Someone want to explain to me what this means? If this was Australia, the Governor-General would just sack the Parliament and we'd all go to the polls. I gather that's not an option here because of all that pesky separation of powers business.
Goto Washingtonpost.com or nytimes.com for an explanation. It'll be on their front page. Am I still allowed to blame Democrats for being whiny brats and refusing to show up and vote in 2010? This doesn't happen if they have decent turnout, and they stayed because Obama supposedly bailed on them on healthcare
I have read the articles. I know basically what a shutdown is, what services it entails closing, etc. They are a bit hazy on how this whole thing is resolved, however. Is it just a big game of chicken? Or is there some sort of constitutional provision to resolve a deadlock if it goes on for too long?
No, nothing. Our President is very limited in his executive power. It's also not exactly a shutting down of the govt. We have a bunch of different Dept's in the Federal govt, and since congress hasn't passed a full budget since I think 2010, congress ends up funding those agencies through a series of continuing resolutions - literally a series of laws that extends funding of these Dept's for months at a time. Until both houses of congress agree to that funding bill those agencies will be shuttered. They agree on the amount of funding, the length of time, and actually every single thing to do with the budget. They are fighting over something that has nothing to do with the CR. The healthcare law.
If you guys are sick of the Washington Republic I might suggest you should search for a big strong leader for solving your problems with democracy and state and all. We only have positive experiences with that.
I just saw this statement, kinda amusing in all the not-at-all-subtle digs in it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24343983
The next reporter who says that Congress' only job is to pass a budget and ignores this whole pesky oversight thing should be hit by lightening.
That would be news to Barack Obama, and the rest of the country. "Shutdown" is a scare tactic used by this scum in Washington. It just means certain things close. Plenty stays open, including the military and postal service.
Here's a live blog from the Guardian (U.S.): http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/01/us-government-shutdown-world-economy-dollar-live
Depriving the executive of supply is kind of a big thing. I was shocked when they said on the news this evening that it's happened 18 times in the last 40 years. And that there's no constitutional provision to avoid or resolve it. I can't believe the US is this dysfunctional. What an embarrassment.
genuine question - do you expect protests on the streets today in the U.S? i am just trying to picture this happening in my own country and can't see that the people would stand for it at all. Would be carnage out there.
My son asked why the govt. is shut down. I used an analogy. Say the school board passes a rule that says for safety purposes all students need to have their shoes tied. The vast majority understand that it's a common-sense rule and live with it. But a small, loud minority do not like the rule and walk out of school disrupting the school day for everyone. Republicans are those WATBs.
Nope. As Mastershake said, it is only a partial shutdown. In fact who depend on federal funding already have their money. My place of work is one.
Yes well, he forgot to mention that right now there more than a million people who are either furloughed or not getting paid, not to mention a shit ton of day to day services no longer happening at places like the NIH and VAs. Oh and who knows how many businesses impacted by shutting down a large chunk of our economy by shutting down every state park and memorial. Sure its not a full shut down, but its still a big deal and a big impact
People who thinks that government doesn't work shouldn't run for it... They become a self-fulfilling prophecy...