[nekusar]

A far as I'm concerned, they're just intentionally failing to do their job. And they *all* in congress should be fired for job abandonment. And yes, rerun elections, with those idiots not allowed to run.

After all, when I look at my W2 (yeah, I'm a working stiff), they sure as hell are taking out taxes still. That aint "shut down". It's a scam.

Something about "taxation without representation". I think we went to war over that before.

[maest]

A failure like this would immediately trigger reelections in the UK. It's a strong incentive to not shut down the government.

There is no serious incentive to avoid this in the US. In fact, you're incentivised to be complicit in the shutdown and then blame the other party.

[rainsford]

One incentive that could work in the US without having to completely change how elections work would be for the government to actually shut down when it runs out of money. Shut downs are only remotely politically viable because nearly all the parts of the government that people regularly rely on more or less keep working.

This means the public backlash from shutting down the government is significantly muted, and it gives the opportunity for some less intelligent people to point to it as proof the government doesn't actually do anything. But it only works because the government basically forces employees in those roles to work for free with the promise of being eventually paid at some point, which is pretty weird when you really think about it.

Consider an alternate version of events where the government running out of money means all government functions immediately cease. No airport security, no air traffic control. Federal law enforcement goes home. The military stands down. Every federal government function stops October 1st since there was no longer any money to pay for it. Not only would the government not still be shut down, it never would have shut down since the impact would be so immediate and so significant that politicians would never risk it actually happening.

[nelox]

Indeed. In Australia, a government was once dismissed after failing to pass supply bills in the Senate (Supply bills allocate money to the government). The Governor-General resolved the deadlock by dissolving Parliament and calling an election. The event is known as “The Dismissal”. It remains one of the key examples of the Governor-General’s reserve powers in action.

[digitalPhonix]

This was an example of foreign interference (from where exactly is likely to remain unknown[0]); not an apolitical governor general stabilising the political system.

[0] https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/new-light-shed-on-australias...

[ghoul2]

Isn't this "as intended" in the westminster-style system? The govt is formed by MPs from the majority party (or alliance). By definition they MUST be able to pass ALL money bills, which only require a simple majority. Any failure to pass a money bill is equivalent to the govt no longer holding a majority support in parliament. And that means either the king/president/govgen invites someone else from the current parliament who they have good reason to believe DOES (potentially) have support of majority of the parliament, or dissolve the parliament and call fresh elections if there is no such majority.

I am not quite sure why an action with such a clear established precedent be considered foreign interference? or was it the case that there WAS a suitable candidate with a possible majority but they were NOT invited by the govgen to try and win a trust vote in parliament?

[defrost]

It was very much an edge case, with one of Whitlam's senators on leave and recent changes to territory rules giving additional senators to the opposition party (as I recall ...) the ability to block supply appeared suddenly out of the blue.

Whitlam did move to call an election (rather than be sacked) which likely would have removed the blocked supply threat as he was at the time an extremely popular PM in Australia (loved by the common masses, despised by many elites) .. and when attending the Queens Repreresentative (the Governor General) to advise about calling an election .. he was removed by the G-G.

Strictly speaking the "as intended" outcome should have been to resolve a looming (not yet happened) supply crisis by allowing the people of Australia to vote, instead the government of the day (Whitlam's) was removed on a technical reading against the spirit of intended resolution.

There's a peer comment here that linked to a 2020 article on the finally released royal correspondance that's worth a read. The US influence angle has merit also, they had weight in the game for sure, how much and whether it tipped the balance is debatable.

Literally reams of contraversay here, the G-G acted autonomously and likely to save his own neck as Whitlam intended to replace the G-G, additionally many outside powers (the UK and the US) were whispering in the ears of those with levers to pull seeking to dump Whitlam; he was returning real power to the people, providing socialised health and education to the masses, asking questions about the role of secret American bases on AU soil, etc.

This was, indeed, extremely serious stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4jfR2u_9Kk

[ytoawwhra92]

The Dismissal is not an example of the Australian system working as intended.

[Esophagus4]

In general, this is by design in The States.

The system is setup to prevent political opportunism and provide predictability and rigidity of the system at the expense of being slower to respond to constituents.

The incentive is still there, it’s just a few years off in the next election.

(That being said… sighing loudly as he gestures around him at all the political opportunism…)

[mock-possum]

Yeah that sounded a lot more viable before we had our faces rubbed in what a political party in control of all the machinery of the country could get away with in the space of one election cycle.

[nekusar]

> There is no serious incentive to avoid this in the US. In fact, you're incentivised to be complicit in the shutdown and then blame the other party.

Which is precisely what's happening.

Im frankly done with the children bickering. But in all seriousness, neither party really cares about us. Republicans are engorged with the tech neofascists, and the democrats are caught up with special interest du jour, with a healthy smattering of surveillance as well.

Ive seen how the governments (local, state, federal) operate. It's fucked, and its going to be a long time to fix it, if possible.

Not sure what my plans are, honestly. Take it as I can, i guess.

[blooalien]

> It's fucked, and its going to be a long time to fix it, if possible.

There's no fixing this. We've allowed the most psychotic lunatics on planet Earth control over the most absolutely insane weapons of mass destruction and all the armies and police, and those people have already decided amongst themselves that their little game of "he who dies with the most money wins" is far more important than all the life on Earth.

[BlackjackCF]

The US really needs formalized processes for snap elections and easier ability to recall elected officials. The fact that this is happening and we all just have to sit on our hands and wait for the next election is wild.

[ryandrake]

This is being done by the people America collectively elected. Moar Elections is not going to help. Enough Americans want this chaos and deliberately voted for it.

[SR2Z]

Unless your theory is that the median voter is kind of an idiot who doesn't understand how the government works and goes based on vibes.

Such a person would ignore any issue short of, say, their paychecks or SSA benefits not arriving on time. After that, who knows who they would support?

Democrats have a lot less to lose than the GOP right now. The party is unpopular and locked out of power. There's only upside to shutting the government down, if you ignore the very serious impacts on normal people.

Trump is not capable of seeing this because he reflexively has to win every conflict he's involved in.

[atmavatar]

There was nothing to stop the Republican party from unilaterally averting the shutdown, and there's nothing stopping them from unilaterally ending it. They have the majority in both houses as well as the presidency, so they can pass anything they like.

The only road bump in place is the Senate filibuster rule - but that's a rule that can be (and has been) tossed aside when inconvenient. Recall that Republicans removed the filibuster from judicial appointments when they wanted to ram through multiple Supreme Court justices and hundreds of lower court judges.

The underlying problem is that the current Republican party wants this shutdown because it reinforces their half-century-long message that government is broken and gives them cover to remove federal workers.

It also doesn't help that the House is remaining closed to delay seating an incoming Democrat representative from an Arizona special election.

Expect this shutdown to continue for a while.

[ryandrake]

> Unless your theory is that the median voter is kind of an idiot who doesn't understand how the government works and goes based on vibes.

I think the median voter looks at what a politician says they are going to do, assumes they are going to do it, and votes based on that. Say what you will about the Trump administration, they are doing exactly what they were shouting from the rooftops that they would do. Grief people they don't like, sow chaos and division, start a devastating trade war on multiple fronts, and cause daily chaos and drama. They said it loud and clear for years before the election. They got elected. And, then they did it!

If I had anything good to say about these guys it's that they were 100% transparent about their plans and they followed up on them right out of the gate. Exactly zero people should be surprised at what they delivered. It's actually pretty impressive how faithfully they are delivering on all of their promises of destruction and chaos! In fact, polls of Republicans show consistent, strong and enthusiastic approval of the administrations actions, as they themselves fall deeper into poverty and hopelessness.

[mandeepj]

> they are doing exactly what they were shouting from the rooftops that they would do.

You mean lower prices on day 1?

Unfortunately some of us still remember those outlandish promises which we knew will remain just promises.

Doesn’t matter how much you push his promises under the rug, but we will not forget - how big of a fraud and scammer the current sitting president is.

Did they also shout - 51st state, crypto scams, private funding deals etc etc?

[wredcoll]

Yes, they shouted that they would commit fraud and accept bribes. Apparently people are fine with that and voted for it.

[walkabout]

> Unless your theory is that the median voter is kind of an idiot who doesn't understand how the government works and goes based on vibes.

Um.

Yes that’s basically true, to the best of science’s reckoning, anyway. Like, you pretty much nailed it.

Political scientists had figured that out with very solid evidence by around the middle of the 20th century (solid evidence in part because this is obviously alarming so they did a lot of double-checking) then spent several decades trying to figure out an angle by which they could say “but it’s, uh, fine somehow?” or maybe even “but actually that’s good” before finally giving up on that and admitting it’s kind of amazing democracy works at all, and the whole thing’s scary-fragile.

[nitwit005]

The Republican voters have responded very harshly to people seen as compromising with Democrats. Increasingly that's also true of Democratic voters, as they see their leadership as giving in to Republicans.

Unless that changes, you just get back to the same situation.

[mulmen]

> And they all in congress should be fired for job abandonment. And yes, rerun elections, with those idiots not allowed to run.

I find these takes very tiresome. What kind of insight can you draw from this all or nothing thinking? It’s reductive and uninteresting.

Not all elected representatives are refusing to work. Collective punishment creates an opportunity for bad actors to force an election and remove their colleagues from office.

> After all, when I look at my W2 (yeah, I'm a working stiff), they sure as hell are taking out taxes still. That aint "shut down". It's a scam.

Well yeah, of course they are. You still owe taxes. When the government reopens the taxes you pay will still be allocated.

> Something about "taxation without representation". I think we went to war over that before.

This is not what was meant by taxation without representation. We do have elected representation, even in a government shutdown. Congress refusing to work is not a consequence of the government shutdown, it is a political choice made by elected representatives.

[thunky]

> Well yeah, of course they are. You still owe taxes. When the government reopens the taxes you pay will still be allocated.

I think you missed the point. If the government is doing less due to shutdown, taxes should be less.

[mulmen]

I didn't miss the point. The point doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The system you propose would create a perverse incentive for obstructionists to shut government down permanently to never pay taxes.

[thunky]

> a perverse incentive for obstructionists to shut government

That doesn't make any sense. A politically manufactured government shutdown isn't the only way to reduce government or taxes.

But regardless, fear of poor incentives hasn't stopped us from getting to where we are now. Bad incentives are everywhere. This shutdown itself is the result of bad incentives.

Your argument is the one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[lithobraking]

>After all, when I look at my W2 (yeah, I'm a working stiff), they sure as hell are taking out taxes still. That aint "shut down". It's a scam.

This is because a significant amount of the government is still running. [1] Around 50% of gov employees are currently working without pay (but with expected backpay). If _everyone_ stopped working major systems would immediately be disrupted: The military would stop all operations. Planes would be grounded. Weather predictions would cease to exist. Food & pharmaceuticals wouldn't be screened. Participants in medical studies would stop getting treatments. etc.

Contractors are also capable covering expenses with overhead. But soon, many will run out. For example, the contractors who perform nuclear weapons research [2]. At which time, they will have to shut down and employees will be furloughed without guarantee of backpay. (The current expectation is unpaid leave) As someone who works in a related civilian field this would severely impact our mission and the folks who work here. Especially the newer ones like postdocs who may not have much savings.

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/who-is-still-workin...

[2]: https://sourcenm.com/2025/10/17/doe-secretary-nnsa-to-furlou...

[JumpCrisscross]

> they're just intentionally failing to do their job

How is this a hot take? The debt ceiling is statute. Electeds are doing what their voters want them to do. Until shutdowns result in a bipartisan anti-incumbency wave, they won’t go away. (The electoral consequences of shutting down the government are mixed at best.)

[roxolotl]

Just a nit but this isn't a debt ceiling issue. They raised the ceiling by 5trillion with the big bill passed in the spring[0]. Shutdowns occur because no budget has been passed so the government hasn't been authorized to spend any money. The bill they are arguing over now would fund the government through Nov 21st[1].

0: https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finan...

1: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/19/nx-s1-5545929/house-stopgap-f...

[JumpCrisscross]

> so the government hasn't been authorized to spend any money

Thank you for catching. Mixed up my fuckups. I’m sure the administration that’s been illegally impounding mandated spending is absolutely constrained by the law in this case…