US Geological Survey Unable To Provide Indonesia Tsunami Data Due To Government Shutdown (huffingtonpost.com.au) 370
An underwater landslide caused by activity from the Anak Krakatau volcano is being blamed for a tsunami that struck Indonesia late Saturday, killing at least 222 people and injuring more than 800 others. Normally, the U.S. Geological Survey would report on such events and provide any necessary data it had to the public. But it can't due to America's partial government shutdown, which began Saturday after President Donald Trump refused to sign legislation that didn't include funding for his southern border wall. From a report: The USGS website is dormant as of Sunday, except for a notice at the top. "Due to a lapse in appropriations, the majority of USGS websites may not be up to date and may not reflect current conditions," the note reads. "Websites displaying real-time data, such as Earthquake and Water and information needed for public health and safety will be updated with limited support." According to the government shutdown contingency plan, the USGS will retain just 75 of its estimated 8,032 employees, or 0.9 percent. "The USGS will suspend the majority of its activities with the exception of those functions to protect life and property," the plan states. The document also claims that 450 employees will be "on call" for natural disasters, but it's unclear if that process has been enacted, as the USGS website says the agency is not "able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted."
Far right tantrum (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a shame that this far right tantrum us wasting money and will keep government employees from being paid on time. Furloughed workers will get back pay for them not to work during the shutdown. The shutdown will probably extend into January, and employees who are working will have their paycheck delayed. Meanwhile, many very useful but non-essential services aren't being provided at all. Shame on the far right.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since you asked (Score:3)
Better analytics mean we know that the value of a wall at controlling the border is less than other alternatives. Texas sent the national guard to police the border at a cost of $120k per illegal immigrant caught. Statistically we know those illegals would have caused less trouble than their native counterparts, so we know we didn't save any money on crime prevention. We could have given every American put out of work a full, 4 year
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Far right tantrum (Score:5, Informative)
No, they didn't agree. And your guy already admitted that he would be proud to shut it all down. He must be proud now! Why aren't you?
He is throwing a fit because the Republicans didn't give him what he wanted while they were in power. Pulling out of Syria is him hitting back at them for it.
Re: Far right tantrum (Score:5, Interesting)
DNC vs. GOP issues aside, people have been saying for decades they wish the US would just GTFO of the affairs of other countries and stop interfering. The world is going to be a much better place as a result - if they're correct. Regardless of the reasons behind the decision, at least with Trump's insular approach we're going to get some idea of how valid that position is over the next few years, right? Well, assuming that the more likely scenario of either the Russians (Syria and the rest of the Middle East) or Chinese (Far East) moving in to fill the vacuum and providing a same shit, different day result.
Of course, if you're actually on the ground in Syria and on the "wrong side" of those that now hold the advantage in terms of power and equipment, the short term outlook isn't looking too good. Consider what happened when the Viet Cong swept south following the US withdrawal from Viet Nam, for instance - the Kurds need allies *fast* to protect themselves from Turkey, and where do you suppose they might turn for that support?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's turn the world over to the loving embrace of the Chinese and the Russians. After all, look at the wonders they are doing for Ukraine and the Uighars. We should ask the Chinese to give Tibet back to the Tibetens, and to stop leaning on Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's turn the world over to the loving embrace of the Chinese and the Russians.
No the world, but the Middle East in particular. The place richly deserves it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Pulling out of Syria isn't What's-His-Name hitting back at them. It was done merely because he needed a headline with his name plastered on it that didn't involve criminal behavior. The fact that Erogan (the Whore) smoked him is beside the point, as is screwing over the Kurds (they'll never trust the U.S. again). Giving Iran a Christmas present never entered into his "thought". All the bluster over Iran was because Obama had an agreement with Iran that had Obama's name on it. It goes not further than, if he
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, actually, I am proud that he is prioritizing the safety and security of the American people over vague scientific interest in a problem that happens over and over half a world away.
Re: Far right tantrum (Score:3)
The wall offers no security, and you know that perfectly well.
What it offers is environmental devastation and financial ruin for America. You proud of that?
This isn't scientific intetest, this is getting rescuers to the right plave. This is saving lives and improving world stability.
You prefer Americans to die in wars? And dare to call that security?
Re: Far right tantrum (Score:3)
Their lack of welfareis why you've border problems. That makes it your concern.
And, no, it hasn't been proven.
What has been proven is that private healthcare and health insurance js a net drain on a nation's economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually, I am proud that he is prioritizing the safety and security of the American people
One day when they actually do anything about the safety and security of American people you should be proud. Right now you should be angry at the theater they are putting on in the name of "security" and wasting a metric fuckton of money in the process.
Mind you if you think this is actually security then I have a wall to sell you.
Re: Democrats fault (Score:2)
There was a war fought, oh, around 1776. It was about the last person to go tell Americans to bend a knee.
Americans have no kings, not you, not Alien Boy, none.
Re: Democrats fault (Score:2)
The Brirish did. The IRA are now in government doing good rather than killing people.
The Colombian people rejected peace and are now locked in a death struggle. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Don't be an idiot and learn.
Re: (Score:3)
My math skills say the Republicans currently have majorities in both the House and Senate. Or are you using some new math no one knows about.
There's a piece of Senate math you don't know about.
It takes 60%, not 50%+, to break a filibuster. (Down from 75%, down from "you can't break it until the other side ALL falls asleep at once".)
There are some issues where a filibuster is not allowed. Appropriation bills are explicitly NOT one of them.
The Republicans could exercise the "Nuclear Option" and change the
Re: Far right tantrum (Score:2)
None of the Republicans in the Senate agree with you. The Senate Leader, an avid Republican, has declared this a tantrum by the far right.
Are you going to accuse the Republicans of being closet Democrats? Or will you accept that the Senate - NOT the Democrats - refused this.
A REPUBLICAN Senate.
Trump is not God. A pity, God is fictional.
Re: Far right tantrum (Score:2)
The house rejected Trump's minimum and went with a smaller amount.
Trump has now stated he, and he alone, will continue the shutdown until he gets everything he wants.
That's Trump's choice. Maybe it's his right, toi, but don't go blaming his choice on anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Maybe you should stop calling people sacks of shit, and realise that everyone has a right to live, and that America should stop denying that right just because people have the wrong sort of democracy.
Or maybe you could live in your fool's paradise where everything is ruled by lib
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the brave and understanding Left!
Democrats forcing their agenda? (Score:5, Informative)
The Republicans control both houses of Congress (until the 3rd), and there is a Republican President. The two houses did come together and put together a bill to continue funding the government into the new year, when there would be a new Congress to take over. Unfortunately, the President (a Republican, note) said loud and clear that he would not sign it.
Paul Ryan (another Republican) could have sent the bill to the floor anyway for a vote, but decided not to. Note that he easily had the votes to override a Presidential veto (the Democrats were in favor of the bill) but he did not want to challenge the President. This is either easier or harder to understand in light of his impending retirement depending on what you think of his character.
If you think this is the Democrats flexing their muscles, you have an entirely unrealistic view of that party's competence and skill.
This is the Legislative branch ceding too much power to the Executive branch and then refusing to stand up to a populist strong-man.
And "Criminal charges of manslaughter"? Are you serious? You do know that the government shutdown did not cause the tsunami, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It did not cause the Tsunami, but hindered the alerts for a people that have grown dependent upon them.
At best it looks like other countries are going to have to develop their own infrastructure. U.S. Cannot be relied upon anymore to do that task.
Then again, that was never our responsibility. We just stood up and Got shit done.
tsunami alerts (Score:4, Insightful)
As I read this it seems like all they are missing from USGS is post incident reporting. I'm not saying that is unimportant, but there wasn't going to be any tsunami warning from USGS anyway. This was a non-tectonic landslide in a confined region. It's much like the September wave, I think: small, fast, and local.
They actually HAVE a local warning system for exactly this type of event, but it has been poorly managed and funded.
Re: Embrace the healing power of AND (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you are not skilled or poorly skilled in Google Foo but it is widely accepted that it isn't a complete waste.
I didn't say it was net negative, budget-wise, just that there are surely much better investments for taxpayers. If, for example, avoidance of lost revenue [crfb.org] is to be pursued here, as the article seems to suggest, what about stopping gutting the IRS instead? [propublica.org] Taking the numbers from that article of yours at face value (which doesn't even seem to suggest any operational cost for the project, or did I misread it?), the wall is peanuts compared to the uncollected taxes.
One of the best comments in the thread (Score:2)
I see only two problems with it.
The first is that I don't really think the wall will stop/significantly impair illegal immigration. People will find a way. When I was a pipe-layer all of our laborers were illegal immigrants. Most of them did not walk across the desert to get here. Some even came by plane.
The second is that if it did work, it would create tremendous economic disruption as we would have a huge labor shortage at the bottom of the economy. Just how much are you willing to pay for a pound o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey guess what? If it were not for Trump the government would still be fully up (only.a tiny part is really shut down) - at the same time it is ALSO true that if even ten Democrats agreed to fund the wall, the government would be fully up as well.
Fund the wall? The same wall that he promised that the Mexicans would pay for? That wouldn't cost taxpayers anything? What a nice way to keep your campaign promises. But then again, he has never been much for keeping any kinds of promises has he?
Why would any sane human being (Democrats, Republicans or whatever) agree to fund one mans lunatic vanity project? Show me a 20-foot wall and I will show you a 21-foot ladder. That wall is not going to help very much, other than be a huge waste of taxpayer money and
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because every Mexican and Central American has $300-500 for a 31 foot ladder and is going to hike it in with them.
Nobody, save the people like you, tring to strawman your ass off, EVER claimed that a wall would "solve illegal immigration".
It's about presenting a clear deterrent to overland immigration. Which then allows us to make the most of our manpower and monetary resources combatting other forms of illegal economic migration.
But we can't really do that when we don't ACTUALLY control our own bord
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of the unstoppable juggernaut of government, aren't you a bit worried about it trying to piss away billions of your dollars on something known not to work? I mean China built a wall far bigger and better than the one Trump wants, and that wasn't very effective...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
True, it worked there, but Trump doesn't seem to be proposing that style of wall. Certainly the budget is only to build it, and the wall in Israel is guarded which is an on-going cost. It's less than 150 miles long, where as the US one will need to be 2000 miles long.
It's hard to come up with a figure for guarding a 2000 mile long wall on difficult terrain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But that "tiny part that is shut down" should not include emergency notification of global disasters. Imagine if the 2004 megatsunami had occurred during a US shutdown? The Indian Ocian had no Pacific-style warning system of its own.
Re: Far right tantrum (Score:2)
The Democrats didn't cause this. How could they? They control none of the houses nor the presidency.
Trump said he'd cause a shutdown and stated he would own it.
If you think him so good, then accept his word. If you reject his word, what worth is he?
I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Could it be libertarians are just a bunch of hypocritical cunts?
Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it (Score:5, Informative)
You mean that when US citizens buy Mexican goods they would pay a tax? In which case you really do need to understand something: those people who are paying are not from Mexico. They are what is known as "Americans". For clarity: people from the USA.
This is NOT anywhere near "Mexico is paying for the wall". It is "Trump wants a tax on US citizens so the US can pay for a wall".
Re: (Score:3)
Okay... I'm going to play devil's advocate here... but allow me to present what I think may be a twisted logic reasoning that could show how Mexicans are ultimately paying for the wall.
The tariffs will increase costs for Americans, true... but this increased cost could, in general, translate to reduced demand for imports, which in turn would force the nations from which the tariffs are being applied to have to lay off workers that produce those goods, thereby indirectly harming that nation's economy.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
thereby indirectly harming that nation's economy.
So if I want you to give me $100, instead I fund the $100 myself, call your boss and get you fired in a way that costs you money, it's somehow the same as you paying me $100?
That's not playing devils advocate, that is failing primary school level logic.
Re: (Score:2)
I admitted that the logic was twisted...
Of course it's stupid, but try convincing Trump of that.
What gets me (Score:2)
Regardless of whether you blame Trump or the DNC for the shutdown, what astounds me is that it is permitted to happen at all.
The solution to this would be to enact some legislation that automatically funds major departments at (say) 95% of the previously agreed budget until a new budget is agreed.
Even if that is not acceptable, some employees are expected to work without a paycheck - again legislation should be enacted that 'essential' employees (e.g. emergency services) are automatically funded.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall hearing the president boast a couple of weeks ago when the matter came up that he himself would take full responsibility for the shutdown:
Has he now recanted this former position?
Can't say I'm terribly surprised, however...
Firemen first (Score:2)
Approximately 420,000 federal employees continued to work through the shutdown [time.com]. The handful of employees needed to handle this certainly could have been deemed "essential" as well under the circumstances.
This is just a cynical political decision to suspend a high-visibility, low-cost service to try to pressure the shutdown to end, exactly like the cynical political decision to barricade national monuments [latimes.com] (and even disable the corresponding websites) during the 2013 shutdown.
Not Quite Accurate... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or in other words, "Fake News"".
"which began Saturday after President Donald Trump refused to sign legislation that didn't include funding for his southern border wall."
President Trump cannot sign legislation that hasn't been approved by both houses of Congress, and the "McConnell/Schumer Shutdown" is the result of the SENATE's failure to pass the budget. Schumer is adamant that there will be no border wall, and McConnell is content to let Schemer continue to hold the budget hostage. Americans by and large
Wall... (Score:2)
... or shut it the heck down.
Period. As a legal immigrant that came on O1 visa I hate the lazy asses who crawled into the first world from their shitholes as "fiances" or crawled under the fence.
From the other hand. Every single foreigner who decided "screw this shit, I am going to America" immediately becomes a spiritual American in many ways more American that people born here. He is courageous, he is enterprising enough to deserve a shot at the pursuit of happiness, to climb to that city on the hill.
That
Budget / Debt (Score:3)
Part of me would like to see the shutdown last exactly as long as it would take to balance the budget and pay off the national debt. What an interesting experiment THAT would be.... Of course, that can't happen (for pretty obvious reasons).
I really do wish we had a Constitutional Amendment that required a balanced budget or it just cuts all spending across the board, automatically, until it is balanced. Of course, that does nothing for the $21 *TRILLION* debt (which cost us $310 BILLION to service in 2018 alone, $2.6 TRILLION over the last 10 years), but at least it is a start. In the mean time, raise taxes, stop spending (my preference), or some combination of both!
Re: (Score:3)
The real reason that cannot happen is that when every shutdown is resolved, the government pays all the federal workers for the time they were not working. So shutdowns don't actually save the federal government any money at all. It's all just politics and grandstanding
Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation (Score:4, Informative)
Schumer offered Trump 25 billion dollars for the wall in exchange for DACA. They shook hands and agreed. Then Trump went back on his word and fussed about family reunification and the diversity visa lottery. CBP doesn't even want a wall in most places. This is the work of a few crybabies on the far right who walked away from a good deal and now want to appease the base. Grow up, snowflakes. You turned down money for the wall. This is your fault.
Re: (Score:2)
25 billion dollars could easily fix the problem. Fix the reasons why people are coming, and put systems in place for them to come legally and to support them and the communities they join. Make them an asset, a boost to the economy.
25 billion dollars on a wall that isn't even going to work is a complete waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation (Score:4, Funny)
An opportunity to employ some cheap migrant labour?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, you! I told you to build it from *that* side!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the other thing... Some of the border is down the middle of rivers and other terrain where you can't build a wall. Obviously Mexico isn't going to have it on their side, so... The US will have to effectively cede that land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here you go [gofundme.com]. Nobodies stopping you from paying for it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
An explicable reason may be that the illegal immigrants are necessary to keep the US running.
Re: (Score:2)
To add to that, the Social Security Trust Fund is slowly being depleted due to lack of enough people paying into it. Nope, don't want none of those immigrants here.
BTW: the Trust Fund is not a pile of money in a mattress somewhere. It is IOUs to...the Federal Government, i.e., you and I. Now that the Trust Fund is not really being added to, SS comes calling to the general fund for that dough. So that means yet higher deficits.
And if you thought you didn't need to rely on SS, that you are being a good little
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice of Trump to provide Mexicans with jobs in the local ladder factory.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those smugglers would never think to save their pennies and dig tunnels, or buy wall scaling equipment and install a few pulleys and ropes. Good thing they are stupid, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you special? Lot's of "gear" and "stuff". Very hip and modern. I'm sure you drink the right kind of latte too with lots of soy milk.
You want low tech? Even assuming the Trumps wall will be built coast to coast, 30 feet high with self targeting brown people seeking robot machine guns, the thing will be defeated by a bunch of Mexicans with shovel inside of a couple of months. The damn thing is a massively over expensive publicity stunt. Even the US border guard thinks that Trump's wall will be useless and that you can get better results for a fraction of the money with more guards, more training, better equipment, helicopters, vehicles, s
Re: (Score:3)
Do you even care that a wall won't actually be that effective at preventing most illegal immigration? Most illegal immigrants don't jump the Rio Grande, they come on legal visas and just overstay them. How is a wall going to prevent that?
Aren't you interested in solutions that actually work? I think you like the idea of the Wall more than you actually care about illegal immigrants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until they become successful, just like everyone else. More importantly, the major farmers who want to keep the illegal insurgency going as their personal end run around the Thirteenth Amendment vote Dem. Call it Big Lettuce if you wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Conservatives are nothing more than nationalist fascists now days. Tell me, why is it you cunt fascists are all such lying sacks of shit? Did it start with your parents not teaching you about integrity?
Re: (Score:2)
". Tell me, why is it you cunt fascists are all such lying sacks of shit? Did it start with your parents not teaching you about integrity?"
They taught them, all right. They taught them to say one thing while doing another. They learned it from religion, which despises while calling it love.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are a lying sack of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If it gets bad enough Trump will be fired. 2nd amendment at it's finest.
Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation (Score:5, Informative)
Hang on. You must be kidding. Trump said 25 times he wanted a shutdown and now you are hanging it on the Democrats?
With logic like that, some aspects of US voter behaviour become closer to some sort of explanation. This will help historians in years to come, for when they look back and try to make sense of the incomprehensible.
Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, cleaning up after the Great Recession caused by Bush should have taken, what, a few bil?
Trump will start giving us over 1 Trillion dollar deficits for the as long as the eye can see because those nice corporations and rich people were being taxed too much. Then the Republicans in Congress, passing the bill while shining their halos, declared that it will pay for itself through increase economic activity. How's that working for ya? Even at over 3% growth, it didn't do that. Now growth back down to 2.5 and likely to go lower. It is almost as though the tax cut never happened, except for those pesky deficits.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will start giving us over 1 Trillion dollar deficits for the as long as the eye can see because those nice corporations and rich people were being taxed too much...
He's already at 2 trillion and counting.
Re: (Score:3)
Great recession was largely caused by Clinton who forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to lend to subprime borrowers in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, "my guy good, your guy bad"
Perhaps neither one is a good role model? Please for the love of god do not put up Hillary, (any) Obama, or Bernie in 2020! Find a fiscal conservative, social liberal, moderate in both areas and get Trump out of the white house for all our sakes!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: TRUMP (Score:2)
I don't know if people post this in jest, but on a serious note, Trump will win the 2020 election. That's just the way the historic dice rolled.
Unless he crashes the economy or gets impeached. But both of those are extremely unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s too late for that. He may be impeached during his second term though.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't have to be personally impeached, just have members of his immediate family sent to jail with charges pending for him the moment he steps down.
That the Democrats are keeping quiet doesn't mean they don't have anyone. It just means that they took the advice to never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake, and don't see any value in providing opportunities for the Republicans to start smearing their candidates early.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way he'll get elected is if the Democrats are stupid enough to run a left-wing loon like Bernie or Warren. My bet is on impeachment though. If Mueller turns up enough naughty things, and Republicans in Congress feel he's too toxic, he's toast.
Re: (Score:2)
(Emphasis mine)
How can you allege that using the term "historic" to refer to events that haven't happened yet can possibly result in anybody but people who believe in time travelers ever taking you seriously?
Re: TRUMP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crashing economy (Score:2)
FWIW, I think the economy is about to crash. The US has entered every new decade for the last 100 years in a recession or depression, within 1 or two years plus or minus. We're one year out and we have shaky market news following a strong bull run.
Although a lot of the underlying metrics look good, I have my doubts, especially in the employment numbers. A lot of the "employed" today are underemployed at traditional jobs or are working in parts of the gig economy that do not provide high standards of livi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's amazing that you're an even more worthless piece of shit than Trump is. I honestly didn't think there were that many around, given that it's so low of a bar.
Re:Setting aside the unrelated stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not. Indonesia's disaster is mostly their own making and there's no one to blame but themselves.
But if we already have the data, then we should try to make that available. It contributes to our political leverage and global economic stability, and our own understanding of tsunamis is improved by gathering data from all across the world.
Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff (Score:2)
It sounds like providing that data isn't free to the taxpayers, or else the shutdown would not have affected it. Or are you saying someone is purposefully withholding the data just to make a political statement, rather than because of no money?
Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff (Score:3, Informative)
Because the US is already monitoring worldwide for its own protection purposes. The US is rich, and monitoring is a tiny fraction of its GDP. Indonesia is poor, and cannot afford its own worldwide monitoring system.
Only a complete dick would hold out on passing information to a poor neighbour when it costs them essentially nothing and it could save lives.
Re: (Score:2)
We have some quake sensor data but nothing that would warn of a tsunami.
That comment is hilarious in its ignorance of how tsunami warnings work.
Re: Huffington flinging crap for Christmas (Score:2)
Pretty much the most intelligent comment on here, and some twit still downmodded it to -1.
Re: (Score:2)
A local scientist in some 3rd, 4th world nations wants a better job and some US supported budget. A nice SUV grant and decades of work?
Roads, a new lab, computers, sites to collect from, networking. Trips to and from remote sties. Payments for the travel.
Thats jobs and a real income for generations that will be thankful to the USA.
Thats not going to happen with an automated system from the USA.
The CIA likes to have US "experts" move around nations like I
Re: (Score:2)
'Cause Team America: World Police, that's why.
PS Is the CIA still illegally fighting the House of Saud's war of conquest in Yemen for them during the shutdown or is starving Yemeni children critical to national security?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, figure out w way to do planetary science that benefits only Americans, and make sure that's a better deal for us than sharing knowledge with the rest of the world would be.
The US is a global economic and military power. If you think we do this kind of shit out of pure altruism, that's rather naive. Science is a real part of our soft power around the world, and a bargain compared to what we spend on hard power.
Our global scientific might not only benefits us directly economically, it brings the best
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only science spending actually *was* bankrupting the US economy...
Re: (Score:2)
During Gov shutdowns the departments still get their funding
Actually the shutdown is precisely because departments don't get their funding.
and everyone is salaried anyway.
No. In fact a good portion of the government is on an hourly rate. This includes all those poor service people the republicans like to shit on who clean their toilets and serve them food at the cafeteria. The people in most need of money do not get paid at all.
We all took it as an excellent excuse to not go into work and still get paid.
By "we" I assume you're a US government employee, well congrats you're a dick. While you're off on your paid vacation people depending on your services had problems, once a
Re: (Score:2)
"Has fact checking become so hard that even the reporters, looking at you msmash, are unwilling to do their job and perpetuate the fake news target? "
Why yes, yes it has.