All because of an opinion.

[DBCowboy]

The government (US government) has had budget issues in the past.

This is actually not a new thing.

Quote; Prior to 1980, federal funding gaps caused by the expiration of appropriations legislation did not lead to government shutdowns.[sup][2][/sup] However, in April 1980, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued an opinion that the 1884 Antideficiency Act did require agencies to shut down during a funding gap. The 1980 federal government shutdown, during the Carter Administration, was the first.

1981, 1984, and 1986 U.S. federal government shutdowns - Wikipedia

[sup] So we are only shut down because of an opinion from Carter's AG in 1980.

The president can turn the government back on at any time.

This is just some bullshit![/sup]

[UltraBudgie]

The president can turn the government back on at any time.

Can he? I thought Congress had to send him a funding bill first.

They play a little game where they put "poison pills" in the bills they send, then blame him for not signing. And vice-versa, the President blames Congress for not sending a "realistic" bill. It runs both ways.

I'd like to see if Trump can break Obama's record for a shutdown, when he got into a snit about the ACA. Let's see exactly what is important. Can't say I'd be that upset if the fine people at the Department of Education get fed up not getting paid and go elsewhere, for example.

[FlyersFan]

Can he? I thought Congress had to send him a funding bill first.

That's my understanding as well.
I could be wrong on that though ...

[RichardHurt]

The government (US government) has had budget issues in the past.

This is actually not a new thing.
1981, 1984, and 1986 U.S. federal government shutdowns - Wikipedia

[sup] So we are only shut down because of an opinion from Carter's AG in 1980.

The president can turn the government back on at any time.

This is just some bullshit![/sup]

All of this shutdown is absolutely unnecessary.
Both parties know this, they are just using the "shutdown" trigger as a way to rule up the people.
It's a pretty messed up thing to do but all the people high up are just down right nasty individuals, every single one of them.

[DBCowboy]

Can he? I thought Congress had to send him a funding bill first.

They play a little game where they put "poison pills" in the bills they send, then blame him for not signing. And vice-versa, the President blames Congress for not sending a "realistic" bill. It runs both ways.

I'd like to see if Trump can break Obama's record for a shutdown, when he got into a snit about the ACA. Let's see exactly what is important. Can't say I'd be that upset if the fine people at the Department of Education get fed up not getting paid and go elsewhere, for example.

You can't do raises, or increases, or start new programs, but you could still fund under the older appropriation rules.

[UltraBudgie]

You can't do raises, or increases, or start new programs, but you could still fund under the older appropriation rules.

Yeah, but he can't do that unilaterally, right? He needs Congress to send him a Continuing Resolution, in place of a budget, to do so. And Congress keeps loading crap onto the CR:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-cong...ll-actions

[DBCowboy]

Yeah, but he can't do that unilaterally, right? He needs Congress to send him a Continuing Resolution, in place of a budget, to do so. And Congress keeps loading crap onto the CR:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-cong...ll-actions

Ummm, so how did they keep the lights on before 1980?

[UltraBudgie]

Ummm, so how did they keep the lights on before 1980?

I think Carter thought he solved that problem when he put solar panels on the roof of the White House.

Then Reagan tore them off.




Edit: To answer your question, I was going to read Civiletti's opinion on the Antideficiency Act, but then I realized that I don't care and don't want to. Do you know the answer?

[DBCowboy]

I think Carter thought he solved that problem when he put solar panels on the roof of the White House.

Then Reagan tore them off.




Edit: To answer your question, I was going to read Civiletti's opinion on the Antideficiency Act, but then I realized that I don't care and don't want to. Do you know the answer?

The Antideficiency Act (ADA) (Pub. L. 97–258, 96 Stat. 923) is legislation enacted by the United States Congress to prevent the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures (outlays) in excess of amounts available in appropriations or funds. The law was initially enacted in 1884, with major amendments occurring in 1950 (64 Stat. 765) and 1982 (96 Stat. 923). It is now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341, § 1342, §§ 1349–1351 and §§ 1511–1519.[sup][1][/sup] The Act was previously enacted as section 3679 of the Revised Statutes.

Antideficiency Act - Wikipedia


Which is kinda silly, because we've been in violation of that Act forever with our budget over-spends.

[UltraBudgie]

Antideficiency Act - Wikipedia


Which is kinda silly, because we've been in violation of that Act forever with our budget over-spends.

Yes, I read the Wikipedia and the US Code, but I didn't bother finding and reading Civiletti's 1980 opinion that caused the interpretation to change. What did he point out was wrong with the way things were being done?