View Full Version : Is this time different?
Aloha_Shooter
09-25-2025, 12:26
Past government shutdowns have been manipulated and leveraged by Democrats for political gain and to actually grow the size of government. Most of the time, they were able to manipulate it because it was Republicans in Congress versus a Democrat administration that handled the shutdown in ways to maximize pain on the American public instead of applying the cuts responsibly for minimized effect.
This time, Trump is threatening to use any failures to budget and fund government operations as a way to shut down any programs that are not absolutely required by law and that conflict with the policies he's set forth. I suspect there will be some collateral damage no matter what but this is a golden opportunity to cut off massive hunks of fat in federal expenditures that he could never get past Congress in budget proposals.
Time will tell if he's serious about mass firings or if the Democrats decide they don't want to take the chance he's not bluffing but I'm digging out the popcorn to watch this. [Pop][Coffee]
Our economy and the value of the USD "is but a fable agreed upon."
The United States has been close to bankruptcy for awhile, but if our economy collapses other economies around the globe will rapidly fall like dominos.
Trump is actually cutting costs and eliminating fraud and waste... whereas Biden was "throwing gold bars off the Titanic."
Feel free to dispute this with links from "a credible source" because those numbers do not reflect multiple metrics. Anyhow, they seem to be keeping things together for now, but expect a transition to a digital currency soon.
Our economy and the value of the USD "is but a fable agreed upon."
The United States has been close to bankruptcy for awhile, but if our economy collapses other economies around the globe will rapidly fall like dominos.
Trump is actually cutting costs and eliminating fraud and waste... whereas Biden was "throwing gold bars off the Titanic."
Feel free to dispute this with links from "a credible source" because those numbers do not reflect multiple metrics. Anyhow, they seem to be keeping things together for now, but expect a transition to a digital currency soon.
Math isn't political.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-federal-expenditures-in-real-time/
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
Compared to the federal spending of $6.29 trillion for the same period last year (Oct 2023 - Aug 2024) our federal spending has increased by $376 billion.
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
Trump has no interest in cutting the deficit, he's had plenty of opportunity. He does have interest in making you think he is.
He does have interest in cutting funding for things he doesn't like, especially vindictively, while greatly expanding spending for things he does. Don't confuse that for him "helping" the common American or reducing the deficit (which he has never done). All of your expenses will continue to inflate.
Math isn't political? LOL good one!
Math isn't political.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-federal-expenditures-in-real-time/
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
Trump has no interest in cutting the deficit, he's had plenty of opportunity. He does have interest in making you think he is.
He does have interest in cutting funding for things he doesn't like, especially vindictively, while greatly expanding spending for things he does. Don't confuse that for him "helping" the common American or reducing the deficit (which he has never done). All of your expenses will continue to inflate.
It's been 8 months for this term, time isn't political. For the first term, I'm sure COVID has nothing to do with it...
No, President Trump isn't typical, yes, he says and does plenty that gets on my nerves. To me, he's doing what I'd hoped thus far, and that's far more than what Brandon did before him, and not nearly as destructive as Obama was to our nation (again, my opinion).
99411
Math isn't political.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-federal-expenditures-in-real-time/
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
Trump has no interest in cutting the deficit, he's had plenty of opportunity. He does have interest in making you think he is.
He does have interest in cutting funding for things he doesn't like, especially vindictively, while greatly expanding spending for things he does. Don't confuse that for him "helping" the common American or reducing the deficit (which he has never done). All of your expenses will continue to inflate.
Except he will cut the deficit.
According to the CBO, to the tune of 4 Trillion Dollars.
Here: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61697.
You are forgetting or ignoring the impact/revenue of the Tariffs.
Those monies collected will go to reducing the deficit.
And as a "common American" he has helped me immensely.
Maybe not you, but for me and my family 100%- thank you Pres Trump.
eddiememphis
09-25-2025, 20:36
And as a "common American" he has helped me immensely.
How so?
Except he will cut the deficit.
According to the CBO, to the tune of 4 Trillion Dollars.
Here: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61697.
You are forgetting or ignoring the impact/revenue of the Tariffs.
Those monies collected will go to reducing the deficit.
And as a "common American" he has helped me immensely.
Maybe not you, but for me and my family 100%- thank you Pres Trump.
Projected increased to the "BBB" (big borrowing bill?) is 3.4 Trillion, which coincidentally matches the exact same revenue estimation of the tarrifs. They generously estimated another 700 billion in interest reduction due to deficit payoff, which isn't going to happen.
This is akin to a guy announcing he's going to pay off his credit card debt of $324,000 because he made a $100 payment, which he says counts for an extra $14 in interest saved, all while charging an additional $125 to the same cards.
Fun fact: The national debt now amounts to $324,000 per US. Taxpayer.
Tarriff revenue is coming in. If it would reduce the deficit, you'd see those charts I just posted for monthly spending at least climbing slower than prior years? Sadly, it isn't. Deficit spending has increased.
Every dollar of added revenue with this admin is already an additional dollar spent, often with another dime borrowed. None is servicing deficit.
Tarriffs do ultimately affect inflation, though. It isn't free money, it is a Colorado-style backdoor tax on regular citizens. It just has some lag time before you really feel it.
Fox:
I do genuinely respect you, mainly due to the fact that your objections over Trump are atleast based on some logical defined reasons, but we clearly disagree on things.
On the subject of Tariffs, this was announced today:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-goes-all-in-tariffs-up-100-foreign-drugs-heavy-trucks-home-goods
So let me guess, all that additional monies coming in has already spent- for lack of better words?
And when they dropped interest rates on the 24th, that WILL mean an "interest deduction," and there will be another in the fall, so maybe you are mistaken?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/09/24/fed-cuts-rates-credit-cards/86324993007/
Finally No, Tariffs aren't a "Colorado-style backdoor tax on regular citizens" its a fee paid by Importers on goods they bring into the US. And No, we wont "feel it" mainly due to the fact that we have such a huge economy that we can produce everything we need with out Imports.
Thats one of the main points to Pres Trump implementing these tariffs. He's forcing foreign companies to build plants here for US jobs, taxes and wages. And they are doing just that, TRILLIONS of dollars in investment. And buying American for the same reason.
PS YES Exxon............ The TDS is strong in this one. But aleast he's not just babbling like a moron. :)
How so?
For me, the list is this:
-dropping taxes on overtime and tips has been huge.
-I've seen a drop in prices for food and gas.
-the economy is booming and so my 401k's are exploding. As in up 18% YTD.
Fox:
I do genuinely respect you, mainly due to the fact that your objections over Trump are atleast based on some logical defined reasons, but we clearly disagree on things.
On the subject of Tariffs, this was announced today:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-goes-all-in-tariffs-up-100-foreign-drugs-heavy-trucks-home-goods
So let me guess, all that additional monies coming in has already spent- for lack of better words?
And when they dropped interest rates on the 24th, that WILL mean an "interest deduction," and there will be another in the fall, so maybe you are mistaken?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/09/24/fed-cuts-rates-credit-cards/86324993007/
Finally No, Tariffs aren't a "Colorado-style backdoor tax on regular citizens" its a fee paid by Importers on goods they bring into the US. And No, we wont "feel it" mainly due to the fact that we have such a huge economy that we can produce everything we need with out Imports.
Thats one of the main points to Pres Trump implementing these tariffs. He's forcing foreign companies to build plants here for US jobs, taxes and wages. And they are doing just that, TRILLIONS of dollars in investment. And buying American for the same reason.
Fed rate reductions have nothing to do with Tariffs, and are usually cut to help bolster a weakening economy at the risk of increasing inflation even more. They are primarily raised to counter inflation. Rates are cut to prop it up and bolster lagging investment. That's just how our economy works, it's not a "win" for any POTUS.
Make no mistake, I'm not anti-tariff, but it is important to understand them. They aren't free for the end consumer. And while they do drive US based investment into some things, the tariff has to be significant enough to do so. Otherwise, it's just the end-user eventually soaking up higher costs on products that nevertheless continue to be imported.
The reality of our country is that we'll never be manufacturing at scale the crap that China and India produces, nor do we want to. Further, the tariffs are driving investments in other nations, but most of it isn't here. When China has higher tariffs, companies move manufacturing to Malasyia or Vietnam for the time being. They aren't making shoe and toy factories in the USA.
Lets say they did bring all manufacturing to the US. Your product costs would be 500% more expensive for mundane items - shoes, toys, furnature, curtains, that kind of garbage. You'd argue that wages would increase, but they wouldn't. Unemployment would lower, but most people don't want to be minimum wage factory workers anymore.
Where would the labor come from? Lax immigration policy, once again. That doesn't increase your wages.
So Tariffs are not a magic "made in the USA" blanket solution. They work to an extent on things like lumber or vehicles, things we arleady domestically produce and continue to. For other things, they just add inflationary pressure, and it is ultimately the end customer that is actually paying for that in every case. It drives US investment in some industries (and potentially economic growth in those set areas), but still at a much higher cost to the end user.
An interesting thing is if you study the history of Tariffs in the US - and I don't remember everything about it, been a minute since I've touched those history books - but I do recall the prior periods in the 19th century that we heavily turned to tariffs as a solution, it backfired.
Sarah Paine has studied all of this in great depth, fascinating source for history. While I haven't seen this video myself, I suspect it covers everything I've said here but with much better facts/knowledge:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jv3RZBdT34o
BushMasterBoy
09-26-2025, 15:50
China is going full speed ahead on solar. It takes about 2/3 of an oz of silver to produce a square meter of photovoltaic panel. Going solar will greatly reduce China's dependence on foreign oil for energy. Their cities will have clean air again. Supposedly China now has the worlds largest Navy.
I believe our only chance at maintaining sovereignty is maintaining superiority in space and technology. Just my opinion, don't crucify me for it.
https://www.kitco.com/charts/silver#ny
99412
China is going full speed ahead on solar. It takes about 2/3 of an oz of silver to produce a square meter of photovoltaic panel. Going solar will greatly reduce China's dependence on foreign oil for energy. Their cities will have clean air again. Supposedly China now has the worlds largest Navy.
I believe our only chance at maintaining sovereignty is maintaining superiority in space and technology. Just my opinion, don't crucify me for it.
https://www.kitco.com/charts/silver#ny
99412
You're not wrong. Also need power for data centers. I'd argue electricity isn't political either and we should be improving all of it, but no, we're subject to political extremes on either end.
"Clean" energy isn't anti-maga, but it's a great headline generator and a target to cut to get cheers from ill informed. Likewise, it's great when the pendillum swings for cheers from just the opposite. We don't have a baseline of decision making based on rational outcomes anymore.
As an aside, China's spending on Aerospace for the foreseeable future greatly eclipses ours. I chuckle everytime everyone scoffs at their latest tech like G6 fighters etc as if they are still in the 90's. They aren't far away from having both superior technology and weapons... as well as production capacity, numbers deployed, and the manpower behind them.
We're the setting sun.
BushMasterBoy
09-26-2025, 16:24
China is launching satellites from ships. We have boosters that land vertically and can be relaunched in a few weeks. I think the US is more of a rising star than a setting sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QHX0W4UAoo
Fox:
Yes, you are right "......Fed rate reductions have nothing to do with Tariffs...."
But that wasnt the point I was making.
We have a national deficit. That deficit which you and I have been discussing. How a deficit develops is the Govt spends more than it has in revenue. The money they spend (but dont have) is acquired by loans of different means but they Govt doesnt get the extra money for free. They pay interest on the loan. Those interest payments are included in the deficit amount and is what you and I are discussing. For example in FY 2024 those amounted to 879.9Billion dollars or 13% of the Federal expenditures.
So it's in, actually all of our interests, not just the Presidents, if interest rates lower.
But instead of soley to counter inflation, it, (reduced interest rates), not only reduces the deficit but make credit card rates cheaper, allow homes, cars etc to be bought.
Not to mention all the businesses that benefit from lower rates- they borrow money too- buildings, trucks, etc etc.
Thats the main reason why they also increase rates, if the economy becomes too hot or more correctly inflation rises too quickly or employment rates drop too low.
Take Care.
PS: While certainly appreciate theoretical statements by Scholars, unfortunately my experience has been lately they have been horribly wrong. I prefer to look at the at the actual numbers or just look around.
Foreign Investment in the US is at an all time high- Why would they risk all that money and time if they felt it would fail?
You say Tariffs will increase costs to the consumer or ultimately fail, well they haven't.
You say bringing jobs back to the US will increase costs, well it hasn't.
So you say well, those things are coming........ but that's a guess, grant you a well thought out guess, and you could be wrong.
But those things, like increased consumer costs, could easily be off set by dropping interest rates or better production capabilities here.
Thats a guess too.
I think I'm right............ you think you're right.
No worries.
PSS: To clarify part of my concern over relying on Scholars is this: I believe, but could be wrong, that your scholar reference goes back to 1930 when Pres Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Act.
(Yes I had to remind myself of it thru google).
But immediately I'd argue that any comparison to the US then vs now is sheer folly. There is no realistic way to compare the condition and strength of the US now vs then. Just one example: Then we were basically nothing more than an agricultural based economy. Now we are the World leaders in Tech, Defense, Education and finance.
So for a current observation, watch this, it's short:
Larry Kudlow: Jerome Powell's Fed wrong about growth and inflation 'as usual' | Fox Business Video (https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6380116577112)
Math isn't political.
The thing is, there are other factors involved which typically are not included.
I make zero premise of understanding stocks or crypto, so will address neither, but both seem artificially inflated.
We do need to consider the amount of US currency in circulation, as well as the actual amount of our gold reserves (even though we're long off the gold standard).
Biden had the presses at the Mints printing USD 24/7 for 4 years... and China was sending us CONEX containers filled with pallets of "super bills"... so there is WAY more currency in circulation than there should be. This effects wages, food prices, energy prices... and then there are shortages and shipping issues. MANY things effect the actual realistic value of the USD, which has dropped sharply since the 1980s.
Some very well informed sources claim that value is but a small fraction of what official sources claim... and it could collapse at any time, as it's all held together with duct tape and lies, because "We can just borrow more money, print more bills, and use Social Security as a slush fund."
rfenster
09-26-2025, 18:24
Speaking of gold reserves, what ever happened to reporting on what is in Fort Knox?
And yes, US currency in circulation is a concern.
Aloha_Shooter
09-26-2025, 20:21
FoxtArt, the hate for Trump is really derailing the value of your posts. I get it, there are a lot of things that piss me off about him too but my post wasn’t directly about the deficit (although there’s potential for a secondary effect there). It was about how the Democrats are threatening a shutdown and they don’t seem to realize they aren’t in a position to manipulate this particular shutdown into maximizing the pain on the American public.
In past shutdowns, this is precisely what they did which left the less informed citizenry with the idea that reduction in government spending equals pain and inconvenience in their daily lives. Trump seems to be preparing to show the citizenry that a significant reduction in the size and scope of government will be minor if any pain and inconvenience. Government spending has grown 30% in the last 5 years. The first year of that was all on Trump although he had the COVID spending as a partial excuse but the last 4 years of it was all on the Dems. Regardless of who pushed that spending increase, it’s not healthy for the nation or the economy so I think getting the public to understand it can be trimmed and programs can be terminated is a good first step.
Hell, I’d have given Clinton or Obama credit if either of them had done this but they didn’t — they did precisely the opposite, inflicting the maximum possible damage on the public to keep the spending flowing.
The thing is, there are other factors involved which typically are not included.
I make zero premise of understanding stocks or crypto, so will address neither, but both seem artificially inflated.
We do need to consider the amount of US currency in circulation, as well as the actual amount of our gold reserves (even though we're long off the gold standard).
Biden had the presses at the Mints printing USD 24/7 for 4 years... and China was sending us CONEX containers filled with pallets of "super bills"... so there is WAY more currency in circulation than there should be. This effects wages, food prices, energy prices... and then there are shortages and shipping issues. MANY things effect the actual realistic value of the USD, which has dropped sharply since the 1980s.
Some very well informed sources claim that value is but a small fraction of what official sources claim... and it could collapse at any time, as it's all held together with duct tape and lies, because "We can just borrow more money, print more bills, and use Social Security as a slush fund."
You make some well founded points but consider this:
We arent remotely close to a financial collapse. And collectively noone is concerned that we are. The proof of that is that we remain the Economic and Financial leader of the World. And Foreign companies and countries continue to invest in us and yes, loan us money because they know that. They wouldn't do so if they didn't trust our future stability. I mean would you loan someone money if you believed you wouldn't get it back? Even with our large deficit, we are still capable of repaying our debts.
If somehow, thru a bizarre set of situations, one or both of these happen, then yes, we might be in trouble: we begin to default our debt loans or people/govt's refuse to "buy" our debt (provide us with loans) then yes, we are in trouble.
But we are SO FAR away from that right now.
A Govt manipulating it's countries money value is a long accepted and used tactic. We do it though indirectly. And yes, one way to affect it is literally by how much paper money is in circulation. Simply put, keeping a check on its value helps with imports (they remain cheaper) and exports (our goods don't become too expensive).
Printing money isn’t how they’re adding to the amount of money in circulation… it’s far more digital cash than paper… and I am pretty sure there’s examples out there demonstrating we are in fact incapable of paying back our national debts…. Nevertheless, I’m bullish because the dollar dropping means valuations/costs go up, so you’re better off buying now and holding. Don’t sit on too much cash….
Some might argue, the sooner you buy something, the cheaper it is. (You just gotta pay attention to short term cycles/buy the dips)…
FoxtArt, the hate for Trump is really derailing the value of your posts. I get it, there are a lot of things that piss me off about him too but my post wasn?t directly about the deficit (although there?s potential for a secondary effect there). It was about how the Democrats are threatening a shutdown and they don?t seem to realize they aren?t in a position to manipulate this particular shutdown into maximizing the pain on the American public.
In past shutdowns, this is precisely what they did which left the less informed citizenry with the idea that reduction in government spending equals pain and inconvenience in their daily lives. Trump seems to be preparing to show the citizenry that a significant reduction in the size and scope of government will be minor if any pain and inconvenience. Government spending has grown 30% in the last 5 years. The first year of that was all on Trump although he had the COVID spending as a partial excuse but the last 4 years of it was all on the Dems. Regardless of who pushed that spending increase, it?s not healthy for the nation or the economy so I think getting the public to understand it can be trimmed and programs can be terminated is a good first step.
Hell, I?d have given Clinton or Obama credit if either of them had done this but they didn?t ? they did precisely the opposite, inflicting the maximum possible damage on the public to keep the spending flowing.
Sir:
I apologize for side tracking your thread.
I would agree with everything you said.
We will see.
Though me, personally since I'm tied to the Military, wish they would just stop already just set these budgets for a few years and be done.
It is VERY frustrating to literally go year to year with no idea of what or how much the Military budget might be.
HoneyBadger
10-01-2025, 06:41
Sir:
I apologize for side tracking your thread.
I would agree with everything you said.
We will see.
Though me, personally since I'm tied to the Military, wish they would just stop already just set these budgets for a few years and be done.
It is VERY frustrating to literally go year to year with no idea of what or how much the Military budget might be.
Wouldn't it be great if Congress actually did what the constitution directs them to do in Article I section 9? It's one of their enumerated jobs to approve a freaking budget before money can be spent.
Wouldn't it be great if Congress actually did what the constitution directs them to do in Article I section 9? It's one of their enumerated jobs to approve a freaking budget before money can be spent.
YES, and what I understand of this, in this case, the Dems are trying to re-fund all the shit that was de-funded and the Repub aren't having it.
Right or wrong (well actually Trump de-funding all that crap was perfectly legal and EVERY lawsuit agreed), So I'll correct myself and say:
The Dems need to accept the new way the Fed Govt is being run and financed. We had an election over this and they lost.
Now move on, get this shit funded and be done with this.
Dont like it? Well win elections.
And to be fair, IIRC, the Repub have pulled this pity-party in the past too. No.
eddiememphis
10-01-2025, 08:52
Just checking in with everyone nine hours into the shut down.
So far, I'm doing OK. I hope everyone else is as well.
Just remember, together, we can get through this.
BushMasterBoy
10-01-2025, 09:27
What if DARPA and the Congressional Budget Office found out AI could replace all the politicans and save millions of lives and trillions of dollars every year? Would the people vote for it?
What if DARPA and the Congressional Budget Office found out AI could replace all the politicans and save millions of lives and trillions of dollars every year? Would the people vote for it?
Well, in the movie Eagle Eye (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059786/) the AI found a solution to most of the problems with politicians.
theGinsue
10-01-2025, 11:19
Just checking in with everyone nine hours into the shut down.
So far, I'm doing OK. I hope everyone else is as well.
Just remember, together, we can get through this.
That's hilarious. My turn...
Well, the sky has fallen and it can't get up.
I've got all of the poor orphan children out on street corners selling apples for a nickel. We should be good - until we run out of apples to sell.
Based on everything I've been hearing from our loving and caring Democrat leaders, I'm totally scare-id right now. How ever will I put food on the table tonight? How will we be able, as a society, to continue to provide for the core necessities like completing further studies into why naked mole rats demonstrate aggressive behavior within their gender neutral test communities? I'd wring my hands if they weren't so frail from my malnutrition this shutdown has caused. Oh, the huge manitee!
[serious font]
Both parties have gotten us into this too many times through the years - but most especially the Democrats. Right now, the Democratic party is trying to wield power it just doesn't have. They're trying to gen up fear over this situation and fail to realize this is helping the current administration with their goal of cutting the bloated positions within the federal government. I saw an article last night indicating that there are >200k federal employees that are looking to flee their positions because of this shutdown [ETA/Correction: Yeah, so ~130k of the government employees the media are saying are fleeing their positions due to the shutdown are actually those who, last February, accepted the option to leave their positions and get paid for 6-8 months while being on administrative leave]. If that occurs, the administration has indicated that many of those positions, and many more left inactive if this shutdown goes on for very long, will be eliminated.
Is this shutdown an inconvenience? For many seeking government services, yes. Is it catastrophic? Almost certainly not.
[/serious font]
ETA: AI use in the government - As with any tool, it can be helpful but how helpful or how detrimental depends on how that tool is used by the humans behind it. I keep reading article after article about proposed uses for AI. From these I'm left feeling that many feel AI is the end-all-be-all solution to all of our problems and there is a desire to deploy AI and just let it do its thing with as little human intervention as possible. That would be a huge mistake and would most certainly get us into a worse environment than we're in today. So, that's likely what's going to happen.
theGinsue
10-01-2025, 11:44
Wouldn't it be great if Congress actually did what the constitution directs them to do in Article I section 9? It's one of their enumerated jobs to approve a freaking budget before money can be spent.
Hahahahaha.... Oh, you were serious?!
Yes, it would be great but we all know this just isn't what Congress does.
"Damn it Jeff, you had one job...."
Even when Congress does their one real job they're always coming down to the wire to get these "continuing resolutions" for the budget passed. I suspect that another temporary budget will get passed to end the shutdown, then in 90 days we'll be right back here where we stand today, or at least where we were yesterday. One would expect that, given it's truly their primary function, Congress would make the budget their #1 focus and put everything else aside until it gets settled. But, alas, when we get past this hurdle and temporary funding for the government is approved, they'll go right back to working legislation for anything but the budget, putting us into this same position in just a few days ahead. It's what they do to remind the public how important that they are. The only way to solve this is for laws to be passed to require Congress to perform no other duties until the budget is settled. But who'd write or pass these laws? Yeah, Congress; so we know we'll never see that occur.
As to the OP's original question: "Is this time different?" Nope, more of the same; wash, rinse, repeat.
Aloha_Shooter
10-01-2025, 12:34
https://gazette.com/2025/10/01/rocky-mountain-national-park-open-with-limited-visitor-services-amidst-government-shutdown/
This is the way it should be handled -- and the way it should have been handled in the past if Clinton and Obama hadn't used the shutdowns to score political points by putting the screws to the American public. There is no reason to close parks, forest lands, or open air monuments. They can post signs saying there are limited or even no services being provided at this time due to the government shut down. Heck, I wouldn't even object to the park service putting up just what the normal daily services would have cost so the American public can say -- yeah, this is something I want to fund (I do, I think park rangers are severely underfunded and underappreciated).
The reason I asked the question in the title is that this time, we have an administration that is willing to handle the shutdown in a way that shows we don't need all of the vast bureaucracy that has been built up over decades, that life can go on with a more minimalist government -- and ironically, the Trump administration may be poised to make even deeper cuts in the bureaucracy than they could have if the Democrats went along with the House GOP budget.
eddiememphis
10-01-2025, 17:46
Well, the sky has fallen and it can't get up.
I've got all of the poor orphan children out on street corners selling apples for a nickel. We should be good - until we run out of apples to sell.
As long as you stocked up on canned goods and toilet paper, you should be fine.
But don't panic, our benevolent leaders will soon settle their differences and get back to providing us with everything we need.
HoneyBadger
10-01-2025, 18:54
The reason I asked the question in the title is that this time, we have an administration that is willing to handle the shutdown in a way that shows we don't need all of the vast bureaucracy that has been built up over decades, that life can go on with a more minimalist government -- and ironically, the Trump administration may be poised to make even deeper cuts in the bureaucracy than they could have if the Democrats went along with the House GOP budget.
Agree with the sentiment on national parks etc.
I also think you make a valid point here - the current administration certainly could hold their ground and allow the shutdown to persist for a long time. They also could use it an an opportunity to trim lots of perceived fat.
From a federal employee standpoint, it's a knife edge: If everyone goes home during the shutdown but the train stays on the rails, it kind of confirms that those employees weren't really essential.
I do have good intel that DoD civilians are not currently being considered for a Reduction in Force (RIF) via the shutdown.
The reason I asked the question in the title is that this time, we have an administration that is willing to handle the shutdown in a way that shows we don't need all of the vast bureaucracy that has been built up over decades, that life can go on with a more minimalist government -- and ironically, the Trump administration may be poised to make even deeper cuts in the bureaucracy than they could have if the Democrats went along with the House GOP budget.
For every admin it's all theator. I know you feel your position is truth and everything else is incorrect, but we'll have a 45T deficit by the end of this term. That's not an exaggeration and that's assuming we don't have further spending increases under Trump (we already have so far).
Even Musk dropped this charade, if you lay off 10% of the employees you have an issue with, you've generated headlines and saved 0.000001% of the federal budget, while people ignore that you're spending 5% more YOY. They could fire every federal employee and it really wouldn't make up for the increases in what they are already spending just this year.
The Big Borrowing Bill demonstrated to Musk that this admin cares not about deficit. Regarding spending, what's the adage? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me once, shame on me, fool me three times, I'll still vote for you, fool me four times... We're pretty much on #4 at this point.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/obamacare-subsidies-republicans-democrats-mike-johnson-affordable-care-act-2f3c2f22?st=TZuC4T&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The Government Shutdown Stakes for the GOP
Will the party extend pandemic ObamaCare subsidies that enrich health insurers?
As we write this, Washington seems headed toward the ritual melodrama of a government shutdown. But the stakes in this case are about more than political gamesmanship. Democrats are manufacturing a panic over ObamaCare subsidies that will test if Republicans have any stomach to curb runaway entitlements.
Democrats are warning of higher premiums if the GOP doesn?t extend turbocharged ObamaCare subsidies that expire at the end of the year. GOP leaders are already hinting that they are open to negotiating, and some are floating ideas that would give Democrats much of what they want. ?I don?t love the policy, OK?? Speaker Mike Johnson said recently. ?But I understand the political realities.? Oh, oh.
Mr. Johnson is correct that the subsidies are bad policy, though it would help if Republicans told the public the reasons. The super-charged subsidies first passed in 2021 for a Covid-19 emergency that ended long ago. Democrats juiced the subsidies for everyone, while also opening up the spigot to those earning above 400% of the poverty line.
Democrats set a 2025 expiration date to make the Inflation Reduction Act look less expensive over a 10-year budget window but fully expecting that Congress would extend the subsidies again. No Republican voted for that bill, but now some are too frightened to let the super-subsidies expire.
Despite what you may read, letting them expire wouldn?t gut the Affordable Care Act. Someone at 100% of the poverty line would still on average pay merely $3.45 a week in premiums for the cheapest middle-tier plan, according to Brian Blase of Paragon Health Institute and Trevor Carlsen of the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). Taxpayers would still pay 98% of the premium.
The cost would run roughly $52 a week for a person at 250% of the poverty line, with taxpayers picking up more than two-thirds of the premium. These are reasonable contributions to a health plan, as most people who get insurance from private employers understand. Nearly three in four ObamaCare enrollees are below this income level.
Making these plans ?free? has allowed insurers to get paid for people who may not even know they?re enrolled. Some 40% of those in fully subsidized plans had zero claims in 2024, Paragon and the FGA estimate, a number that can?t be explained merely by healthy people not using their insurance.
Democrats don?t mention that the sweetened subsidies are attracting more Americans to the ObamaCare exchanges from better employer coverage. Messrs. Blase and Carlsen cite Congressional Budget Office data estimating that the expanded subsidies would reduce employment-based coverage by four million people. Do Republicans want to endorse that cost transfer to taxpayers?
Extending the subsidies would cost roughly $450 billion over a decade, even if Congress disguises the cost with another phony expiration date. The Trump Administration is wasting its time cutting a few billion dollars in foreign aid if it acquiesces to a half-a-trillion-dollar transfer to health insurers.
***
The GOP in Congress could at least try to talk about giving Americans more and better health insurance choices. The Trump Administration recently announced new rules letting more people purchase a less expensive catastrophic plan on the exchanges, versus only those under age 30 now. It?s a start?not that President Trump ever talks about it.
Republicans fear the politics of healthcare and are nervous about defending their changes to Medicaid in their big budget bill. One certainty: Ratifying ObamaCare subsidies won?t defuse those attacks.
Democrats want to make extension of the subsidies the price for reopening the government. But every Republican has voted to keep the government open, while Democrats are voting against funding it.
Many Republicans voted for Mr. Trump?s tax bill in June in part because he promised to restrain future spending. Giving Democrats some of their half-a-trillion-dollar subsidy demand would betray that promise.
eddiememphis
10-02-2025, 08:58
...fool me four times...
... Diana DeGette.
27 years and counting. Term limits? Perish the thought. Look at all the good she has done. Really, look. It's pretty easy to count to zero.
... Diana DeGette.
27 years and counting. Term limits? Perish the thought. Look at all the good she has done. Really, look. It's pretty easy to count to zero.
Excellent example EM. Once someone's name is recognized well enough, little else matters. Term limits would help, but I wish there was an even better solution that mitigated the incumbent bias (I don't have one).
Plenty of other examples all throughout congress, of course.
crashdown
10-02-2025, 23:27
Hummer.
I am self employed. I have healthcare via the healthcare exchange-there is no other way.
In Alaska 400% of family poverty level is higher than any other state at 133K for a family of 3.
This is the last year of increased subsidies. I made about 200K so Im living large. After paying my quarterly taxes my CPA told me yesterday that Ill still owe between 38-44k in taxes due mostly to paying back subsidies from healthcare tax credits, and that is after all the handouts that still exist in 2025.
In 2026 the subsidy cliff will come back, one penny over 133k and we get no subsidies. Self employment tax is about 27 percent and I really have very little that I can legally write besides mileage.
Our current health plan is 3300 a month without tax credits and expected to go up as much as 40 percent in 2026. Lets say it goes up just a fraction of that to 4000 a month, I'm paying 48,000 a year for insurance plus 27 percent self employment tax less a few write offs. I still have deductibles, out of pocket, prescriptions, etc. PLUS I still pay 100 percent of all vision, dental, and orthodontic as none of that is covered under ACA.
A lot of people will wash out of Obamacare in 2026 because they cant afford the increase, so the BIG increase is expected in 2027 when the costs are spread between fewer people.
Next year Im looking at making about the same.. 200,000 dollars. After self employment taxes and monthly healthcare premiums, that cuts my income damn near in half. Oh did I mention that I might want to retire someday so I contribute to my own 401K? I digress.. since this year after all those gravy government subsidies and my taxes, healthcare, and retirement, Im looking at taking home closer to 50k, I cant wait for 2026 where might take home nothing, and 2027 where I might actually have to pay just to exist. Its starting look like taking a minimum wage job might be our best option, more take home and expanded medicaid, all healthcare, vision, dental, 100 percent free and no pesky paperwork. I’ll also throw in that my wife, who is college educated in the medical field has been offered jobs with healthcare provided. If healthcare is offered by either spouses employee, you are not eligible for ACA healthcare exchange insurance. If she took the job, the insurance was so much she would work full time, not collect a paycheck AND I would have to write her employer a check every month to make up the difference between her income and the monthly insurance premium.
eddiememphis
10-03-2025, 09:08
"What if I persuaded my caucus to say I'm going to shut the government down, I am going to not pay our bills unless I get my way? It's a politics of idiocy, of confrontation, of paralysis..."
Chuck Schumer, 2013.
Recent update:
Pick any source you want, Trump floated it on One America News Network. And he's toyed with it many times in the past, and absolutely loved branding the first progressive stimulus payments with his name.
https://nypost.com/2025/10/02/us-news/trump-considering-2000-tariff-dividend-for-americans/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-tariff-dividend-plan-102238786.html
This would cost oh, north of 700 Billion, vs the 300 Billion in total tariff revenues this year (which by the way, we had Tariff revenues before Trump, too), and of course, pile onto the deficit spending we currently have exceeding 2 Trillion in the red every year.
Trump has never been fiscially conservative, he's just excellent at marketing like he is.
"What if I persuaded my caucus to say I'm going to shut the government down, I am going to not pay our bills unless I get my way? It's a politics of idiocy, of confrontation, of paralysis..."
Chuck Schumer, 2013.
Stop just stop.
How dare you use their own words against them.
This is correctly called "Schumers Shut down" for a reason, he's to blame for it.
And like alot of things they doing now, their stupidity is only harming them.
Poll and after poll show people realize the Dems are responsible for this.
Recent update:
Pick any source you want, Trump floated it on One America News Network. And he's toyed with it many times in the past, and absolutely loved branding the first progressive stimulus payments with his name.
https://nypost.com/2025/10/02/us-news/trump-considering-2000-tariff-dividend-for-americans/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-tariff-dividend-plan-102238786.html
This would cost oh, north of 700 Billion, vs the 300 Billion in total tariff revenues this year (which by the way, we had Tariff revenues before Trump, too), and of course, pile onto the deficiet spending we currently have exceeding 2 Trillion in the red every year.
Trump has never been fiscially conservative, he's just excellent at marketing like he is.
What does this have to do with the Shutdown?
Are we thread drifting again? :)
Aloha_Shooter
10-03-2025, 15:15
What does this have to do with the Shutdown?
Are we thread drifting again? :)
Yes, we are. Trump isn't conservative, fiscally or otherwise. No argument there but that is only tangentially related to whether this shutdown might turn out different from others because this time Republicans have the opportunity to show reduction of government doesn't have to be as painful as Clinton and Obama made it in the past few shutdowns. Doing so depends on many factors including the Republicans in the Senate and House growing some spines, minimizing the amount of irrelevant garbage and cheap shots Trump likes to spew out, etc.
The tangent here that I think FoxtArt is taking is that it could be all theater and for naught if Trump increases spending in other areas so there's no net reduction. I say could be because there are some areas where spending does need to happen but it's not extending Obamacare subsidies for illegal aliens.
theGinsue
10-03-2025, 21:48
I say could be because there are some areas where spending does need to happen but it's not extending Obamacare subsidies for illegal aliens.
The Left's Hakeem Jeffey (I know, I did it on purpose) stated in a CNN interview (ran across it on Social Media) that the "subsidies for illegal aliens" is a lie. But, even the CNN interviewer pointed out that the large Medicaid subsidies to hospitals is quite often used to pay for illegals getting treatment. Now I'm not saying someone shouldn't get real emergency care when needed, but how much of the care provided is truly emergency in nature (vs acute)? And emergent, acute, or other - if the oatient is here illegally, they need to be removed immediately following whatever lifesaving care is required (life, limb or eye-sight).
I know that the subsidies can & do help some people who truly need it, but several years back, my son was working full-time for a fence/wall install company. He was earning less, hourly, than most burger flippers earned (as I recall it was somewhere between $16-20k/yr). He also received NO healthcare benefits. I helped him sign up for healthcare on the Exchange and found really shitty coverage, with a really shitty co-pay and deductible. For the honor of this coverage, *I* (because he couldn't afford it) had to pay ~$250//mo. The name of the law has been a lie for most Americans from the very beginning (it didn't make healthcare affordable for most Americans). Maybe it wasn't actually supposed to. Maybe it was meant to make more .med/pharma/insurance/politicians richer.
Even if we block all non-citizens from receiving any assistance, the average American, subsidy or not, is going to be screwed.
ETA:
And like alot of things they doing now, their stupidity is only harming them.
Poll and after poll show people realize the Dems are responsible for this.
Yes, and no (bolded part). The Left has increasingly gone so far off of the rails that a lot of folks are waking up. Traditionally, "Independents" by-and-large tended to support the Left. They're starting to see just how out of touch the Left has become and are moving Right quickly. Many non-radical traditional Liberals are also seeing how bad the Left has become and are leaving the Democratic party. BUT, not nearly enough. The Left still has a huge following. Some are the radicalized and some are just the dyed-in-the-wool Democrats who would stand behind the party regardless of what they say/do. This is apparent to me as I continue to see headlines indicating a Democrat is leading the race in an election (of course, the media claimed this about Biden, then Harris, and we saw how untrue that was), but they're also still WINNING a lot of elections. I just hope that in the next major election cycle enough folks see how bad the Left has harmed us and they don't regain power over Congress or the POTUS.
Both sides solutions to healthcare suck at the end of the day. It's effectively inserting a middleman into an essential commodity and then making the middleman essential, or alternatively, letting the owners of a commodity set prices for necessary services that are entirely billed after the fact. We do both. It needs a redesign.
Wouldn't it be great if Congress actually did what the constitution directs them to do in Article I section 9? It's one of their enumerated jobs to approve a freaking budget before money can be spent.
Yes. Freeze their assets until they do. ALL of their assets.
BushMasterBoy
10-04-2025, 09:43
A few years ago VA ER doctor told me they don't have the resources to admit me to the hospital. Then I see Trump fly down to Florida in a 747 to play golf. The local military hospital is just as bad. Maybe I should go to Mexico for treatment? The asshole medical community in the US is a joke. The government is a bigger joke. They just leave their soldiers to rot.
eddiememphis
10-04-2025, 09:58
The asshole medical community in the US is a joke.
The entire community, not just proctologists.
theGinsue
10-04-2025, 11:35
The entire community, not just proctologists.
Well, I'll say that the institutions are the problem, not the individual providers. I know we have providers here (thinking of one in particular) who actually care about the people they see and treat. For the individual provider, they want to treat the patient and fix what's wrong with them.
Unfortunately, these providers are made to work within a system that is inherently broken. The institutions, the companies - even many claiming to be non-profit, the insurance companies, the equipment providers, "big pharma", are all looking to make a fortune off of the patients that need help - leaving the provider (as the only face the patient typically see's) getting the blame.
As someone who's personally required increased medical interaction over the last 5 years, and who's wife has needed the same for 5+ years, I can say that I greatly appreciate the providers who've been there for us (ESPECIALLY one very special member of this site -- God bless you!!). I don't, however, appreciate the way the hospitals or insurance companies have treated me. For them, it's all been about big money.
Now, back to the OP discussion - This time IS different. As others have pointed out, this time the President isn't trying to make things as painful as possible for the citizens. Federal lands are still open for all to enjoy, all essential services seem to have remained available. For most of us, there really doesn't seem to be any impact, which just proves how much bloat there is within our federal government.
Yes. Freeze their assets until they do. ALL of their assets.
Yes to this, yes! We could freeze their official government income and they'd never feel a thing. When members of Congress come into office barely able to afford their rent, at a salary of ~$172k/yr., then their net worth grows into the millions in just one term, they're clearly not making that money through their government service. Freezing just their government salaries would do nothing to make them honor their responsibilities as they'd never feel it. Freezing ALL of their income would provide them the incentive to get off their asses and do what they were hired to do.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.