[Discussion] The government shutdown thread

Where we talk about where the Shutdown will lead

LeapingGnome wrote:

What is stupid is millions of people fall for it.

What choice do they have?

Gerrymandering and first past the post ensures that the choices will be awful and we are stuck with two parties. Neither of those things will change because they both help the current parties.

If you're not playing the game, the only choices you have to change it are violent.

Robear wrote:

If you're not playing the game, the only choices you have to change it are violent.

No, the only winning move is not to play and move to a country that has its sh*t together. Violence won't help either, because it will just invigorate the law and order people, and further push conflict-avoiding "I'm doing fine, what's the big deal?" independents to the right. The inability to compromise will make things a lot worse before it gets better, if ever. It's not like Democrats will ever take the House again, that body represents colored acreage, not people.

But moving, while a practical individual choice, does nothing to fix the situation for those who stay. Either the system changes from within, or from the outside. And history shows that changing the system from outside its rules (even if it is caused by internal factions which topple it and make a new system) is usually far less pleasant than change that occurs within the existing structure.

Of course, history also shows us that violent change is often the way countries and societies (and corrupt systems) are uprooted.

(Also, note that I don't particularly care who is to blame - from my perspective, this is a huge win for all concerned. The longer the government stays shut down, the better.)

Are you... celebrating several million government employees' lack of pay?

Yeah, super better. Glad that me and my sister are scrambling for OT to help make sure my mom has the money to keep her power and water.

Robear wrote:

But moving, while a practical individual choice, does nothing to fix the situation for those who stay. Either the system changes from within, or from the outside. And history shows that changing the system from outside its rules (even if it is caused by internal factions which topple it and make a new system) is usually far less pleasant than change that occurs within the existing structure.

Of course, history also shows us that violent change is often the way countries and societies (and corrupt systems) are uprooted.

There's a dark part of me who wonders if a second revolution wouldn't in the long run be a bad thing. While I'm against violence, there would be some upsides - a lot of the alt-right gun sniffers would be the first to bite it, we could rebuild a lot of our infrastructure to be green and sustainable, and we could emerge as a far more equitable and just society in the same way Germany and Japan did after WW 2.

Regarding the shutdown, I wish there was some provision where Congress forfeit their salary during that time. No back pay.

Robear wrote:

But moving, while a practical individual choice, does nothing to fix the situation for those who stay. Either the system changes from within, or from the outside. And history shows that changing the system from outside its rules (even if it is caused by internal factions which topple it and make a new system) is usually far less pleasant than change that occurs within the existing structure.

Of course, history also shows us that violent change is often the way countries and societies (and corrupt systems) are uprooted.

True but the same can be said for the first pilgrims to come to the "New World" they were not helping fix the problem.

And those founding fathers that we are supposed to worship they were just abandoning England! Loyalists unite!

jdzappa wrote:

There's a dark part of me who wonders if a second revolution wouldn't in the long run be a bad thing. While I'm against violence, there would be some upsides - a lot of the alt-right gun sniffers would be the first to bite it, we could rebuild a lot of our infrastructure to be green and sustainable, and we could emerge as a far more equitable and just society in the same way Germany and Japan did after WW 2.

Serious question - what's an acceptable number of dead Americans to achieve that end?

Not being a dick - I think that if you're looking at revolution and thinking "huh - why not?", then this right here is the question to have to ask yourself next.

farley3k wrote:

True but the same can be said for the first pilgrims to come to the "New World" they were not helping fix the problem.

And those founding fathers that we are supposed to worship they were just abandoning England! Loyalists unite!

Not at all. They (and the other ideological and for-profit colonists) were loyal English subjects into the late 1700's, and many of them left then to emigrate to Canada, unwilling to give up their traditional support of the Crown. What they wanted was change in the system, and they got it. They were allowed to manage their own affairs to a greater degree than if they had stayed in England. That was, indeed, the whole point. And the Crown maintained its system by granting them a degree of self-rule, a lesson that helped perpetuate the Empire once it arose fully.

The colonies even had the chance to turn on England once Cromwell took power, but instead backed him strongly. Some were Royalists, of course, but most were not, and the colonies even sheltered several regicides once things started to turn for Cromwell. Fully one in six men in the Northern Colonies traveled to England to campaign with the New Model Army. Yet, once the Royalists took power again, the colonies did not flee the Union.

The outstanding legacy of this period is the policy of religious tolerance in English society, which came directly from the experiences and complaints of the American Puritan colonists. It eventually broke the cycle of one-sided adoption of religion enforced by the Crown which had caused so much trouble in the preceding few hundred years. It was the continued engagement of the colonists in English politics that helped the system evolve over time.

Demosthenes wrote:
(Also, note that I don't particularly care who is to blame - from my perspective, this is a huge win for all concerned. The longer the government stays shut down, the better.)

Are you... celebrating several million government employees' lack of pay?

Why are you not celebrating that? Their pay comes from money taken illegally at gunpoint, and they are inherently inefficient, since these employees don't have a profit margin to worry about.

Spoiler:

Am I doing Liberalism right? It feels like I got it right.

Jonman wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

There's a dark part of me who wonders if a second revolution wouldn't in the long run be a bad thing. While I'm against violence, there would be some upsides - a lot of the alt-right gun sniffers would be the first to bite it, we could rebuild a lot of our infrastructure to be green and sustainable, and we could emerge as a far more equitable and just society in the same way Germany and Japan did after WW 2.

Serious question - what's an acceptable number of dead Americans to achieve that end?

Not being a dick - I think that if you're looking at revolution and thinking "huh - why not?", then this right here is the question to have to ask yourself next.

I think you’re mistaking enthusiasm on my part for just trying to be realistic. If someone can point to examples of this much dysfunction in other developed countries I would love to hear examples. But from what Im seeing we have more in common with banana republics about to implode.

jdzappa wrote:

Regarding the shutdown, I wish there was some provision where Congress forfeit their salary during that time. No back pay.

It sounds good in theory, but that would only punish the minority who aren't independently wealthy at this point, and those individuals are probably already not keen on a shutdown.

Jonman wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

There's a dark part of me who wonders if a second revolution wouldn't in the long run be a bad thing. While I'm against violence, there would be some upsides - a lot of the alt-right gun sniffers would be the first to bite it, we could rebuild a lot of our infrastructure to be green and sustainable, and we could emerge as a far more equitable and just society in the same way Germany and Japan did after WW 2.

Serious question - what's an acceptable number of dead Americans to achieve that end?

Not being a dick - I think that if you're looking at revolution and thinking "huh - why not?", then this right here is the question to have to ask yourself next.

Half? Not being a dick (on purpose, at least); that seems like a reasonable reduction in population that might be small enough to allow things like sustainable infrastructure while also practically forcing a redistribution of population that would likely allow disrupted ecologies an opportunity to recover with minimal human interference. Maybe.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

There's a dark part of me who wonders if a second revolution wouldn't in the long run be a bad thing. While I'm against violence, there would be some upsides - a lot of the alt-right gun sniffers would be the first to bite it, we could rebuild a lot of our infrastructure to be green and sustainable, and we could emerge as a far more equitable and just society in the same way Germany and Japan did after WW 2.

Serious question - what's an acceptable number of dead Americans to achieve that end?

Not being a dick - I think that if you're looking at revolution and thinking "huh - why not?", then this right here is the question to have to ask yourself next.

Half?

8(

Also, you are answering a different question. Jonman and jdzappa are talking about the least costly way of permanent and good social and political reform. You are obviously talking about enormous human die-offs as an actual goal to allow ecological recovery (I'm not entirely sure how you think 160 million humans would be killed in America in a form that does not destroy most of the environment as well, but ok). That's an entirely different beast, deaths aren't an unpleasant necessity in the scenario you are advocating, it's the entire purpose.

Schumer: Deal reached to reopen government

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Monday that he and Senate GOP leaders have reached a deal to reopen the government, and the chamber is on track to pass a plan to keep the government funded for three weeks.

"We will vote today to reopen the government," Schumer said on the Senate floor, saying he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had reached an "arrangement."

Funded for a whole 3 weeks, so we get to look forward to this same mess in about a month.

WizKid wrote:

Funded for a whole 3 weeks, so we get to look forward to this same mess in about a month.

Except:
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/22/169196...

The Senate is expected to pass Monday a bill extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program for an additional six years, likely ending a funding crisis that has plagued the state-run health plan for the last four months.

Congress let CHIP’s long-term funding lapse 114 days ago. The program became a bargaining chip in larger negotiations over the federal budget and immigration.

But things changed early Monday afternoon, as the Senate began a series of votes to a bill extending the federal budget for an additional three weeks — and CHIP’s budget for an additional six years.

So.. if they keep shutting things down every three weeks and getting concessions in return, I'd call that success.

Yonder wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

There's a dark part of me who wonders if a second revolution wouldn't in the long run be a bad thing. While I'm against violence, there would be some upsides - a lot of the alt-right gun sniffers would be the first to bite it, we could rebuild a lot of our infrastructure to be green and sustainable, and we could emerge as a far more equitable and just society in the same way Germany and Japan did after WW 2.

Serious question - what's an acceptable number of dead Americans to achieve that end?

Not being a dick - I think that if you're looking at revolution and thinking "huh - why not?", then this right here is the question to have to ask yourself next.

Half?

8(

Also, you are answering a different question. Jonman and jdzappa are talking about the least costly way of permanent and good social and political reform. You are obviously talking about enormous human die-offs as an actual goal to allow ecological recovery (I'm not entirely sure how you think 160 million humans would be killed in America in a form that does not destroy most of the environment as well, but ok). That's an entirely different beast, deaths aren't an unpleasant necessity in the scenario you are advocating, it's the entire purpose.

I'm not exactly advocating it, but the question was "what's an acceptable number of dead Americans to achieve [green, sustainable infrastructure and a more equitable and just society]". At no point did I say that the point was ecological recovery (though I do think a vast reduction in population world-wide would help that end), nor did I say that I figured 160 million would die in The Revolution. I do think that reaching a green, sustainable, equitable, and just society is worth virtually any cost that will not utterly destroy said society.

With that in mind, off the top of my head, I think you could take pretty much any 1st world country, cut it's population in half, and still have a functional society. Such a cataclysm might also provide the opportunity to radically rethink things like equality and sustainable infrastructure.

Wait, so the Dems, in a position of power (for a change) acquiesced to the GOP plan to deal with CHIP now and DACA "later"? Please tell me I am misreading that.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

There's a dark part of me who wonders if a second revolution wouldn't in the long run be a bad thing. While I'm against violence, there would be some upsides - a lot of the alt-right gun sniffers would be the first to bite it, we could rebuild a lot of our infrastructure to be green and sustainable, and we could emerge as a far more equitable and just society in the same way Germany and Japan did after WW 2.

Serious question - what's an acceptable number of dead Americans to achieve that end?

Not being a dick - I think that if you're looking at revolution and thinking "huh - why not?", then this right here is the question to have to ask yourself next.

Half?

8(

Also, you are answering a different question. Jonman and jdzappa are talking about the least costly way of permanent and good social and political reform. You are obviously talking about enormous human die-offs as an actual goal to allow ecological recovery (I'm not entirely sure how you think 160 million humans would be killed in America in a form that does not destroy most of the environment as well, but ok). That's an entirely different beast, deaths aren't an unpleasant necessity in the scenario you are advocating, it's the entire purpose.

.

With that in mind, off the top of my head, I think you could take pretty much any 1st world country, cut it's population in half, and still have a functional society. Such a cataclysm might also provide the opportunity to radically rethink things like equality and sustainable infrastructure.

Disagree. How do you have a functioning society when your economy will be in tatters? Because that's an inevitable byproduct of shrinking your population in half over a generation.

I'm not sure if there was a civil war where half the population died the democrats would be on the winning side.

Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

...
With that in mind, off the top of my head, I think you could take pretty much any 1st world country, cut it's population in half, and still have a functional society. Such a cataclysm might also provide the opportunity to radically rethink things like equality and sustainable infrastructure.

Disagree. How do you have a functioning society when your economy will be in tatters? Because that's an inevitable byproduct of shrinking your population in half over a generation.

I wonder if that might actually help. (Note that I'm totally making this up as I go along.) Necessity being the mother of invention and all that, having something that catastrophic might be useful in forcing a population to accept radical change. We are well aware that as long as the majority is comfortable enough, major change won't happen. Maybe 1/2 is too much shrinkage (that's what he said :sadface:), but I suspect there is a suprisingly large number that is "enough to make major change possible" and also "not enough to completely destroy society".

Tanglebones wrote:
The Senate is expected to pass Monday a bill extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program for an additional six years, likely ending a funding crisis that has plagued the state-run health plan for the last four months.

Congress let CHIP’s long-term funding lapse 114 days ago. The program became a bargaining chip in larger negotiations over the federal budget and immigration.

But things changed early Monday afternoon, as the Senate began a series of votes to a bill extending the federal budget for an additional three weeks — and CHIP’s budget for an additional six years.

So.. if they keep shutting things down every three weeks and getting concessions in return, I'd call that success.

Wait. I know I'm getting old and my memory sometimes fails me, but I could swear that ignoring DACA "for now", extending CHIP for 6 years (instead of permanently), and funding the government for only 3 more weeks (rather than a longterm solution) was the option on the table nearly a week ago that was utterly unacceptable to the Democrats.

Without reading into it more, it kinda sounds to me like the blame game went fully in Republicans favor and so the Dems acquiesced.

AUs_TBirD wrote:

Wait. I know I'm getting old and my memory sometimes fails me, but I could swear that ignoring DACA "for now", extending CHIP for 6 years (instead of permanently), and funding the government for only 3 more weeks (rather than a longterm solution) was the option on the table nearly a week ago that was utterly unacceptable to the Democrats.

Without reading into it more, it kinda sounds to me like the blame game went fully in Republicans favor and so the Dems acquiesced.

That's exactly how I remember it, and, if that's the case, then the Dems have dropped the ball.

Again.

Trump rescinded DACA near the start of September with a 6 month window to provide a bill doing the same thing. How far have they gotten in the intervening 4 and half months? And on CHIP funding (other than a small fixed sum in December) since it expired at the end of September? Both of which are suddenly an urgent concern for Republicans? The community health center and Opioid crisis funding that's apparently not in the version they plan to hold a vote on? How have the promises made to key Senators for their votes on the stupid tax bill worked out?

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today (except I won't).

I feel like this is a very useful step in getting DACA actually voted on, as now far, far more people are paying attention to the really public promise to vote on DACA in the immediate future. Now if Trump/the GOP congress reneges on this deal many more people will know that and remember the promise being made. So if the government is shutdown again in three weeks because that didn't happen I don't think that the GOP will be able to make that argument anymore.

I feel like the central point is that since September CHIP has been expired, the Dems have been asking the GOP to put it up for a vote, and the GOP has said "sure, absolutely, CHIP is super important! Now if you excuse me we are very busy not putting CHIP funding up for a vote". The idea that if it actually, finally goes up for a vote immediately after the shutdown, that's somehow not related, that just seems ridiculous to me.

Similarly, lots and lots and lots of Republicans have said again and again "protecting the Dreamers is very important to us, we're definitely going to do that!" and have continued to do absolutely nothing of the sort. They are now promising, again, to vote for this within three weeks. If they actually live up to that promise, after breaking all the others, it's because of this shutdown, that's all there is to it. If they didn't need a shutdown to vote for the DACA then they would have done it before the shutdown.

This scenario is a whiny teenager refusing to take out the garbage. Eventually his parents kick him off the computer and send him to his room. When they let him out later he finally goes to the garbage can "You didn't need to send me to my room, I was going to take the trash out right now anyways!" Yeah, ok Paul Ryan, sure you were.

AUs_TBirD wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
The Senate is expected to pass Monday a bill extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program for an additional six years, likely ending a funding crisis that has plagued the state-run health plan for the last four months.

Congress let CHIP’s long-term funding lapse 114 days ago. The program became a bargaining chip in larger negotiations over the federal budget and immigration.

But things changed early Monday afternoon, as the Senate began a series of votes to a bill extending the federal budget for an additional three weeks — and CHIP’s budget for an additional six years.

So.. if they keep shutting things down every three weeks and getting concessions in return, I'd call that success.

Wait. I know I'm getting old and my memory sometimes fails me, but I could swear that ignoring DACA "for now", extending CHIP for 6 years (instead of permanently), and funding the government for only 3 more weeks (rather than a longterm solution) was the option on the table nearly a week ago that was utterly unacceptable to the Democrats.

Without reading into it more, it kinda sounds to me like the blame game went fully in Republicans favor and so the Dems acquiesced.

It also included a bunch of funding for the wall and other various immigration related add-ons from the house that this one didn't. I'm not thrilled about the outcome, but CHIP is gone as a hostage and they got a firm "There will be an up down floor vote on DACA on Feb 8th, if no agreement is reached" that they can pin on senate Republicans. I'm not sure how much better they could have done considering Republicans are clearly willing to shoot hostages.

There is no way that a conflict that kills half of Americans will magically sort out and preserve the skills and abilities and inclinations we need to continue with our standard of living, or anything like it. Not to mention the infrastructure. Syria has lost about 20% of its population to the civil war; it's not anything like it was and fighting was not universal across the country, nor did its ecology, government or anything else improve by the forced demographic changes.

Killing half of Americans will simply invite dictatorship as people give up their rights for things like fresh water, a regular food supply and at least minimal defenses against the folks who were killing them off before. It will blast the economy, which depends complex and fragile infrastructures that will be the first things to go in a civil war. We'll lose the ability to move goods around the country at will, rendering most factories unusable for the purposes for which they were built. Electricity generation and transport will fail. The Internet will be a memory. Bank accounts will be gone. Cities will be rendered partially or fully uninhabitable by the fighting, or chemical/nuclear weapons, or (most likely) through severe attrition caused by siege and starvation. The rule of law will be long gone for years at a minimum.

This will cause people to revert to a subsistence agricultural level of survival (as indeed happens with refugee camps all over the world). Wildlife of every edible sort will quickly disappear; fuel in the form of trees and other plants will follow immediately. Large agribusiness will shut down due to a lack of seed stock and transport as well as labor, leaving at most truck farms to feed locals. Stock animals will die due to a lack of feed and care.

Here's the hairy part. With half the population gone, there's no reason to expect that the losses stabilize at that point. Even after the fighting stops, health care will be at a 19th century level for most of the country. As will nutrition. There will be a further winnowing that will take the population down to a point where everyone lives on the output of small farms, barely. And there are literally millions of Americans who believe that having enough weapons will give them the right to withdraw from society, hoarding their resources, or worse yet, set up as local rulers, using force of arms to justify what will be de facto chattel slavery.

JD, in that scenario or anything like it, what are the odds that Americans will turn out differently from Rwandans, from Chechnyans, from Iraqis and Syrians, or even from North Koreans? I don't see much hope in your vision. I see hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths, that could be prevented in ways that don't turn our cities into Grozny.

IMAGE(http://www.luciankim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/after-war-chechnya.gov-750w-750x410.jpg)

Just to be clear, I never said half that was somebody else. My idea was more limited revolution, possibly a situation similar to the 60s where there is enough social strife the powers that be recognize that making major concessions is worth avoiding even further conflict. I also admit that you’re right in that while a lot of good came after wars like WW 2 and the Civil War, that doesn’t mean the next war would turn out well.

This is probably worth discussing in another thread but sometimes I feel I’ve been Pollyanna. The sheer hopelessness of the situation continues to beat me down.

jdzappa wrote:

I also admit that you’re right in that while a lot of good came after wars like WW 2

This is not a good war to take that lesson from. The US was practically alone in leaving that War with almost no damage, and there is a good argument to be made that that fluke of luck is almost completely responsible for the next 70 years of US global supremacy. 95% of the countries involved in WW 2 would not say that it was a positive thing for their economy or people.