6 ms·

Why do you blame Trump for the shutdown? Isn't it caused by Congress basically failing to agree on a funding continuation? (I think it's been ages since they co

by slashdev 11mo ago

Why do you blame Trump for the shutdown? Isn't it caused by Congress basically failing to agree on a funding continuation? (I think it's been ages since they could actually go further and agree on a budget). Government shutdowns are common under both Republican and Democrat administrations. You can say he refuses to compromise, but clearly so does the other side, hence the impasse.

grebc 11mo ago
Republican Congress is in his pocket. If he wanted a compromise you bet your bottom dollar it would happen.
- tialaramex 11mo ago
  There's a conflict because Trump thinks the obvious way forward is you destroy the filibuster, and the Republicans in the Senate fear that when there are more Democrats - say, after the mid-terms - they need the filibuster or else Democratic priorities can become law by simple majority. Imagine trying to explain to Trump that you can't destroy the filibuster because too many of your colleagues might lose an election. It's like telling a five year old that he can't have desert because he hasn't eaten the vegetables. He doesn't want to eat the vegetables, you are a bad person because rather than agreeing with him you're acting as if he's wrong, which is inconceivable. Some of Trump's advisors may have the idea that they can rig the 2026 elections and so it won't matter. A big problem is that some of these advisors also assured senators that they'd locked down 2020 and that didn't go so well. To Trump this seems irrelevant. Why should he care about Susan Collins? She's not even hot, and hasn't given him any cool trinkets. So what if she loses to some Democrat? They're both losers, Trump is the ultimate and his people have told him that over 600% of people support Trump, if she loses that's her fault. So that's a problem, a recurring problem and so far this term the solution has generally been to ignore Trump's useless suggestions but not do anything he explicitly forbids. Trouble is, Trump doesn't care about the shutdown but the at-risk Republican senators do care.
  - grebc 11mo ago
    I actually give Trump more credit for understanding scrapping filibuster is the wrong move. I also think he’s smart enough to realise people think he’s dumb. So he says scrap filibuster as a way to sow the seeds that there’s tension where there really isn’t. Maybe it’s too much 4D chess but he is a master manipulator of media/public opinion.
mayneack 11mo ago
Well in this case the executive branch isn't even following congressionally appropriations, so one could argue that this particular shut down is more caused by the president than any other in history.
- phantasmish 11mo ago
  This is true on multiple levels. AFAIK this kind of situation is a result of a novel interpretation by an AG of a much older law some time around 1980. I don't think it's ever been tested in court, and we'd operated for decades under the old interpretation before then. Trump could just say "we're going back to the old interpretation" and at-minimum buy several months of runway while court challenges happened (if they even did). This would be among the least questionable "stretches" (to be very generous) of presidential power he'd exercised.
dummydummy1234 11mo ago
The issue is that the Democrats 'compromised' on the last funding bill - basically had an agreement that some programs would stay funded. Then the trump administration said "funding allocations from Congress are limits, and we do not have to spend that much on these programs if there is not a need" And then stopped funding things anyway.
pwthornton 11mo ago
The two longest shutdowns in the history of the United States of America have occurred under Donald J. Trump. Trump is hosting Great Gatsby parties, traveling, golfing, and doing everything except trying to end the shutdown. He doesn't seem to care that much that it is happening. And the entire reason it is happening is because Trump's Big Beautiful Bill did not contain Affordable Care Act subsidies. It is incorrect to say that what is happening is common under all administrations. This dysfunction is uniquely Trumpian.
rainsford 11mo ago
> Government shutdowns are common under both Republican and Democrat administrations. They're not really, especially at this scale. Since they became a thing when Carter was President, Biden and George W. Bush had 0. Reagan had 3, but only for 6 days total and George H. W. Bush had 1 for 3 days. Clinton had 2 for 28 days total and Obama had 1 for 16 days total. Clinton and Obama's records are a bit more significant, but Trump so far across his 2 terms, 1 of which is less than a year in, has had 3 shutdowns for 77 total days so far. Or to put it another way, out of the 130 days of shutdown that have even happened since they became a thing 45 years ago, ~60% of them have happened in the 5 years Trump has been president. If you do the math, that's roughly 10x worse government uptime. Notably, those are also the only shutdowns that have happened with one party controlling the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. I'm still not saying this is definitively the Trump administration's fault, but any way you look at it that is not a great record.
- epolanski 11mo ago
  > I'm still not saying this is definitively the Trump administration's fault How is it not? The budget requires 60 votes, not a simple majority. Thus it's up to the majority party to present a bill that will win 60 votes. Some important stuff in major democracies is designed to require way more than simple majority. In Italy, e.g. the president is elected by the parliament, but the quorum required is two thirds of votes. This is very important because it forces all governments to find a suitable candidate that is as unbiased and trustable as possible by the overwhelming majority of the representatives. While elections of the president can drag for very long, even for months, I can't but say we italians have been blessed with great presidents. Each one stepped up to represent italians and never political interests.
  - rainsford 11mo ago
    > How is it not? > The budget requires 60 votes, not a simple majority. Thus it's up to the majority party to present a bill that will win 60 votes. It's up to the majority party to do so, but not up to the President to facilitate it, even if he's a member of the majority party. Of course he should help find a solution and has some responsibility if that doesn't happen. But Congressional Republicans could work out a compromise with Democrats with or without the President's involvement, and as long as they have enough votes to override a veto they can come up with a compromise even if the President actively opposes it. This is only true if Congress treats the President just as the head of a co-equal branch of government, which is not always the case and is definitely not the case for current Congressional Republicans. The fact that they defer to the President so much effectively shifts more responsibility to the executive branch, but I'm not sure congress isn't still to blame even if they abdicate their responsibility.

grebc 11mo ago

Republican Congress is in his pocket. If he wanted a compromise you bet your bottom dollar it would happen.

tialaramex 11mo ago
There's a conflict because Trump thinks the obvious way forward is you destroy the filibuster, and the Republicans in the Senate fear that when there are more Democrats - say, after the mid-terms - they need the filibuster or else Democratic priorities can become law by simple majority. Imagine trying to explain to Trump that you can't destroy the filibuster because too many of your colleagues might lose an election. It's like telling a five year old that he can't have desert because he hasn't eaten the vegetables. He doesn't want to eat the vegetables, you are a bad person because rather than agreeing with him you're acting as if he's wrong, which is inconceivable. Some of Trump's advisors may have the idea that they can rig the 2026 elections and so it won't matter. A big problem is that some of these advisors also assured senators that they'd locked down 2020 and that didn't go so well. To Trump this seems irrelevant. Why should he care about Susan Collins? She's not even hot, and hasn't given him any cool trinkets. So what if she loses to some Democrat? They're both losers, Trump is the ultimate and his people have told him that over 600% of people support Trump, if she loses that's her fault. So that's a problem, a recurring problem and so far this term the solution has generally been to ignore Trump's useless suggestions but not do anything he explicitly forbids. Trouble is, Trump doesn't care about the shutdown but the at-risk Republican senators do care.
- grebc 11mo ago
  I actually give Trump more credit for understanding scrapping filibuster is the wrong move. I also think he’s smart enough to realise people think he’s dumb. So he says scrap filibuster as a way to sow the seeds that there’s tension where there really isn’t. Maybe it’s too much 4D chess but he is a master manipulator of media/public opinion.

mayneack 11mo ago

Well in this case the executive branch isn't even following congressionally appropriations, so one could argue that this particular shut down is more caused by the president than any other in history.

phantasmish 11mo ago
This is true on multiple levels. AFAIK this kind of situation is a result of a novel interpretation by an AG of a much older law some time around 1980. I don't think it's ever been tested in court, and we'd operated for decades under the old interpretation before then. Trump could just say "we're going back to the old interpretation" and at-minimum buy several months of runway while court challenges happened (if they even did). This would be among the least questionable "stretches" (to be very generous) of presidential power he'd exercised.

dummydummy1234 11mo ago

The issue is that the Democrats 'compromised' on the last funding bill - basically had an agreement that some programs would stay funded. Then the trump administration said "funding allocations from Congress are limits, and we do not have to spend that much on these programs if there is not a need" And then stopped funding things anyway.

pwthornton 11mo ago

The two longest shutdowns in the history of the United States of America have occurred under Donald J. Trump. Trump is hosting Great Gatsby parties, traveling, golfing, and doing everything except trying to end the shutdown. He doesn't seem to care that much that it is happening. And the entire reason it is happening is because Trump's Big Beautiful Bill did not contain Affordable Care Act subsidies. It is incorrect to say that what is happening is common under all administrations. This dysfunction is uniquely Trumpian.

rainsford 11mo ago

> Government shutdowns are common under both Republican and Democrat administrations. They're not really, especially at this scale. Since they became a thing when Carter was President, Biden and George W. Bush had 0. Reagan had 3, but only for 6 days total and George H. W. Bush had 1 for 3 days. Clinton had 2 for 28 days total and Obama had 1 for 16 days total. Clinton and Obama's records are a bit more significant, but Trump so far across his 2 terms, 1 of which is less than a year in, has had 3 shutdowns for 77 total days so far. Or to put it another way, out of the 130 days of shutdown that have even happened since they became a thing 45 years ago, ~60% of them have happened in the 5 years Trump has been president. If you do the math, that's roughly 10x worse government uptime. Notably, those are also the only shutdowns that have happened with one party controlling the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. I'm still not saying this is definitively the Trump administration's fault, but any way you look at it that is not a great record.

epolanski 11mo ago
> I'm still not saying this is definitively the Trump administration's fault How is it not? The budget requires 60 votes, not a simple majority. Thus it's up to the majority party to present a bill that will win 60 votes. Some important stuff in major democracies is designed to require way more than simple majority. In Italy, e.g. the president is elected by the parliament, but the quorum required is two thirds of votes. This is very important because it forces all governments to find a suitable candidate that is as unbiased and trustable as possible by the overwhelming majority of the representatives. While elections of the president can drag for very long, even for months, I can't but say we italians have been blessed with great presidents. Each one stepped up to represent italians and never political interests.
- rainsford 11mo ago
  > How is it not? > The budget requires 60 votes, not a simple majority. Thus it's up to the majority party to present a bill that will win 60 votes. It's up to the majority party to do so, but not up to the President to facilitate it, even if he's a member of the majority party. Of course he should help find a solution and has some responsibility if that doesn't happen. But Congressional Republicans could work out a compromise with Democrats with or without the President's involvement, and as long as they have enough votes to override a veto they can come up with a compromise even if the President actively opposes it. This is only true if Congress treats the President just as the head of a co-equal branch of government, which is not always the case and is definitely not the case for current Congressional Republicans. The fact that they defer to the President so much effectively shifts more responsibility to the executive branch, but I'm not sure congress isn't still to blame even if they abdicate their responsibility.