Who wants the government to shut down?

[SMS]

I don't want the government to shut down...but if a shutdown is what it takes to give some people a slap in the face and get them to start running the country in a fiscally sane manner then so be it.

That being said, I don't think even a shut down will wake up the current crop of "leaders".

 

[Hobbes]

No, only "non-essential" services would be shut down. LE agencies, critical medical personnel, most of the Armed Forces, etc. would keep their lights on.

Are you positive?
New fiscal year begins Oct 1.
No budget, no CR.
Sounds like they might come to work but not get paid until a deal is reached, whenever that is.

 

[SMS]

Are you positive?
New fiscal year begins Oct 1.
No budget, no CR.
Sounds like they might come to work but not get paid until a deal is reached, whenever that is.

Fairly certain. The last time we faced a shutdown I was informed that I would be expected to continue to come to work, paid or not.

Lots of stuff keeps functioning during a shutdown.

 

[Hobbes]

Fairly certain. The last time we faced a shutdown I was informed that I would be expected to continue to come to work, paid or not.

Lots of stuff keeps functioning during a shutdown.

That's what I'm saying.
You can come to work but you don't get paid until someone cries uncle.
Same for FBI, border patrol, FAA....
That might work for a week or a month but eventually most employees are going to have to get a job that pays on time so they can pay their bills.

 

[kroberts2131]

Apparently my branch of the .gov isn't too concerned about it cause they pushed our mandatory OT out until thanksgiving. Yes the gov was on forlough and we have been on mandatory 20 hours a month OT since may.

 

[SoonerBorn]

That's what I'm saying.
You can come to work but you don't get paid until someone cries uncle.
Same for FBI, border patrol, FAA....
That might work for a week or a month but eventually most employees are going to have to get a job that pays on time so they can pay their bills.

Everything I've read insists it is only "non-essential" personnel and functions. What exactly that is, I'm not certain. I think it is mainly going to include unfunded liabilities. Have no fear, im pretty sure our paychecks will still be getting debited before we ever see it shutdown or no shutdown....

Am I wrong about this?

 

[Hobbes]

Everything I've read insists it is only "non-essential" personnel and functions. What exactly that is, I'm not certain. I think it is mainly going to include unfunded liabilities. Have no fear, im pretty sure our paychecks will still be getting debited before we ever see it shutdown or no shutdown....

Am I wrong about this?

Last time I checked, the executive branch can't spend a dime in discretionary spending until that dime is appropriated by both houses of congress.
Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing .gov shutdown.

Mandatory is SS, medicare, multi year contracts, and interest on the debt.
Discretionary is pretty much everything else.

That's the way it worked last time when Newt Gingrich was speaker.

 

[Hobbes]

I should add this...

There are two separate battles pending.
The most immediate is that we have to have either a budget OR a continuing resolution by
Oct 1st or else discretionary spend comes to a halt.
The 2nd is the debt limit which we should reach around Nov 1st and that's another hurdle.

The 'defunding' of Obama Care is tied to the first battle, the budget.

 

[SoonerBorn]

Last time I checked, the executive branch can't spend a dime in discretionary spending until that dime is appropriated by both houses of congress.
Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing .gov shutdown.

Mandatory is SS, medicare, multi year contracts, and interest on the debt.
Discretionary is pretty much everything else.

That's the way it worked last time when Newt Gingrich was speaker.

"A government agency may employ personal services in advance of appropriations only when there is a reasonable and articulable connection between the function to be performed and the safety of human life or the protection of property, and when there is some reasonable likelihood that either or both would be compromised in some significant degree by the delay in the performance of the function in question."

I think you are mostly right but I think even though the Antideficiency Act sets certain standards it seems it might actually be in direct conflict with the Constitution. What's even funnier is that everyone seems to have known it since 1884 but no one cares. Imagine that.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/appropriations2.htm

Some of the stuff concerning it is really wordy and over my head though...

 

[farmerbyron]

NSFW: language & comedy warning

[video=youtube_share;Co2Zt615P5M]http://youtu.be/Co2Zt615P5M[/video]