Few memories haunt Republicans more deeply than the 1995-96 partial shutdown of the federal government, which helped President Bill Clinton reverse his falling fortunes and recast House Republicans as stubborn partisans, not savvy insurgents.
Many Democratic and Republican lawmakers say it's almost inevitable, and essential, that Obama step in to avert a shutdown. Only a president, they say, has the stature, clout and public megaphone to craft a compromise when congressional partisans seem dug in. And for now, they seem deeply dug in.
Originally posted by don rumsfeld
reply to post by dnvrliz
Hopefully it won't be so chaotic. This has been done before when the Republicans & Dems can't agree on
a budget. All non-essential services are put on hold. It's happened 4 or 5 times in the last 29 or 30 years.edit on 19-2-2011 by don rumsfeld because: (no reason given)edit on 19-2-2011 by don rumsfeld because: can't type
Originally posted by St Udio
it has become a standard tactic...and in the end, there will be a whole lotta Pork
added to the budget deficit funding increase.
this has absolutely nothing to lose sleep over... its mostly hype & hyperbole
Federal agencies are ready to operate at reduced levels if a government shutdown occurs, the White House said Tuesday.
Agencies are supposed to maintain plans "for an orderly shutdown in the event of the absence of appropriations," according to Office of Management and Budget guidance issued to agencies each year. Any revisions or changes must be reviewed by OMB and the plans must include:
-- Estimates (to the nearest half day) of how long it would take to complete a shut down.
-- The number of employees necessary to be working before the plan is implemented.
-- The total number of employees to be retained during a shutdown.
Any employees on the job during a shutdown must be engaged in military or law enforcement duties, providing medical care or protecting other lives and property -- essentially prison guards or building security officers, according to OMB. Other agencies may keep employees on the job if their compensation is paid for through a different appropriations process. OMB would not provide details of the updated plans Tuesday.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Wildmanimal
So very soon millions of vulnerable American citizens wont be able to feed or shelter themselves or their families, but hey! At least they will have cheap oil and gas prices, right?
Who cares if the working class suffers...... just as long as the banking tycoons and oil company executives arent too inconvenienced
But in The New Republic, Jonathan Bernstein argues that that Boehner's tactics have made it much more difficult to reach any kind of deal with the White House. The much lauded "open amendment" process orchestrated by Boehner on the House spending bill ended up stuffing the Republican budget cut plan with high profile assaults on Democratic priorities.
And so far, in public, Boehner's not budging. His latest proposal, to avoid a government shutdown that could start at the end of next week, is to tell Senate Democrats that they would have to accept a Mini-Me version of the House plan, pro-rated over the length of however long the temporary extension of the current continuing resolution might be.
Social Security checks would still go out. Troops would remain at their posts. Furloughed federal workers probably would get paid, though not until later. And virtually every essential government agency, like the FBI, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard, would remain open.
That's the little-known truth about a government shutdown. The government doesn't shut down.
So we're talking fewer than one in four federal workers staying at home. Many federal workers get paid on March 4, so it would take a two-week shutdown for them to see a delay in their paychecks.
Originally posted by SonoraUndergroundLabs
i dont think its such a big deal. let them do what they want their going to anyway
Thirty-six percent say Republicans would be at fault if the two sides aren't able to strike a budget deal, while 35 percent would fault Obama in such a scenario. Seventeen percent said both, 10 percent said neither, and 1 percent had no opinion.
"If we default, we default," said Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.). "Just because bondholders in China get priority over our troops overseas or get priority over tax refunds doesn't mean we're not in default."
Vitter said that forcing the U.S. to prioritize payments to investors and retirees would "take some of these scare tactics and hysteria out of this debate." He said that "no one should want the U.S. government to default on its debt and no one should want a stoppage immediately or any time of Social Security checks to seniors--so first of all it's legimtate to rank those two functions as an absolute top priority."