politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Democrats proposed a bill that all Federal employees get paid during the shutdown. GOP said no.
They should propose a bill that makes a lapse in appropriations trigger a CR so there’s no need for a shutdown.
What is CR in this context?
Continuing resolution. Basically if they can’t make a new budget the old one gets used.
... kinda like every other sensible nation ON EARTH. Sigh.
Not really.
In Canada and other parliamentary type systems, failing to pass a budget triggers an election.
God, that sounds so nice. If you play these stupid games then you instantly end up on the chopping block. That fixes so many issues.
To be fair, our FPTP system does tend to create majority governments so this wouldn't ever be an issue then as they can pass anything they want. We might be having an election though if this current minority government budget fails which it might.
It'd be nice if we could move to proportional representation though as majority governments are almost always with well less than 50% of the vote and vote splitting fucks things up for center/ledt parties and let's the conservatives win more because they consolidated into 1 party including all the extreme right whackjobs
Good point. That definitely disrupts things to some extent -- but the government doesn't literally stop everything, AFAIK. Don't departments still get their funding throughout, until the new government passes another budget?
No, you are right, things don't just stop when that happens. I imagine funding could lapse if it was about to lapse, but just because there isn't a budget passed yet doesn't mean its immediately going to lapse.
If we somehow had a budget fail, and for some reason took 6 months to have an election (would never happen), we might run into funding issues?
Didn't have that until a decade or so back? Thought I remembered we switched to this system so Republicans could reevaluate each time/hold everything hostage...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States#Overview
Shutdowns have occurred since 1980 when the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that government operations need to cease in a lapse of appropriations to prevent violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act. I believe the opinion was rendered during the Carter Administration.
Ah, thanks for the correction!
Hey, no worries. That’s how we all grow. I’m wrong all the fucking time.
My people. I love being wrong, someone always corrects me, and then I learn something.
Kinda weird that's not already the default behavior.
Not really. You're coming at it assuming the point of the system is to benefit the majority of the people. It is not., and the people who do benefit have a vested interest in ensuring things do not change.
And things ended up this way because in 1776 they had little idea of how their rules were going to play out but they had to choose something to get started and they hoped it would get fixed with time.
Leadership believes they would be unable to cobble together enough votes to pass a budget if there wasn't the threat of a shutdown to hang over the Representatives.
Voters in the US tend to elect Representatives who are unwilling to compromise. Being obstructionist is rewarded with way better re-election chances than getting anything done. Voters want to see their candidate Stand Up To The Enemy, although they will accept passage of a Perfect Bill (as annointed by their media of choice). Passing a bill that is later deemed by their media of choice to have any small non-perfection gets them primaried and booted. So any candidate that doesn't have extensive cover for passing a budget, that by its nature has to be a compromise, is replaced by a more obstructionist person.
The first time I'm reading about this. If the situation were reversed Republicans would be on every show everywhere repeating this taking point.
Democrats need to fucking hammer the Republicans on this 24/7 on every outlet possible.
Are there news media not owned by the far right?
If so the Democrats could act like it by showing what happens when they try to say what they aren't allowed to say.
At which point you could say that the Democrats are owned by the far right, at which point "far right" becomes an impractical phrase to use to distinguish between the likes of AOC and Mamdani and the likes of Trump.
So no, the news media aren't owned by the far right. They are owned by the same people that own the Democrats and Republicans, which have a diverse range of right wing opinions none of which include stopping fascists that got elected through the system that they rely on for their wealth and power.
If the DNC wanted to hammer the Republicans on this, then by the same token the news media would want to let them. But the DNC doesn't want to encourage opposition too much because they know they and their owners would lose massive amounts of money if there was any kind of structural reform.
"Best we can do is fund spoiler candidates after our boy lost the NYC democratic primary"
As with most dishes, a sauce would be wonderrful
The bill is called "The true shutdown fairness act", and it is a poorly named response to the republican "shutdown fairness act".
The main differences between the bills (which aren't really covered in the news, but you can read the bills) is that the shutdown fairness act was limited to excepted employees (those who have to work without pay), as well as some military personnel and some contractors. But it gave trump discretion about who could get paid, and did nothing for furloughed employees, nor guarantee all service members or contractors get paid (again, because it allowed trump to pick and choose)
The true shutdown fairness act aimed to ensure all federal employees and service members get paid, and prevent mass firings during the shutdown. I don't know/understand why this bill was rejected (I'll edit if I can find anything)
This post and this post go into a bit more detail.
Edit: I can't find a news article with direct quotes, but this is part of the ai overview (so take it with a grain of salt)
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who introduced a bill to pay both federal workers required to work during the shutdown and those who are furloughed. This proposal was supported by several unions representing federal workers but was ultimately blocked by Senate Democrats. https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/07/politics/shutdown-congress-federal-pay-vote
So I'm confused. Was this another bill?
E: https://lemmy.world/comment/20388431 helped clear that up a bit. Thanks friend.