Is The Government Shutdown Affecting You Directly?

[churchmouse]

No point.
No one thinks law enforcement or military should be paid for doing their jobs...

Uh........I did not read that anywhere.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I wanted to pee in the park in St. John but it was closed. Also meant no one to collect mooring ball fees...

 

[jedi]

No point.
No one thinks law enforcement or military should be paid for doing their jobs...

you should get some form of compensatuon for doing work for someone else. if after a while you are not perhaps its time to rethink why you are doing work for free.

im sure someone else will pay you for dojng work for them.
you, general you not you specifixally, choose to work and wait vs leave and work.

 

[jamil]

I can't say. I've been in bed with the covers over my head since the shutdown. I'm paralyzed with fear.

They keep saying "non-essential" but I don't think they know what that word means. Why do we employ anyone that is not essential?

Yeah. I get what you’re saying. Non-essential makes it sound like these employees are superfluous. I complain about that too.

And maybe many of those people are truly superfluous. But for the purposes of the shutdown, that’s not what it means. They can be “essential” for the function of their normal job duties, but in a shutdown state, were many services are halted, they’re not required to be there. Look at it like a manufacturing plant. One place I worked years ago had a planned annual shutdown at the end of the fiscal year. Regular workers had to use vacation during that time. But “essential” workers had to show up (of course they got paid).

Maintenance workers, for example. The assembly lines weren’t running, but some people still needed to be there to maintain the facility. It’s not that the other workers were unnecessary during normal operations. It’s that when the assembly lines shut down, then they’re nonessential.

Same for government workers, notwithstanding that many functions government does should probably not be done by government. But then that’s a philosophical argument.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not so
Government Shutdown 2019: Federal Contractors Won't Receive Back Pay | Money

Federal contractors are not government employees though.

 

[jamil]

You seem to have missed my post above, and addressed the logistics of building the wall. Ok, fine.

I'll say it more bluntly: Your grand niece and her husband CHOSE, with their own free will, to put themselves in the position they are now in. Government shutdowns are NOT a new thing. Not by a long-shot!
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-ended/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.47ee4380e844

They chose to work for the federal government.

They chose to NOT save 3 - 6 monthes of bills for emergencies.

They chose to NOT call their landlord or lendors to discuss options weeks in advance, knowing that cashflow could soon be a problem.

They continue to CHOOSE to stay where they are when other options may be available. (Caveat: I know he may be locked in if CG is military, but she is not.)

Suggestion #1: She begins looking into a career in LE immediately, and not with the federal government.

Suggestion #2: No matter what careers they choose to follow, once they start getting paychecks they IMMEDIATELY put back three (3) monthes of bills in savings, as soon as possible!

Again, I don't want to be mean or callous as I said in my first post, but individual responsibility does come into play. It sounds like your grand-niece is very bright and on a good path, but the employer she works for has issues. She should look for more stable and lucrative work elsewhere. They both sound like great folks who are serving their country, but you don't have to be in the military to serve others. Paramedics, LE, firemen, even private security all help folks. To quote Charles Grodin in Dave, "Get out as fast as you can!"

Regards,

Doug

Okay. I’ll be blunt. I’m calling Bull****. Responsibility does come into play in how prepared people are for an unexpected loss of income. Sure. But, it doesn’t belong in THIS discussion. But just for the responsibility hawks, I’ll indulge briefly. Surely you understand that 3 months savings doesn’t happen immediately. For people starting out, especially if you come from poor families especially, it takes awhile to save up 3 months pay. If you save 25% of your pay, which is extremely aggressive for people just starting out from zero, it still takes a year of saving to accumulate 3 months pay.

But that isn’t even the worst reasoning the “responsibility hawks” are employing. Instead of acknowledging the hardship a government shutdown places on individuals, who have nothing to do with the congressional squabbling causing the impasse, they plug thier ears to the plight of people affected by it, irrationally claiming that it’s their fault that the government shutdown is a burden to them! Are you ****ing kidding me?

Yeah. To the extent that they could have been better prepared for a temporary loss of income than they are, yeah, it’s their fault for not being as prepared as they could be. But it’s not their fault for being thrust into that position. It’s politicians playing chicken with other people’s resources. It’s like some of you guys have an irrational belief that a government shutdown can’t possibly have ill effects on anyone because we don’t need this much government.

And you’d be rationally correct if you just stopped at “the government is too big”. We don’t need this much government to fulfill its constitutional role. That’s objectively true. But it’s not government employees’ fault that we have too much government. And because we do, we can’t just turn it off willy nilly anytime we have a congressional impasse without exacting a cost on government employees.

The discussion about the size of government is entirely different from the discussion about the cost to furloughed employees because one side really wants a wall, and the other side doesn’t want to give in. The discussion about personal financial responsibility has zero legitimacy in the political discussion about how the shutdown is affecting people.

 

[jamil]

Federal contractors are not government employees though.

Right, but it does go counter to the narrative that a government shutdown doesn’t impact anyone. It’s the whole conversation we’re having. Muh shutdown ain’t affectin’ me; it ain’t affectin’ no one. Day 623, nope. Still ain’t affectin’ me. Muh beliefs about the world is safe.

 

[churchmouse]

Right, but it does go counter to the narrative that a government shutdown doesn’t impact anyone. It’s the whole conversation we’re having. Muh shutdown ain’t affectin’ me; it ain’t affectin’ no one. Day 623, nope. Still ain’t affectin’ me. Muh beliefs about the world is safe.

Well I guess you have a strong opinion about this.
But the discussion is about the responsibility's we all have to be at least partially prepared. That goes along with the issues the OP put forth to the forum for discussion. Yes people are being effected. That is very clear. But the results are that this can change for those folks should they want to change it. Being military sucks. But when this passes and it will, we should all "FORCE" or elected **** bags to pass a budget and start to live by it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Right, but it does go counter to the narrative that a government shutdown doesn’t impact anyone. It’s the whole conversation we’re having. Muh shutdown ain’t affectin’ me; it ain’t affectin’ no one. Day 623, nope. Still ain’t affectin’ me. Muh beliefs about the world is safe.

Right. The contractors are kind of like the businesses near government installations that are seeing their business fall off because the government employees are furloughed. Employees of those businesses are affected when their hours get cut due to a slowdown in the business. I was only pointing it out because unlike the government employees, contractors won't get back pay (unless their employer - the contracting/consulting business) decides to pay them. We employ a lot of contractors where I work. Rules are different for them. While we get Columbus Day off for example, contractors have to work. They usually only get the "big" holidays off (Memorial Day, Labor Day, 4th of July, etc.).

 

[jedi]

no one posted that they blame the .gov worker for the shutdown.

what has been posted is that we blame the .gov worker for not being prepared.

the .gov worker like the majority of americans are never prepared. they dont have 3 to 6 months of savings, nor water/food in case of natural messes, blizzard, power outage, etc.

time n time again things happen and no one learns.
the few who have managed to get out of debt, have 3 to 6 months of savings, have food/water are seen as wierdos and typically made fun of by all including other family members.

its f**** hard to get that level.
it takes disciple. it takes going months even years without what the jones have, new car, best iphone, no cable, no cellphone, no going out to dinner, not buying the latest xbox, etc.. but it is possible.

 

[jedi]

for those thay have done it
most just remain quiet about it seeing as the world disliked them when they were doing it and will hate them for now being free of the slavery the system has imposed on most.

student loans, mortages, living paycheck to paycheck, buying stuff you really do not need but the jones have, credit card debt. etc...

 

[jamil]

Well I guess you have a strong opinion about this.
But the discussion is about the responsibility's we all have to be at least partially prepared. That goes along with the issues the OP put forth to the forum for discussion. Yes people are being effected. That is very clear. But the results are that this can change for those folks should they want to change it. Being military sucks. But when this passes and it will, we should all "FORCE" or elected **** bags to pass a budget and start to live by it.

The strength of opinion is quite narrowly focused on the attitude that cheers on a shutdown and refuse to believe that it impacts people, and that to whatever impact it has on peoole, it’s their own fault. It’s the latter part that piques my ire most.

Yes, it would be less impactful if people were as responsible as they could be. That’s true. That’s not a justification to shut the government down. And it’s not like I’m a proponent of government, I’m still mostly a minarchist. But we have the size we have and regardless how responsible people are, it’s not benign. A squabble unrelated to them is causing them to pay for it.

I can recall back in 2013 or whenever, the shutdowns I cheered on like so many others here. I had my fingers in my ears too.

I would like to see some laws changed so that impasses hurt the people at fault. Here’s my purposal. It is the job of congress to pass an anual budget bill to fund the government. We should hold them to that. If a budget (a real budget, no more of this continuing resolution ****) hasn’t been passed and signed by a deadline, a default budget goes into affect (similar to but way more agressive than sequestration was). The default budget includes a reduction in pay for congress and the president. Of course that would largely be symbolic as the POTUS is often rich and that salary is chump change. And, long-standing congress critters make way more money in, we’ll just call it “investments”, than their salaries.

 

[Libertarian01]

I truly feel bad for those affected by the shutdown. They chose, sure. They should have prepared, sure. But life happens and things are not always equal, tough decisions are made. I feel bad for those who get laid off as well. I certainly won't sit here and presume to know the circumstances by which these people found themselves, life is too complicated for that.

I agree with all of this. This is a fair response. However, it is a response to my 2nd post. My first post was much softer and less blunt. Everyone is different and I understand that.

Okay. IÂ’ll be blunt. IÂ’m calling Bull****. Responsibility does come into play in how prepared people are for an unexpected loss of income. Sure. But, it doesnÂ’t belong in THIS discussion. But just for the responsibility hawks, IÂ’ll indulge briefly. Surely you understand that 3 months savings doesnÂ’t happen immediately. For people starting out, especially if you come from poor families especially, it takes awhile to save up 3 months pay. If you save 25% of your pay, which is extremely aggressive for people just starting out from zero, it still takes a year of saving to accumulate 3 months pay.

But that isn’t even the worst reasoning the “responsibility hawks” are employing. Instead of acknowledging the hardship a government shutdown places on individuals, who have nothing to do with the congressional squabbling causing the impasse, they plug thier ears to the plight of people affected by it, irrationally claiming that it’s their fault that the government shutdown is a burden to them! Are you ****ing kidding me?

Yeah. To the extent that they could have been better prepared for a temporary loss of income than they are, yeah, itÂ’s their fault for not being as prepared as they could be. But itÂ’s not their fault for being thrust into that position. ItÂ’s politicians playing chicken with other peopleÂ’s resources. ItÂ’s like some of you guys have an irrational belief that a government shutdown canÂ’t possibly have ill effects on anyone because we donÂ’t need this much government.

And you’d be rationally correct if you just stopped at “the government is too big”. We don’t need this much government to fulfill its constitutional role. That’s objectively true. But it’s not government employees’ fault that we have too much government. And because we do, we can’t just turn it off willy nilly anytime we have a congressional impasse without exacting a cost on government employees.

The discussion about the size of government is entirely different from the discussion about the cost to furloughed employees because one side really wants a wall, and the other side doesnÂ’t want to give in. The discussion about personal financial responsibility has zero legitimacy in the political discussion about how the shutdown is affecting people.

This is a REAL response to my thinking, based in logic and sound thinking. This is NOT how the OP responded. He just went on about how long the wall would take and how unrealistic it is. Thank you for a solid answer.

Now, If I may retort:

Yes it is hard. Do I have it? NO, I do not. But I STRIVE toward it! And I fault NO ONE else for my shortcoming.

As Jedi echoed my thinking has ABSOLUTELY 100% NOTHING to do with the government! Nothing! For decades union workers have faced the potential loss of income from going on strike. Strikes could last monthes, as did the May to October UMWA strike in 1902. That was at least five (5) monthes. Factories could, without any strike, furlough laborers for days, weeks or even monthes due to lack of work. In the 1930's the drought created the great dust-bowl where thousands of families were forced to move and find entirely new employment when there was little to be had. What about ENRON workers? Worldcom? At ENRON they lost their job and all of their retirement. Everything gone! Lesson: don't invest your future income where your current income is coming from. (My olde accountant told me that and I take it as good advice.)

We are now in 2019. We today have the great benefit of hindsight to look back and see the mistakes of the past. One mistake is not striving to save for emergencies no matter what the source.

Another mistake is to get a degree and work, where the OP himself describes it as, "...long hours, low paying, always on call..." His tone suggests these are not good jobs. Again, fine. But this should be a teachable moment. Don't both work for the same factory if it furloughs or goes on strike. Don't both work for the fed if you can't handle the inevitable shutdowns. Don't put your entire retirement in one (1) mutual fund, stock, etc.

No one has yet to address the simple, cost free, zero dollar phone call that could have been made WEEKS AGO to the landlord and lendors saying, "Hi. This is Doug. There is talk of a government shutdown coming and as you may or may not know I could be affected. My income may go to zero for awhile but we always get paid in the end. What can I do to work with you today so we don't have problems if this should happen?" This is a whopping 30 second phone call! Ok, maybe 10 minutes with a bank if you're put on hold. But you get the idea. Where is the thinking to be proactive and head off a problem before it becomes a crisis? Surely you aren't against this level of individual responsibility are you?

Finally, in all kindness and sincerity I truly hope this can be used as a teachable moment for the grand-niece and her husband to take steps as soon as possible to whatever they can to avert this kind of stress in the future. What if the OP was dead? Who would they go to? What if it was no one?

So as to not ignore the idea of how the shutdown is affecting people, I'll respond with, again, this has nothing to do with the government. In years past when the UAW went on strike at Ford or GM or Chevy it would often have a ripple affect across potentially hundreds of suppliers who would have to furlough their workers. You could argue that perhaps the union wasn't being reasonable about their demands. We'll call them democrats. Or that the company wasn't being reasonable about their unwillingness to agree. Why don't we call them, uh, republicans. The source of the stress doesn't matter. Only that it is always potentially there and we need to do everything we can to mitigate the damage.

The OP sounds like he has a great grand-niece, and if she has begun with a good skill then I hope he passes on to her to build on that skill and find work where the pay is better, the benefits are good, and the risk of shutdown is less. Law enforcement would be a good transfer.

If that isn't an option then we can continue to gripe about what we cannot change and fail to try to change the things we can. This is what I do not want to happen.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

The strength of opinion is quite narrowly focused on the attitude that cheers on a shutdown and refuse to believe that it impacts people, and that to whatever impact it has on peoole, it’s their own fault. It’s the latter part that piques my ire most.

Yes, it would be less impactful if people were as responsible as they could be. That’s true. That’s not a justification to shut the government down. And it’s not like I’m a proponent of government, I’m still mostly a minarchist. But we have the size we have and regardless how responsible people are, it’s not benign. A squabble unrelated to them is causing them to pay for it.

I can recall back in 2013 or whenever, the shutdowns I cheered on like so many others here. I had my fingers in my ears too.

I would like to see some laws changed so that impasses hurt the people at fault. Here’s my purposal. It is the job of congress to pass an anual budget bill to fund the government. We should hold them to that. If a budget (a real budget, no more of this continuing resolution ****) hasn’t been passed and signed by a deadline, a default budget goes into affect (similar to but way more agressive than sequestration was). The default budget includes a reduction in pay for congress and the president. Of course that would largely be symbolic as the POTUS is often rich and that salary is chump change. And, long-standing congress critters make way more money in, we’ll just call it “investments”, than their salaries.

There is truth here. I knew you would elaborate and thank you for that. There are so many sides to this.

Also the fact that we all have at one time or another suffered from work related issues. No one went national on our behalf.

Again.......Budget. Why is this being over looked. If there was a Budget in place it would be business as usual.

 

[tsm]

Jamil, you seem to imply that the people being hurt by this shutdown aren’t responsible and the politicians are, thus your idea about forcing a budget when congress fails to act, etc. Besides saying “good luck with that,” I’ll point out that all those politicians were put in office by the people voting them in and if many of those voters didn’t perform their due diligence on who they were electing, then “the people” also bear some responsibility for this standoff by electing politicians who are unwilling to negotiate, no matter which side you come down on politically.

 

[Libertarian01]

There is truth here. I knew you would elaborate and thank you for that. There are so many sides to this.

Also the fact that we all have at one time or another suffered from work related issues. No one went national on our behalf.

Again.......Budget. Why is this being over looked. If there was a Budget in place it would be business as usual.

Ooohhh..... You brought up the evil "B" word. Shame, shame, shame.

Harry Reid got us into a rut of continuing resolutions to avoid political damage from stupid spending, and much of that thinking has stuck.

Yes, a budget is one of the things they should be doing, but then it would limit them. Silly us for wanting to make them put themselves on a leash.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

Ooohhh..... You brought up the evil "B" word. Shame, shame, shame.

Harry Reid got us into a rut of continuing resolutions to avoid political damage from stupid spending, and much of that thinking has stuck.

Yes, a budget is one of the things they should be doing, but then it would limit them. Silly us for wanting to make them put themselves on a leash.

Regards,

Doug

Yes......how ridiculous of us to even think they need to use a budget, like I do, like you do, like we all should.
This would put the political shutdown football back in the locker.

Wake the hell up people. Hold their feet to the fire. What few of us left who actually care about the republic.

 

[jedi]

Yes......how ridiculous of us to even think they need to use a budget, like I do, like you do, like we all should.
This would put the political shutdown football back in the locker.

Wake the hell up people. Hold their feet to the fire. What few of us left who actually care about the republic.

but.. but..
oh look a new dancing with the stars show is coming up, kim k is showing off her butty again and if u walk into h n r block u can get $4k right now for your 2018 tax refund. that buys a boat load of chicken nuggets. nah.. life is grand!!

 

[jamil]

Jamil, you seem to imply that the people being hurt by this shutdown aren’t responsible and the politicians are, thus your idea about forcing a budget when congress fails to act, etc. Besides saying “good luck with that,” I’ll point out that all those politicians were put in office by the people voting them in and if many of those voters didn’t perform their due diligence on who they were electing, then “the people” also bear some responsibility for this standoff by electing politicians who are unwilling to negotiate, no matter which side you come down on politically.

I'm saying that to the extent that some people are being hurt more than others, due to their own irresponsible financial management, that part is on them. But the fact that they're impacted at, notwithstanding responsibility, is all squarely on the politicians.

About putting the blame on voters, yeah, superficially you could say that. But that's just another empty "blame it on society" excuse. I think it's a hard case to make that it is the fault of furloughed worker's for not getting paychecks. Maybe you can blame society on a nebulous level. It's not helpful. It seems like a copout. And so what? Blame a collective for the individual injuries they inflict. Who's accountable for that? Which people? Name the names. List them. Fred, George, Henry, Jamil, Jimbob, Helen, Joan, David, Elizebeth... Who?

The people bear responsibility for the politicians they've elected to the extent they actually had a choice. Kasich or Trump? Hillary or Bernie? Pelosi or the even a worst, even more bat-**** crazy socialist who ran against her? Same with Schumer. Permute the choices among all the factions and tell me how we get to a budget that can be agreed upon. We're in a divisive time now, sides are entrenched and people now virtue-signal their disagreements. It's not really much different from disagreeing for the sake of being seen by their constituents, disagreeing with literally hitler.

And yes, I'm pretty sure my solution would work, just like the Sequestration worked. They failed to agree. Government went on, just at a slightly less funded level. But I'm under no delusions that today's politicians would be capable of enacting it for various political reasons.

 

[jamil]

...
No one has yet to address the simple, cost free, zero dollar phone call that could have been made WEEKS AGO to the landlord and lendors saying, "Hi. This is Doug. There is talk of a government shutdown coming and as you may or may not know I could be affected. My income may go to zero for awhile but we always get paid in the end. What can I do to work with you today so we don't have problems if this should happen?" This is a whopping 30 second phone call! Ok, maybe 10 minutes with a bank if you're put on hold. But you get the idea. Where is the thinking to be proactive and head off a problem before it becomes a crisis? Surely you aren't against this level of individual responsibility are you?
...

Doug

Sure, I'll address this. Say I'm a landlord and I rent out a house to one of the affected people. Maybe I have a mortgage on the rental house. Regardless, I have bills I need to pay too relating to that property. How many months can I cut them some slack and not have to dip into my own savings to cover it? Can I call my creditors and say, hey, can you cut me some slack because I'm cutting my tenants some slack? If slack is what is needed, then it's needed all the way up. And even when you get to the tippy tops, someone's not getting paid. Would be poetic justice if it were the suck ass politicians. But life never works out that swell. Anyway, asking for a break is just shifting the burden to other people who have their own obligations, and so on. It's not a solution. And they'll likely say no. I've been in that position in my life. And I've made the 30 second call. And I've been said no to. It sounds great in theory, but it's not practical, at least not on a large scale.