3 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown It has actually happened several times in the last forty year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown It has actually happened several times in the last forty years.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
That sort of confuses me even more. It isn't the sort of thing you would want to develop into a tactic, it just seems risky as hell.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Risky politically? In practical terms, it isn't that risky. As has been pointed out, this has happened before. The U.S. hasn't defaulted on its treasury bills. The Secret Service doesn't stop protecting the President. Federally-funded highways are still operating.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    I don't think it is that risky to do once or twice maybe, but I don't think the risk substantially decreases through repetition. It is sabotage of civil services as an allowed political tactic, which is pretty unstable. All you need is bad timing.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    The U.S. hasn't defaulted on its treasury bills. Err, what? That's like the head of a mint justifying taking a holiday because they haven't stopped printing the money used at the resort.
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    Meanwhile Curiosity, the Mars Rover, isn't moving. Thankfully, there aren't any spacecraft scheduled for mission-critical operations (orbital insertion, for example), or those would go unsupervised, too. Most all NASA is on furlough, as if people didn't need the money. A colleague is waiting for word on his grant application from the NIH. Ordinarily his panel (~ 20 people) would converge on Washington this Friday and decide on who gets funded. That is going to be postponed, and it's hard to settle on a date when all 20 are available. Everyone has bought their plane tickets already and cannot use them now; they will have to buy new tickets- again on Federal funds. Since the application is in already he cannot submit the same to the NSF, as he would have done in case it got turned down. The immediate cost, and the knock-on cost is immense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown It has actually happened several times in the last forty years.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

That sort of confuses me even more. It isn't the sort of thing you would want to develop into a tactic, it just seems risky as hell.

humanrebar 13y ago
Risky politically? In practical terms, it isn't that risky. As has been pointed out, this has happened before. The U.S. hasn't defaulted on its treasury bills. The Secret Service doesn't stop protecting the President. Federally-funded highways are still operating.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  I don't think it is that risky to do once or twice maybe, but I don't think the risk substantially decreases through repetition. It is sabotage of civil services as an allowed political tactic, which is pretty unstable. All you need is bad timing.
- contingencies 13y ago
  The U.S. hasn't defaulted on its treasury bills. Err, what? That's like the head of a mint justifying taking a holiday because they haven't stopped printing the money used at the resort.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  Meanwhile Curiosity, the Mars Rover, isn't moving. Thankfully, there aren't any spacecraft scheduled for mission-critical operations (orbital insertion, for example), or those would go unsupervised, too. Most all NASA is on furlough, as if people didn't need the money. A colleague is waiting for word on his grant application from the NIH. Ordinarily his panel (~ 20 people) would converge on Washington this Friday and decide on who gets funded. That is going to be postponed, and it's hard to settle on a date when all 20 are available. Everyone has bought their plane tickets already and cannot use them now; they will have to buy new tickets- again on Federal funds. Since the application is in already he cannot submit the same to the NSF, as he would have done in case it got turned down. The immediate cost, and the knock-on cost is immense.