Work without pay.

Ouch.

The fact that salaries are tied to the overall budget in a way that they can be weaponized should have been changed in the mid 70's when it started being used this way.

Working without pay isn't new either. It happens in all the long shutdowns, and Reagan took the worker's right to strike over it away in the 80's.

Damn you Benjamin Civelletti!!!!!

Working without pay sounds like slave labor lol.

I agree. It's a dumb way to run a government.

The law that allows it to happen was created because Gov't agencies would run up debt beyond their budgets and the government would have to give them a blank check.

This is one of those things that made sense in the 1800's, but not so much now.

I could see it giving a worker's party type candidate some legs in 2020, though. Mainly because I guarantee this won't be the last shutdown between now and then.

Ah, gotcha. I'm curious how long this will last.

Who knows. It sounds like both sides have chosen this issue as their fence to die on.

What is the Democrats issue, exactly? Not wanting to spend a senseless amount of money on a wall?

Mads @ 17/1/2019 14:51

What is the Democrats issue, exactly? Not wanting to spend a senseless amount of money on a wall?

You have probably been watching it more closely than I, but I do know the dems have conceded that walls need built in some areas and are OK funding that for now, while the prez and co are all in on not budging.

I dislike the way the dems are using it to make political hay by fighting the wall with dumb, inflammatory soundbites about racism instead of actual reasons and data that suggests the wall is a bad idea.

To be clear both sides are doing the fake drama/fear and loathing via soundbyte deal.. I was just addressing the dems since that was the question.

https://deadspin.com/high-school-students-bring-trump-2020-flag-to-basketbal-1831844614

Oh Minnesota, you keep doing you. lol

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 20:12

Primate @ 28/11/2018 19:58 Maybe a true democracy could work here? Idk? I think you would run the risk of actual revolt if the owners of such huge chunks of the land mass had no representation. That would be my fear, at least. It may work for a period, but eventually human nature will take over. People will inherently do what is best for them and those around them. I don’t mean this in an evil or bad sort of way. What I mean is that if the people making all of the decisions are in New York or California, those people don’t likely have much perspective on what people in Nebraska are going through or need. Those in charge may even try to do what they think is right for the people of Nebraska, but they don’t have any connection or ultimately, any accountability, to Nebraskans thousands of miles away. Living in a small state that would not have any representation that matters, civil war wouldn’t be too far down the road. It wouldn’t be north versus south, though, it would probably ultimately be all of middle America versus the coasts. Well, and Texas would just declare itself it’s own country again and tell us all to piss off. There’s no way to know what would happen, but in my opinion this is pretty likely.

If the second civil war happens like Frank Miller thought, you'd get to be in the First Sex Confederacy!

Timmah @ 29/11/2018 14:49

Mike @ 29/11/2018 14:03 I personally think that you need a lot more devolved government. More state autonomy, less focus on the federal government to solve all your problems. The US is such a big country, it's silly to give more an more power to Washington imo. Hell, I want more local government over here in the UK too. London is so out of touch with the rest of the country, so I can't imagine what it's like over there Oh shit! Wikey is a Republican! (:

Not at all- Republicans scream about those things but don't actually support any of them. State autonomy goes out the door if it is something that Republicans don't support.