Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
The 'doomsday' scenario: what happens if the shutdown drags on (nbcnews.com)
25 points by spking 10 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 11 comments

It is crazy to me we continue to allow our leaders to have this government shutdown football to play with. Change the law so that by default the previous level of funding is re-authorized if no new deal is reached or better yet trigger a reelection of our representatives if they fail to reach a new funding deal.

I think there should be some repercussions for them too. Like, they should be the first to go without pay. And then, if it drags on too long, start garnishing from their holdings, personal and business assets.

Triggering re-election can be a motivation for causing a long shutdown. Falling back to sensible defaults is good enough.

No, this doesn't work either. You need a threat to get people to talk to each other and resolve issues, otherwise dissenters will just happily continue dissenting, riding on the "defaults". Usually the threat of starving an entire country is enough to get people to act, but this is a special time with special people.

The entire country will not starve because of a government shutdown.

What's real special is that this shutdown could be ended in an instant by giving one minor concession and one side really doesn't want to do it, for mostly symbolic reasons.

I honestly do not know which side you are referring to as your statement could apply to either and be true.

I carefully worded it so I would not get downvoted to hell. But some people will know what I’m talking about.

The problem is both sides will have to give a little. If anybody just caves it'll be political suicide for them.

Caving used to be called compromise. The current political environment doesn't allow for compromise or changing your mind in light of new, better information. In science that would be the standard. In politics that's called "flip-flopping".

I usually disagree with Cher on political matters, but on this one she has Tweeted a good point.

Cher is urging 'her side' (Democrats) to yield and allow the sought-after funding. Her reasoning is that people are being hurt by the shutdown, the Democrats can be the 'hero' by bringing the change that re-opens the government.

I think she may be right on this one.

She's not. If Democrats give in to the demands of Pres. Trump it will only embolden him that his methods work. Democrats have nothing to lose, they passed a clean bill, they offered money for border security, etc. Democrats tried negotiating in good faith, Pres. Trump has his opinions literally dictated by Fox News and right wing pundits, which means that even his own party can't even count on him.

This is entirely meant to be a distraction from the Mueller investigations so Pres. Trump has no vested interest in ending it. He had 2 years in which to get the funding passed unopposed, he chose not to. This is entirely a manufactured controversy intended to distract. Anything the Democrats did agree to would immediately be thrown out by Pres. Trump. The only person who can end the shutdown is the President.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact