US government shuts down after Senate fails to pass last-ditch funding plan
bbc.comAs someone who actually worked for the Federal government when it shutdown in the past, people are exaggerating the implications for narrative purposes. This happens semi-routinely, there is a boring reality that goes along with it.
The people worst off are Federal contractors. They are effectively unemployed during these periods. Many actual employees, like me in previous shutdowns, are essentially on irregular paid time off. In theory it is unpaid, but it is always retroactively paid in practice and everyone knows this. People that are “critical” kind of get a raw deal because they still have to work while people deemed less essential don’t have to work.
It is unfortunate that it happens but I wouldn’t get overly caught up in the theater of it all.
> This happens semi-routinely, there is a boring reality that goes along with it. [...] retroactively paid in practice
An important difference is that in the past employees were furloughed... but yesterday Republicans threatened they would permanently fire employees instead [0][1] and I'm not sure how it'll shake out.
Their hostage-taking threat falls flat though: They already have have a solid track record of capricious and/or illegal firings [3][4] since the election. There's no reason to expect appeasement would make them stop what they still want to do anyway.
_____________
[0] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administr...
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/unions-file-suit-t...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2025/09/25/nx-s1-5544317/federal-probati...
[3] https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/cre...
>As someone who actually worked for the Federal government when it shutdown in the past, people are exaggerating the implications for narrative purposes. This happens semi-routinely, there is a boring reality that goes along with it.
You seem to have normalised Government shutdowns in a way to cope with it.
But this is not normal, this does not happen in a normal government process.
Might be wrong but a quick search indicates that there have been 20 government shutdowns since 1976. That is certainly not not normal.
Going by the wiki link further down the tree:
1980's: 4 shutdowns totaling 2 days
1990's: 3 shutdowns totaling 29 days (21 of those days was when Gingrich as Speaker)
2000's: 0 (9/11 and GWoT unity?)
2010's: 3 shutdowns totaling 54 days
2020's: This one
I guess I would agree they were common but they also weren't severe until Gingrich-ism took over the GOP: putting polarization and partisanship into overdrive.
Note that the idea of a shutdown did not exist until the last four days of the Carter administration in 1981.
Among how many of the worlds’ governments?
Wikipedia lists 11 in the U.S. since 1980, including this one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...) A couple were only for four hours.
So once in Ireland, and the rest in the US.
Source on the Ireland claim?
In the rest of the civilized world, a 'government shutdown' - a no-confidence vote - would result in a snap election, where the voters immediately get to choose who to punish and who to reward with power.
IMO, a government shutdown is a signal of a failed state. It's not a thing that should happen, and if it does, protections should be legislated immediately so it doesn't happen again. Political bickering shouldn't have reached this heights.
> IMO, a government shutdown is a signal of a failed state.
It is not a signal of a failed state. It is a signal of a failed government. The solution to that is to keep having elections until you get a government that will do the work.
The signal of a failed state is the voters voting this madness in, and approving of it. A snap election in this case would likely result in more of the same. Check out the congressional approval ratings among republicans of their reps. What they are cheering on is absolutely wild.
I would say there seems to be a hole in some legislature systems (Israel, Germany, India?) where the thresholds required for various functions seem unlikely to be attainable with certain vote total splits between multiple parties.
And in those times, voters are unlikely to defect from parties just because.
Ergo, there's a succession of very weak governments that rapidly collapse.
Which doesn't seem great for governance either. Feels like a perfect system would have a better 'there is no mandate attainable, so no one gets power but a shared government is forced into office for minimum X years' numerical escape hatch.
A true government shutdown, yes. But here, all the nation-state-defining stuff (military, border control, police) stays up, and only parts of it shut down.
Except in Belgium from 2007 to 2011. I think they had two separate periods of seven months without a government due to Dutch-speaking and French-speaking parties engaging in what they called negotiation. This happens immediately after elections, when they need to form a coalition.
a little more than one every 3 years
I found out yesterday that it is now the law that federal employees are guaranteed back pay after a shutdown, thanks to the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 passed after the 2019 shutdown.
I was honestly quite surprised to see such a bipartisan vote in the house. [0] (Senate was a voice-vote, so no details available there.)
Then again, a lot has changed over that... ~6.5 years.
Except for people who are on welfare programs. They also dont get their payouts. Sure they WILL get it all back. But just because people will get to eat next month doesnt mean not eating this month isnt a problem.
The government can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
unpaid air traffic controllers calling in "sick" have entered the chat
It's less common that the president says he will use the shutdown to do rifs though.
Some federal contractor companies have a plan but not all do. They may allow workers leave without pay, forced them to take vacation/PTO, or critical workers are forced to come in and do 3 jobs at once but be paid while their friends/coworkers are not getting a paycheck.
“The people worst off are Federal contractors. They are effectively unemployed during these periods.”
I do not know if they are worst off as hopefully they have some emergency savings, credit card, or 401k loan they can take out.
Last 4 shutdowns: 21, 16, 2, and 34 days.
I think it's a bit worse this time since we have an unbridled President, that the SCOTUS has made King-adjacent, who wants to permanently fire a lot of the furloughed employees out of vengeance and with no clear logic other than he's angry. So this time it's not quite as matter-of-fact.
It's not unprecedented, but I think calling it "regular" is also downplaying the issue here. We've been roughly on a schedule of once per 5 years or so.
I think it is highly irregular given this presidency. Reagan shut down 3 times to weaken various unions and facilities, really wielding it as a bargaining chip. Clinton shut down twice as a president with a congress that didn't align with him
Trump has now shut down the government 5 times, and the truly odd thing is how 4 times he had congress on his side. This isn't really something to just shake off.
(and for completeness. Carter had the first shutdown ever and Obama shut down once as well).
> In theory it is unpaid, but it is always retroactively paid in practice and everyone knows this.
Why only in theory? Why does it get paid back in practice?
Historically, congress always passed a one-time bill to retroactively pay the federal employees after each shutdown.
Because it turns out not paying your workers is extremely unpopular, especially if you want to retain them as workers in the future. Most people (federal workers included) are living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't financially weather a furlough - they still need to pay rent. The federal government would quickly find itself unable to attract employees given how often shutdowns occur.
After 2019, congress passed a law that guaranteed back-pay for future shutdowns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Employee_Fair_Treat...
I might be mistaken but critical workers are guaranteed back pay
A single stroke of a pen and there are no "critical workers" anymore
Yes, you're right. Thanks!
(I just edited my post, and also linked to a 2019 law that guarantees back-pay for both essential and non-essential federal workers.)
So large numbers of government employees don’t quit when congress can’t get its act together and keeps passing sort term bills.
It’s all fine to posture, but politicians hate long term consequences when they can use other people’s money to avoid them.
Because everyone involved is in on the grift and the money comes from the taxpayer's budget.
Are the cleaning crews federal employees? Who is taking out the trash and maintaining the restrooms during the shutdown?
> The US Department of Housing and Urban Development has added a message to the top of its website blaming the looming government shutdown on the "radical left".
That’s rich coming from a department that has intentionally withheld money from our most vulnerable people this year.
It's a Hatch Act Violation.
If anyone in the DOJ cared to enforce it.
Tons of federal employees (maybe all?) received an official email blaming Democrats for the shutdown, too. Also a violation.
And actually enforcing it would be branded as "abusing government for political persecution". It's going to take someone with steel will to actually prosecute all of this crime.
Leroy Jenkins!
From our most vulnerable people. And are educated populace. And the media. And even our soldiers of you look into how these deployments work.
Can't generate money, only lose it then refuse to allocate what we have left.
The official White House website now lists a banner reading “Democrats Have Shut Down the Government” with a timer.
I fear this may longer than I originally suspected.
Combined with the mass e-mails Trump appointees sent out within different departments, these are crimes under the Hatch Act, since they are using government resources for nakedly partisan purposes.
My favorite part is the Hero countdown timer on the index page (https://www.whitehouse.gov/) and the countdown timer graphic on the dedicated govt shutdown page (https://www.whitehouse.gov/government-shutdown-clock/) don't match:
https://i.imgur.com/3SNa03R.png
Not to mention, the graphic is extraordinarily ugly.
Interesting - I don't see that all. What CDN does that site use? I wonder if there's a caching issue on my side...
Most likely you (wisely) have something blocking the Javascript they're using.
There's a big black bar across the top of the homepage, with a message that changes depending on the time, ex:
Clicking the link opens another page that claims:<a id="announcement-bar" href="https://whitehouse.gov/government-shutdown-clock/" class="announcement-bar--link"> <span class="announcement-bar__text" style="display: none;">Democrat Shutdown is Imminent</span> <span class="announcement-bar__end-text" style="">Democrats Have Shut Down the Government</span> <span class="announcement-bar__countdown">3h 2m 21s</span> </a>> Democrats Have Shut Down the Government
> Americans Don’t Agree with Democrats’ Actions
"Democrats shut down the government"
Republicans hold the majority... hello?
In various other countries, if you can't pass a budget, your governance is in question to the point that you face a new election. i.e., it is on you to negotiate more flexibly to avoid this.
How many of said countries require more than a simple majority to pass a budget though? To my knowledge the US is quite the exception in that it requires a _special_ majority for such things.
A simple majority could be challenging if the government is formed via coalition, but if you have any examples where 1) a single party formed government and 2) a simple majority was the only requirement to pass a budget and 3) a budget failed to pass… then enlighten me by all means!
Here in Australia the (single party) government of the day was dismissed in 1975 after failing to secure a supply bill. The government was dismissed by the Governor General, the Crown's representative in Australia, and the event sparked a bit of a ruckus. Google: The Whitlam Dismissal.
There's lots of instances of our government requesting dissolution of the Houses following failure to secure votes, but in most cases they're for things other than operating expense bills, taken as proxies indicating the government does not have the confidence of the House to continue to act. Since failure to secure a bill is grounds for dissolving Parliament, it's not likely to be used for political grandstanding here.
Always good to come across fellow Australians in here!
I’d probably argue for an exception on that one, given the Whitlam government didn’t have a senate majority… but at the very least, I feel like a single case in the last 50 years is pretty supportive of my argument. The US government is on the verge of shutdown so often these days that I wonder how many people are desensitised to the situation!
How does failing to pass budget affect debt repayments? Could they simply end up defaulting sometime in future? That is not great outlook for a "reserve currency".
I mean it happened earlier this year in Tasmania, and it was absolutely for grandstanding purposes, given they'd had an election less than a year before.
I only considered the Federal level, it's nice to get some input about state level shenanigans.
(And despite the grandstanding, they still agreed to pass supply bills to allow the public service to operate!)
Really - I totally missed that! Will have a read about it, but could you elaborate on the ‘grandstanding’ aspect?
EDIT: wow, what a mess!
Isn’t the super majority for getting over filibusters in the Senate? The catch is that it’s a Senate rule and the Senate sets is own rules via simple majority.
There’s nothing really stopping a government with simple majority control across all branches from doing away with the filibuster and ramming the budget through except internal party politics.
> a Senate rule and the Senate sets is own rules via simple majority.
Right, each house of the US legislature starts the session with a >50% vote to re-adopt a slowly mutating package of rules that it used last time and has carried forward for decades, defining how work is scheduled, what committees exist, how seniority is calculated, who gets the nice office with the window, etc.
This leads to the "nuclear option" of a special >50% vote to remove the underlying rule which imposes the larger vote-margin for certain situations.
The Australian Government can be dissolved if any bill fails to pass on second introduction, with some caveats. In most cases the executive (formed by the holder of the lower house majority) didn't also hold a simple majority in the Senate, or had defections or independent/minor party objections over the bill.
Single party forming government is already questionable democracy.
Edit: At least there is required more than simple majority for some things - as there needs to be compromise (consensus in society). But we see now the flaw that ruling party does not care about compromises.
However, while you're absolutely right about the optics, that's fundamentally not how the US government operates.
We are not a parliamentary system, and elections happen on a fixed schedule. Unless Congresspeople die or resign, this is the Congress we are stuck with until the midterm elections late next year.
We really do need some mechanism from the people itself to force a re-election. It can be as high as 75% to publicly convict, but it's clear that sometimes the people themselves need to speak now and not wait 2-6 years to fix bad faith actors. We see how much even 1 year of incompetence can do.
In theory, shouldn't the governing party adjust their position until they get the votes required?
That only works when the governing party cares about governing.
The Republican Party has made it painfully clear over the past decade that they care more about winning than governing. The initial stages of this were when they vowed not to let any of Obama's priorities pass, to "make him a one-term president" (in their own words).
They have to win, and they have to punish the loser.
"Nothing is my fault, I'm responsible for nothing, you should be angry / afraid at all times at other people and that is why you should vote for me."
- US Conservative Majority who makes policy ...
Republicans can’t Math, boss.
When Democrats hold the majority Democrats can't do anything because Republicans don't let them.
When Republicans hold the majority Democrats can't do anything because Republicans don't let them.
> When Democrats hold the majority Democrats can't do anything because Republicans don't let them.
The Affordable Care Act came out of one of the only recent years they had the House, Senate, and White House.
The democrats held the majority for a few months over 12 years ago. And that resulted in the biggest Healthcare policy in history.
Republicans have held thr majority for 3 years of trumps 5 so far. What does he have to show for it? I'm genuinely asking: what benefit has he provided to the people wit that unilateral power?
The majority of Americans think that the border situation/immigration has improved since Trump was elected, more than approve of Trump/ICE.
Trump also appointed the judges that got Roe overturned, a huge win for his constituency.
Democrats certainly don't approve but Republicans don't approve of the ACA so, if that's the bar, neither did anything of significance.
So your one thing that we've gotten is... Many more billions of tax payer dollars spent on the border and... ???
Because that's not a benefit. You just described the government taking more money from me.
Nothing is actually improved in my life, or your life, or anyone's life.
People have gotten so brainwashed that they're legitimately arguing that what's good for them doesn't matter. What matters is how many random people they don't know they manage to hurt.
Unbelievable.
It's not a benefit to you but there are people who believe it is.
> Nothing is actually improved in my life, or your life, or anyone's life.
How arrogant. It's not up to you to decide what improves people's lives. That there are people who are so unsympathetic to others makes my life worse.
It upsets me, genuinely. It gives me very little hope that there will be an end to the infectious othering being promulgated by politics.
Believing something is a benefit and something actually benefiting you are a different thing.
You can believe anything. You can believe the Earth is flat, I don't care.
> How arrogant. It's not up to you to decide what improves people's lives.
You're right, it's not up to me. Its up to reality.
Things getting worse for other people don't improve your life. That's not an opinion. That's not something I made up.
That's just how the world works.
Also, sympathetic? Really?
You want me to be sympathetic of you being not sympathetic? How short sighted and downright delusional do you have to be to not see the contraction in that?
Obviously a lack of sympathy isn't a position that deserves sympathy. Otherwise, what the fuck are we doing here?
>The majority of Americans think that the border situation/immigration has improved since Trump was elected
Okay, I ask again. What benefit has he provided for the people? Did the jobs come back? Is it safer to walk on the streets? has land value increased? Are groceries less scarce?
Border patrol seems to have long forgotten what the end goal is for the americans, and no one can seem to answer thta question anymore (for what I see are clearly obvious reasons).
>Trump also appointed the judges that got Roe overturned
Same question. Is illegal abortion improving the lives of everyday citizens.
>but Republicans don't approve of the ACA
Same question. Where's that money going that benefits the americans?
This is the whole issue. We can't point to lives being improved, only fears that were manufactured by the same rich elite being quelled. A society powered by fear isn't a democracy.
If you can't understand that opponents of abortion view it as murder and that preventing murder is good, you're hopeless.
Again, where are the unborn fetuses roaming the streets comitting crimes? How does this improve your life?
You don't have to answer it here. I just really want people to think about themselves for once (ironically enough) and really ask what is wrong in their lives, instead of projecting what's wrong with everyone else. If your biggest problems are "other people exist and I don't like them", you must have a very cushy life. I envy that.
And no, I do not understand. They can't be pro-babies and then try to hide the Epstein files. That shows how far their principles really go.
You've misunderstood my understanding of Trump supporters with support for Trump. This makes sense since it seems you are incapable of that and so can't conceive it's possible.
If I thought abortion was murder, I'd be very happy that murder was illegal now. It would improve my life knowing that babies weren't being murdered. Is it really difficult for you to understand that?
Regarding Epstein, the fact that Democrats suddenly decided they gave a shit about Epstein after years of making fun of fringe Republicans for pushing the conspiracy way beyond what any evidence shows is bald faced politics.
I don't really care what you support. My point is that you haven't engaged at all in this discussion and have only attacked me instead of considering the questions I've asked. That does not go with the spirit of this site.
>the fact that Democrats suddenly decided they gave a shit about Epstein after years of making fun of fringe Republicans for pushing the conspiracy way beyond what any evidence shows is bald faced politics.
Here is the latest example. Instead of addressing my point you decide to deflect and attack. You may not be a Trump supporter, but this mentality fuels MAGA. If you don't want to be called a duck, stop quacking.
We're not even talking about politics anymore, you're just trying to instigate a flame war here, with me. Let's not break site guidelines, please.
>Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
A majority isn't enough to end the shutdown. It takes 60 Senate votes to pass a budget, and there are only 53 Republicans in the Senate.
This is the least productive Congressional session in history. It's a tiny majority. Also, the pretend Christian head of the House refuses to swear in Adelita Grijalva who was duly elected. The modern House has very little real power compared to the Senate.
Yes and Republicans deliberately didn't show up. If people watched CSPAN instead of getting their news from social media, it would be obvious to everyone who is responsible.
Budget requires 60 votes.
Denocrats are voting against continuing the current budget that they passed while Joe Biden was president.
Doesn't even matter if it's 60 because the GOP has 3 members voting against. Meaning they couldn't even get 51 if they used budget reconciliation. BTW the reason they can't use budget reconciliation is because of a hole they dug themselves in.
If my mother or other older people i know who need Medicare, medicaid, ssn, snap lose it or see huge increases while taxes are reduced for the top 5% while trump enriches himself while congress remains paid and insured ... I'm gonna have to start getting involved in someway ... these (my mother and friends) people are not lazy assholes.
If my ssn is screwed with which I've paid into for decades ... because of interest on debt and other basic financial mismagement ... there's gonna be push back.
The overreach of the right is building cases for nyc next lefty mayor (likely) and Sanders, aoc, Robert reichs of the world btw ... too far left can have its own other problems. We don't need that either.
We are in serious need of competence and getting the basics done right for the right reasons.
While i could go on at length about trump's own rank stupidity we all must see the root cause is an instiutionally corrupt and incompetent congress. That power vacuum is filled by trump now.. but it's congress that bears the ultimate responsibility. Democrats are not criminally so flagrant or culpable but democrat policy and no street smarts didn't help. They are a very weak compeitor.
> too far left can have its own other problems.
If you think that any of the names you mentioned are remotely as far left as the current administration is far right, you have been swallowing propaganda whole.
@danaris hey get with the program. The morons in congress have pissed way the last 30 years in the kind of bs you give above. Nobody cares anymore. Who has edge or where the edge is between the two parties.. nobody cares. Whether one sides "facts" are propaganda or not ... nobody cares.
The salient points are just two:
- extremes make extremes and neither is good for the US
- congress needs competent technocratic solutions to budget, debt, and other things in the practical realm of running a government.
Pretty boys on tv talking s** means nothing. The fiest 40 minutes of the breakfast club is the problem.
> - extremes make extremes and neither is good for the US
Which would be more salient if there were, in fact, an extreme left in the US.
Think about this for just a minute: What would extremes on both sides look like?
On the left, it would likely look like a platform of jailing or murdering all billionaires, confiscating the wealth of everyone above, say, $10M and redistributing it to the populace, nationalizing all major businesses, etc.
On the right, it would likely look like a platform of jailing, deporting, or murdering all non-white people, enforcing a specific view of Christianity on everyone, and redistributing wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
One of these sounds a hell of a lot like the platform of one of our major parties, and it sure as hell isn't the Democratic Party.
Sadly, the time to get involved was a while ago.
At this point, the root cause analysis leads to a highly efficient right wing media scape. Efficient because it’s given up on accuracy, and optimized on narrative effectiveness. Trump has a 60%+ approval rating amongst republicans right now, down from 77 in June July (iirc) and even higher in march.
There is no healing a wound, if the source of aggravation is constantly present.
It is also hard to categorize it as a wound, if all Fox and the right media ecosystem is doing, is simply exercising their right to free speech. They just happen to be in lock step with their party, and they’ve spent decades aiming to fill seats, and ensure bipartisan leaning politicians get ousted.
None of this is obviously wrong or illegal, it’s simply focusing on the rules as opposed to the spirit and the norms.
They are “winning”, against science, norms, public opinion and more.
This is the mountain that has to be climbed, and most people are still under the impression that this is business as usual, or that this is simply the pendulum of history moving in the opposite direction.
> If my mother or other older people i know who need Medicare, medicaid, ssn,
Medicare and Social Security aren't affected by the shutdown, nor are they subject to cuts.
ACA subsidies are set to expire at the end of the year, and democrats want to extend that. That in combination to cuts to medicare and medicaid in the BBB tax cuts that won't hit until next year, while not directly related to the shutdown, it is one of few venues for leverage in negotiations. Especially after GOP promises of no cuts in medicare and medicaid which were obviously broken with that bill.
You really think that the public will connect the dots.
Trump's "big beautiful bill" makes a lot of those painful cuts. But it also keeps them from taking effect until too late in 2028 to affect the next election. Between now and then, the standard Republican line can be, "Democrats told you that all this will be cut. Have your benefits been cut?" They get to use that in 2026 and 2028. The cuts will have arrived by 2030, but the bill will be old news. There will be a new controversy. And people's opinions of the bill won't change.
This is all on purpose.
If true the dems should allow the government to stay closed until this can be fixed. They need some street smarts: flush out the BS now. Voters need to know what the heck is going on. I hate to write it but we may need visit a crappy local minimum (accept a crap show short term) to move back to a higher maximum than we are now.
The money the US (that's us folks) spend on medicine is crimally stupid. Heck I had doctor in laws.. one runs medstar in dc both of who have nothing nice to say about the finance/insurance side of medicine.
Now, I hasten to add let's not throw the baby out with the bath water: doctors and nurses are generally people who want to help through science, and that's a good thing.
The BBB doesn't cut shit. The biggest cut is $1 trillion in Medicaid over 10 years. Medicaid spending was $894 billion in 2023, up from $721 billion (CPI adjusted) in 2015: https://www.statista.com/statistics/245348/total-medicaid-ex.... We're not even cutting it back halfway to what it was in Obama's last year, when everything was peachy.
The USD has inflated 36% since 2015. So the 2023 budget was already an effective budget cut from 2015 of almost $100 billion (10%).
So we're effectively cutting the program budget by 25% what it was in Obama's last year - and that's after kneecapping it several times legislatively WRT things like the individual mandate and before going into the rapidly rising inflation we're seeing this year leading into that decade.
As I said, the 2015 figure I gave was already adjusted for inflation. The medicaid spending was only $495 billion in nominal dollars in 2015.
The BBB doesn't cut shit. It just cuts trillions of dollars.
Do y'all actually hear yourself or what?
Also: it's not JUST the cutting that's the problem.
We're doing these cuts and getting NOTHING in return. Literally nothing.
Do you know how much money we're saving? -2 trillion dollars. You are actually paying to lose money. Its legitimately unbelievable just how shit this fiscal policy is.
Maybe the GOP should compromise with them if they need their votes, no?
The problem is a GOP compromise is just empty air. After the bill passes, the president will just cut stuff out of it on his own, and Congress will do nothing.
Blatantly wrong, since a focus of theirs is extending the current ACA funding from the previous budget which the current proposed budget doesn't have. Do you repeat the talking points sincerely without understanding them, or disingenuously with an understanding of why they're false?
I mean, do you understand how many pages and details there are in a federal budget, do you think it's plausible that an incoming administration wouldn't make hundreds of changes from the budget of an administration of the opposite party? That's a plausible scenario?
The funding that is going away from the ACA was emergency funding from COVID that was scheduled to end.
Multiple Republicans voted against it, didn't bother showing up, and refused to even open the House for more than 2 minutes yesterday.
Do you already not remember DOGE, the Big Beautiful Bill, and Trump just refusing to spend money that Congress had allocated already?
This budget has veered sharply away from Biden's budget.
And shutting down the government gives him more power, not less.
I don't think it's possible to predict this, even with a fully stable and rational White House. It's often impossible to know how things can or will backfire.
If that's actually beneficial to Trump then none of this matters, because the Republicans can just shut it down themselves no matter what the democrats want or do.
Meanwhile, what power might this give him that he hasn't already seized without resistance from Congress? He's taken spending power and partially claimed taxation power already. He's been illegally firing people his entire term so far, often en masse. So what's the "more power"?
Joe Biden didn't cut Healthcare spending. Do you even know why this CR is failing? Did you already forget the highly contentious megabill passed that no Democrat agreed with? They barely eeked out a majority, now when they need 20 more to agree to "continue" that it doesn't work out. Surprise.
>Republicans hold the majority... hello?
The house has a majority; republicans control that.
The senate requires 60 votes in order to control which the republicans dont have. So the democrats absolutely can and have shutdown the government.
The Republicans only require 50 votes to get rid of the 60 vote rule. They can do it any time they want, but then the jig would be up, and they wouldn't be able to blame Democrats any more.
They think it's better for them politically to keep blaming the Democrats than to take responsibility for their own choices. I really can't blame them, they have made some pretty bad choices recently.
Back in normal times, the Democrats and Republicans would have been able to negotiate something, because everybody assumed the president would obey whatever budget they passed. But now even if they negotiate something, the president just cuts whatever he doesn't like, and the Republicans in Congress won't hold him to account.
"There isn't any substantive reason why there ought to be a government shutdown. This is something that has been done routinely, as I said, 13 different times when the Democrats had the majority. But we are not going to be held hostage for over $1 trillion in new spending on a continuing resolution," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said ahead of the vote.
Is that "new spending" actually spending that was just cut by the Republican majority in the BBB?
From what I understand the majority of the desired spending is on welfare for illegal immigrants. If true, then it's reasonable to push back against it I think.
The Democrats are pushing to continue more generous federal subsidies to help Americans afford Obamacare policies and to reverse deep cuts to Medicaid contained in Trump’s sweeping domestic policy agenda package. But neither of those changes would provide health coverage to undocumented immigrants, since they aren’t eligible for either program.[1]
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-fre...
This literally just does not exist. There's no middle ground here or anything - this is just made up.
We don't spend federal dollars like Medicaid or Medicare on illegal immigrants. We literally just don't.
If you think we do, remember: we don't. That doesn't happen. You are misremembering. That has never happened.
If someone tells you that is happening, remember: they are wrong. They are lying. They don't understand what they are saying.
That is certainly what JD Vance is claiming. He knows it's not true, but he keeps saying it because he also knows he can lie to his supporters and they either won't care, or won't actually try to find out the truth.
Same with his lie that there are liberal groups funding people like the Utah shooter. It's complete bullshit and he knows it.
He is one of the most sleazy people in politics right now, and that's saying something.
So, we now have an assertion from you, and an assertion from the GP, and neither of you has supplied any evidence for your claims. Would one of you do so?
Here is one example from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-fre...
It's really not hard to find this information. All the major news sites are covering it.
Thanks.
But about your last paragraph: A post is written once, but read many times. If you make your readers look for the information, then N people have to do searches. If you search, it only has to happen once. So it's much more efficient for the post author to do so.
And if you don't when you're contradicting someone else, and neither of you supplies evidence, then it looks like "he said, she said". If the evidence is on your side, show it.
The information is everywhere. Anybody who can't find it doesn't really care.
Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. They didn't bother to show up to avert the shutdown. The House convened for 2 minutes and refused to allow any discussion yesterday.
If you have to use the "this hasn't happened since X" formulation for dramatic effect, at least do it when the time scale is actually impressive. Last time it happened was 7 years ago? That's not even 2 presidencies
Has it already been 7 years? It feels like just last year.
It happened twice during Trump's last presidency. Didn't happen under Biden.
How long do government shutdowns last? How often do they happen?
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/longest-government-shu...
You tired of all this winning yet?
I'm in a coma from how tired I am of this winning.
What does it mean for air travel?
Pissed, unpaid TSA workers. Those who choose to show up to work. There WILL be impacts, most certainly.
> There WILL be impacts, most certainly.
Amusingly—or perhaps worryingly—I can't help but "hear" that as Bob Page saying "Oh yes, most certainly" in the Deus Ex intro cutscene. [0]
Safe to fly?
ATC is essential but they don’t get paid
They get back pay when the shutdown ends.
Yup and in the meantime they can buy their groceries with…
A lot of banks/credit unions offer 0% loans to federal employees during government shutdowns. Some of them even offer this to customers who join after the shutdown began.
Granted, it is weird to think about living in a country where this is a finanical product that so many institutions just have.
Even without that, the shutdown actually needs to last a while before it actually becomes a problem for forloughed workers.
Despite the shutdown, the October 1 paychecks (covering work done between September 7 and September 20) will still go out, as they have long since been sent to the payment processors.
The October 15 paychecks (covering September 21 - October 4) should go out with a slightly reduced amount the unpaid 4 days during the shutdown. This would require the agency in question to properly follow shutdown protocols and submit timecards/payroll data to the processors prior to the shutdown. Since this is not the routine process, I imagine some mistakes will be made here, so some government workers will probably miss the October 15 paycheck. Others may face hardship from the reduced payment; but even people living paycheck to paycheck typically stretch the paycheck out across the pay period, so will be able to get through most of the period on the reduced check (and can probably defer/reduce some spending).
Major payroll lapses will not kick in until the October 29 paycheck. If we reach that point, this would be the second longest shutdown in history [0]. Even then, most Americans have an existing line of credit that offers 0% interest loans for between 30 and 60 days depending on when they are in the billing cycle [1].
[0] Not that I would be too suprised by this. The longest shutdown occured under President Trump, while the republicans controlled the Senate; and had controll of the House for the first part of the shutdown.
[1] Except for those who have a revolving balance, in which case and additional spending starts accruing interest immedietly; and any delay in paying down the existing balance also incurs interest. And, when these loans do gather interest, it is at a quite high rate.
> Granted, it is weird to think about living in a country where this is a finanical product that so many institutions just have.
I suppose it's like working for a company with a really weird build or CI/CD process that breaks regularly, to the point where many devs in the company have a prepared "the build process broke again" workaround script ready.
People are generally pretty intelligent, au least until they get into politics
I'm really tired of band-aiding solutions and not properly addressing the core issues behind the broken everything. Broken windows, and we're running out of duct tape.
You don't think people with the planning skills and intelligence to real-time coordinate and sequence air traffic have the skills to foresee an impending event and start planning, coordinating and sequencing their personal responses to that event?
Do you think people with a super stressful job should get more stress added to their lives? How many Americans live paycheck to paycheck?
You seem to be interpreting assertions of fact as some sort of approval for the current state of things.
The commenter above is saying that ATCs by and large are probably not living paycheck to paycheck. He isn't saying that the shutdown is super neat.
Further up, I was clarifying that ATCs will get paid once the shutdown ends, which is a world of difference from the other way to interpret "they aren't getting paid". Likewise I am not making a value judgement about the situation, I am trying to be helpful.
Not everything is an argument.
>You seem to be interpreting assertions of fact as some sort of approval for the current state of things.
You seem to be ignoring the human element of the situation in lieu of pushing the logistics of it. Something the GP was directly combatting.
No, the airlines aren't shutting down. We're further weakening the stability that will lead to the next major crash, though. Be it literal or otherwise.
Life isn't a spreadsheet
I'm not really a spreadsheet guy.
If that's the best conversation we can have on this, then it's no wonder we can never band together to protect what really matters to us.
If me pointing out that furloughed employees receive back pay requires that I couch it in explicit sympathy for their situation, we're doomed to talk about peripheral issues.
I agree, we're doomed. Yes, I see even in this post I see people cheering on the closing of hospitals and the burdens of workes increasing just because billionaires don't want to pay taxes. So I can't by default assume that "they'll get backpay anyway it doesn't matter" isn't uyet another dismissal.
I also agree. We're doomed at this rate.
I want to point out that that a new and dangerous kind of "shutdown" was already happening before today, just in a patchy partisan manner. [0][1] In a nutshell:
1. Democrats and Republicans reach a typical legislative compromise with enough votes to pass a law, declaring that federal government shall do both [A] and [B].
2. President Trump: "Meh, I just don't wanna do [B], nobody do [B] or else you're fired."
3. Republican legislators: "Sure, we didn't want [B] anyway, we'll sit back and let Trump break the law without impeaching him. We'll can spend that money for something else we like later."
So... what's the point of Democrats compromising on a package of budget laws, when the Republican party keeps conspiring to break the very laws they agreed-to but don't like?
_____________________
[0] https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/new-data-show-t...
[1] https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/letters/the-t...
The Democratic party has realized that negotiating doesn't get them anything. Evenn if the Republicans agree to their demands, they won't actually follow through.
And the solution is obviously to give Trump more power by allowing him to legally decide which parts of the government are essential.
This is a great point, and it's something that the Founding Fathers really just kicked the can down the road for succeeding generations to find out. The executive doing so is technically in violation of the Take Care Clause ("shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"), and SOME judicial proceedings since then have found that the Executive can't use under-spending to deny or delay a congressional act or program (Train v. City of New York, 1975) - but it's still something that's up in the air if we have a complicit Congress AND judiciary.
But then again, with a complicit Congress and Judiciary - what ISN'T in the air is a shorter list.
This is the most insightful comment yet here.
>what's the point of Democrats compromising on a package of budget laws, when the Republican party keeps conspiring to break the very laws they agreed-to but don't like?
At this point, think of it as continuing to gather the moutains of supprot for the next impeachment trials. For when a scandal happens that Trump can't recover from. From if something untimely happens and power shifts. his won't just be forgotten to history.
It's slow and painful, but when words don't work, you point to actions. Trump has done a lot of actions out of the blue that will bite back had when the power is ceded.
We can't swear in the new senator from Arizona who coincidentally has the tie breaking vote to force the release of the Epstein files.
I think you mean congresswoman, Adelita Grijalva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelita_Grijalva
> On September 23, 2025, Grijalva was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election to succeed her father, defeating Republican nominee Daniel Butierez.
Ok, so this list is released. Let’s say it has photos of Trump with underage sex trafficking victims.
Then what? Do you really think that would be enough to change anything?
I’m not sure what you’re angling to have someone else say for you.
Could you just say it?
Trump's decision to hide the list was the first time that I've seen MAGA anything split with Trump.
Proof that it contains egregious crimes by Trump, really could widen that. Doubly so given that these are crimes which Trump can still be prosecuted. Particularly since there is no statute of limitations on many sex trafficking crimes.
Could it widen it enough to allow Republican politicians to reject Trump? That's a good question. But I do find it hopeful that Ted Cruz, who has been so good at folding to Trump that he now resembles a piece of origami, was actually able to stand up and mock Trump's administration for his attempt to crush free speech by shutting down Jimmy Kimble. If Trump loses a chunk of his base, maybe some R politicians will remember what it's like to have a spine.
> Could it widen it enough to allow Republican politicians to reject Trump?
There are no Republican politicians left
There are plenty of politicians with R in the name.
That their policies don't look like Republican policies of 30 years ago shouldn't surprise. Republican policies of 30 years ago didn't look much like Republican policies of 60 years ago.
The current ones don't fail to be Republican. It is just that Republican now means something different than it used to.
The same exact comments could be made about Democrats. For example look at Joe Biden's legislative record. He was President as a champion of DEI and LBGTQ+ rights. But back in the Clinton era, he sponsored a crime bill that put a ton of blacks in prison, and sponsored DOMA, a bill that blocked federal recognition of gay marriages.
> That their policies don't look like Republican policies of 30 years ago shouldn't surprise.
There’s only MAGA now
Their policies don’t even look like their policies 8 years ago - there are no policies or principles
Certainly the new era of republican thought has policies and principles. The main principle that informs all the others is "win at all costs" below that is a variety of white nationalism and economic populism.
I've seen it just as split during Jan 6th. You can look at 4chan's archive for /pol/, as well as the "thedonald.win" website, and even r/askTrumpSupporters and r/Conservative - all on January 6th 2021. You will see a fragment and fracture that I would personally attest was even stronger than the Epstein files meltdown.
Cognitive dissonance can be jarring. But they are mostly all back on the same page again.
There was clear, genuine shock even on the right over that event. It lasted a few months, at most, until their talking heads managed to "catapult the propaganda" sufficiently, and various conspiracy theories were seeded, fertilized, watered, and took root to give people something to believe other than their own eyes and ears.
That brief span of perhaps a few months was probably the last window of time we had to save the US—maybe, still would have been a long shot. But nothing was even attempted.
> "Trump's decision to hide the list was the first time that I've seen MAGA anything split with Trump."
There's a lot of diversity of views among those who might have voted for Trump. For instance his nonstop backing of Israel and decision to continue the war in Ukraine have been divisive, as was his decision to bomb Iran. In general Republican views are not like the equal but opposite of Democrat views. There tends to be much more diversity on most topics.
For instance you probably think the average Republican is pro-gun and anti-abortion. In reality only 24% of Republicans completely oppose abortion [1] and only 27% think gun laws should be less strict. [2] The party has become extremely heterogeneous. I suspect this is largely because of people like me. I do not consider myself conservative, but am highly supportive of equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, opposed to political correctness and war, and so on. In other words a pretty much typical liberal of 20 years ago, but one who no longer really fits in the modern Democrat demographic.
I think it's fairly obvious that nobody is ever going to be prosecuted over the Epstein stuff. He seemed to have had dirt on basically everybody. So I suspect everybody will finger point and imply things to score political points, but in the end it's the pot calling the kettle black, and so I doubt anybody would have the gall to escalate it to the point of prosecutions.
[1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.as...
[2] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...
32% of all Republicans also support universal healthcare as well. That alongside your examples just shows that there are not the most rational bunch in general and suffer form severe cognitive dissonance.
> In other words a pretty much typical liberal of 20 years ago, but one who no longer really fits in the modern Democrat demographic.
Sure. But its hardly conceivable that such a person would fir in the MAGA party either.
Of course even someone like Mussolini was a socialist activist for years so people's views do change...
But how many people do the stereotypes of MAGA actually apply to? I certainly haven't met that person. But I have met a fair chunk of people who, for various reasons, found themselves on a different side of the aisle than might have otherwise been the case.
Trump for instance won the majority of Hispanic males (and nearly females as well) and even started to kind-of-sort-of make black males a competitive demographic. That's still an exaggeration since it was only like 22%, but that's still far greater than usual.
But now imagine if people made their politics public - the majority of Hispanic males would be running around with their MAGA cap and more than 1 in 5 black males doing the same. It'd become clear that the stereotypes are mostly just nonsense.
If releasing the Epstein files would accomplish nothing, why is preventing their release the indisputable highest priority of the Republican party?
I'd say the risk for republicans is more looking like they lost something to democrats (or worse, caved) than the actual content of the files.
Then you simply have not been paying attention. The Republican base was full throatedly calling for the release of the files mere months ago. They were sitting "on Bondi's desk." Releasing them then would not be seen as caving. Your argument is nonsensical.
My take is democrats called the republicans' "bluff" (because republicans never actually intended to release everything) and backed them into a corner of having to actively oppose the release because democrats don't.
Now, even if those files end up being a nothingburger (because republicans will just shrug off whatever makes them look bad), it'll be on republicans if they let the release happen.
My main point is: republicans aren't opposing the release because "they're on the list", they're opposing it because it'll look like a loss if the release happens.
> because republicans never actually intended to release everything
All you did was hide my previous point in here and then pretend it's not there. These mental gymnastics must be exhausting.
Fair.
I thought there was difference because I thought your stance was that republicans are afraid that the files themselves contain things that make them look bad (eg Trump or some other big-name republican was mentioned in them), and I don't think that's the case. Edit: well, I don't think they're afraid of it, not that there's nothing that makes them look bad.
> These mental gymnastics must be exhausting.
Not sure what makes you feel that's a necessary thing to say, TBH.
>"I don't think [Republicans] are afraid of [The Epstein Files]"
With the scope of approach the House, Senate, and Executive cabinet are taking to avoid any release or mention of the Epstein files, I truly believe anyone who says such a thing are either not presently politically-literate, or are less than honest with themselves and others.
I simply see no other avenue, and I've heard no coherent logic that steelmans the Republican position on this matter for ANY motivation besides fear of, at the very least, members of their cohort being implicated for child sex crimes. Nonetheless, I'll be happy to hear a shot taken again at it.
I'll accept accusations of being too cynical, but I come at it from the "(lack of) past consequences" side.
For the past ~25 years I've paid attention, and in particular since 2008, virtually no scandal has cost the GOP any tangible support.
I see no reason to expect that anything in these files would have different results, so I see no reason for republicans to think differently and fear the release based on the contents of said files.
Whatever comes out would get brushed off with the mix of "deep state", "lying victims", "locker room talk", "circumstantial means nothing", etc, we've already seen, and it would be effective.
I'm cynical but I also see the numbers. This is by far one of trumps worst polling issues. It may not be the Watergate release that ends the term, but this will absolutely tank the GOP's midterms and add more fuel to a congress that might want to try to impeach Trump again in 2027.
The numbers as is are really bad for so much of the GOP. Maybe no one holds them accountable now, but these sentiments aren't easily forgotten when it's out in the blue. Ford pardoned Nixon nearly Day One of taking over and that pretty much forever sealed his chances at re-election.
I guess my problem is that I'm strictly in a "I'll believe it when I see it (and no sooner)" mindset when it comes to election results (as opposed to polls).
> Do you really think that would be enough to change anything?
If anything could change something, it would be these files. The Epstein case/list along with deep state child trafficking conspiracies in general is a foundational pillar of MAGA. Trump doing a 180 and saying the list doesn't matter was like the Pope saying Jesus was no big deal. He had to know this from a strategy standpoint which makes it even weirder they are trying to hide them.
Joe Rogan and Alex Jones still have listeners.
As a financial examole: I know a very famous content creator from the pre-google YouTube days who did highly edited skits. Lots of drama happened, as is the course, and he's faded from the public eye. Outside of making a few videos 2 years ago, he hasn't posted anything in 9 years. His patron hasn't updated in just as long. I'm not even sure if he tweeted this is year.
He still has 140k subs on YouTube. He peaked at $4000/month on patron but still makes $200 today /after 9 years of barely snyghubv)
You're never hitting zero after a certain point unless you shit down yourself. Joe Rogan is still popular but Alex Jones is definitely hit
Yes.
For some weird reason there's a subset of conservatives obsessed with this specific crime
Does congress get paid during this time?
But of course!
And you can bet they made some spicy trades beforehand.
You gotta it: congress always always takes theirs first and off the top.
Why do you think this matters when most of them have significant amounts of money and investments.
How long do government shutdowns last? How often do they happen?
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/longest-government-shu...
> How long do government shutdowns last?
That can't be predicted. One side or the other knuckles under at some point, but there is no schedule.
> How often do they happen?
A couple times every decade. Often enough that it one can see trends. The longest is also the most recent: 35 days in 2018. That was Trump's first term. Obama had one as well. They've been trending longer since the 1980's.
[flagged]
(Context:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pete-hegseth-... ("Trump Tells Generals the Military Will Be Used to Fight ‘Enemy Within’"))
You should look up on how coups work. Unless they want to end up like the south korean president, they should size up the military. That’s what it is about and if you are working on a coup, it’s worth every penny especially that the public is the one paying for it.
What? You do know "sizing up the military" is exactly why the South Korean president was ousted, right? He tried to declare martial law and parliament completely shut that down. Not exactly the thing you want to announce when you've had hostile neighbors for 70 years.
Let them dig their own grave if true, but I'm confused what yirre getting at.
Sizing up the military is going/inviting the military leaders multiple times to figure out if they will stand with you in the case of a coup. That’s not what the South Korean president did. Many people here confuse a coup to a direct seizing of power and the president declaring himself a dictator. A coup is fast but gradual seizing of power that starts by seizing one element (ie: law enforcement of a state, a senator, an official, etc.) gradually to seizing the courts.
That seems useless to me because people can indeed lie (this admin knows that all too well). Or change their mind when on the heat of the battlefield.
And of course, it's peak paranoia. You can't be performing a hostile, illegal siezure of power and call anyone who wants to follow the law an insurrectionist. The Consistution defines that for us.
Agree! Talk about bold leadership ... talk about classing this dump up ... /s
How in the happy fuck is this getting blamed on the minority party!?
old GOP standby; always appear to be playing defense, always be flabbergasted by those rascally democrats. Everything bad is always the result of the "radical libs" doing something. The details, and even the very veracity of the claims are immaterial. The trick is to sell, like a pro-wrestling match.
To be fair, the dems have given a go at a similar tactic, since their last 3 presidential campaigns had the implicit slogan of "At least we aren't those guys".
the 2-party system devolves into some kinda halfway dumb Hegelian dynamic where you are always opposed to what the other guy is doing while simultaneously being dependent on them for your existence.
If it were really Hegelian, there ought to be the synthesis showing up.
In the country’s past, third parties occasionally emerged to replace the dominant parties. I wonder why this does not happen anymore.
Third parties did emerge and replace dominant parties, but rarely - say, once a century or less. It's hard to tell the difference between "does not happen any more" and "continues to happen at that rate".
third parties are very weak in first past the post systems. Anyone who thinks about the game theory quickly comes to the conclusion to not vote third party. With easier access to mass market news more people can be informed of that so less people vote third party
It does occasionally happen, though. e.g. in Britain Labour replaced the Liberals in the 20s and 30s. Conservatives got almost destroyed last election if polls stay were they are they will likely be replaced by Farage's party.
France maybe doesn't fully count but when turnout is very high they are almost FPTP. Also the second round when it happens is usually three way and sometimes even four way. And their party system is about as hectic as it gets (i.e. most PR countries in Europe are much more stable)...
Basic game theory, as well as the nature of the problemset. working with 30k items is very different from 30m items. You need different algorithms to efficietly solve each one.
This will sound very mean, but when you open up your voterbase to more people, you open up democracy to be swayed more by pathos rather than ethos/logos. An educated, informed voterbase can make smart decisions and have a 3rd party rise up and defy the philosophy of the splinter vote.
Now, the US is 300m+ people with a voter base of about 170m. the searches for "is Biden running for president" on elecion day spiked more than the day he stepped down. Sentiment at this size adjusts too slowly to have a 3rd party rise at the national level, and if one gains momentum, the panic of a lost election will scamble all that progress.
If we want 3rd parties, we need to vote to enact voting that ancourages it, like ranked choice voting.
The American electoral system makes this near impossible.
Certainly for congressional elections, at least. Presidential elections might be more feasible if still highly far fetched. Of course at this point any 3rd party candidate is more likely to split the left-wing and moderate electorate than the radical/MAGA voters who usually don't really carry about specific policies or stances on most economic or other important issues.
the synthesis is the working class getting kicked in the crotch from both sides of the aisle.
The reality of our times in a song - the dems are always wrong.
The right leaning media machine is not beholden to facts or accuracy, it’s beholden to narrative.
The center and left are still stuck in the old era of trying to do reporting, and so they look like confused and untrustworthy in comparison.
Study how the right does media and messaging, its half of the flywheel that powers the current political era.
You need 60 votes in the senate to pass a budget so having a majority doesnt equal having a budget. The argument is generally that the majority party won a mandate from the people and therefore should be able to pass laws they want and when they cant the minority party gets blamed. Pretty much every government shut down in recent US history has been blamed on the minority party, dems won a lot of political points when the government shut down under biden.
Well historically Republican voters are absolutely supportive of the principle itself (i.e. minority party undermining the vote on the budget). So obviously that's what they voted for..
how do you not know that's not how the senate works?
It is more a question of how the media works and does not hold Republicans to any shred of accountability.
Propaganda, mostly.
If Republicans cared about the government shutting down they would have made efforts to negotiate or compromise. They’re just as responsible. In fact, Trump seemed pretty gleeful about the extra people he could fire if a shutdown happened.
shuts dowm?
Finally. That was a terrible government. Hopefully its replaced with something even halfway servicable.
Hate to break it to you, but: Government shutdowns don't result in a replacement government. When it's over, the same one comes back. Worse (if you think the government is terrible), parts of it continue even during the shutdown.
Shut the rest of it down.
Here's a collection for dang/tomhow, as this is (as it always has in the past) going to collect duplicates as everyone posts their own news source's version:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45423880 (NPR before the shutdown)
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45434179 (The Guardian, politically biased headline)
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45434441 (Reuters)
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45434146 (BBC News)
Paraphrasing a comedian during one of the previous shutdowns: "If they're still taking money out of my paycheck, it's not shut down."