It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Not Have a PERPETUAL U.S. Budget. The Shutdown Drama is Rediculous.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 07:19 AM

originally posted by: carewemust
January 17, 2018

1.) Have any of the past government shut-downs affected you in a negative way? The Mainstream Media is using dire words to describe how bad it will be for this nation, if the government starts closing down on January 20th.

Almost, I used to work for a private large government contracting agency that had a contract with the CDC. It was my first job dealing with the federal government and I had only started working a few months when a shutdown loomed.

It was explained to me that if a shutdown occurred, I would be furloughed as the company's contract with the CDC was considered non-essential.

In order to get paid, we would have to use our Paid Time Off days (PTO). Once those ran out, we would use our Discretionary Time Off (DTO) which are paid days off allocated in the contract for government/federal holidays. After those ran out it was 100% furlough without pay.

As I was only there a few months, I did not yet have a chance to accrue much PTO. Needless to say, I was coming up with contingency plans just in case.

The government did not shutdown, but the budget was sequestered which was a spending solution agreed on by both parties. This slashed the CDC's budget and the time came where the contracts had to go through a re-bidding process.

All of this happened a month after all of the shutdown talk. The company I worked for had to scramble for the same contracts that they held for decades. It was explained to me that if they lost the contract I worked on, I had three choices:

1. Move to the new company that was awarded the contract. I believe by law they had to hold my position at least 6 months, and after that it was a strong chance I'd be laid off.

2. Stay with the company I already worked for and try to get on another contract that had an opening.

3. Resign and get a severance package.

The contract was awarded to the company I worked for but many of my colleagues, some of which had been there for twenty years, contracts were awarded to other companies, so they had a decision to make. It was a ghost town in the office because many of them left.

I was unable to work on anything until the CDC approved the project which would not happen until all of the the dust settled, and the red tape was stretched & accounted for.

My career was put on hold as a result of all of the bureaucracy and politics and I wasn't learning or growing. A few months after the contract rebid, I resigned and went back wholly to the private sector.

Needless to say, after that first experience working with the government that it would be my last. I could go on and on about what I witnessed the short time I was there, but I'm trying to stay on topic.
edit on 19-1-2018 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: MOMof3

You do understand that it's the Democrats--the minority party in both houses of Congress--who are the ones causing the issue, correct? It's their unwillingness to put the well-being of the DACA victims before their staunch opposition to the wall (and I'm sure other little things here and there). The DACA debacle is the doing of President Obama, and it shouldn't be the Republicans' job to clean up his mess--a mess that they were generally opposed to creating in the first place--without getting something in return that will help (in their eyes) deter the same issues from recurring.

Just because Republicans have the majority doesn't mean that every Republican senator agrees with the proposed budget. These people are not robots, even though people like you like to lump them all in as being the same. But the reality is that the former POTUS did things by EO way too much, and now it's Trump's issue to clean up that mess. Maybe if we have presidents who will enforce laws instead of order them to be ignored, we wouldn't find ourselves in this predicament.

But, yes, it's all the Republicans' fault, and the Democrats are free and clear from any culpability.

posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 10:23 AM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Seen it a million times. When repubs can’t get other republicans to act like republicans, then they want democrats to act like republicans. No.

posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 12:31 PM
a reply to: majesticgent

Thank-you very much for sharing your experience MajesticAgent. Sorry to hear that you had to endure so much B.S., due to our government, but it apparently made you wiser and actually more successful!

For millions of people who would not be so fortunate, there's a move starting in Congress to adjust the budgetary process, so that these deadlines, and the associated drama/horse-trading will come to an end. All the drama this week for a 30 day funding bill! Guess where we'll be on 2/18/2018? This is insanity.

posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 04:24 PM
a reply to: MOMof3

And don't forget that Republicans have notoriously supported government shutdowns in the past (particularly during both Pres Obama's presidency and Pres Clinton's presidency). There have already been at least 2 other last minute short-term deals to pass continuing resolutions on Dec 7th and Dec 22nd of last year. Otherwise, there would've been shutdowns then too.

But Republicans refuse to explain why Democrats worked with them on those 2 continuing resolutions to prevent shutdowns, yet are refusing to do so this time. It's because Repubs are trying to use the CHIP program as a bargaining chip to get Democrats to sign off on Republican priorities like more funding for Trump's Wall, more military funding, and immigration reform. And amazingly, Democratic leaders were still willing to do that if they could get a long-term DACA fix and long-term CHIP funding passed alongside it (which was the original point of the now-infamous "shole" meeting).

Then he was invited to join Mr. Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a longtime advocate of an immigration law overhaul, at the White House for what they believed was a session to complete a bipartisan agreement to protect the young immigrants known as Dreamers in exchange for new border security and other immigration law changes.

Basically, they want Democrats to vote with them yet refuse to put Democratic priorities in the legislation. And ironically, just a few days ago House Republican Tom Cole was boasting about this.

“We don’t need any Democrats in the House,” boasted senior appropriator Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). “And I don’t think the Democrats in the Senate have the nerve to shut down the government.”

House Republicans coalesce behind plan to avert shutdown

And her'es another Republican Congressman's perspective from the same article:

Rep. Mo Brooks, an Armed Services and Freedom Caucus member rarely aligned with leadership, backed Ryan's idea Tuesday night.

“We’re going to address the government staying open,” the Alabama Republican said, expressing joy that the plan didn’t include a DACA fix. “There will be nothing that relates to illegal aliens in this issue. This is to fund the government. … I think it will pass the House.”

new topics

top topics
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in