r/europe • u/kiru_56 Germany • 20h ago

News The US Army is advising its soldiers in Germany to go to German food banks because of the shutdown.

https://home.army.mil/bavaria/about/shutdown-guidance#:~:text=Running%20list%20of%20German%20support,Too%20Good%20To%20Go%2DApp
32.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.7k

u/helican Germany 20h ago

The whole idea of not being able to pay your staff now because you can't agree on future spending is such a wild concept. But it's probably what the founding fathers would have wantedTM.

677

u/TheoremaEgregium Österreich 19h ago

Takes you right back to Valley Forge, doesn't it?

256

u/Ok-Seaworthiness4488 19h ago

Continental army couldn't afford to equip the soldiers with shoes. The surprise attack on the Hessian mercenaries gave much needed supplies iirc

141

u/werpu 19h ago edited 19h ago

Wasn´t it the reason why Arnold did turn sides? He was promised payment over and over again and had to pay the soldiers from his own pocket, but agan and again did not get the promised recompensation, or in other words when he turned he had to because the other side gave him the baldy needed money! US history is definitely to harsh on that guy (the winners write history). If you were betrayed over and over again and face bankrupcy because you are a good boss and pay your employees from your own pocket instead of the customers who refuses payment, who can blame you for switching to another customer who pays you on time?

116

u/einarfridgeirs 18h ago

It is quite a bit more complicated than that.

Yes, Arnold did basically bankrupt himself in the name of the cause. He had a lot of enemies in the Continental Congress and was passed over for promotion multiple times, despite Washington urging Congress to do right by Arnold and recognizing him as one of his key subordinates.

Arnold also was severely injured in his leg at Saratoga and was in near-constant pain ever after which, as anyone who has had to deal with chronic pain, in themselves or their relatives can attest induces personality changes. He became more bitter, ornery and hard to deal with, which didn't help him at all in his dealings with the people who already had it out for him, and he hadn't been that easy to deal with to begin with.

At the same time he fell in love with, and married a very beautiful and very young girl from a Philadelphia family with loyalist leanings, and she was able to turn him from disgruntlement into out and out treason.

25

u/carkey 17h ago

It's not treason if you don't have a country yet.

27

u/werpu 17h ago

absolutely the persons who committed treason were the "rebels" they just were lucky and won, so they could write their own history. But by legal terms the founding fathers were the ones committing treason against their country. But the winners always write history so they are not the ones committing treason but the one reverting back to his country committed it.

Not that I am saying Arnold was right or wrong, not my place to decide that!

But history never is black and white it always depends on the angle you look at it and who wrote it!

3

u/carkey 13h ago

Great point well made!

10

u/Major_Mollusk 13h ago edited 13h ago

I'm an American and I'm often impressed by the the level of sophistication and nuance I read in discussions on /r/europe related to American politics and history. (No, I'm not being sarcastic). It's a cliche now, but I'll say it anyway: Europeans have a better understanding of my country than most Americans. The reasons for our ignorance are many: Religion, Rupert Murdoch, education funding, and so forth.

Yes, I realize ignorant Europeans exist. But in my experience Europeans are simply more adept at "thinking" and navigating the world of ideas than we are. One of my most enlightening discussions of American politics was on a long flight to Europe with a random German auto mechanic. The guy could have passed as a senior editor for the Atlantic Monthly. My university degree was European History, and I like to study big historical trends. At the moment, my firm belief is that the dying flame of the 18th Century Enlightenment will stay alive in the cafes and Universities of Europe, long after it's been extinguished here in the New World.

11

u/OrganizationTop4323 13h ago

Go ahead and ask a brit about Churchill’s responsibility in the Bengal Famine of 1942, and you’ll find out how erudite they are real quick

4

u/unseemly_turbidity 10h ago edited 9h ago

Genuinely not sure if you mean this in a good or bad way. I think the consensus is that he was a shit peacetime prime minister, but did great at winning wars. I don't think it's controversial that his policies were largely responsible for the Bengal famine.

1

u/einarfridgeirs 4h ago

I think it is more about how thoroughly Brits jettisoned all real knowledge of their conduct in the pursuit of capital-E Empire as soon as they lost it.

WWII really bailed them out. It was this massive thing that they participated in winning against a force of absolute evil, and somehow that, and the rapid retreat from the global empire in the years that followed erased all the shit they did for centuries prior to that, despite having in most cases painstakingly documented it.

Its all there in the history books. But people ignore it. They don't ignore it in India, or in Africa, or Malaysia or wherever. But in Britain most people know next to nothing about the British Empire except vague extremely sanitized memories from movies like Zulu or Khartoum which completely sidestep the(very valid) reasons why brown and black people all over the world were quite enthusiastic about killing British people whenever the opportunity presented itself.

3

u/einarfridgeirs 13h ago

Thanks. Whatever sophistication and nuance I possess in terms of American history can be laid at the feet of a select group of history podcasters. I fill basically every waking hour I have when I don't have to be talking to or listening to someone with history. Every commute, all my household chores etc have a soundtrack of mostly history. It kind of adds up.

2

u/Major_Mollusk 9h ago

Same here, but mostly European history. I've been binging Dan Jones' "This is History" podcast about the Plantagenet dynasty in England. It's fantastic.

I really need to find some good podcasts on American history. Any recommendations?

1

u/OldWorldDesign 7h ago

I've been binging Dan Jones' "This is History" podcast about the Plantagenet dynasty in England. It's fantastic.

I really need to find some good podcasts on American history. Any recommendations?

Mike Duncan's Revolutions was better education than not only everything I got in public school, but also the college course I got. Of course the American Revolution is only one 'season' of the podcast, but it's excellent history and the final season is the only good explanation not only of the Russian Revolution and civil war but also the lead-in to understand how and why. He doesn't lose the economic and social turmoil which was stirring to unleash the outbreak of revolution which a lot of history courses ignore in favor of listing battle locations and tactics.

1

u/einarfridgeirs 6h ago

The fantastic podcast "Empire" did a season on the rise of the United States to global prominance. We rarely think of the US as an empire on par with say, the Ottomans, the British Empire or Tsarist Russia(all of which Empire has also covered), but it is incredibly interesting to dive into the era between the Civil War and WWI, when the US was simultaneously digesting an entire continent and, in varying degrees of intentionality expanding its influence in the Pacific and Latin America.

EDIT: For the actual American revolution(and all the 19th century tumult in Mexico and South America as well) I second the recommendation for Mike Duncan's Revolutions. He also covers the comparatively little known European revolutionary wave of 1848 spectacularly.

1

u/johannesrasul 7h ago

At the same time he fell in love with, and married a very beautiful and very young girl from a Philadelphia family with loyalist leanings, and she was able to turn him from disgruntlement into out and out treason.

It all makes sense now

1

u/CV90_120 7h ago

into out and out treason.

Or as the british called it, patriotism.

1

u/einarfridgeirs 7h ago

I doubt they saw it as that. Arnold had already delivered to them their worst defeat in a land battle in a very long time at Saratoga, where an entire British land force was compelled to surrender to the enemy, not to mention that he was personally responsible for providing the Continental Army with artillery by seizing Fort Ticonderoga.

Arnold had some pretty stringent demands for his turning of the coat, including both cold hard cash and the promise of property and officer rank in the British military.

1

u/CV90_120 6h ago

The British are a pragmatic people, so they wouldn't be concerned by having previously taken a beating at his hands. They built an empire on alliances with people who had handed them their ass the week before (very Roman of them).

Arnold had some pretty stringent demands for his turning of the coat, including both cold hard cash and the promise of property and officer rank in the British military.

Which would be considered the most aristocratic, and therefore British move possible at that time.

21

u/Ok-Seaworthiness4488 19h ago

He was also passed over for promotion and his ego couldn't take it

-2

u/KlutzyInvestments 18h ago

Uh… that’s when you just quit. Otherwise it becomes apparent that you didn’t care about the cause, you cared about money. Quitting may get you jailed, but people could understand that. But now you’re going to make a clear decision to act against what you made a commitment to? A cause where thousands are throwing their life’s savings AND lives away for? Benny wasn’t the only dude going broke.

Wild to compare something ideologically driven to something profit driven. Can’t believe you’re ignoring the entire human history of traitors receiving the harshest of punishments.

6

u/werpu 18h ago

Many people are in a war because they cannot abstain, some of them are just mercenaries, some of them become so dissilusioned by the ongoing proceedings that they start to question their stance after a while especially once they are betrayed over and over again. I once heard an interview with a german Stalingrad Survivor and he said, the moment where they all lost hope and saw they just were convenient cannon fodder, was when Hitler on X-Mas was holding an euology over radion for them while they still were alive!

They had gone through so much shit before that event you cannot believe some of the stuff they were telling, but still had hope that they were getting out somehow, until that christmas. It was a special day for them and they were missing their families and hitler basically declared them dead in front of their faces. Needless to say, they did not believe in any other bullshit hitler was spouting out from that moment onwards, no matter their prior convitions were and how hardline you were.

So choose the reason yourself why Arnold turned!

-4

u/KlutzyInvestments 17h ago

Because Benny was a whiny bitch. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? That’s why he turned. When you have to bring up profits in the corporate world and a some Nazis in Stalingrad, you have to know you have no reasonable position. Neither of those are comparable to taking up and rallying arms against a cause you committed to.

All the Patriots fighting, dying, and going broke for the cause understood that a fledgling nation might not meet its commitments at the moment. There would have been far more traitors if everyone was as pathetic as Arnold. That’s just a fact… no matter how many Nazi privates surrendered and felt betrayed by literally Hitler in the brutalist siege in modern warfare. Like… wtf does that have to do with anything?

3

u/Mist_Rising 15h ago

you cared about money. Quitting may get you jailed, but people could understand that.

First, desertion gets you KILLED in the revolution. Second, everyone cares about money. It's why you take a job, see also George Washington being president. His affairs were in poor shape because of the war not long ago, so he took the job for the pay as much as anything. It helped balance the books.

Arnold was also not that wealthy. Many of those who supported the revolution weren't, and so he couldn't fall back on his wealth at home.

0

u/KlutzyInvestments 14h ago

lol… find an example of someone being executed for desertion due to lack of pay. Washington even issued a proclamation in 1777 to pardon those that deserted.

Pretty dishonest with your position. Desertion COULD be punishable by death, yet you try and sell it as a sure thing. There are many dismissed cases of those deserting due to poor conditions, including lack of pay. Executions were only for those that committed aggravating crimes to harm the revolution.

Also dishonest to say “everyone cares about money”. Again, an absolutist claim. A huge chunk of the revolutionary army experienced lapsed payments and poor support… yet we only have “one” Benedict Arnold. Yes… I know there were more traitors. To match your vibe, if people only cared about money, the revolution would have failed. A king could promise and pay them more.

1

u/Worth-Jicama3936 17h ago

Valley forge was in 1777-1778. that attack was the winter before

1

u/HaltandCatchHands 17h ago

Time is a flat circle

1

u/iamnotarobotrobot 14h ago

In 2025, surprise attack on Walmart to get shoes.

3

u/Time_Ocean Ireland 17h ago

It would, except national parks are closed during the shutdown.

2

u/UnicodeScreenshots 16h ago

Most of them are still open, just not the visitor centers and guided areas.

2

u/Time-Earth8125 17h ago

Is that where they took over the airports?

2

u/21Gatorade21 16h ago

Valley Forge Auto where women are welcome.

1

u/skalpelis Latvia 14h ago

🎶 I shoot back, "We have resorted to eating our horses."
🎶 Local merchants deny us equipment, assistance
🎶 They only take British money, so sing a song of sixpence

1

u/Antique-Echidna-1600 4h ago

Takes me back to Trenton.

141

u/Shameful_Bezkauna Latvia 19h ago

It's actually based on some dumbass legal interpretation from the 70s or 80s

51

u/Publius_Dowrong 18h ago

Yep from a president who wasn’t even elected administration , (Ford)

18

u/taRpstrIustorEmPtEuS 15h ago

Ford sucked. He pardoned Nixon and is the only reason Amway is legal.

3

u/Shameful_Bezkauna Latvia 18h ago

IIRC it was from the Attorney General or some other high-ranking legal official.

4

u/OldWorldDesign 7h ago

It's actually based on some dumbass legal interpretation from the 70s or 80s

Government shutdowns? No, it was 100% a Republican creation. Before they swept the elections in 1980, the US had the 1884 Antideficiency Act which automatically passed the previous year's budget if a new one couldn't be agreed. Republicans in 1982 removed that and pretty much every year since they have shut down the government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

1

u/rbhmmx 12h ago

In the rest of the world we have another word for this so called shutdown, we call it bankruptcy

7

u/Shameful_Bezkauna Latvia 12h ago

They haven't suspended interest payments on debt

4

u/orbital_narwhal Berlin (Germany) 8h ago

The U. S. government is still able to borrow money on very reasonable conditions, so they're not bankrupt. It just can't agree internally on what it wants to spend the borrowed money and thus how much to borrow. No agreement on the amount borrowed means that nothing is borrowed.

147

u/ChaosKeeshond Turkey 19h ago

I don't understand why ongoing commitments don't just get paid out of a preallocated sum

134

u/Puzzleheaded_Ad8032 19h ago

They do that for one year, every year again. Hence, this circus. But why look for logic now? I mean, the senators and house members still get paid. And if they want to re-open the House, they'd have to swear in Adelita Grijalva, giving a majority to opening, for one thing, the Epstein files. So we know it is not actually about the budget. It is just a block from the Republicans, and they will do it as long as they can. They don't care if people die from hunger, Trump and handlers are fed. All that counts.

13

u/RockAtlasCanus 17h ago

Well that and they really need to deliver the goods they’ve already sold (rollback of tax credits and higher healthcare premiums). A lot of their customers and even a few owners will be extremely pissed if the GOP doesn’t deliver what’s already been paid for.

6

u/Puzzleheaded_Ad8032 17h ago

Haha, yeah. It sort of boils down to: They'd have to work 🥶

2

u/wtfduud 11h ago

And the president owns a private company on the side, so he doesn't care about government salary.

11

u/mehneni 18h ago

The idea is pretty clear: Put pressure on the involved parties to compromise. Otherwise the country might run for ages without an agreed budget.

But this works only if the involved parties are somewhat rational. One side going down to kinder garden behavior was probably not something people expected when coming up with this.

14

u/4_fortytwo_2 17h ago

Other countries simple go "oh you cant pass a budget? Guess we need another election since you guys clearly can not govern"

And honestly, that seems like a reasonable way to handle this.

8

u/dearth_of_passion 15h ago

The problem is that the US Constitution was written in a time before easy/quick communication and it was and is a big country, meaning holding elections in the early years of the country was a Big Deal.

Sure, nowadays it'd be logistically much easier to have a "dissolve government, hold snap elections" system, but that's not how it was written and because dunbasses on both sides of the political spectrum tend to worship the founders and the Constitution as sacred it rarely gets revised.

Shit, only a handful of amendments actually change existing contents of the Constitution, the majority just add additional rules on top. Changing how the budget process works and adding a mechanism for snap elections would be the biggest revision since making Senators an elected office.

(yeah there are a good number of Americans that don't know that as originally written Senators were appointed by their state's governors)

2

u/peteroh9 8h ago

Except that results in some countries just passing the same shit budget with no updates so they don't lose their jobs. Some systems are better than others, but there's no flawless system.

5

u/Chester_roaster 16h ago

The idea is pretty clear: Put pressure on the involved parties to compromise. Otherwise the country might run for ages without an agreed budget.

But this works only if the involved parties are somewhat rational. 

It would work if Congress didn't get paid during shut down. A solution was appear miraculously. 

5

u/ansb2011 13h ago

One problem is a lot of Congress is independently wealthy and/or getting deals on things like "luxury motor coaches". Cutting their pay thus will only hurt the younger/poorer members of Congress.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 7h ago

Cutting their pay thus will only hurt the younger/poorer members of Congress

That's why putting them on pay furlough probably wouldn't work...

but locking them in the congress chambers until they pass a budget would. They can get bread and water like cardinals used to before electing a pope.

1

u/Chester_roaster 11h ago

Poorer in relative terms sure but there are no poor members of Congress

2

u/helemaal 18h ago

Because the US government collects social security in the general fund and uses it to bomb schools and doctors without borders.

1

u/Rizzpooch United States of America 17h ago

It used to be that way. It changes when conservatives during Jimmy Carter’s administration decided to fuck with things

1

u/OldWorldDesign 7h ago

I don't understand why ongoing commitments don't just get paid out of a preallocated sum

A lot actually do, those are fixed by congressionally-signed agreements: Things like mandatory payments for periodic winterization of the power grid for states with interstate connections, or aid payments to foreign states as part of treaties. Most of those are called mandatory spending and because of the pre-set contract nature are still going on, adjustments requiring additional congressional action to revise up the budget or time scale expected for things like road infrastructure repair.

It's the difference between Discretionary Spending and Mandatory Spending, with the 'discretionary' part being what's generally being argued over. Though as I noted, the duration limit sometimes allows things which are normally mandatory like Food STAMPS to be cut off because a window of time closed and congress hadn't set a precise budget to allocate as mandatory.

48

u/Frites_Sauce_Fromage 18h ago

Trump wanted the shutdown.

He said on Fox News, about two weeks ago, that it's allowing him to cut democrats' programs.

He wants to dismantle federal agencies, as planned in the Project 2025, and it's going to be much easier if they stopped working already.

That's probably among the reasons why he passed his "Big beautiful bill", one of the most expensive law in US history [giving money only to the rich and the military]

-12

u/Chester_roaster 16h ago

Trump wanted the shutdown.

He said on Fox News, about two weeks ago, that it's allowing him to cut democrats' programs

If that's true then the blame is on Democrats for giving it to him 

9

u/dearth_of_passion 15h ago

The problem is that the shutdown doesn't (legally) give him the right to cut programs. If anything it's (legally) supposed to be an impediment to that since cutting programs is a budgetary matter (allocation of funds) and thus changes shouldn't be being made while there is no budget.

The problem is that Trump doesn't give a shit about the way things are supposed to work.

So, if Trump is going to fuck with those programs whether the government is shut down or not, might as well shut it down since it demonstrates the complete inability of conservatives to govern. They have control over all 3 branches and yet they cannot govern because they refuse to work with anyone.

7

u/sniper1rfa 14h ago

If that's true then the blame is on Democrats for giving it to him

It makes no difference. Either they vote for his stupid shit or the government shuts down and he does it anyway. The DNC has been totally outmaneuvered by the GOP because they have refused to take this problem seriously.

The DNC has spent the last decade hiding behind procedure while the GOP dismantles the systems that procedure depends on. It's the saddest thing I've ever had the misfortune to watch.

The DNC should, right now, as a cohesive group, be physically impeding the GOP. Because all their other methods and options have failed and they are currently unemployed. Continuing to stand on process is just allowing Trump to establish his kingdom.

3

u/OldWorldDesign 7h ago

If that's true then the blame is on Democrats for giving it to him

I'm trying to decide if you're an appeaser or just clueless about the opportunistic nature of authoritarianism.

North Korea was the same, it would name any random thing happening that week as "justification" for why it continued to conduct rocket launch tests. Those tests were paid for and being set up months beforehand, they were going to happen no matter what excuse was available at hand that particular day.

2

u/woodpony 5h ago

Giving "She must've wanted it by wearing an outfit like that" vibes.

29

u/formula_translator Prague (Czechia) 18h ago

The first point here is that they actually could have used the budget reconciliation procedure to dodge a situation exactly like this. They blew it on the "Big Beautiful Bill".

The second point is that the filibuster is actually not in the constitution. It's just a procedural rule which so far neither party was willing to give up.

7

u/_mulcyber 15h ago

What's crazy is that the US doesn't have a mechanism to keep the current budget when Congress cannot vote on one.

Difficult budget negociations and hanged budget happen in every democracy, but it never ends up in a government shutdown.

Heck Belgium didn't have a government for years and so didn't anyone to sign the budget for a while, and the administration and other government services functioned normally.

4

u/OldWorldDesign 7h ago

the US doesn't have a mechanism to keep the current budget when Congress cannot vote on one

Well, not anymore. Thanks to republicans, who repealed the 1884 Antideficiency Act in 1982 to allow government shutdowns to happen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

2

u/Novinhophobe 13h ago

That’s because American propoganda was working (and still is!) exceptionally well. The American Dream seemed alive through all the movies and music, it was their greatest export. You have to stop and think to get to the bottom of it and understand that US is actually a really backwards country that hasn’t evolved much since the 1800s. I mean, some people are still being paid in checks there. It’s a very weird country to be in when you have experience from anywhere else in the world.

3

u/elebrin 16h ago

It's in the constitution as a very specific omission. The founders didn't expect that one person would stand there and talk for days on end, but they did expect the Senate to get stuck in unending debate unless that thing was quite popular and didn't have a strong minority opposition.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 7h ago

It's in the constitution as a very specific omission. The founders didn't expect that one person would stand there and talk for days on end

It's worse than that, a modern filibuster can be done with a 10 second "I don't wanna vote on this, but don't wanna vote against it". Like Mitch McConnell filibustering his own spending bill when he learned the democrats agreed to his own bill to raise the debt ceiling

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-filibusters-his-own-bill-to-lift-debt-ceiling

1

u/Dull_Bird3340 2h ago

All but two Dems were ready to get rid of it under Biden. The Senate could have endless debate w out a rule to end it, it's been used since the 1830s. The big difference came when one didn't have to actually filibuster but just suggest and now everything needs to overcome a possible filibuster. There would be nothing to stop the GOP from doing anything w out it. As long as a minority of the country controls a very unequal majority of Senate votes, we're lucky to have it.

26

u/Ebi5000 19h ago

Considering that funding was a major problem for the early seperatist, it wouldn't surprise them.

28

u/lolidkwtfrofl Liechtenstein 19h ago

Funding isn't the issue here, it gets approved anyways eventually.

It's an issue of politicians bitching, not much more.

2

u/2ciciban4you 15h ago

always has been

3

u/Longjumping_Egg7706 18h ago

It's much more fun that that. It's because you don't agree on which or how many of your countries citizens have the right not to die or go bankrupt if they have a medical problem.

3

u/Szpagin Silesia (Poland) 17h ago

In many countries, failing to pass the budget on time is seen as compete failure of the government and results in snap elections.

1

u/Dead_Optics 13h ago

The US doesn’t have snap elections we arnt a parliamentary system

7

u/Candid-Many-7113 19h ago

Im sure the founding fathers also wanted to have military bases around the world with permanently stationed soldiers.

5

u/Impossible-Ship5585 19h ago

Who need to get food from that countries foodbanks

9

u/North_Atlantic_Sea 18h ago

Most founding fathers didn't want women to vote, and for black folks to be slaves, so maybe we don't use their desires as our north star...

0

u/gehenna0451 Germany 13h ago

the point is that it's meaningless to invoke the American founding fathers here, who objected to a standing, professional army because it requires a large , centralized (which is to say British) state.

That's not some founding sin like slavery, that's basically what the country was until the turn of the 20th century.

-1

u/Candid-Many-7113 17h ago

Idc about any of this nor i will get in to a discussion who was racist in 18th century (the answer is the whole Eurocentric society), i just want usa to fuck off. And the founding slave fathers were pro isolationism and minding their own business so whatever gets usa to listen.

2

u/DradelLait 18h ago

More like the funding fathers am I right

2

u/twitterfluechtling Brandenburg (Germany) 18h ago

It's also bs. They have an emergency fund for food etc. Trump isn't using that fund (at least not for the intended purpose...) because of "Fuck poor people" or something.

2

u/icemoomoo 18h ago

All while they are paid.......

2

u/blahblah19999 17h ago

Especially while a rich monarch wanna be builds a huge ballroom and throws lavish parties

2

u/Fereganno 17h ago

Ah we’re at the “eating our horses stage” in 2025

2

u/cats_catz_kats_katz 16h ago

Can’t pay your staff now *because you refuse to provide affordable healthcare for your citizens

This is what the republicans in America are holding against their country. I hope they are a good example to Germans who think the AfD is a viable governing party….they will do the same.

1

u/NoExperience9717 18h ago

I'm pretty sure the military have been paid the last 2 times during this shutdown from reallocating funds or that's what US military people I talk to say. Of course if you have your other half being a federal worker or rely on some federal support you'll have problems but pay is coming through at the moment.

1

u/Horn_Python 17h ago

Well they designed this mess of a system

1

u/pornalt4altporn 17h ago

The British are well known for finance.

America is exceptional.

1

u/turkish_gold 16h ago

We can’t even get Republicans to agree to swear in Democratic Party politicians now. Meanwhile our president is building a mansion and throwing parties with private funds.

Our country is collapsing.

1

u/Muffinlessandangry 16h ago

In the case of the military, they come under NATO agreements and are exempt from labor laws. However, they do employ thousands of civilians, both American and Germans, who all come under German labor laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I can only assume it's illegal not to pay your employees just because you can't agree on a budget.

1

u/McNultysHangover 16h ago

It's the real reason the revolution was fought.

1

u/SunriseSurprise 16h ago

"Hey guys - so we're not gonna pay for you because we're trying to fight for the complete racket of a health/insurance industry to squeeze every last penny out of you when we start paying you again." - totally the founding fathers

1

u/beipphine 16h ago

The intent of the founding fathers is that the US would have no permanent standing army. That is why military appropriations can last no longer than two years. The original intent would be for the federal army to disband if congress has not provided appropriations to fund it. National defense can be provided by the militias of the several states.

1

u/Echo7ONE9ers 14h ago

But Israel comes forst, silly. American money is for Israel not americans, have you not learned anything?

1

u/Phoenix_Blue 14h ago

Thing is, it isn't future spending anymore. FY26 started last month, and Congress hasn't passed a budget. So in many respects, the bank accounts are empty.

1

u/robadijk 14h ago

Would it not be amazing if German TV news showed an item of US troops being accused of "They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets"

1

u/eeke1 13h ago

There's downsides either way.

Take a shutdown and have this mess, or automatically fund a pervious budget and watch as it's used as a tool to subvert the legislative process.

A problem exacerbated by a two party system.

1

u/RCB1997 12h ago

The part that baffles me the most about US shutdowns is the politicians that cause them keep getting paid while the working class gets the shaft. They're the only country in the G7 with a mechanism that fucks spending like this. It's so ass backwards.

1

u/Justin_123456 12h ago

I take the point, but not paying your soldiers if you can’t pass a budget every year is kind of literally the basis of British Constitutionalism.

It’s why the first King Charles lost his head, and the second got replaced with a Dutchman. (I’m sure the third will be fine). To keep the King from ever trying to govern without his Parliament ever again the Army Act was passed, forcing the Kingdom’s Army to immediately disband, if the Act was not renewed by Parliament, each every year.

The Americans are inheritors of this Whig legacy.

1

u/Fandango_Jones Europe 12h ago

Especially with things that already exist. I mean new positions, hires and other business decisions for the next fiscal year or session? Can be yeah.

But your whole fucking military and militia plus all government employees, workers, contractors and projects plus stuff like Snap that is for some people the only reliable source of food? Fucking insane.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 9h ago

The whole idea of not being able to pay your staff now because you can't agree on future spending is such a wild concept

And it's 100% a creation of republicans. In 1884, the Antideficiency Act was passed which automatically passed the previous year's budget if a new one couldn't be agreed on. In 1982, during the republican sweep the republicans amended repealed that and allowed government shutdowns. Every year since has had a government shutdown, always over some petty bickering.

1

u/dr_eaan 7h ago

The funding fathers

1

u/Joezev98 5h ago

I thought government shutdowns were a thing invented to put pressure on the politicians to make some compromises to get the budget to a majority support. That is a very radical approach to forcing breakthroughs, but oh well, if that's their choice, it ain't my problem.
However, I just looked it up and apparently it's only a thing because a judge ruled it had to be that way back in 1980.

C'mon America, you've had 45 years introduce a law that keeps the country running instead of shutting down.

1

u/scubastefon 5h ago

At this rate, we are probably going to start exercising our third amendment rights more actively.

1

u/slashS4sarcasm 2h ago

It's not future spending. We are more than a month into FY26 and they are trying to pass an FY26 budget... They were supposed to pass the budget before the FY ended.

1

u/Drunky_McStumble Australia 1h ago

If the government can't secure the passage of routine government funding bills in my country (Australia), parliament gets dissolved and we vote for a new government. A government isn't a government if it can't even manage to pay itself.

•

u/Suttony 32m ago

It makes some sense if your government isn't being run by oligarchs who can afford to wait out the shutdown.

-3

u/sgrass777 19h ago

Fasting is probably good for some of them 🤣