This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Government shutdowns in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Government shutdowns in the United States was copied or moved into List of United States federal funding gaps with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Why is it a list/table of funding gaps instead of shutdowns?
Yes, there are notations about shutdowns in the table, but shouldn't it be structured to reflect shutdowns instead of funding gaps? -- Ratha K ( talk) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
google hit list -- Neun-x ( talk) 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
According to a few sources [1] [2], only five of the funding gaps prior to 1995 resulted in government shutdowns, in the sense of federal employees actually being furloughed. Since sources differ as to whether the term "government shutdown" refers to the other gaps, I'm going to revise the article to be more specific about which meaning is applied to the term. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Government shutdown in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1184382616242591.xmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI, be ready to add a new section if a government shutdown happens beginning at 12:00 AM, January 20, 2018. It appears rather likely. Evieliam ( talk) 19:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Evieliam
Please don't imply without sources that there were federal government shutdowns under Jimmy Carter. As this article makes clear, actual government shutdowns, as opposed to funding gaps, did not happen under Carter. LK ( talk) 07:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The article says that two-thirds of the house can override a presidential veto. But is this the two houses combined, two-thirds in the HR and senate separately or what? From the List of gaps an actual override only happened in 1976 under Gerald Ford; all others eventually compromised (not this time?) Hugo999 ( talk) 00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a two-thirds vote in each house, separately. [1] Closeclouds ( talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"False claims and misrepresentations on this and other issues by White House Press Secretary Sanders, Vice President Mike Pence, President Trump himself, and others, have come to be regarded as hallmarks of his administration."
That is a personal opinion and is out of place on the shutdown page. I added the NPOV tag as a result. 192.107.156.196 ( talk) 12:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Having been trying to find out how many government shutdowns have affected the US, I'm finding this article, combined with other sources, a bit confusing. This article says "there have been 22 gaps in budget funding, 10 of which led to federal employees being furloughed". Another user on the talk page suggests a shutdown is not the same as funding gap, and that without furlough, there is no actual government shutdown. The user does, however, acknowledge that definitions of "shutdown" differ. Having looked at other sources, it seems a wider definition of "shutdown" is normally used. See here and here (etc.) for claims that the current shutdown is the 21st. I can't work out how to reconcile this article with the other sources I linked to. If they are counting all funding gaps as shutdowns, why does this article list 22 gaps, while other sources say 21?
Unfortunately, having come to this article to try to understand the issue, I'm not in a position to improve the article myself. But I'd like to suggest some changes that hopefully someone with more expertise can make:
194.82.210.247 ( talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I made an edit to remove the February 2018 funding gap from the list, because by the article's own distinction:
This list includes only funding gaps that led to actual employee furloughs. Not all funding gaps have led to shutdowns, even after the Civiletti opinions of 1980 and 1981.
The edit was reverted by User:JRSpriggs (@ JRSpriggs:) with the following justification: "This is the only place where this funding gap is explained, so we must keep it." This is not true. The entire content that was deleted can be found at United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_January_2018#Aftermath.
Regardless, do we agree that
1. The list in this article should be consistent -- therefore, since it says it only includes funding gaps which lead to actual employee furloughs, it should not include other funding gaps.
2. There should be some place to include content on the February 9, 2018 funding gap. Currently, it is at United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_January_2018#Aftermath, which I fear is a bit of an obscure place. But it cannot be in this list unless we re-define the scope of the list. Do we want to create a new article for the Feb 9 funding gap? (Note that this page's Feb 9 funding gap section is also linked from List of United States federal funding gaps.
Thanks, Cstanford.math ( talk) 22:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The page here is clearly showing favouritism. It's becoming very clear that Wikipedia is being run by very obstinate people. This is not an acceptable approach to an information website.
MontChevalier ( talk) 05:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@ MontChevalier: Could you provide some specific instances, that we could address? Cstanford.math ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
How about this article on opioids? https://www.briarwooddetox.com/blog/drug-trafficking-sources/ The page sites only two sources, and they're both biased. This one disagrees with those, and even calls them liars. And then cites his intel. But let me guess, "No conservatives allowed"? I can't wait to see what excuse you come up with to not use the source.
MontChevalier ( talk) 11:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving this page to the proposed name. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 08:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Government shutdowns in the United States →
Government shutdown – Classic
WP:INUSA problem. Is there another topic called "government shutdown" that we have encyclopedic coverage of? It doesn't seem so. If shutdowns are unique to the American political system, which appears to be the case—the article mentions the occurrence is "nearly impossible in other forms of government"—the "in the United States" is unnecessarily wordy. If not, redirecting "government shutdown" here shows American
WP:BIAS. --
BDD (
talk) 23:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It needs a table or chart to show the number of days for each shutdown, something similar to this website having one: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/09/us/politics/longest-government-shutdown.html
The details are spent all over the page, in different paragraphs, so people have to read everything and then make notes of how long each shutdown lasted. It needs a quick at a glare table or chart to show each Shutdowns in one view. A table to allow viewers to change order, so showing in order of number of days, or in order by year, or by surname of Presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:48A9:D601:5064:9B64:B0BF:6323 ( talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Something like that but this is too simple and is put in order of years. It needs to allow users to change it in any order, for example, instead of in order of year, should let us put it in order of length of shutdown by number of days. I have found a better one, the one I would like to see showed far more than I hoped for, it is much more clearer, here is the link...
List_of_United_States_federal_funding_gaps
This table is much better, allows us to see which party the president is a member of, who was in control of Senate and who was in control of House, as well as allowing the option to see table in order of year or in order of length of days.
I must say I preferred the language/structure that existed prior to this major rewrite, but my reasons are so myriad that I lack the time/energy to enumerate them or make changes. Just my 2¢ soibangla ( talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This section has been systematically eviscerated of important content to whitewash the reality of what is transpiring. soibangla ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@ GUtt01: Kindly refrain from removing these perfectly legitimate edits and restore them:
On January 15, the White House Council of Economic Advisors doubled its estimate of how much the shutdown was impairing economic growth, suggesting that the damage could cause the economy to slip into a contraction. Through January 17, 2019, multiple public polls found that most Americans opposed shutting down the government over the border wall and blamed Trump for the impasse.
soibangla ( talk) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Both parties held televised addresses on January 8: Trump rallied public support for funding a border wall, making border security the key talking point of his address to the nation, while both Pelosi and Schumer attempted to rally public support towards convincing the president to end the shutdown.
Current polling would tend to indicate that the President's "rallying", if that's what it was, was less than successful. [1]
I'll leave it to others to impose neutrality to this section since I'm clearly incapabe of doing so. Mikeylito ► talk 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
References
On January 15, the White House Council of Economic Advisors doubled its estimate of how much the shutdown was impairing economic growth, suggesting that the damage could cause the economy to slip into a contraction.
was removed on the premise that it is speculative. This is incorrect. It may be true that the CEA estimate is speculative, but it is a fact that they doubled their estimate, which is what the edit states. It makes no assertion as to the validity of the CEA estimate.
Through January 17, 2019, multiple public polls found that most Americans opposed shutting down the government over the border wall and blamed Trump for the impasse.
was removed on the premise that this is a current event. There is a large amount of polling data on this matter, and such data is routinely provided in other articles, because despite this being a current event, the poll results are a matter of historical record that will never change. soibangla ( talk) 19:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
GUtt01 ( talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
we can't just count on opinion polls to denote how Americans truly feel about who is responsible for prolonging the shutdown, because we need to denote neutrality with the information we add in.
Through January 17, 2019construction is awkward, and there's a major difference between "most" meaning 55% and 75% and 95%. This information certainly should be on United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 now (and a full poll summary table might be needed there); however it may be too awkward to phrase it to include here at this time. We certainly won't need a day-by-day summary claiming that each day, someone new estimated the impact would have been larger; a final summary of the impact will be enough here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Quote from the archived
requested move discussion by @
NoCOBOL: "Indeed, if there are not objections, I might go take that redirect and write a basic start- or even stub-class article on Government shutdowns around the world."
I have no objections. Do you mean to remove the hard redirect, as I had suggested?
Renerpho (
talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Government shutdown about whether a failure to form a government in a parliamentary system (such as the 2007–11 Belgian political crisis) has been called a "government shutdown" in sufficiently reliable sources to cover them in that article. More input is requested. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 06:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
First of all, the estimated cost of the Trump Shutdowns being $11 billion were estimated costs to the economy (not the government). Further, the estimates for economic impacts range all over the map. In 2013 the White House (not the CBO) estimated that the "economic impact" would be $10 billion a week.
But these estimates vary widely, and again, it's not a "cost to the government", as there is no such thing outside of money that needs to be borrowed to cover past shortfalls. Economic "costs" equate to "economic impacts", and you'll never gather enough variables to have that make any sense. It's not a simple numbers game...those dollar amounts simply don't have enough of an intuitive meaning to be useful, other than to make people ignorant of how to gauge economic metrics say "oooooo, that's really bad". Tgm1024 ( talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
One poll conducted by Washington Post-ABC inquiring on public opinion towards the end of the shutdown found that over half the 788 polled Americans held Trump and congressional Republicans accountable for the deadlock, rather than the Democrats, Pelosi and Schumer.[113]
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 8-11, 2019 among a random national sample of 788 adults with 58 percent reached on cell phones and 42 percent on landlines. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of 4.5 percentage points, including design effects due to weighting. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS of Glen Mills, Pa. ... A dual frame landline and cellular phone telephone sample was generated by Marketing Systems Group (MSG) using Random Digit Dialing procedures. Interviewers called landlines cellular phone numbers, first requesting to speak with the youngest adult male or female at home. The final sample included 329 interviews completed on landlines and 459 interviews completed via cellular phones, including 284 interviews with adults in cell phone-only households.
Individual polls are essentially primary sources; we should strive to cite sources that put multiple polls in context, or at least we should try to cite multiple polls on the same subject rather than presenting just one. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 21:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know enough on the topic to do it myself, but it's ridiculous that the pages on specific shutdowns have basic details like what agencies are affected and the main page doesn't. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
“stalemates within the government are much less likely, as the executive head of government (i.e. the prime minister) must be a member of the legislature majority”
I think this is no must. Minority governments do occur from time to time. E.g. from 2010 - 2012 in The Netherlands. Roel Schreurs ( talk) 18:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Government shutdowns in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Government shutdowns in the United States was copied or moved into List of United States federal funding gaps with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Why is it a list/table of funding gaps instead of shutdowns?
Yes, there are notations about shutdowns in the table, but shouldn't it be structured to reflect shutdowns instead of funding gaps? -- Ratha K ( talk) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
google hit list -- Neun-x ( talk) 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
According to a few sources [1] [2], only five of the funding gaps prior to 1995 resulted in government shutdowns, in the sense of federal employees actually being furloughed. Since sources differ as to whether the term "government shutdown" refers to the other gaps, I'm going to revise the article to be more specific about which meaning is applied to the term. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Government shutdown in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1184382616242591.xmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI, be ready to add a new section if a government shutdown happens beginning at 12:00 AM, January 20, 2018. It appears rather likely. Evieliam ( talk) 19:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Evieliam
Please don't imply without sources that there were federal government shutdowns under Jimmy Carter. As this article makes clear, actual government shutdowns, as opposed to funding gaps, did not happen under Carter. LK ( talk) 07:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The article says that two-thirds of the house can override a presidential veto. But is this the two houses combined, two-thirds in the HR and senate separately or what? From the List of gaps an actual override only happened in 1976 under Gerald Ford; all others eventually compromised (not this time?) Hugo999 ( talk) 00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a two-thirds vote in each house, separately. [1] Closeclouds ( talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"False claims and misrepresentations on this and other issues by White House Press Secretary Sanders, Vice President Mike Pence, President Trump himself, and others, have come to be regarded as hallmarks of his administration."
That is a personal opinion and is out of place on the shutdown page. I added the NPOV tag as a result. 192.107.156.196 ( talk) 12:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Having been trying to find out how many government shutdowns have affected the US, I'm finding this article, combined with other sources, a bit confusing. This article says "there have been 22 gaps in budget funding, 10 of which led to federal employees being furloughed". Another user on the talk page suggests a shutdown is not the same as funding gap, and that without furlough, there is no actual government shutdown. The user does, however, acknowledge that definitions of "shutdown" differ. Having looked at other sources, it seems a wider definition of "shutdown" is normally used. See here and here (etc.) for claims that the current shutdown is the 21st. I can't work out how to reconcile this article with the other sources I linked to. If they are counting all funding gaps as shutdowns, why does this article list 22 gaps, while other sources say 21?
Unfortunately, having come to this article to try to understand the issue, I'm not in a position to improve the article myself. But I'd like to suggest some changes that hopefully someone with more expertise can make:
194.82.210.247 ( talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I made an edit to remove the February 2018 funding gap from the list, because by the article's own distinction:
This list includes only funding gaps that led to actual employee furloughs. Not all funding gaps have led to shutdowns, even after the Civiletti opinions of 1980 and 1981.
The edit was reverted by User:JRSpriggs (@ JRSpriggs:) with the following justification: "This is the only place where this funding gap is explained, so we must keep it." This is not true. The entire content that was deleted can be found at United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_January_2018#Aftermath.
Regardless, do we agree that
1. The list in this article should be consistent -- therefore, since it says it only includes funding gaps which lead to actual employee furloughs, it should not include other funding gaps.
2. There should be some place to include content on the February 9, 2018 funding gap. Currently, it is at United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_January_2018#Aftermath, which I fear is a bit of an obscure place. But it cannot be in this list unless we re-define the scope of the list. Do we want to create a new article for the Feb 9 funding gap? (Note that this page's Feb 9 funding gap section is also linked from List of United States federal funding gaps.
Thanks, Cstanford.math ( talk) 22:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The page here is clearly showing favouritism. It's becoming very clear that Wikipedia is being run by very obstinate people. This is not an acceptable approach to an information website.
MontChevalier ( talk) 05:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@ MontChevalier: Could you provide some specific instances, that we could address? Cstanford.math ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
How about this article on opioids? https://www.briarwooddetox.com/blog/drug-trafficking-sources/ The page sites only two sources, and they're both biased. This one disagrees with those, and even calls them liars. And then cites his intel. But let me guess, "No conservatives allowed"? I can't wait to see what excuse you come up with to not use the source.
MontChevalier ( talk) 11:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving this page to the proposed name. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 08:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Government shutdowns in the United States →
Government shutdown – Classic
WP:INUSA problem. Is there another topic called "government shutdown" that we have encyclopedic coverage of? It doesn't seem so. If shutdowns are unique to the American political system, which appears to be the case—the article mentions the occurrence is "nearly impossible in other forms of government"—the "in the United States" is unnecessarily wordy. If not, redirecting "government shutdown" here shows American
WP:BIAS. --
BDD (
talk) 23:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It needs a table or chart to show the number of days for each shutdown, something similar to this website having one: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/09/us/politics/longest-government-shutdown.html
The details are spent all over the page, in different paragraphs, so people have to read everything and then make notes of how long each shutdown lasted. It needs a quick at a glare table or chart to show each Shutdowns in one view. A table to allow viewers to change order, so showing in order of number of days, or in order by year, or by surname of Presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:48A9:D601:5064:9B64:B0BF:6323 ( talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Something like that but this is too simple and is put in order of years. It needs to allow users to change it in any order, for example, instead of in order of year, should let us put it in order of length of shutdown by number of days. I have found a better one, the one I would like to see showed far more than I hoped for, it is much more clearer, here is the link...
List_of_United_States_federal_funding_gaps
This table is much better, allows us to see which party the president is a member of, who was in control of Senate and who was in control of House, as well as allowing the option to see table in order of year or in order of length of days.
I must say I preferred the language/structure that existed prior to this major rewrite, but my reasons are so myriad that I lack the time/energy to enumerate them or make changes. Just my 2¢ soibangla ( talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This section has been systematically eviscerated of important content to whitewash the reality of what is transpiring. soibangla ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@ GUtt01: Kindly refrain from removing these perfectly legitimate edits and restore them:
On January 15, the White House Council of Economic Advisors doubled its estimate of how much the shutdown was impairing economic growth, suggesting that the damage could cause the economy to slip into a contraction. Through January 17, 2019, multiple public polls found that most Americans opposed shutting down the government over the border wall and blamed Trump for the impasse.
soibangla ( talk) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Both parties held televised addresses on January 8: Trump rallied public support for funding a border wall, making border security the key talking point of his address to the nation, while both Pelosi and Schumer attempted to rally public support towards convincing the president to end the shutdown.
Current polling would tend to indicate that the President's "rallying", if that's what it was, was less than successful. [1]
I'll leave it to others to impose neutrality to this section since I'm clearly incapabe of doing so. Mikeylito ► talk 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
References
On January 15, the White House Council of Economic Advisors doubled its estimate of how much the shutdown was impairing economic growth, suggesting that the damage could cause the economy to slip into a contraction.
was removed on the premise that it is speculative. This is incorrect. It may be true that the CEA estimate is speculative, but it is a fact that they doubled their estimate, which is what the edit states. It makes no assertion as to the validity of the CEA estimate.
Through January 17, 2019, multiple public polls found that most Americans opposed shutting down the government over the border wall and blamed Trump for the impasse.
was removed on the premise that this is a current event. There is a large amount of polling data on this matter, and such data is routinely provided in other articles, because despite this being a current event, the poll results are a matter of historical record that will never change. soibangla ( talk) 19:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
GUtt01 ( talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
we can't just count on opinion polls to denote how Americans truly feel about who is responsible for prolonging the shutdown, because we need to denote neutrality with the information we add in.
Through January 17, 2019construction is awkward, and there's a major difference between "most" meaning 55% and 75% and 95%. This information certainly should be on United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 now (and a full poll summary table might be needed there); however it may be too awkward to phrase it to include here at this time. We certainly won't need a day-by-day summary claiming that each day, someone new estimated the impact would have been larger; a final summary of the impact will be enough here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Quote from the archived
requested move discussion by @
NoCOBOL: "Indeed, if there are not objections, I might go take that redirect and write a basic start- or even stub-class article on Government shutdowns around the world."
I have no objections. Do you mean to remove the hard redirect, as I had suggested?
Renerpho (
talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Government shutdown about whether a failure to form a government in a parliamentary system (such as the 2007–11 Belgian political crisis) has been called a "government shutdown" in sufficiently reliable sources to cover them in that article. More input is requested. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 06:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
First of all, the estimated cost of the Trump Shutdowns being $11 billion were estimated costs to the economy (not the government). Further, the estimates for economic impacts range all over the map. In 2013 the White House (not the CBO) estimated that the "economic impact" would be $10 billion a week.
But these estimates vary widely, and again, it's not a "cost to the government", as there is no such thing outside of money that needs to be borrowed to cover past shortfalls. Economic "costs" equate to "economic impacts", and you'll never gather enough variables to have that make any sense. It's not a simple numbers game...those dollar amounts simply don't have enough of an intuitive meaning to be useful, other than to make people ignorant of how to gauge economic metrics say "oooooo, that's really bad". Tgm1024 ( talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
One poll conducted by Washington Post-ABC inquiring on public opinion towards the end of the shutdown found that over half the 788 polled Americans held Trump and congressional Republicans accountable for the deadlock, rather than the Democrats, Pelosi and Schumer.[113]
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 8-11, 2019 among a random national sample of 788 adults with 58 percent reached on cell phones and 42 percent on landlines. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of 4.5 percentage points, including design effects due to weighting. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS of Glen Mills, Pa. ... A dual frame landline and cellular phone telephone sample was generated by Marketing Systems Group (MSG) using Random Digit Dialing procedures. Interviewers called landlines cellular phone numbers, first requesting to speak with the youngest adult male or female at home. The final sample included 329 interviews completed on landlines and 459 interviews completed via cellular phones, including 284 interviews with adults in cell phone-only households.
Individual polls are essentially primary sources; we should strive to cite sources that put multiple polls in context, or at least we should try to cite multiple polls on the same subject rather than presenting just one. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 21:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know enough on the topic to do it myself, but it's ridiculous that the pages on specific shutdowns have basic details like what agencies are affected and the main page doesn't. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
“stalemates within the government are much less likely, as the executive head of government (i.e. the prime minister) must be a member of the legislature majority”
I think this is no must. Minority governments do occur from time to time. E.g. from 2010 - 2012 in The Netherlands. Roel Schreurs ( talk) 18:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)