Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:12, 4 October 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). Finance & Investment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2013 United States federal government shutdown. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2013 United States federal government shutdown at the Reference desk.

A news item involving 2013 United States federal government shutdown was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 October 2013.

Liberal bias (or lack thereof)

There's been mention of "liberal bias" in the comments on the edit page to the main article, which has seemed reasonable non-partisan to me in its tone. Could any users who disagree please bring up sections of the text that they find objectionable and we'll discuss them here? Dan Wang (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

An instance of bias in the current version is the sentence characterizing the shutdown as "GOP led". (I'll edit it out momentarily. It also has an improperly formed citation.) The GOP-controlled House sent a number of bills to the Senate, which could have approved them and sent them to the president, who could have signed them. The GOP is holding strong to a position (or positions), but the Senate is holding equally to its positions. This makes it inaccurate to characterize the shutdown as being instigated by either party. Earlier, I added a link to the general government shutdowns article, which discusses all 18 shutdowns since 1976. People can draw their conclusions from reviewing that history.

Oops. Duh. I neglected to sign the above. JimHarperDC (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

-The Senate's position can hardly be considered equal when the Republican House are the ones who want to break from the status quo and demand the repeal of a passed law in exchange for the passing of a Continuing Resolution, while the Senate simply wants to pass a clean Continuing Resolution 142.161.97.237 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the House sought a law change, but this doesn't justify the characterization of the shutdown as being "GOP led." House Republicans and their supporters probably believe they are doing the right thing in pursuing their aims, and there is scant evidence (though plenty of opinion, of course!) that they were seeking a shutdown. By all means, detail the debate in a neutral way and let readers render their own judgments about whether the House acted in good faith or sought to lead a shutdown. JimHarperDC (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No appropriations were made in the Affordable Care Act so it's up to each congress to decide on the level of funding. And as the constitution gives the house the privilege of creating spending bills, it's their right to refuse to fund it. And as to breaking with the status quo, the Democrats did that with the ACA itself! That didn't stop them, though. Mc6809e (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. The ACA is funded by mandatory continuing appropriations - which is why it is continuing to operate during the shutdown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias et al.

My favorite so far has been the recent addition by a user who cited a Politco article to declare that this is the second GOP led shutdown since 1996. Wherein after reading the FIRST paragraph of the article Politico clearly states "It’s the first government shutdown since 1996". (Copy/Pasted). Thus any point regarding the existence of bias, that, holds esoteric, philosophical, or even opinion as the foundation; simply ignores the blatant bias that literally exists in this inaccurate misquote. (Missed signing) Webprgmr15 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

American Congress, Two Parts, House and Senate: For Foreigners and Rudimentary Americans

I'd be happy to explain it. This conflict is a result of two parties in the US Congress not being able to agree to pass a law to the President for signing. One "side" is the US Democrats (Blue), and "the other" is the Republicans (Red): AKA the GOP.

If the two "sides" (you might also remember these being called "Chambers"—they're different, but each "side" is currently in control of only one chamber) of Congress cannot agree whatsoever, nothing can be signed by the President, period. He cannot pass bills into law. This is different from a presidential veto where the President sends something back for reconsideration. In this instance, US government is literally paralyzed into inaction until concessions are made or "bipartisanship" is practiced.

By editing the main article to imply that Obama and the democrats are on one side, and the republicans on another...it simply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the checks and balances system and how it works. If Congress itself cannot "pass laws" or "authorize a budget" the President cannot sign it because it does not exist for him/her to sign.71.91.170.94 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a fair point, Constitutionally speaking, but as the first few paragraphs of our own article on the presidency note, the POTUS is effectively in charge of his party's legislative agenda. Obama has made numerous statements regarding the impending shutdown, has negotiated with Republican leadership, etc. It would be highly misleading to say that he had no role in the conflict, regardless of the fact that he has no direct authority here. — PinkAmpers& 07:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias, Inaccuracy in "Preceding events and issues" Section

The second paragraph of the "Preceding events and issues" section is inaccurate and poorly sourced. The budget process leads up to the appropriations process, but it is not the lack of a budget that required a CR. It was Congress not having passed appropriations bills timely. Also, it was not the Senate that proposed the CR. The CR originated in the House (and the bill has bounced back and forth multiple times). The sources for this paragraph are largely left-leaning opinion pieces that argue a viewpoint about the motivations of the House's leadership. There's certainly a theory there that could be described as such, but it's far from a definitive account of why certain decisions were taken. I'd fix these things myself, but along with the lateness of the hour, I'd prefer to let the primary author of that language clean it up if he or she likes. JimHarperDC (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Impact section

Are headings necessary for all the federal departments and agencies affected? Wouldn't it be more efficient to put this information in bullet or table form? --Natural R_X 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I can easily see some of these sections growing to four or five paragraphs. A table might be helpful as an addition, but I think that most of this should be prose. GabrielF (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What about splitting that section into Services impacted by the United States federal shutdown of 2013 or something similar? That way, we can dedicate more of the article towards how the shutdown affects the rest of the country. Illneedasaviour (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Reactions

Why are there only reactions from Democrats? 161.185.150.179 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Give it time, 161.xx. The article was only created within the past 24 hours, and it's still being expanded. Kurtis 22:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What the heck?

Why was my comment taken out? I'm Expressing concern, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion of the event. Its for discussions about improving the Misplaced Pages article only, and your previous personal comment had nothing to do with that. That's why another editor has removed it (see also the edit summary). De728631 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Impact section for DC

District of Columbia needs a section and how they are planning to circumvent congress by making all city employees essential personnel. --173.200.153.17 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've started this section. GabrielF (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Furloughs -- proportion & consequences to employees

Prodigious effort in creating this article! Kudos. To expand on it, I suggest giving data as to what percentage of government employees are furloughed overall. Also, I believe that in past shutdowns the furloughed employees received their back pay covering the shutdown days. Are there sources that cover that? – S. Rich (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Back pay for this event will only be sorted out when there is a budget deal, so no refs for this particular situation. In the past, on some of the 18 instances of shut down, the legislation allowed for back pay.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Department of Health and Human Services

Great list, but I noticed that the Department of Health and Human Services isn't included. I found their Contingency Staffing Plan on hhs.gov, and they say that they're going to furlough 52% of their employees. I don't really know the code for linking very well, so I'll just post my reference here: http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2014/fy2014contingency_staffing_plan-rev2.pdf

I'm still a little wary of editing pages, so if anyone sees this and wants to add it, please do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havensfire (talk • contribs)

Impact section (2)

User:Lihaas removed the section on the economic impact of the shutdown. I believe that Lihaas is not applying WP:CRYSTAL correctly in this instance. The policy states: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." In this case predictions by economic analysts and government or business sources are perfectly reasonable. I don't see any reason to doubt estimates of government payrolls, tourist spending at National Parks or other well-understood things. The shutdown is already underway and analysts have had some time to prepare for it. This is not an analogous case to predicting the olympics or an election 20 years from now.GabrielF (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I had just reverted this removal under the same justification and was going to start a section for discussion. Lihaas' justification was: "remove speculation/CRYSTAL BALL. that is not an impact that is the speculated impact of banks and newswires". Such speculation by credible sources, if it is well cited, is not in any way prohibited by WP:CRYSTALBALL. - BanyanTree 21:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is in no way a correct application of WP:CRYSTAL. I strongly support a restoration of the material. Ryan Vesey 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Washington Monument Closure

This is a quick thing, but the section on the Department of the Interior lists the Washington Monument as closing. However, the Washington monument has already been closed for repairs for some time now. Does this refer to repair work not being done? Or is this an error? Puppier (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC) From what I find, the Monument has been closed since August 2011 and remains closed. The website is inaccessible b/c all non-essential gov't web pages seem to shut down during a shut down. Here's the link: www.nps.gov/wamo. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Should mentione that. Any source?(Lihaas (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).

Social Security Administration

Although mentioned briefly in the article, there are some services that Social Security will not be providing during the shutdown. They have a list at http://ssa.gov/shutdown/ so if someone more skilled at editing could integrate it, it would be much appreciated. Bachmac (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)  Done(Lihaas (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).

Misplaced Pages is not news, nor a crystal ball

The economic impact section focuses on the economic impact of a possible longtime shut-down. This appears crystal to me. Likewise, the effect of departments sections say "will shut down"; shouldn't we rather say "has shut down" ? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting what reliable sources have said about the potential for an economic impact is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL any more than reporting what reliable sources say about the hyperloop is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Misplaced Pages often writes about things that may happen in the future, when sufficient reliable sources report on those projected or proposed events. As the policy states, It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. There is no legitimate dispute that there will be some economic impact from the shutdown - you can't put 800,000 people out of work overnight and not have an impact on the economy. The only debate is what the level of impact will be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course there will be an economic impact and that obviously belongs in the article. But speculations about the impact of a 2-3 week shut-down won't be very relevant anymore once we know how long the actual shut-down lasted and we have estimate for the actual economic loss/impact. So, I don't believe that pure speculations about the future have lasting encyclopedic value, except for noting shortly and generally that a long shut-down was expected to have high costs. I am not going to insist on removal here though. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed it certainly is crystall ball. Just because a RS said it doesnt mean it has to be included on Misplaced Pages. It is merely spspeculation, WP does not write about what may happened in future, please show that (and it would be a cviolation of CRYSTAL)(also see OSE). Yes there will be SOEM economic impact, but without any economic impact (other than costing 300, a day) it is speculative to say WHAT that impact will be.

Also per BRD it was removed, till consensus is formed there is no need to restore it.(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)).

I strongly disagree with your application of BRD here. Your removal of the information was the bold action. Ryan Vesey 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so the sequence of events is absolutely clear, Lihaas originally removed the section referring to WP:CRYSTAL. In response, GabrielF started the section above to oppose and I reverted, under the rationale explained in that section. That is textbook BRD, except that Lihaas made no attempt to engage in discussion at that time. Lihaas then repeated the removal under the same rationale. In both cases the inclusion of the section is clearly the status quo, and the section removal is the Bold (and reverted) action that would require consensus to implement. - BanyanTree 22:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• As I stated above, this is a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL. Ryan Vesey 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, crystal does not apply here for the same reason it does not apply for the possible effects of global warming. Sepsis II (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Umm, BRD is the insertion of content, that removal is a reversion. How can you revert something by adding it?

You still have not explained WHY it misapplies to crystal. youve just stated it does.

I came right here to discuss and then removed it citing BRD, btw.

Nevertheless, you have not explained why it is not crystal. 1 OP did, then 2 others disagreed. CONVERSELY, instead of arguing, I explained exactly what was strong with the edit (as did the other user above). that there is NO content to the article, is is PURE speculation of what MAY happen. Nothing HAS happened.

As a compromise, perhaps cut the jargon, and move it to the economic section of REACTIONS (as that is what it is, a reaction, not an impact (the impact is speculationas it has not happened YET)). Then cut it down to something like analysts and financial advisors have suggested...

sUGESTING compromises isa lot better hthan attacking editors and accusing and seeking them wrong. There has been only this as a compromise solution...and you can read here that NO ONE has provided an attempt to find consensus by compromiseLihaas (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus here that you are wrong to apply WP:CRYSTAL here, and that your understanding of the policy is flawed. I would suggest that you stop edit-warring and discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you have no understanding of what you are blindly reverting . I did not remove any content. As mentioned above (and you should read it before blindly reverting), I am suggesting an alternative accommodation that KEEPS the content. The edit I cited above wshows that you readded redundant and DOUBLE content. (if its so difficlit then do a control+f and see the content is in there, with perhaps slight different wording.(Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).

THIS IS ABJECTLY STUPID AND DUMB BEYOND BELIEF! and is the most obvious indication that nothing is read here, war is the first option. its quite clearly stated here that NO content was removed, there is now the SAME content listed twice on the page that any ctrl+f search can show. Yet if this was to reverted it would count as 3RR or some such shit because no one bothers to read/discuss but just wants one [version to revert to per NPA and personality politics. Please see the damn page! THE SAME CONTENT IS ALREADY ON IT!!! And considering it was reverted to twice just cancels out any possible AGF which was thre the first time.

Further I have not reverted theice, because the edit that moved stuff in accommodation per this discussion did not REVERT ANYTHING. conetnet is still there(Lihaas (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).

That the shutdown has an economic impact is undisputed fact. The economic impact is already happening. There is no consensus to remove that section or split it into "reactions," whatever those are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

NO ONE is disputing here that there is an economic impact. The disputeis WHAT the impact is.

Consensus is based ona ccomodation and compromise. that was what was changed and y9u wnet and quite clearly BLINDLY readded content.

Now if you care you can discuss this issue as per the questions posed. Because what the MEDIA say and analsysts suggest is REACTION/speculation (and if you knw anything about financial markets you wllknow it works on speculation_) and THAT is not fact on the ground.

That was amongst the most stupidest edits I've seen here. and ive been here for nearly 4-5 uears now, not a few months.(Lihaas (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).

I strongly object to moving the economic impact section under reactions. First, the economic impact is not a "reaction" in the same way that opinion polls or media reports are reactions. Second, it is an important aspect of the story and deserves its own top-level section. Third, these are not necessarily reactions. The source for Maryland tax revenues was published several days before the shutdown. Nor is the WP:CRYSTAL argument valid as that policy explicitly allows well-sourced, reasonable predictions of near-term events. GabrielF (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Essential" and "non-essential" federal employees

The above terms aren't to be used any longer (as of 1995) (though, of course, they'll still be used by some for some time to come).

• "The laws and regulations governing shutdowns separate federal workers into "essential" and "non-essential." (Actually, the preferred term nowadays is "excepted" and "non-excepted." This was tweaked in 1995 because "non-essential" seemed a bit hurtful.)

The quote is from The Washington Post, here. --Hordaland (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and  Done(Lihaas (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).

I think the most descriptive terms would be "urgent" and "non-urgent" employees. However, my personal opinion is meaningless unless I could push it into the Washington Post or something equivalent to that, so that we could point to a WP:RS using the term. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Listing the Federal Reserve?

I removed it, it was reverted, guess it's discussion time.

As this article and Federal Reserve System make clear, the Fed "is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

So it seems to make as much sense listing it here (saying nothing has changed, for obvious reasons) as listing any other organization with no direct ties to Congress (NASCAR, Wal-Mart or UNESCO, for instance). It has "federal" in its name, but otherwise irrelevant.

Yes? No? Maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal of the mention of the Federal Reserve, per nom; the central bank, per se, is not connected with the government budget year, "shutdown", etc., unless we have a reliable source that says it has been affected by the partial shutdown, and how. N2e (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it seems pretty superfluous to mention something just to say it's not affected. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Architect of the showdown

According to these news reports:

• CNN
• Foxnews
• NY Daily News
• NewYorker

Representative Mark Meadows was crucial in organizing the Republican congressman into using the funding bill as a means to oppose Obamacare. Where would be the right place to put this? FurrySings (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Department of Labor section

Third sentence, first paragraph currently reads: The Labor Department will continue to pay unemployment insurance and worker's compensation claims. It should be plural possessive(emphasis added): The Labor Department will continue to pay unemployment insurance and workers' compensation claims.

FYI, this is a very common mistake ...

Bdstein (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)bdstein

•  Done Thanks for pointing this out. GabrielF (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

International Reactions

How about a section at the bottom for International Reactions. Or at least reactions from foreign press? --108.23.154.243 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a great idea. After all, there is land outside the DC beltway. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Responsibility

First stop at this article, so this may have already been pointed out, but this passage in the lead is curiously one sided (regardless of the rest of the article):

The shutdown resulted from political fights between Democratic President Barack Obama, the Democratic-led Senate and the Republican-led House of Representatives – specifically, the Senate's rejection of House budget bills which included separate provisions delaying or defunding health insurance programs authorized by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the President's statement that he would veto such a budget.

Shutdown resulted from...specifically, the Senate's rejection...and the President's statement. Of course, the rejection and statement wouldn't have even occurred if there were not something out of the ordinary there to be rejected and if the idea of "negotiation" on this issue hadn't been introduced as a rhetorical device to make it seem like a clean CR is somehow a far-left demand. --Rhododendrites (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The shutdown is solely the fault of the President and the Democrats in the Senate. If they had accepted the appropriations bills passed by the House of Representatives, then there would be no shutdown. In that case, the only dispute remaining would be over whether Obamacare should be funded. Obama and the Democrats claim that Congress has no right to pick and choose what to fund and they use that as an excuse to hold the whole government hostage while blaming the Republicans. However, picking and choosing what to fund is one of the major functions of the Congress and has been since the Constitution was ratified. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The piecemeal bills are addressed in the last paragraph of the introduction. They could end a shutdown partially but not entirely. The responsibility of the hostage situation would then shift to the Democrats from the Republicans, where it began. While it is the Constitutional power of the House to propose partial funding, it is also the power of the Senate to propose full funding, and the power of the President to threaten a veto that can be overridden. Also, while there are enough House Republicans to pass a clean continuing resolution to fund the entire government and end the shutdown, the Speaker is rejecting motions to introduce such a bill, as addressed in the "Preceding events" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KinkyLipids (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be assigning or implying responsibility. The lede should be as neutral and uncontroversial as possible while summarizing the events. What about something like:

The shutdown resulted from political fights between Democratic President Barack Obama, the Democratic-led Senate and the Republican-led House of Representatives – specifically, the Republicans' inclusion of separate provisions delaying or defunding health insurance programs authorized by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into the House budget bills and the Democrats' rejection of these provisions.

That way, it at least seems to say the shutdown resulted from...the Republicans...and the Democrats.

By the way, I just noticed there is a problem with the article structure in that the last paragraph of the lede talks about events in Congress after the shutdown, but this really should be in the body of the article somewhere, though I'm not sure where. There may need to be a new section for that. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the paragraph with your's Maximusveritas, it was massively bias how it was, to say it's the democrats fault for not giving into all the republican demands is ridiculous. Sepsis II (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The way the system is supposed to work is that an appropriation is made when the House, Senate, and President agree on it. The House Republicans do not agree to fund the implementation of Obamacare — so it should not be funded. The President and the Senate clearly want the other spending as much as the House does. However, they have decided to block it and use their control of the media to demagogue the issue to try to force the House to do what the House clearly does not want to do. Thus it is the Democrats who are engaged in extortion, not the Republicans. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The top of this talk page says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." If there is any specific edit you object to or if you want a specific edit you want approval of, then say so. Responding to your comment, if the House wants the spending as much as the Democrats, as you say they do, then they should have proposed a separate bill to delay Obamacare instead of combining it into a spending bill. Trying to withhold funding in a discretionary bill doesn't work when Obamacare is in mandatory spending. The only way to defund it is to try to repeal it, so they should just go back to doing that. Also, the media is controlled by viewer ratings and opinion polls; they only side with whoever is winning the American people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KinkyLipids (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Many comments on this talk page are arguing for presenting this issue as either being the fault of republicans/conservatives/tea-party or being equally the fault of both sides. I am merely trying to oppose those comments by pointing out that to do so would be to propagate the lies of the Obama/Reid group instead of presenting the truth. Truth is the only rational standard which can be used here. If neutrality means something other than truth, then what is it? A non-truth which is equally offensive to both sides? Or what?

As to the form of the bill, if I am not mistaken a continuing resolution usually takes a form such as "continue spending for all line items at the level of the previous year until such-and-such a date with the following exceptions ...". If that is so, then mentioning the exception of implementing Obamacare explicitly is the natural way to exclude it. When that was blocked, the Republicans tried to work around that by explicitly calling for funding certain high-priority items (Veterans Administration, National Parks, D.C. local government). However, the Democrats blocked those appropriations also even though they did not mention Obamacare. This confirms that the Democrats are the ones who are engaged in extortion. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing. Sepsis II (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Make it clearer that this shutdown was driven by conservatives and is a historic uprising

98.248.187.175 posted this comment on 2 October 2013 (view all feedback).

This article is off to a good start. But it doesn't make it clear enough that this shutdown was largely driven by a group of 40 or so conservative extremists, supported by John Boehner and most House Republicans. Instead of just a 'he-said-she-said' report, this article should identify who started this attack, and point to their willingness to jeopardize the lives of millions in an attempt to repeal an established law just because they don't like it. The historic nature of this hostile takeover should also be noted, and linked to the previous GOP shutdown 17 years ago. Lastly, I also recommend a section on Public Opinion, citing recent polls, as well as this puzzling study by Pew Research, which reveals dueling views on #Twitter: 77% blame GOP for the shutdown, yet 71% oppose Obamacare. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/02/on-twitter-dueling-views-on-the-shutdown-and-obamacare/

Any thoughts?

Fabrice Florin (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the second point, there is already a Public Opinion section, though it maybe gets buried under all the sub-sections of the impact on every department, which could hint at a problem with the structure of the article, though I'm not sure what can be done about that. I don't think the Pew study is notable considering it's a non-scientific study of Twitter and hasn't gotten any other coverage. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's most certainly a hint at the structure of the article. It's a friggin' nightmare. Inanygivenhole (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you propose changing the structure of the article? GabrielF (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Department of Energy status

The DOE status is a little misleading. It reads "The U.S. Department of Energy will furlough 9,584 of its 13,814 employees. Those working will continue to work and be paid until reserve funds are exhausted." It is very easy to misread "Those working" as applying to ther 4,054 not subject to furlough, rather than the 9,584 who are subject to furlough. DOE is relatively unusual in that most of its appropriations do not expire at the end of a fiscal year, but instead remain available until expended. The effect of this is that if a program did not spend every last penny of available funds during the 2013 fiscal year, the remainder is still available for continuing activities during the 2014 fiscal year. So DOE is not furloughing employees until those funds are exhausted. How long that takes will vary across programs within DOE. One office might have enough funds to keep people working for a week while another might have enough to keep people on for 3 weeks. So if the funding lapse continues long enough, the 9,584 furloughs will occur, but they won't happen all at once. See http://energy.gov/articles/department-energy-implementation-activities-case-lapse-appropriations, which notes in part "Most of DOE's appropriations are multi-year or no-year. In the immediate future, we expect Federal employees to continue to report for work as scheduled. A prolonged lapse in appropriations may require subsequent employee furloughs." --205.254.147.8 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary/ Non-Discretionary

Although "non-discretionary" spending is LESS affected by the shutdown, it is not, in fact, unaffected - particularly given the looming debt limit crisis. The SS and Medicare trust funds don't fund the whole apparatus of those agencies and the US government owes the trust funds a LOT of cash - which has to be appropriated annually. Therefore, the use of "discretionary" to describe the government functions affected by the shutdown is wrong, misleading and confusing. Dlawbailey (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds interesting. Could you provide a source, especially about how the government owes a lot to the trust funds? KinkyLipids (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this really note-worthy?

This doesn't seem like it noteworthy enough of its own article.--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a major national and international event with significant political, economic, governmental and social implications. It's pretty clearly encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Miriam Carey under individual reactions

I propose a subsection or sentence under individual reactions about Miriam Carey actions on October 3, 2013 when a reliable source becomes avaiable. After all, she, by herself, put the US Capital on lockdown for one hour. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.dol.gov/owcp/owcpcomp.htm

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Top-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Finance & Investment articles
• Unknown-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
• Unassessed Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles