3 ms·

> Government shutdowns are common under both Republican and Democrat administrations. They're not really, especially at this scale. Since they became a thing

> 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 1y 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 1y 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.

epolanski 1y 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 1y 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.