The shutdown | Imamother

amother

Dodgerblue

Fri, Jan 11 2019, 2:17 pm

amother wrote:

I am very glad that you like your job, and that you can afford to live while not being paid.

Others don't have that luxury, and I know several who are already polishing their resumes because they're going to need work soon.

And my colleague's sister and BIL at TSA? They like their jobs a great deal. But they can't pay the mortgage or feed their kids without a paycheck.

I can't afford it either. I live paycheck to paycheck.

However everyone knows that when you accept a government job, you will get furloughed at some point. That is part of the package and you need to prepare for it. I can get a loan, defer my tuition payments, apply for unemployment, or if I was better at budgeting, set aside some money every month for the inevitable shutdowns that happen as part of my job. This is a surprise to no one and the whining is part of the culture. I know because I am part of it.

Trust me, they are not polishing their resumes. They aren't giving up their jobs. Maybe they are looking for temp jobs or something but they know what they've got and they aren't giving it up.

amother

Honeydew

Fri, Jan 11 2019, 2:33 pm

amother wrote:

Gosh, I'm so glad that you know and are privy to the thoughts of the nearly 22 million US government employees.

There have only been 21 government shutdowns in US HISTORY:

FORD 1 (10 days)
CARTER 5 (longest 18 days)
REAGAN 8 (longest 3 days)
BUSH 0
CLINTON 2 (longest 21 days)
BUSH 0
OBAMA 2 (longest 16 days)
TRUMP 3 so far (21 days and counting)

Unless someone blinks, this is going to cause a lot more pain than those in the past.

33055

Fri, Jan 11 2019, 3:14 pm

Iymnok wrote:

The big concern is tax refunds. They are dependent on filing before Jan 15. If there is no one working to accept the fillings, then Trumps new rebates amount to nothing. It’s the low income people who are affected here.

And it's the low income people who are most hurt by unchecked immigration. The central American illegal immigrants are not competing for my jobs.

amother

Dodgerblue

Fri, Jan 11 2019, 3:29 pm

amother wrote:

notice how they are all recent presidents. It is something we have come to expect in this political climate.

Obviously I am not a mind reader.

I am speaking as someone who is part of the government, who is part of the culture, and knows how dramatic government workers can be.

amother

Brown

Fri, Jan 11 2019, 3:37 pm

amother wrote:

I grew up in the DC area. I agree. Also, the criteria for determination of who is "essential" never made much sense to anyone.

I also remember people from one department being furloughed for the better part of a year while everyone else went back to work. The government was still debating and reorganizing them. So nothing is simple.

Ravenclaw

Sat, Jan 12 2019, 7:45 pm

Can someone please explain to me exactly how a shutdown works? I am seriously confused. Are they saving money by not paying people (and want to use that money for something else, like the wall or ACA)? Or is it just a standoff where a bunch of stubborn people have money but won’t allow either side to access it to prove a point? I am honestly not getting this.

ectomorph

Sat, Jan 12 2019, 7:46 pm

amother wrote:

First of all, its a partial shutdown so it doesn't have the affect the previous shutdown during Obama's time had where the Government was on standstill for over 2 weeks.

Second of all, the Senate passed a bill saying employees affected will get back pay and Trump indicated he would sign it.

Third of all, as a Fed myself, those of you on the outside are very unfamiliar with the culture. We whine a lot about the bureaucratic bull$%^& that we put up with but we wouldn't give up our jobs for anything. We aren't worked nearly as hard as the private sector. We have great insurance, great pensions, generous leave policies and flexibility and worker protections. GS employees are paid decently and have built in raises. We tend to make a big deal about many things because that is the culture but when it comes down to it, we get back pay and our jobs are very secure. It's just a downside that we need to deal with as part of our jobs. I am betting that IRS employees who are complaining wouldn't give up their jobs to go work for a public accounting firm or TSA agents go work in private security.

By all means, worry about the people on the outside who get food stamps and section 8 but please don't worry about the Feds. We are ok and like any job there are downsides that we have to deal with.

Signed a Fed who got furloughed.

amother

Navy

Sat, Jan 12 2019, 8:18 pm

Ravenclaw wrote:

Its not about saving money.

The Federal Agencies that are shut down require funding to operate. (They all do - for these agencies the funding expired). They are granted funding through "funding bills" - which become laws once signed by the President.

The President stated he won't sign a funding bill unless it includes 5 billion dollars for a wall.

That's about it.

imasoftov

Sun, Jan 13 2019, 4:19 am

amother wrote:

I'm not from the US. But why not make that the politicians who are fighting not get their money? Then it would be solved much quicker No?

Perhaps not. Most congresspeople are wealthy enough to be able to go for a while without a paycheck. It's the federal workers who are more likely to need their paychecks on a regular basis if they want to go on eating or living indoors or even to be alive when the shultdown ends.

In any case who would make the politicians do something? They are the ones who make the rules. Now of course we have a chance to replace them after their term is up, but unless enough people make this their top demand during the next election campaign, they probably won't get Congress to pass such a law (and if we could get a change, I'd prefer no more shutdowns, make whatever legislation kept things running until now automatically extend until the new one is approved). Also, since not all senators are up for re-election in two years, the next House could have representatives on both sides of the aisle ready to oppose shutdowns but the Senate could not change enough to go along with them. For example, McConnel, the current majority leader, who is preventing the Senate from voting to end the shutdown (I don't know why the Majority Leader can do that, of course legislative bodies can make rules for themselves, but maybe a good thing would be to allow a way to override that) is only up for re-election in 2020. Of course there's no guarantee that he'll be Majority Leader next session even though he'll still be a senator. Not only if the Senate flips, the Republican senators could choose someone else.

amother

Ivory

Mon, Jan 28 2019, 4:12 pm

Im not saying I don't feel for Federal workers, but it is not like those working for the private sector have it so great. The US government is a great employer; that is why so many want to work for it. You think it is unheard of to be shown the door for no good reason or downsized out of a job in the private sector? And there is no chance of getting back pay then!

And as far as those living paycheck to paycheck: that must be very difficult. However, too many people put themselves in that situation. I didn't say EVERYONE, I said too many people. Everyone, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, has to have in savings, many months (3-6) of their salary. That means that until you have it, NO LUXURIES WHATSOEVER. And I mean none.

amother

Navy

Mon, Jan 28 2019, 4:22 pm

amother wrote:

Ya sounds like you don't feel for the Federal Workers, many of whom were asked to work without pay.

People who get laid off their jobs - claim Unemployment.

amother

Honeydew

Mon, Jan 28 2019, 4:55 pm

amother wrote:

You could claim unemployment and pay back when you get your paycheck.

People who were required to work were not entitled to unemployment AFAIK.

Wouldn't it be a lovely world if people all had 6 months in savings? But the fact is that most people don't. They don't make a lot of money, and live paycheck to paycheck. Especially young people who haven't been working for decades. We can all have a little empathy.

As to the amother who said "And as far as those living paycheck to paycheck: that must be very difficult. However, too many people put themselves in that situation. didn't say EVERYONE, said too many people. Everyone, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, has to have in savings, many months (3-6) of their salary. That means that until you have it, NO LUXURIES WHATSOEVER. And mean none." Do you say the same to the women here? And in particular, do you tell them no private schools until they have a $50,000 nest egg?