2018/2019 US Federal Government Shutdown

3point14 said:
There have been several lawsuits filed (I think mostly by unions) against the government.

So far, they haven't had much success. (In once case they tried to get a restraining order against forcing unpaid people to work, but the judge ruled against it because it would cause "chaos and confusion". However, the judge there hasn't made a final ruling and can here more arguments by the end of the month.)
Click to expand...
This all seems very counter to the underlying principles of the USA.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

There's also the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires people to get paid in a "timely manor". A bunch of emplyees who had to work without pay back during a previous shutdown ended up getting double pay under the law, so the same thing may happen here.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/forc...is-a-clear-violation-professor-181021345.html

Frankly, I think the one thing that can end the shutdown immediately is if its found that the IRS employees can't be forced to work. The contributions of so many other workers can easily be ignored/overlooked. (TSA agents/air traffic controllers? If you're not travelling you may not care. Park workers? If you're not on vacation you may not care.) But if people don't get their tax refunds on time, that will be what finally forces the republicans to actually act, since it affects their base of supporters directly.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Meanwhile, the judge in the ACA case sat on his decision until after the election....possibly to protect republicans.
Click to expand...

And while talking about that case...the president is arguing the bill he chose to sign is unconstitutional. He is not a trustworthy.
 
There was a time when America was great. Back then when faced with this situation all of the citizens would have formed an armed militia and marched to the White House and forced the government to reopen. At gunpoint.
 
William Parcher said:
There was a time when America was great. Back then when faced with this situation all of the citizens would have formed an armed militia and marched to the White House and forced the government to reopen. At gunpoint.
Click to expand...
Oddly, that's just the sort of thing that this government was erected to do away with.

Shay's rebellion, for example.

The track record of mobs in successfully intimidating political institutions vs. mobs put down by government forces or Pinkerton type groups makes the romantic appeal to hostile civil action totally absurd.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Nonsense slavery was always a major part of this nation until 1865. Our founders would be cool with the enslavement of the government employees.
Click to expand...

Depends on which ones. It's clear despite owning slaves, Jefferson wished to abolish the practice as did Franklin, Thomas Adams, Tom Paine as well as most of of the representatives of the Northern colonies. And given the text of the Constitution they wouldn't have been too keen on Caucasians like themselves being forced to work without pay. In fact, it should be noted that indentured servitude in the US legally ended with the American Revolution.
 
acbytesla said:
Depends on which ones. It's clear despite owning slaves, Jefferson wished to abolish the practice as did Franklin, Thomas Adams, Tom Paine as well as most of of the representatives of the Northern colonies. And given the text of the Constitution they wouldn't have been too keen on Caucasians like themselves being forced to work without pay. In fact, it should be noted that indentured servitude in the US legally ended with the American Revolution.
Click to expand...

Also a lot of the plantations were running on deep debt. Jefferson, for example, could not free his slaves ad they were collateral on European loans.
Slavery never was economically feasible.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Oddly, that's just the sort of thing that this government was erected to do away with.

Shay's rebellion, for example.

The track record of mobs in successfully intimidating political institutions vs. mobs put down by government forces or Pinkerton type groups makes the romantic appeal to hostile civil action totally absurd.
Click to expand...


Just look at the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington personally led multiple state militias (armed in accordance with the original function of the 2nd Amendment) to deal with a bunch of farmers who were refusing to pay taxes and were threatening the local tax collectors.
 
acbytesla said:
It appears based on some of the lawsuits, the government has prohibited some employees from seeking other jobs.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link? I can find nothing online that states a federal employee can not quit their job.
 
Jungle Jim said:
Can you provide a link? I can find nothing online that states a federal employee can not quit their job.
Click to expand...

Well they can, but apparently the government needs to be open for them to do so. And for the coast guard wouldn't that be desertion like it would for other branches of the armed forces?
 
Last edited:
On a functional level how would it even work? If someone quits during a shutdown and refuses to come to work what are you going to do? Fire them? Not pay them? The absurdity kind of writes itself there.

But more broadly I do wonder how quitting during a shutdown effects things like unemployment, severance pay, their backpay they'll get when all this is said and done, hell stuff as simple and basic as getting a reference for their next job.
 
JoeMorgue said:
On a functional level how would it even work? If someone quits during a shutdown and refuses to come to work what are you going to do? Fire them? Not pay them? The absurdity kind of writes itself there.
Click to expand...
I was wondering that myself.

I suppose it depends on the person's job and circumstances. I could in theory see problems if:
- The person had some sort of "non-compete" clause in their employment contract (e.g. the person will not work in a related field for X months after quitting)
- The person had to work (rather than being furloughed), yet having to go to work meant they were unavailable to actually look for alternative work

Just spitballing it here. I really have no idea how it would work.
 
acbytesla said:
The lawsuit also claims that the government violated the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment rights by limiting their ability to seek alternative employment during the shutdown, which began Dec. 22.

https://thehill.com/regulation/4248...own-allege-work-without-pay-violates-13th?amp
Click to expand...
Hold on a sec... when they say "seek alternative employment", are they talking about finding an alternative full time/permanent job (as in "I'm leaving the government for good"), or are they talking about an alternative temporary job (as in "I will work a job temporarily until my government job starts paying me")?

Because if we're talking about temporary jobs, then having the government force you back to (unpaid) work full time certainly would impact your ability to find alternative employment until the shutdown is over.
 
Segnosaur said:
Hold on a sec... when they say "seek alternative employment", are they talking about finding an alternative full time/permanent job (as in "I'm leaving the government for good"), or are they talking about an alternative temporary job (as in "I will work a job temporarily until my government job starts paying me")?

Because if we're talking about temporary jobs, then having the government force you back to (unpaid) work full time certainly would impact your ability to find alternative employment until the shutdown is over.
Click to expand...

I don't know. It's absurd any way you view it.
 
3point14 said:
This all seems very counter to the underlying principles of the USA.
Click to expand...
From here it looks like the underlying principle of the USA is “I’m alright. **** you.”

I mean that seriously, it’s the only way to explain things like the appalling health care system, the attacks on public education, the attitude towards the USA’s contribution to climate change, Trump’s Wall, the requirement for government workers to work without pay, the attacks on net neutrality and much more.
 
jeremyp said:
From here it looks like the underlying principle of the USA is “I’m alright. **** you.”

I mean that seriously, it’s the only way to explain things like the appalling health care system, the attacks on public education, the attitude towards the USA’s contribution to climate change, Trump’s Wall, the requirement for government workers to work without pay, the attacks on net neutrality and much more.
Click to expand...

That's called freedom...
 
jeremyp said:
From here it looks like the underlying principle of the USA is “I’m alright. **** you.”

I mean that seriously, it’s the only way to explain things like the appalling health care system, the attacks on public education, the attitude towards the USA’s contribution to climate change, Trump’s Wall, the requirement for government workers to work without pay, the attacks on net neutrality and much more.
Click to expand...

And all this is supported by the ridiculous notion that, once you'll make it in life, the others can get screwed, so there's no reason to change any of that.
 
Jungle Jim said:
Thanks for the link. The article doesn't mention anything about prohibiting an employee from quiting their job. It only mentions: "The lawsuit also claims that the government violated the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment rights by limiting their ability to seek alternative employment during the shutdown, which began Dec. 22."
Click to expand...

Right - we can't work with "Prohibited Sources", that is, we can't seek employment with businesses that do or might do business with our agency, or businesses that might be impacted by the actions of our agency (such as through the implementation of regulations).

In practice, that means that many federal employees can't seek outside work in their line of work. It's like starting over with little or no experience.

We can quit, but there may be nobody there to process any severance paperwork. It's all very unclear, and some people were looking at retiring. They can still do all of that after the shutdown, but it plays havoc with life planning. My former boss was scheduled to leave his job in Denver and change his station to Utah, with all that entails. Nobody seems to know what to do with those sorts of things right now.
 
William Parcher said:
There was a time when America was great. Back then when faced with this situation all of the citizens would have formed an armed militia and marched to the White House and forced the government to reopen. At gunpoint.
Click to expand...

I am guessing that this was before the time of the Government being able to reply with Tanks and Drones. However it should be noted that the Whiskey Rebellion didn't go all that well, and that was when Washington was President....
 
Mr. President, there is a huge mob outside and they are all carrying guns.
What is it?
They are furious that we are closed and said they will start shooting.
Ok listen to me, go to the front door and flip the sign to Open.
Ok, be right back.
So, what happened after you did that?
They all left.
 
William Parcher said:
Mr. President, there is a huge mob outside and they are all carrying guns.
What is it?
They are furious that we are closed and said they will start shooting.
Ok listen to me, go to the front door and flip the sign to Open.
Ok, be right back.
So, what happened after you did that?
They all left.
Click to expand...

Or....

Mr. President, there is a huge mob outside and they are all carrying guns.
What is it?
They are furious that we are closed and said they will start shooting.
Ok listen to me, declare a National Emergency because there is an attempted Coup happening, I want the Secret Service, the Capital Police, the National Guard, and the Army here as soon as they can get here. I'm headed for the Presidential Emergency Operations Center to oversee the operation.
As you instruct, Sir.
 
And IRL I think it would actually go more like this....

Mr. President, We have detected a huge mob headed for the Whitehouse and they are all carrying guns.
What do they want?
They are furious that we are closed and said they will start shooting. As such we need you on Marine 1 in about thirty seconds, we're evacuating you while the Police deal with the mob.
Where are we going?
To Air Force 1 and then on to an undisclosed location for your safety, Sir. Now we need to move.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm very familiar. I too am told I will burn in hell by these 'loving' Christians. But I take solace in the fact that Frodo and Sam returned the one ring to Mount Doom.
Click to expand...
Apart from the obvious problems with the Heaven and Hell myth, I know atheists that have religious parents, brothers and sisters.

So the atheist in the family will be going to hell, everyone else in the family goes to heaven. And supposedly if you get to heaven everything is peachy happy - forever. That means therefore that they no longer give a **** about their poor brother/son who is currently being tortured for eternity and who they will never see again, (just because he was not convinced about some supernatural point, and the dude that put him in hell didn't seem it necessary to inform him the almighty was actually in fact the real deal while the dude was still alive, so he might repent).

So either god changed their soul in heaven so they forgot about their brother/son (immoral), or changed their soul so they no longer cared for their brother/son (immoral), or they spend eternity in heaven suffering because they are worried and miss their brother/son (immoral)

oh well. Thread derail.

I wonder where Trump will end up. I think he would like it better in Hell, assuming people in Hell can screw other people over - or if that's what makes you happy, I wonder if you are allowed screw people over in heaven? ...

I can't see Trump in Heaven being nice and angle like to everyone he meets there.
 
BadBoy said:
Wasn't the House recently voted for, in a national election.

Don't they have a mandate from the people (as far as that Vote goes anyway) for their actions?

Shouldn't Trump be working within that Mandate?

I am surprised that the law is not changed to prevent shutdowns. Is this a purely American thing?
Click to expand...
Australia tried it once. Everyone agreed it was not good. Budget bills are now passed.
 
Armitage72 said:
Just look at the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington personally led multiple state militias (armed in accordance with the original function of the 2nd Amendment) to deal with a bunch of farmers who were refusing to pay taxes and were threatening the local tax collectors.
Click to expand...

Much to the dismay of James Warren, reminding everyone "did you forget the **** we pulled back in the day?!" (perhaps not a direct quote).
 
a_unique_person said:
Australia tried it once. Everyone agreed it was not good. Budget bills are now passed.
Click to expand...

After that, the Australian gov'ment said "That's it, no more budget standoffs!"

and we went, "yeah, alright, that seems fair."

and you Americans, had standoffs for weeks, two-three times a year! The gov'ment said "maybe...we'll do a partial shutdown?"

and 50% of you went "**** YOU DON'T TAKE MY SHUTDOWNS!"

(adapted from Jim Jefferies' gun control bit)
 
It could easily be done if the legislators had the mandate that until a budget was passed the previous one stayed in effect. After all, the government isn't really shut down, just some departments are.

Could be some grant programs' funding ends, but not departments doing actual government services.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
After that, the Australian gov'ment said "That's it, no more budget standoffs!"

and we went, "yeah, alright, that seems fair."

and you Americans, had standoffs for weeks, two-three times a year! The gov'ment said "maybe...we'll do a partial shutdown?"

and 50% of you went "**** YOU DON'T TAKE MY SHUTDOWNS!"

(adapted from Jim Jefferies' gun control bit)
Click to expand...
funny routine.
 
BadBoy said:
I wonder where Trump will end up. I think he would like it better in Hell, assuming people in Hell can screw other people over - or if that's what makes you happy, I wonder if you are allowed screw people over in heaven? ...

I can't see Trump in Heaven being nice and angle like to everyone he meets there.
Click to expand...

At least he could get a real tan for change.
 
I think that the people who can actually deliver the votes should get together and find an agreement.
I'm sure even Trump would be relieved to leave the negotiation to the two persons who need to agree before the shutdown can end:

Nancy Pelosi and Ann Coulter
 
BadBoy said:
Apart from the obvious problems with the Heaven and Hell myth, I know atheists that have religious parents, brothers and sisters.So the atheist in the family will be going to hell, everyone else in the family goes to heaven. And supposedly if you get to heaven everything is peachy happy - forever. That means therefore that they no longer give a **** about their poor brother/son who is currently being tortured for eternity and who they will never see again, (just because he was not convinced about some supernatural point, and the dude that put him in hell didn't seem it necessary to inform him the almighty was actually in fact the real deal while the dude was still alive, so he might repent).

So either god changed their soul in heaven so they forgot about their brother/son (immoral), or changed their soul so they no longer cared for their brother/son (immoral), or they spend eternity in heaven suffering because they are worried and miss their brother/son (immoral)

oh well. Thread derail.

I wonder where Trump will end up. I think he would like it better in Hell, assuming people in Hell can screw other people over - or if that's what makes you happy, I wonder if you are allowed screw people over in heaven? ...

I can't see Trump in Heaven being nice and angle like to everyone he meets there.
Click to expand...

As do I. There was a time I was persona non grata in the family. But now we just don't talk about it. I've had Pascal's Wager tossed at me hundreds, if not thousands of times. I've gotten to a point where I can easily swat it away sweetly. I merely say if God is truly loving as I was taught, he's never going to punish me for using the brain he gave me.

They usually are flummoxed by that. They might point to scripture which I say, "you don't believe everything you read do you?"

Trump will end up the same place Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, my saintly mother and the rest of us will end up.

And Trump is only nice to people that can do something for him.
 
acbytesla said:
As do I. There was a time I was persona non grata in the family. But now we just don't talk about it. I've had Pascal's Wager tossed at me hundreds, if not thousands of times. I've gotten to a point where I can easily swat it away sweetly. I merely say if God is truly loving as I was taught, he's never going to punish me for using the brain he gave me.
Click to expand...

Really? My counter to the Wager argument is that what about if you're wrong AND Zeus is the one true god? How about Vishnu? Osiris? The Wager only works if you ignore the other religions.
 
Belz... said:
Really? My counter to the Wager argument is that what about if you're wrong AND Zeus is the one true god? How about Vishnu? Osiris? The Wager only works if you ignore the other religions.
Click to expand...

That works too. But Islam and Mohammed work better. Their hell is easily as bad as the Christian hell. Which is really weird as the Jewish religion which both religions are built on don't believe in hell at all.

There is something really bizarre about Christians and politics. Trump is the least religious,least pious, least Christian like President in history. His Golden Rule is "I got the gold, I can do whatever I ******* want, so **** off" And yet they pray to him almost as if Trump is their savior. I've read quotes where they compare him to King David which in a way I find appropriate since David killed the husband of a woman he wanted and God forgave him for that.

Yet I remember lots of Christians questioning Jimmy Carter and his faith and he was without question a committed Christian.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
I think that the people who can actually deliver the votes should get together and find an agreement.
I'm sure even Trump would be relieved to leave the negotiation to the two persons who need to agree before the shutdown can end:

Nancy Pelosi and Ann Coulter
Click to expand...

:D
 
Belz... said:
Really? My counter to the Wager argument is that what about if you're wrong AND Zeus is the one true god? How about Vishnu? Osiris? The Wager only works if you ignore the other religions.
Click to expand...

Pascal's Wager also fails if God sees through it. The Christian god has a documented history of being easily insulted, petty, and spiteful. If such a being was also omnicognizant it would know if you were trying to game it, and it would likely be pretty pissed off about that. It would likely be safer to just plain disbelieve than have God figure out you were playing along to get something out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom