# Why do people seem so "meh" about the US Government shutdown? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2013, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421 "2013-10-05T07:44:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/201 "2013-10-17T13:56:48Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Then I guess benefits will have to be cut back, if we cannot pay for what we spend then we don’t spend it. Or 2/3’s will need convincing that spending it is good for all. It is a reach to think that you believe the current United States Senate is doing TOO MUCH work? Why not change election laws so that in order to gain office, you have to get 67% of the vote? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/202 "2013-10-17T14:00:14Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I don’t exactly want paralysis but i dont want tyranny either and when 55% of the country decides for the entire 100%, it sure feels strange. But when 66% decide for the entire 100%, it’s not tyranny? Have you asked the 33% ? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/203 "2013-10-17T14:05:49Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > This works if there is a bipartisan goal of benefiting people. One side actively argues that poverty is not a problem because people have refrigerators and can get “universal health care” by going to the ER and skipping out on the bill. The “limited” number of things with broad bipartisan support is just going to be what the “no help” side wants to give. But you see, this is where you get into trouble. I think a lot of people would agree with the actual problems. Where the disagreement comes is whether or not both sides will agree to view the problem as one the government should meddle in/fund. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/204 "2013-10-17T14:08:47Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It is a reach to think that you believe the current United States Senate is doing TOO MUCH work? > > Why not change election laws so that in order to gain office, you have to get 67% of the vote? No, I don’t think they are doing too much. I think they are doing what they want, and for who they want. There is very limited accountability in the current political climate. I don’t think that you should need the 67% in order to do a good job but if you could garner 67% then you’d be a pretty popular schmo. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/205 "2013-10-17T14:11:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But when 66% decide for the entire 100%, it’s not tyranny? Have you asked the 33% ? When you basically have only 2 options, anything further away from 50-50 is better, no? So we could keep placing the same arbitrary restriction on any number picked. What about the 25%, or the 10% or the 1%. If 50-50 is the baseline, 66-44 is a whole lot better for the country as a whole than 52-48 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/206 "2013-10-17T14:13:06Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > No, I don’t think they are doing too much. I think they are doing what they want, and for who they want. There is very limited accountability in the current political climate. The Senate basically requires a 60% vote to get anything of substance done, and it is in paralysis. Moving that threshold to 67% would mean zero would get done, because a small portion of the body could stop absolutely everything… which is pretty much the case today. Don’t you see that your proposal would make things worse? > [@](#): > > I don’t think that you should need the 67% in order to do a good job but if you could garner 67% then you’d be a pretty popular schmo. If you’re going to say that it isn’t good for elected representatives to practice majority votes, why shouldn’t voters be held to the same standard? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/207 "2013-10-17T14:25:32Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > When you basically have only 2 options, anything further away from 50-50 is better, no? > So we could keep placing the same arbitrary restriction on any number picked. > What about the 25%, or the 10% or the 1%. > > If 50-50 is the baseline, 66-44 is a whole lot better for the country as a whole than 52-48 So you’re OK with tyranny, we’re just arguing where to draw the line. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/208 "2013-10-17T15:01:55Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Where the disagreement comes is whether or not both sides will agree to view the problem as one the government should meddle in/fund. Sure, but your bipartisan agreement approach simply puts most of the power in the hands of those who feel the government should not be involved. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/209 "2013-10-17T15:28:57Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Sure, but your bipartisan agreement approach simply puts most of the power in the hands of those who feel the government should not be involved. Only if the country is split 50-50. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/210 "2013-10-17T15:33:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The Senate basically requires a 60% vote to get anything of substance done, and it is in paralysis. Moving that threshold to 67% would mean zero would get done, because a small portion of the body could stop absolutely everything… which is pretty much the case today. Don’t you see that your proposal would make things worse? > > If you’re going to say that it isn’t good for elected representatives to practice majority votes, why shouldn’t voters be held to the same standard? I already admitted that in today’s political climate that nothing would get done. So yes, I could see that more of nothing is possible. I think that nothing getting done is sometimes better than ‘anything is better than nothing’. I also believe that if nothing continues to get done (and a good majority of people actually want it done) then replacements will be voted in to do the will of the people. Along this vein, term limits may also help The people voted in can be replaced therefore a supermajority may not be required for Congress. Now maybe for Presidential elections, maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/211 "2013-10-17T15:39:23Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I think that nothing getting done is sometimes better than ‘anything is better than nothing’. I also believe that if nothing continues to get done (and a good majority of people actually want it done) then replacements will be voted in to do the will of the people. We just barely averted an economic disaster, which would not have happened since the House vote for the bill was less than 2/3rds. I think you need to reconsider the idea that doing nothing is preferable. Conservatives used to say: let’s run government like a business. Granted, the intent was usually along the lines of, “Let’s burn down the buildings and collect the insurance money…” But if you want government to be as efficient as business, things have to get done. What company would survive for 10 minutes if they simply decided: “Hey, the Board of Directors can’t agree on anything… let’s just not decide at all! Or better yet, let’s keep doing exactly what we were doing last year, with no changes, because lord knows that nothing ever changes in this world! Recipe for success!” Just remember: not doing anything is the opposite of efficiency. > [@](#): > > Along this vein, term limits may also help We have the “newest” Congress in ages, with more than half of the House and Senate having been in their bodies for a relatively short period of time. And yet it seems clear that things are getting worse. The obvious question is why you would expect things to get better with additional politicians with less experience? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/212 "2013-10-17T16:14:47Z")
Things aren’t getting worse because of the “new”, they are getting worse because you have an entrenching of the people with the power (they aren’t the new guys) ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/213 "2013-10-17T16:18:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > We just barely averted an economic disaster, which would not have happened since the House vote for the bill was less than 2/3rds. I think you need to reconsider the idea that doing nothing is preferable. > > Conservatives used to say: let’s run government like a business. Granted, the intent was usually along the lines of, “Let’s burn down the buildings and collect the insurance money…” But if you want government to be as efficient as business, things have to get done. What company would survive for 10 minutes if they simply decided: “Hey, the Board of Directors can’t agree on anything… let’s just not decide at all! Or better yet, let’s keep doing exactly what we were doing last year, with no changes, because lord knows that nothing ever changes in this world! Recipe for success!” > > Just remember: not doing anything is the opposite of efficiency. > > We have the “newest” Congress in ages, with more than half of the House and Senate having been in their bodies for a relatively short period of time. And yet it seems clear that things are getting worse. The obvious question is why you would expect things to get better with additional politicians with less experience? Efficient government would be doing things well. What exactly does the government do well? What don’t they do well? Maybe they should stay out of that stuff? As i said, popular stuff with bipartisan support should be able to fly fairly easily. The ACA and things like it, not a chance until and when you convince the other 15-20% you’ll need. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/214 "2013-10-17T18:16:25Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Things aren’t getting worse because of the “new”, they are getting worse because you have an entrenching of the people with the power (they aren’t the new guys) You’re just factually wrong. There’s more turnover now than there has been in decades. That means your whole premise is off. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/215 "2013-10-17T18:26:00Z")
I should illustrate: since the 2006 elections, 56 new senators have been elected, and 279 new representatives. That’s turnover at a similar rate to what you’d expect under term limits. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/216 "2013-10-17T21:10:14Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Nit pick: 55% of the people _who decide to vote_ decide for 100% of the country, which is only around 1/3rd of the populace on presidential elections. This last presidential election, of 330 million people, 125 million voted (37%). Nitpicking the nitpick: That 330 million includes people too young to vote. The actual number of people able to vote is smaller. (The total number of registered voters is only 169 million.) > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But when 66% decide for the entire 100%, it’s not tyranny? Have you asked the 33% ? We did ask them: we gave them the chance to vote. If they didn’t vote, then their answer was (in effect) “I don’t care.” It isn’t tyranny when they, themselves, freely chose not to have their views taken into account. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/217 "2013-10-17T21:20:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Nitpicking the nitpick: That 330 million includes people too young to vote. The actual number of people able to vote is smaller. (The total number of registered voters is only 169 million.) Nitpicking the picked nit (…or something): Under 18 are 23.5% of the population. So there are roughly 257 million people eligible to vote and there are only 169 million registered voters (of which in 2012 only 125 million voted). ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/218 "2013-10-17T21:29:07Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Nitpicking the picked nit Oh my lord. Recursive nitpicking. On the Dope. We’ll be here 'till the heat death of the Universe ! ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/219 "2013-10-17T21:29:09Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > [QUOTE=Fear Itself] > But when 66% decide for the entire 100%, it’s not tyranny? Have you asked the 33% ? We did ask them: we gave them the chance to vote. If they didn’t vote, then their answer was (in effect) “I don’t care.” It isn’t tyranny when they, themselves, freely chose not to have their views taken into account. [/QUOTE] No, I was talking about the 66% who vote “Yes” (on whatever) versus the 33% who vote “No”. \*\*Kearsen \*\*seems to think it is OK to subject 33% of voters to tyranny, but not OK to subject 49% of voters to tyranny. Seems arbitrary to me. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421/220 "2013-10-17T23:29:38Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Oh my lord. Recursive nitpicking. On the Dope. We’ll be here 'till the heat death of the Universe ! Did you really have somewhere else to be? 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-seem-so-meh-about-the-us-government-shutdown/670421.md?page=12)