Donald Trump is directing US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to pay military personnel despite the federal government shutdown.
The president said on Saturday that Hegseth must make sure troops do not miss out on their regular paycheque, scheduled for Wednesday. The directive comes as other government employees have already had some pay withheld and others are being laid off.
“I will not allow the Democrats to hold our Military, and the entire Security of our Nation, HOSTAGE, with their dangerous Government Shutdown,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.
Correct headline:
Business man that actually has no idea how business works asks incompetent alcoholic to pull money out of ass in pathetic attempt to keep soldiers from supporting America, the Constitution, and freedom.
Ah, so he IS scared of them mutinying over lack of pay. Or at least someone is.
Damn, that’s almost exactly what Caracalla did after inheriting the throne of his father, Septimius Severus. “Enrich the soldiers. Spurn everybody else” were allegedly some of his last words of advice to his son.
Caracalla went on to reign like a dictator for years, but he met his end while taking a piss on the side of the road. He had put so many people to death that one of the soldiers on his personal retinue was brother to one of these victims. One stab of a gladius later and that was all it took.
May history reward us with synchronicity in this particular case.
It’s almost like we have this whole written history to learn from and the people unable or uninterested in learning keep doing the same shit because they didn’t know it was tried before.
Wasn’t Caracala following the same policy his father had? Is this the same guy who killed his brother in front of his mother?
Yes and yes. The severan dynasty was arguably the craziest one to ever reign over Rome. After Caracalla we got Elegabalus and his grandmother and the shit they got up to was so over the top even Game of Thrones would pass.
Seems like he’s worried that if the military isn’t getting paid for an extended period, that they might directly turn on him. Probably an accurate assumption.
“Any society is no more than three meals away from revolution.”
Once people get desperate they may resort to desperate measures.
AMERICA SURE LOOKS GREAT FROM THE OUTSIDE…
Sure, if you’re blind or someone mislabelled any of the myriad better places out there.
Good thing he spent billions propping up other countries, huh? America first my ass.
Let them eat golden ballrooms
If he is too concerned, he can use the rose garden to grow crops.
Oh, never mind…
I have some thoughts:
The fact that government shutdown prevented federal workers from being paid (a huge portion being the military) was a large portion of the Democrats’ leverage as public sentiment decreases the longer the shutdown persists. If the military is able to be paid, the shutdown will certainly continue as there is less pressure on either side to agree.
The military is able to operate on a limited basis with unobligated/emergency funds, but is not ‘funded’. If the pool of available money is used to fund personnel, it will certainly reduce readiness as pre-planned activities will not have funds to proceed or for emergencies. There is also certainly not available funds to repeat this multiple times.
In FY 2024 the DoD’s total budget was about $873.5 billion, and compensation for active‑duty, reserve and retired troops accounted for roughly $191.9 billion – ≈ 22 % of the total budget.
That means this move will cost about almost $16 billion per month assuming everyone including retirees are paid. The Pentagon has identified about $8 billion of unused research‑development, testing and evaluation money from the previous FY that can be redirected, but that doesn’t seem to be enough and again, a one time use.
The big one though? Air traffic controllers. When politicians can’t fly, shit gets sorted quick.
Just waves his hands in the direction of the troops and says “Pay them!” Not a clue as to how, with what, where the money comes from, etc.
IDK why I’ve only just realised this, but does the US not have any concept of a formal “opposition” in government?
Here each of 150 or so regions elects a representative. Whichever of those can get 76 others to line up behind them gets to be Prime Minister and forms the government. All the others form the formal “opposition”.
Whenever the government does something, the opposition explains to everyone how stupid it is. Often times the opposition gets more air time than the actual government.
The PM couldn’t just, you know, make up lies… because the opposition would skewer him.
Do the dems form any kind of cohesive opposition? Does the media just ignore them? Why don’t they have any apparatus with which to reset the narrative?
Putting aside the fact that a formal concept of an opposition wouldn’t help, because the US has a de facto opposition by nature of having a two-party system: what do you mean, “The PM couldn’t just, you know, make up lies”?
Yes they could. This is obvious if you think about it, but this is provable experimentally; the UK had Boris Johnson for three years who lied all the time. Australia’s Scott Morrison constantly lied about fossil fuels and climate change. Parliamentary democracies aren’t magic.
The opposition was supposed to be the media, but the media is now controlled by the megacorps that also control the government, so they also control the narrative.
There are several reasons why the US has no concept of a formal opposition. One reason is that there is no concept of ever needing to “form a government” in the parliamentary sense. Each elected branch is a separate entity, with its own electoral rules. Particularly in the legislative branch, the majority can do whatever they want (except for the complicated filibuster rules in the Senate.) And the Executive is an entirely separate election. The government is structured directly by the election, and we gave all the levers of government to Republicans last time around. Sometimes the election will result in handing majorities to different parties, and only then will the oppositionhave any real power.
Another reason is that, believe it or not, we have no formal concept of parties in our founding documents. The founders disdained European-style parties, and did not want to replicate them here. They envisioned a country where individuals ran for office, and then all came to Congress representing their individual districts. They did not forsee how easy communication would get in the future, making the local District perspective less important.(also recall that at the founding, both the Senate and Presidential Electors were appointed by State legislatures, so really all elections were local).
And of course, by instituting first-past-the-post elections in these districts, they guaranteed that as communications got easier and national campaigns could emerge, elections would eventually coalesce unto one of two options anyway. The founders’ disdain for parties led directly to an even worse two-party system.
The founders disdained European-style parties, and did not want to replicate them here. They envisioned a country where individuals ran for office, and then all came to Congress representing their individual districts. They did not forsee how easy communication would get in the future, making the local District perspective less important.
The first US party was formed in 1789, that’s only 13 years after the US declared independence and only 6 years after the end of the Revolutionary War. Pretty much all of the founders were alive when the Federalist Party was formed, communications didn’t get much better than in 1776. By 1794-1795 both the Federalist Party and the newly formed opposition Democratic-Republican Party had state networks working on a local level in pretty much all the states.
I always love how Americans treat their current 2 party system as a new thing that arose due to modern communications but instead it was there since basically the beginning of their country.
But it is still a fact that the 2 party system is not engrained in our founding documents anywhere, and we have no idea of an “opposition” party. Either one party controls the Presidency and Congress at the same time, or it doesn’t.
And although those 2 parties did emerge early in the country’s history, they eventually dissolved, and are no longer around in any capacity. Another poster here noted that parties are simply human nature.
Rather, the current two-party system is an artifact of the first-past-the-post voting that states adopted. The Constitution doesn’t even mandate it, but it is how most states have run their elections since the founding.
The founders debated long after the constitution was ratified too.
Outlawing parties would be in direct violation of their first amendment. Humans are social by nature* - coalitions, parties, groups will form just because we exist.
*Yes I’m counting my AuADHD ass because even though I hate socializing with a passion I want to be able to.
Even in a parliamentary system, if the only members of parliament are either conservative or far right, there’s no meaningful opposition.
In America the president has nearly god status and can seemingly do whatever he/she pleases. Not much the opposition can do against.
Sort of. The Founders gave specific powers to the President, and specific other powers to Congress and the Courts. They envisioned that ambitious people would aim to keep their powers, and not give them up willingly.
The wide-ranging powers of the Presidency are meant to be held in check by the other branches. The Founders did not anticipate a Congress and Supreme Court that would let the President break laws with impunity, just because that President aimed to hurt people they all hated
The wide-ranging powers of the Presidency are meant to be held in check by the other branches. The Founders did not anticipate a Congress and Supreme Court that would let the President break laws with impunity, just because that President aimed to hurt people they all hated
That’s such a load of bullshit. Your Founders barely bothered to outline what the Supreme Court is and what it can do. It was in 1789 that Congress actually determined the details of that and most of the powers of the Supreme Court were determined during John Marshall’s tenure as Chief Justice.
This is also doubly funny because it has happened before when President Andrew Jackson refused to respect the Supreme Court Decision in Worcester v. Georgia and the Supreme Court did nothing because the State of Georgia and the President aimed to hurt people they all hated (Native Americans) and it eventually led to the Trail of Tears.
I swear Americans don’t know their own history.
Your Founders barely bothered to outline what the Supreme Court is and what it can do. It was in 1789 that Congress actually determined the details of that and most of the powers of the Supreme Court were determined during John Marshall’s tenure as Chief Justice.
Actually, this illustrates my point entirely. Article III (which describes the Judiciary) explicitly defines a single Supreme Court but leaves the structure of the rest of the Judiciary to the Congress. So this interplay between Congress and the Court is exactly what they were looking for. The Courts have wide latitude to judge cases, but it has to be within the structure that Congress creates.
They didn’t get into specifics, on purpose, because they felt that in a well-functioning government, ambitious people would keep each other in check.
and the Supreme Court did nothing because
Because the SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism for what you described. Even just for Worcester v. Georgia, what is the USMS supposed to do against the state of Georgia without support from the Executive? Jackson literally wrote in 1832: “the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” Jackson did eventually threaten enforcement as part of what became known as the nullification crisis.
But either way, Worcester v. Georgia wasn’t directly about the 1830 Indian Removal Act or 1835’s Treaty of New Echota; it was about the freeing of Worcester etc., which did eventually go through. The Treaty of New Echota should’ve been illegal on the basis of *Georgia v. Worcester", but again, the SCOTUS doesn’t just go around enforcing cases it didn’t rule on unless it gets back to their court to rule on that separate case; that’s the Executive’s job.
“The Supreme Court did nothing because they hate Indian Americans” is such unfounded bullshit that you just made up because it sounded right. You can correctly argue all you want that this shows separation of powers is just an illusion because one single person has to agree to enforce laws and can only be removed (theoretically) with a supermajority of Congress if they fail to do so.
he/she pleases
You can just say “they,” such as, “do whatever they please.”
ETA: oof, downvotes? Seriously? It’s just English, people. It’s easier to write. It’s easier to read. It’s how the language has referred to a single person of unknown or irrelevant gender for about as long as it’s been a language. See #3.
When someone goes out of their way to be inclusive why would you think it’s appropriate to rain on their parade??
Be nice. And if you can’t do that then at least abstain from being rude.
What makes you think I was raining on their parade? “They” is no less inclusive than “he/she.” It is however easier to write, easier to read, and it’s completely common English that every native speaker just naturally uses and understands on a daily basis. There’s no reason to go out of your way to make your message harder to write and read, for absolutely no gain.
ETA: My intent was not to be rude. My intent was to help someone out. For all either of us know, the person I responded to isn’t a native English speaker and genuinely found it helpful.
In the US we are supposed to have “checks and balances” where Congress-Courts-Executive powers are balanced. President can veto, Congress can override with a majority, courts can claim legislation unconstitutional. Etc etc.
Over time, these checks have been eroded from the executive branch through Congress and the court’s own doing. For example, the current Supreme Court is using the shadow docket and ignoring legal precedent to give Trump whatever he wants. Only this week did the senate finally vote to close the Iraq war powers act. Etc etc.
Part of this is due to having one party control all three branches. Part of it is due to the opposing party being ineffectual dumbasses most of the time.
“Known liar tells idiot to do something he’s not allowed to with resources he probably doesn’t have on hand with a few days notice,” I’m sure this will go well /s
Why don’t we just wait 12 months? That’s when all the manufacturing starts up. Growing pains
