during the shutdown instead of furloughing them? I would think that would not require any compensation.
- fzeroracer 1y agoI don't see a good off-ramp for the current shutdown, so I think this is going to be a very turbulent couple of weeks (months?) ahead. Republicans have the majority and can't even whip together enough votes for a funding resolution, and Democrats don't want to negotiate because all the Republicans have been doing is threatening them and asking for things that are obvious no-gos. And the moment the shutdown triggered, they've started targeting blue states to tear away more funding arbitrarily so that just ensures people rightfully dig in further. Guess we'll see how long they keep the hand on an increasingly hot stove.
- Jtsummers 1y ago> Republicans have the majority and can't even whip together enough votes for a funding resolution Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes, they only have 53 seats. If they changed the rules, it would have passed without the Democrats who voted yes to it yesterday. Yesterday's vote was 55-45, with 60 needed. Two Democrats and one independent voted for it, with one Republican voting against. Without those three, it was still 52-48. A change to a simple majority vote would have averted the shutdown. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00535.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- fzeroracer 1y agoThey can always involve the nuclear option and kill the filibuster easily. As they have done before in other circumstances. They won't, because they believe the optics of the shutdown is in their favor.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- throwup238 1y ago> Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes That's not quite correct. Senate rules are set by simple majority, but the the proposed rule change itself can be filibustered mid-term, except for when someone can exploit procedural rules of cloture to squash it. Those rules were exploited in 2013 to remove the judicial filibuster and again in 2019 for the Supreme Court. It's called the "nuclear option" for a reason, but the road is already paved.
- yalogin 1y agoI haven’t been following this mess but if the republicans have the majority in every house, why are they not agent preventing it? And why are they blaming the democrats for it?
- thelastgallon 1y agoThe bill needs 60 votes. GOP has 53-47 majority. They need 7 dems to vote.
- NewJazz 1y agoSo far 3 dems have voted for the GOP bill. Fetterman of PA, one of the NV senators, and Angus King of Maine.
- johnnyanmac 1y agoCan we even call Fetterman a dem at this point?
- NewJazz 1y agoYes. Ask again in 2028 though I have a feeling his affiliation is subject to change.
- Jtsummers 1y agoI said it in another comment and it's in many reports, but per Senate rules they need a 3/5th majority (60 votes) to pass the funding bill. One Republican voted against, two Democrats and one Independent for. That brought it to 55-45. The Republicans absolutely could change the rules, and don't require that same supermajority to do so, so this is squarely on them. The same thing happened in 2018 when the previous shutdown happened, also with Trump in the White House and a Republican majority in both houses. The Senate Republicans lacked a supermajority and did not change the rules, and the government shutdown for 35 days.
- 1y ago
- decremental 1y agoHN: Where JavaScript programmers try and fail to express intelligent thoughts not related to JavaScript programming.
- anonymars 1y agoHonestly, I would normally not bat an eye at the decision to flag this snarky, but I'm astonished how many blatantly wrong comments there are. Maybe it's just Gell-mann amnesia at work...
- Jtsummers 1y agoIt wasn't flagged. decremental is shadowbanned, look at their comment history it's all [dead], not [flagged][dead]. If you don't see [flagged] before a [dead] comment or submission, then it was done either actively by a moderator (rare) or as part of automatic moderation.
- anonymars 1y agoThanks for the clarification
- mikestew 1y agoThe U. S. had already shut down, we are just now getting around to admitting it.
- waltercool 1y ago[dead]
- davidw 1y agoI always wonder if there are people sitting around in China thinking "how about NOW?" with regards to Taiwan. "No, give the drunken wife beater more time to wreck the military"