Vance tells Marines they’ll get paid despite ‘Schumer shutdown’

Valletta · Oct 19, 2025

“I bring greetings today from our commander in chief, Donald J. Trump, and he wanted me to tell each and every single one of you that he’s proud of you, that he loves you,” Vance said. “And despite the Schumer shutdown, he is going to do everything he can to make sure you get paid exactly what you deserve.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5562206-vance-shutdown-marine-corps-pay/

It's the right thing to do.

GoldenBoy89 · Oct 19, 2025

Valletta said:
“I bring greetings today from our commander in chief, Donald J. Trump, and he wanted me to tell each and every single one of you that he’s proud of you, that he loves you,” Vance said.

Why couldn’t the president be there to tell them that himself?

Arcangl86 · Oct 19, 2025

Valletta said:
“I bring greetings today from our commander in chief, Donald J. Trump, and he wanted me to tell each and every single one of you that he’s proud of you, that he loves you,” Vance said. “And despite the Schumer shutdown, he is going to do everything he can to make sure you get paid exactly what you deserve.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5562206-vance-shutdown-marine-corps-pay/

It's the right thing to do.

I don't recall a "It's the right thing to do" exception to the appropriations clause.

Nithavela · Oct 19, 2025

Arcangl86 said:
I don't recall a "It's the right thing to do" exception to the appropriations clause.

Well, the fix is already in. If he doesn't "manage to pay them", the evil democrats were just too strong in their power grab towards the purse of loyal american soldiers.

ThatRobGuy · Oct 20, 2025

I always thought the more apropos solution to these shutdowns would be...
At 7 days: suspend pay for congressmen and senators (and their staffers) until it gets resolved.
At 14 days: actual fines imposed on them
At 30 days: failure to reach an agreement means governors have the option to call a special election to replace them if they so choose (the same way they do when one of them vacates a seat)

As much as I dislike the "4th branch of government" (the bureaucracy), their pay getting frozen doesn't do anything to bring a swifter end to these shutdowns as it doesn't instill the right sense of urgency in the legislature.

The notion that there's a shutdown, and outlets are reporting "well, no agreement was reached, so they'll be back in 5 days to restart negotiations" is unacceptable. If there's outstanding assignments that are urgent and time sensitive at my job, I don't get to bail on Thursday and say "well, have a good long weekend, we'll pick this back up on Tuesday", it's more of a "it's gonna be a busy weekend, put on a pot of coffee".

mark46 · Thursday at 3:31 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I always thought the more apropos solution to these shutdowns would be...
At 7 days: suspend pay for congressmen and senators (and their staffers) until it gets resolved.
At 14 days: actual fines imposed on them
At 30 days: failure to reach an agreement means governors have the option to call a special election to replace them if they so choose (the same way they do when one of them vacates a seat)

As much as I dislike the "4th branch of government" (the bureaucracy), their pay getting frozen doesn't do anything to bring a swifter end to these shutdowns as it doesn't instill the right sense of urgency in the legislature.

The notion that there's a shutdown, and outlets are reporting "well, no agreement was reached, so they'll be back in 5 days to restart negotiations" is unacceptable. If there's outstanding assignments that are urgent and time sensitive at my job, I don't get to bail on Thursday and say "well, have a good long weekend, we'll pick this back up on Tuesday", it's more of a "it's gonna be a busy weekend, put on a pot of coffee".

I have two much easier alternative proposals.
1) End the filibuster in budget votes. The CR will do little other than have another fight in a couple of months. This would mean that this budget and text will be passed by the majority. Appointments of judges have such an exception to the filibuster rule.
2) Have automatic three-month CR's any time that a budget isn't approved.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 3:52 PM

mark46 said:
I have two much easier alternative proposals.
1) End the filibuster in budget votes. The CR will do little other than have another fight in a couple of months. This would mean that this budget and text will be passed by the majority. Appointments of judges have such an exception to the filibuster rule.
2) Have automatic three-month CR's any time that a budget isn't approved.

Isn't that just a band-aid (that's only semi-effective at best)

I do think there's some importance to the filibuster... It ensures that whatever agreement is reached is at least marginally tolerable for the half of the country that's not in power...and is yet another check on government power to make sure that drastic budget and funding changes can't be made by a 51/49 vote (or 50/50 with a VP tiebreaker)

Getting rid of the filibuster is throwing the baby out with the bath water. (even if only confined to budget conversations)

I still like my idea. make them engage in more earnest and sincere negotiation and if they can't do it in an acceptable time window, fines and threats of replacement will help light that fire under them a little bit.

mark46 · Thursday at 4:22 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Isn't that just a band-aid (that's only semi-effective at best)

I do think there's some importance to the filibuster... It ensures that whatever agreement is reached is at least marginally tolerable for the half of the country that's not in power...and is yet another check on government power to make sure that drastic budget and funding changes can't be made by a 51/49 vote (or 50/50 with a VP tiebreaker)

Getting rid of the filibuster is throwing the baby out with the bath water. (even if only confined to budget conversations)

I still like my idea. make them engage in more earnest and sincere negotiation and if they can't do it in an acceptable time window, fines and threats of replacement will help light that fire under them a little bit.

we already have exceptions to the filibuster. Keeping the government open seems a high enough priority.

Forcing a government to have 60% for a budget is NOT democratic. No other country has such a requirement (if that is relevant at all).

Elections SHOULD have consequences. However, I do NOT believe that the government should ever shut down because of a political dispute. WIf there is no new budget, the old one should stay in place. And, yes, we should play our bills. There should be no debt limits restricting the payment of bills. We shouldn't go in default because 40% of the Seante chooses not to pay for serviced authorized and delivered.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 6:23 PM

mark46 said:
we already have exceptions to the filibuster. Keeping the government open seems a high enough priority.

Forcing a government to have 60% for a budget is NOT democratic. No other country has such a requirement (if that is relevant at all).

Elections SHOULD have consequences. However, I do NOT believe that the government should ever shut down because of a political dispute. WIf there is no new budget, the old one should stay in place. And, yes, we should play our bills. There should be no debt limits restricting the payment of bills. We shouldn't go in default because 40% of the Seante chooses not to pay for serviced authorized and delivered.

Parliamentary systems don't have that requirement...however, they already have other accountability levers to pull that allows for quick replacement of key players.

Perhaps one of our Aussie, Brit, or Canadian friends can weigh in and fact check me on this, but my understanding of how that works is that there are methods for replacing both the PM (and their Ministers) as well as Parliament.

On the executive branch
1) A no confidence vote can happen, and the Prime Minister (and their Ministers) are ousted and replaced with a new Government.

On the legislative branch
2) A no confidence vote can trigger a general election, which means that people basically have to "re-run" for their MP seats even if their term isn't up yet.

If memory serves, Thatcher came to power in the UK via such measures in 79. A no confidence vote passed by 1 vote, and the end result was a general election getting triggered early, and over 50 labour party seats were lost to members of the conservative party giving them a majority, and making their party leader, Margaret Thatcher, the new PM.

mark46 · Thursday at 8:40 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Parliamentary systems don't have that requirement...however, they already have other accountability levers to pull that allows for quick replacement of key players.

Perhaps one of our Aussie, Brit, or Canadian friends can weigh in and fact check me on this, but my understanding of how that works is that there are methods for replacing both the PM (and their Ministers) as well as Parliament.

On the executive branch
1) A no confidence vote can happen, and the Prime Minister (and their Ministers) are ousted and replaced with a new Government.

On the legislative branch
2) A no confidence vote can trigger a general election, which means that people basically have to "re-run" for their MP seats even if their term isn't up yet.

If memory serves, Thatcher came to power in the UK via such measures in 79. A no confidence vote passed by 1 vote, and the end result was a general election getting triggered early, and over 50 labour party seats were lost to members of the conservative party giving them a majority, and making their party leader, Margaret Thatcher, the new PM.

Doesn't a no-confidence vote require 50% of the legislature?

We are talking about having 42% block legislation.

rambot · Thursday at 11:01 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I always thought the more apropos solution to these shutdowns would be...
At 7 days: suspend pay for congressmen and senators (and their staffers) until it gets resolved.
At 14 days: actual fines imposed on them
At 30 days: failure to reach an agreement means governors have the option to call a special election to replace them if they so choose (the same way they do when one of them vacates a seat)

As much as I dislike the "4th branch of government" (the bureaucracy), their pay getting frozen doesn't do anything to bring a swifter end to these shutdowns as it doesn't instill the right sense of urgency in the legislature.

The notion that there's a shutdown, and outlets are reporting "well, no agreement was reached, so they'll be back in 5 days to restart negotiations" is unacceptable. If there's outstanding assignments that are urgent and time sensitive at my job, I don't get to bail on Thursday and say "well, have a good long weekend, we'll pick this back up on Tuesday", it's more of a "it's gonna be a busy weekend, put on a pot of coffee".

I agree.

If government is disfunctional, that's not anyone's fault but their own.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-07T08:12:52-0600

mark46 said:
Doesn't a no-confidence vote require 50% of the legislature?

A vote of no confidence against "The Government" (the PM and their ministers) does.

However, the dissolution of parliament comes from the executive branch.

Sort of a metaphorical "mutually assured destruction" of sorts...

Both branches have a big red button they can push if things are going off of the rails in the other branch.

I believe parliament can trigger a dissolution against themselves (causing a general election) as well.

I would imagine that would be strategically leveraged in a cases where one party is being pretty terrible, and they'd be somewhat confident that their own seats would be easily "re-winnable" and they could pick up more seats from the other party/parties.

But again, one of the Canadian/Brit/Aussie posters could perhaps elaborate on that better than I could.

Vance tells Marines they’ll get paid despite ‘Schumer shutdown’

Well-Known Member

We're Still Here

Newbie

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads