Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Democrats threaten government shutdown unless $1 trillion is added to the national debt for their programs. Are they bluffing?




Photo above - today's quiz: when was the last US government shutdown, and what was closed other than the Statue of Liberty? Do shutdowns even accomplish anything?

Full disclosure – I have NOT read the 1,500-page legislation which politicians claim is needed to prevent a government shutdown, because federal government ran out of money again. I doubt if Senator Charles Schumer has read it either. But he’s threatening have democrats vote – en masse – against the funding bill, unless $1 trillion in spending is added to continue programs previously scheduled to expire. See links below.

This bill is longer than Leo Tolstoy’s epic novel "War and Peace" (1,200 pages) which would take more than 2 days of non-stop reading to complete – no bathroom breaks, eating or sleeping. So I don’t think Schumer has read the bill he says that he doesn't like. Probably no republican either. This is clearly going to turn out to be another Nancy Pelosi moment (“You have to pass it to find out what’s in it”)

Without having read the bill myself either, I can still point out the problem here. No matter how much you disagree with either party, legislation like the spending bill is proof that our government is run by the deep state. Congressional aides, corporate lobbyists, and federal agency wonks coming together in back rooms to write laws that no politician ever laid eyes on.

1,500 page bills to turbocharge spending and raise the national debt by trillions is why we have $37 trillion in federal debt in the first place.

To be fair and balanced, let me agree with critics who point out this is exactly the same path Trump's “Big Beautiful Bill” took. That bill was either 870 or 940 pages long; the congressional aides and lobbyists can’t agree and probably didn’t read the whole thing either. This is bipartisanship at its lowest common denominator – I won’t read your bizarre spending proposals if you don’t read mine. Let’s all just go to lunch and get re-elected.

Back to the subject line – is Schumer bluffing or could he actually shut down the government because his pet spending projects aren’t fully funded?

My take is that he COULD shut the government down. Even though democrats are the senate minority party, there are certainly a few republican deficit hawks who would vote against the 1,500 page bill because of transgender monkey research and the $12 million "luxury pickleball arena" (actual 2024 spending). They will point out that $37 trillion is $370,000 in federal debt for each American family. And this is why American's are stuck with unaffordable housing, 800+ military bases globally, and the planet’s most expensive healthcare system. The more we spend on something, the more it costs. Just like cars and smartphones, and houses.

Republican deficit hawks – the ones likely to give Schumer his victory – include familiar names like Rand Paul (KY) Tommy Tuberville (AL) Josh Hawley (MO) and maybe a half dozen others. This a risk-free vote for the balanced budget fanboys, because all the blowback will be on Schumer and the democrats.

But will there actually be any blowback, or even savings from a shutdown? I doubt it. Every GS 5-13 cube dweller who doesn’t come to work is going to get full, back pay anyway. And once the political posturing is done (pandering to single issue voters and special interests) senators will eventually vote on a new 1,500 page compromise bill. One that nobody has read either, but ends up spending about the same as the bill they rejected a week earlier.

I’m just sayin’ . . .



Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries demand healthcare concessions in funding bill

What's in Congress’s 1,500-page government funding deal to avert shutdown
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
exchrist · 36-40
All America has ever needed to do is legalize hemp on the federal level thc is alcohol soluble to produce an oil clsssified as organic petroleum ( often referred to as gasoline) when the alcohol is then evaporated from the resultant solution it’s heavy petroleum (labeled as “fossil fuel”). 300 barrels an acre up to 1938 (the marihuana tax act of 1937 illegalized this) Problem solved.
Regardless a “government shutdown” is an empty threat when was the last time the government was “up and running” efficiently enough to not be running a trillion $dollar$ deficit? Never! Maybe prior to 1938?
Regardless it’s big words from little mostly men in a building getting paid to argue.
Hopefully a “government shutdown” would stop paying legislators’ salaries! That’d pay the debt fairly rapidly.
Definitely more quickly than them bickering endlessly has.
dale74 · M
@exchrist better watch out we are agreeing with more and more common sense stuff.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/trump-signals-cannabis-rescheduling-6149621/
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@exchrist when the government is "up and running", its spending more than it receives in taxes. that's the entire problem.
exchrist · 36-40
@SusanInFlorida absolutely my point was that is not efficiency; therefore when was the most recent instance of the u.s government operating effectively?
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@exchrist "that which governs least, governs best" (Henry David Thoreau, in his seminal essay "Civil Disobedience")
exchrist · 36-40
@SusanInFlorida spot on yet a bankrupt American continues in its attempts to govern the world. One must conclude America governs (polices) worst.
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@exchrist then you're a closet republican. the most conservative republicans want the US to withdraw from treaties organizations like NATO, defense treaties with Japan, and possibly even the UN. "Fortress America"
exchrist · 36-40
@SusanInFlorida I only want US to withdraw from active war. Alliances are not active conflicts. indeed strength in numbers. Support the troops bring them home
exchrist · 36-40
@dale74 cannabis(marijuana) rescheduling is a different thing than industrial hemp being legalized. Mostly distraction, “Yay weed!”, but no talk of agricultural oil production from hemp.