Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[orange]

Interesting analogy, very different situation. Note that Belgium managed to pay its bills and keep its government services running without an actual democratically elected government, while the USA can't seem to manage it with one now.

How dependent are critical day-to-day government services in Belgium on the Federal government?  (I don't know and am thus asking the question.)

[Iwan Terpalen]

Mu. Belgium is not a federation of states.

[orange]

Mu. Belgium is not a federation of states.

All I have to go on is Wikipedia and...

Etat Federal?

La Belgique est un État fédéral depuis 1993 composé de différentes entités fédérées.
Art. 1 La Belgique est un État fédéral qui se compose des communautés et des régions.
Art. 2 La Belgique comprend trois communautés : Communauté française, Communauté flamande et Communauté germanophone.
Art. 3 La Belgique comprend trois régions : la Région wallonne, la Région flamande et la Région bruxelloise,

Which to me reads that that Beligum is a federal state created in 1993 composed of different federal entities.  There are 3 communities based on language - French, Flemish, German and three regions, Wallone, Flemish, and Brussels.

Thus my question stands, how dependent are day-to-day government services in Belgium dependent on the federal government (etat federal)?

[Lyn Farel]

I think there is a difference between a Federation of States and a Federal State, but i might be wrong.

I don't think that for example german Landers can be compared to the states of the US in terms of autonomy.

[orange]

I think there is a difference between a Federation of States and a Federal State, but i might be wrong.

I don't think that for example german Landers can be compared to the states of the US in terms of autonomy.

And that is my point, if daily government services are managed in Belgium by its federal government (what else am I supposed to call it?), the comparison to a US federal shut down is very different.  Essential services, like police, fire, emergency responders, licensing of many varieties, etc are unaffected by the shutdown of the US Federal government.

[Victoria Stecker]

Bear in mind also that a lot of European parlaimentary systems use the word 'government' a little differently than we do in the US. For example, you can have a parlaimentary election, have everyone elected, and then they fail to form a government - because the various parties can't get together to form the governing majority that is then refered to as "the government." So if you ask an opposition member of the parlaiment if they're part of the government, they will say 'no' despite being an elected official.

So when we talk about the government being shut down here in the US, what we're talking about is Congress refusing to pay the bills and therefore large portions of the government not running.

In a parlaimentary system, they'll say they don't have a government, and what they mean is that the various parties haven't sorted their shit out to form a majority that can then govern. This doesn't necessarily mean that government-funded programs all shut down - afaik, most countries that aren't the US don't make doing something and paying for it two separate congressional actions, so you don't suddenly have things shutting down because there's no money.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is what happened in Belgium's case.

[Lyn Farel]

Yes.

What I fail to understand is how a law that is blocked and thus do not pass, can block the entire system. It sounds pretty silly to me.

A law that doesnt pass here means that the old ones still apply in the meantime...

[Morwen Lagann]

Congress has to authorize spending on pretty much anything the government throws money at - and both houses have to agree on it, both the Senate and House of Representatives.

What's happening is a small extremist faction (the Tea Party) in one party (Republicans), in one house of Congress (the HoR), are refusing to authorize spending on anything unless a previously-passed law (ACA) is killed.

[Lyn Farel]

Yeah I understood for the tea party, but for the voting on every penny... wat. 

[Katrina Oniseki]

They don't vote on 'every penny'. It's not quite that micromanaged. Morwen already said it pretty clearly, but I'll repeat it in another way.

Congress has to vote to continue funding for the next year of Federal services. One side has refused to pass any bill that includes Obamacare in it. The other side has refused to pass any bill that does NOT include Obamacare. They could pass the other things separately and keep arguing over Obamacare, but if everything else is paid and there's no crisis, the Democrats would not have any leverage to push the issue and the Republicans could safely ignore them - so the Democrats refuse to pass any bill that doesn't include what they want. The only individual things that have been passed are a few bits and pieces like continuing to pay military salaries and such. Small concessions that lessen the impact of the shutdown.

Don't make the mistake of assuming the shutdown is unintentional, or a side effect. It is very much intended, and it is a powerful bargaining chip and force of political leverage. "If you don't do what we want, everything shuts down." is the threat and reality being faced. If either side agrees to make concessions and allow funding to pass to stop the shutdown, they lose.

This is a very binary debate right now. Either Obamacare does or does not get funded with everything else. There is no in between. The most likely result of this is that one or both parties will lose cohesion and members will start voting for the other side in fear of not being re-elected. As the American people grow angrier, they will stop caring about the politics and demand the government get back to work. That means Congress members from one or both sides have to give up 'toeing the party line' or risk losing their careers.

Democrats may break from the DP and vote for the other side or a compromise bill that does not fund Obamacare, because they want to stay in office. The American people are the ones who re-elect them, and the American people will eventually demand an end to the stalemate.

Republicans may break from the GOP and vote for the other side or a compromise bill that supports Obamacare, because they want to stay in office. The American people are the ones who re-elect them, and the American people will eventually demand an end to the stalemate.

Tea Party (extremist Republicans) members will probably not break ranks and may gain or lose popularity depending on which side breaks down first. This is one of their "hail mary" plays, and will be a strong deciding factor in where the Tea Party movement goes from here.

[orange]

There is a nuance, we are not even talking about the FY14 budget (a new budget that lets new programs get funded or cancels funds for programs that need canceling).  We are talking about passing Continuing Resolutions, which essentially says funding is the same as last year until Congress can agree on a new budget.  There has not been a new budget since 2009, which creates all kinds of complications.

[Katrina Oniseki]

There is a nuance, we are not even talking about the FY14 budget (a new budget that lets new programs get funded or cancels funds for programs that need canceling).  We are talking about passing Continuing Resolutions, which essentially says funding is the same as last year until Congress can agree on a new budget.  There has not been a new budget since 2009, which creates all kinds of complications.

Ohhhhh. So, what they're trying to do is introduce Obamacare into the new budget?

[orange]

There is a nuance, we are not even talking about the FY14 budget (a new budget that lets new programs get funded or cancels funds for programs that need canceling).  We are talking about passing Continuing Resolutions, which essentially says funding is the same as last year until Congress can agree on a new budget.  There has not been a new budget since 2009, which creates all kinds of complications.

Ohhhhh. So, what they're trying to do is introduce Obamacare into the new budget?

The Tea Party was trying to defund/delay/repeal ACA as part of the CR.

Often bills and laws going through Congress will contain language not actually associated with the intent of the bill.  A simplified example would be a law concerning the FDA includes language governing NASA unrelated to the original intent.

The administration pointed out ACA is "self funding," not sure how that actually works.

I think the Tea Party attacked the issue entirely in the wrong manner and should have gone after it in July harder.  By this I mean taking the President's desire to delay it for businesses and write a law that delayed the whole thing for a year.  And then when the Senate said "no," follow up with then the President can't delay the business portion for a year.

That would require actually understanding their own rhetoric concerning the Constitution.

[Anslol]

BTW, truckers are starting to show up. State police are saying they're monitoring but...that's it. Unless they actually break a law, they won't do anything.

[Victoria Stecker]

BTW, truckers are starting to show up. State police are saying they're monitoring but...that's it. Unless they actually break a law, they won't do anything.

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuuuuuuuuuuck me.

I live by the north side of the beltway. Thanks to some changes at work, I'll need to go to one of our satelite branches at 7:30 saturday morning in Alexandria, on the south side of the beltway.

To say nothing of my Friday commute, but that can technically be accomplished without using the beltway... it will just suck horrendously as everything grinds to a halt.

FUCK.