forum Can I Just Have a Civil Conversation about Our US Governent?

Started January 25, 2019 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

Yeah, Clinton had the one in November 1995 and then the one from December 1995 to January 1996. The second one was 21 days, the previous record for shutdowns.

Wait, wasn't the first shutdown under Gerald Ford in 1976?

I found something that says "partial shutdown"?

Yeah, Clinton had the one in November 1995 and then the one from December 1995 to January 1996. The second one was 21 days, the previous record for shutdowns.

LOL okay, so that was an old article, and has since been surpassed…

I did some research. Maybe it was all together. But it wasn't all at once.

I don't know what any of this means but I'm going to spectate because maybe I'll learn something

Oof… I'm trying to do research, but turns out the first article only did "major shutdowns," and ignored the fact that there have been a ton of little ones here and there. However, I think one of the most important things is the reasoning behind the shutdown. It makes sense if you need another day or two to work out the kinks in the budget, but if it's for a specific act that's expensive to implement, and it's unlikely you'll get it? That's another story.

I don't know what any of this means but I'm going to spectate because maybe I'll learn something

Cool! Feel free to ask questions if you have any, and we'll try our best to inform you.

So basically, according to the Washington Post:

Before some 1980 and 1981 opinions issued by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a failure to fund some part of the government didn't necessarily mean that that part of government would stop functioning. Civiletti's opinions interpreted the Antideficiency Act, a law passed in 1884, as meaning that a failure to pass new spending bills required government functioning to shut down in whole or in part. So the "shutdowns" listed below that happened between 1976 tand 1979 did not always entail an actual stop to government functioning; they were often simply funding gaps that didn't have any real-world effect.

Basically, there were shutdowns before the 1980s but they were more along the lines of "hey we can't agree for a while but it doesn't actually affect anyone".
So there's funding gaps, and then there's full-on shutdowns, and different sources interpret them differently.

hello i am a fellow american and VERY angry about the shutdown

federal workers have missed two paychecks and some are now relying on food banks to feed their families.

trump cares more about the wall than the federal workers (please don’t get mad this is just my opinion)

So basically, according to the Washington Post:

Before some 1980 and 1981 opinions issued by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a failure to fund some part of the government didn't necessarily mean that that part of government would stop functioning. Civiletti's opinions interpreted the Antideficiency Act, a law passed in 1884, as meaning that a failure to pass new spending bills required government functioning to shut down in whole or in part. So the "shutdowns" listed below that happened between 1976 tand 1979 did not always entail an actual stop to government functioning; they were often simply funding gaps that didn't have any real-world effect.

Basically, there were shutdowns before the 1980s but they were more along the lines of "hey we can't agree for a while but it doesn't actually affect anyone".
So there's funding gaps, and then there's full-on shutdowns, and different sources interpret them differently.

That's one of the problems with our laws… it's all up to interpretation, and can be twisted to mean almost anything. It's a little scary. It makes our legislation wonderfully flexible, but then the government decides it's okay to shut down entirely…

Okay, I still don't fully understand this but I think I'll throw out there that one of my mom's friends (or someone she knows) worked at the border and was often in charge of dealing with bodies, and due to all the terrible things she saw she's now suffering from serious mental disorders (I don't remember what ones), so I understand why a wall would be a big priority, the people working at the border need help. I know this chat isn't necessarily about the wall but I just figured I'd mention that.

Okay, I still don't fully understand this but I think I'll throw out there that one of my mom's friends (or someone she knows) worked at the border and was often in charge of dealing with bodies, and due to all the terrible things she saw she's now suffering from serious mental disorders (I don't remember what ones), so I understand why a wall would be a big priority, the people working at the border need help. I know this chat isn't necessarily about the wall but I just figured I'd mention that.

Thank you for sharing that!
I think it's definitely important to acknowledge that there's a difference between border security and a border wall, and just because people reject the latter doesn't mean they don't support the former. Arguably, it is quite possible to provide assistance to people in situations like that without necessarily building a wall that costs billions of dollars.

Is the wall done by taxes or volunteer money?

Taxes, definitely.

The thing is, Ella… it is about the wall…
He wants funding for the wall, and Congress doesn't really want to sink $5.7 billion into a wall. So they're stuck in the budgeting process.
Now for more opinion than fact:
The wall won't accomplish anything. If we want to tighten border security, there are better ways to do it. Wall in the way? People will find a way around it. As for how we should do it… I'm not sure. I'm not an expert. I think there needs to be complete immigration reform, but I won't talk about that at all unless anyone is interested.

Taxes, definitely.

Insert the Japanese word for pancake because this is a good Christian server.

And yes Bec, if immigration was easy, most people would be legal.

Taxes, definitely.

Insert the Japanese word for pancake because this is a good Christian server.

I approve of your response

Hm… that's hard to say… I bet he could get volunteer money if he wanted. Is that… legal though?
As for taxing, it seems like a not-so-Republican thing to do, but if he deems it as important as he says, he might… (not to mention that a lot of people consider him to be more "populist," he just ran on the GOP ticket because 3rd party never wins. Not sure what this means for taxes though.)

Arguably, the wall is unlikely to be very effective because most illegal immigrants are people who overstay their visas, not people who illegally cross the borders

Although Mr Trump has blamed the southern border for illegal immigration, most actually arises because people overstay their visas.
While almost 400,000 people were apprehended trying to cross the southern border illegally last year, more than 700,000 people who entered the US legally overstayed their expected departure date in 2018, according to the DHS.
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649)

If he thinks it’s necessary for what he wants, he’s not going to dally on making it happen.

Arguably, the wall is unlikely to be very effective because most illegal immigrants are people who overstay their visas, not people who illegally cross the borders

Although Mr Trump has blamed the southern border for illegal immigration, most actually arises because people overstay their visas.
While almost 400,000 people were apprehended trying to cross the southern border illegally last year, more than 700,000 people who entered the US legally overstayed their expected departure date in 2018, according to the DHS.
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649)

Ooh you're right!

Well, I'll check back on this chat later. I have to get going.

Y'all have a (temporary) government again!
Congratulations!