U.S. Budget & OBBB | OCT 1 - Gov’t Shutdown Begins

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 69K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
Northern district of Georgia issued an order today staying all civil litigation involving the US and its federal agencies so my client's case against the SBA is stayed - preventing me from billing hours on the file. Thanks Schumer. I'm the real victim here.
Click to expand...
Most of the DOJ is excepted from the furlough. Trump/Bondi are doing this to fuck with people like you.
 


“… The officials cautioned that firings — known as RIFs, or reductions in force — could be vulnerable to legal challenges under statutes labor unions cited this week in a lawsuit seeking to block threatened mass layoffs.

For example, the Antideficiency Act prohibits the federal government from obligating or expending any money not appropriated by Congress. It also forbids incurring new expenses during a shutdown, when funding has lapsed; some federal government officials have concluded the prohibition could extend to the kind of severance payments that accompany reductions in force.

… Asked about the legal concerns, White House Office of Management and Budget communications director Rachel Cauley said in a written statement that “issuing RIFs is an excepted activity to fulfill the President’s constitutional authority to supervise and control the Executive Branch, similar to conducting foreign policy.”…”
 
nycfan said:


Click to expand...

This should be asked of every single GOP member of Congress, spokesperson, media sycophant, and the president himself over and over:

“Trump has said may time we have taken in $17 trillion in tariffs. That would be enough to cover our expenses twice with several trillion dollars left over.
Why is there a shutdown if the Treasury took in enough money this year to last us until the end of 2027?”
 
I can't say that the "if you don't do what I want, Dems, then I will screw over the voters" strikes me as a winning message.

Nor is, "well, these agencies were good, but now we have to close them permanently because Democrats."

Anyone notice that Trump has avoided sending the NG into Philadelphia or Detroit? LOL. Swing states. Not sure he's avoiding swing state carnage this time around.
 
Zoo_View said:
I respect you a lot as a poster.

Are you FUCKING INSANE?!

Completely BREAKING the US Government will bring on the 1930’s.

The Heritage Foundation WANTS to break the American government.

Breaking the American government brings on deaths in the millions.
Click to expand...
No, he's not fucking insane. This is how democracy is supposed to work. People elect leaders. The leaders do things. If those things are bad, then the people can vote out the leaders.

When Democrats rush to save the country after the Pubs fuck it up, and minimize the damage, they don't get the credit. The GOP just argues that they did nothing wrong. Lack of consequences for their fuckery is how we got here.

After the Bush-induced financial crisis and Great Recession, one would have thought the GOP would be out of power for a while. But instead we got the Tea Party and a GOP wave in 2010. And now we have fascism. The people need to see that the fascists are horrible at governance and must be tossed out. Mussolini didn't actually make the trains run on time; the Italians didn't figure that out until too late. Let's not make the same mistake.
 
ChileG said:
This should be asked of every single GOP member of Congress, spokesperson, media sycophant, and the president himself over and over:

“Trump has said may time we have taken in $17 trillion in tariffs. That would be enough to cover our expenses twice with several trillion dollars left over.
Why is there a shutdown if the Treasury took in enough money this year to last us until the end of 2027?”
Click to expand...
Your point is a good one, but to Swalwell's post, we should make no mistake. The Trump Checks are coming. Trump will absolutely use direct payments to buy the 2026 elections.
 
lawtig02 said:
I hear you, but I'm just looking at history, and I don't think Dems have the luxury of playing the short game anymore. That's been a losing proposition for Dems since at least 1980, with Pubs fucking up the economy, Dems starting to fix it, but Pubs being returned to power because there's no short game that operates on a fast enough schedule for impatient Americans. The effect has been a gradual decline of government functionality and trust in government by lower and middle class Americans.

Last November was the final opportunity for Dems to win the short term game. We lost. Now, the short term is 100% in the control of the Pubs, and we see the massive destruction they've created in just nine months. It will get much worse.

So what was the last time American politics disrupted the cycle of gradual economic erosion for lower and middle class Americans and adopted policies that really helped those groups in the long term? The most optimistic answer is Johnson's Great Society. But the more realistic answer is FDR's New Deal. Both of those, and especially the New Deal, only came about because of economic distress caused by conservative economic policies. The disruption that led to the New Deal was also impacted by isolationist policy. And the disruption that led to the Great Society was also impacted by immense public persecution of vulnerable minority groups by conservative states and leaders.

I still very much believe in the future of America. I do not think our decline is written in stone. But I also do not see a way out of our current patterns of dysfunction and idiocracy unless we as a nation experience a massive economic disruption. Americans just don't have the patience, the foresight, or the selflessness to make necessary changes in ordinary times. We only show that courage when the moment makes it necessary.

And that brings us to this moment. Conservatives have been demagoguing the government for decades now. But Trump 2.0 appears to be the moment when all of their planning is transitioning to rapid action. This is the conservative blitzkrieg. We're going to suffer from it no matter what Dems do in this particular moment regarding the funding of the government. But if we want real change -- an opportunity to get out of this brutally painful downward spiral -- we're going to need the pain to be really, really bad. It might require 1930s-style pain. I don't want that. I dread it. But I think it may be necessary. Otherwise, there won't be anything worth fighting for, in the short or long terms.
Click to expand...
Great Society was not sparked by a bad economy. To the contrary, it was undertaken because the economy was strong at the time and the idea was that we could afford to give our elderly people health care; we could afford to eliminate poverty; we could provide housing for everyone, etc.

The rest of your post is more or less correct, in my view. I'm not sure we have to stop playing the short game but we definitely need to play the long game better.
 
rodoheel said:
I read the article. I understand the author's fear that the Antideficiency Act could theoretically provide legal cover for the administration to issue RIFs. What I am saying is that Trump and Vought have made clear that they are willing to use RIFs even without obvious legal cover, and so far the Supreme Court has largely let them get away with it. Trump and Vought have already asserted plainly illegal rights to impoundment, and the Supreme Court has already let them get away with it. IMO it would be a mistake to give in to what are essentially hostage tactics from Vought when it is clear that Vought intends to pursue RIFs anyway.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. It's like this:

State Fan: We throw shit at the players on the court because we're tired of losing all the time.
UNC: If we let you win one, will you stop throwing money.
State Fan: Probably, I guess.
[State wins one. Next year, they still throw coins]
UNC: I thought you said you would stop throwing money.
State Fan: Do you know the story of the scorpion and the frog?
 
rodoheel said:
There is zero reason to think that Vought wouldn't and couldn't do this (RIF numerous employees and departments) independent of a shutdown if he wanted to. I fail to see how a shutdown changes that picture at all. The Supreme Court has shown no inclination to push back on the admin firing anybody it wants to fire. And even if Dems cave, Vought can just hang this same threat over them every time a funding authorization comes up. I think it is the right call to call the bluff here - if Vought really wants to mass-terminate federal employees from all these programs, might as well go ahead and have that fight.
Click to expand...
This has been their plan for four years. Schedule F and all that. Remember Heritage guy saying we're going to have a second revolution?

This shutdown is not making them or allowing them to do anything they aren't already doing. Back in March, we thought the courts were going to stop the lawlessness. We didn't realize that the Supreme Theocratic Council was going to exit the business of jurisprudence entirely.
 
superrific said:
Great Society was not sparked by a bad economy. To the contrary, it was undertaken because the economy was strong at the time and the idea was that we could afford to give our elderly people health care; we could afford to eliminate poverty; we could provide housing for everyone, etc.

The rest of your post is more or less correct, in my view. I'm not sure we have to stop playing the short game but we definitely need to play the long game better.
Click to expand...
It was a highly stratified economy, much like we have now. So while some people were doing great in the '60s, other groups were getting crushed, and the LBJ coalition was trying to address their economic distress.
 
ChileG said:
Trump said the president bares the responsibility of a government shutdown and must work with the other side to get a deal done.
Click to expand...
Is there video of him saying that? If so, Dems should put that out there as an ad. Play it on any platform the masses watch. Play it during football games.
 
nycfan said:


Disgusted Steve Carell GIF
Click to expand...

It's amazing that, having offered that Vought is chomping at the bit to do this, the motherfucker has the temerity to blame Democrats.

Hey Mike, maybe you shouldn't have voted for the guy who has been waiting since puberty to destroy America.

We need to make this an ad.
 
lawtig02 said:
It was a highly stratified economy, much like we have now. So while some people were doing great in the '60s, other groups were getting crushed, and the LBJ coalition was trying to address their economic distress.
Click to expand...
Nah. Income inequality shrunk in the 60s, and the Gini coefficient stayed flat -- and way lower than it is today.

I mean, obviously there was racial inequality and gender inequality, but those aren't economic factors per se, and they aren't what sparked the Great Society.

Remember: Kennedy won the election in 60 and then LBJ in 64 and only then did the Great Society start, in 65. I guess he was talking about it on the campaign trail in 64 but it didn't start in earnest until after that. And LBJ was definitely NOT running against his own administration.

The 60s were probably the biggest boom time in the entire 20th century. And it did lift most boats, per Kennedy's famous maxim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top