（原标题：美国政府"关门"危机陷入持久战，影响有多大？） 南方财经 21世纪经济报道记者吴斌 美国政府停摆乱局几无好转迹象。据央视报道，当地时间10月9日，美国民主党提出的临时拨款法案在 国会参议院的投票中再次未获通过。同日，美国共和党提出的结束美国政府停摆的法案未能在参议院获 得足够票数，法案未获通过。市场预测显示，美国政府可能停摆15天以上。 美国总统特朗普9日表示，鉴于美国国会在重启政府问题上似乎仍陷于僵局，他计划削减一些受民主党 欢迎的联邦项目。"将进行永久性的削减，而且只会削减民主党的项目"。特朗普没有具体说明他计划削 减哪些项目，但特朗普几天来一直威胁称，如果民主党继续坚持要求以让步换取通过联邦拨款法案，他 将开始大规模裁员。 美国联邦政府因两党政治博弈而关门在历史上并不少见。20世纪70年代以来，美国联邦政府因共和、民 主两党政策分歧导致拨款中断而"停摆"已有二十多次。 上一次也是最长的一次"停摆"发生在2018年年底至2019年年初，特朗普第一任期内，民主党反对特朗普 提出的美墨边境墙项目拨款，两党在移民问题上争斗不休，导致政府关门五周。当时大约四分之一的联 邦政府机构"关门"持续五周，殃及8 ...

新华社华盛顿10月3日电 题：美国联邦政府再次"停摆"与以往有三个不同 新华社记者熊茂伶 在美国联邦政府时隔近七年再次"停摆"后，美国特朗普政府和民主党斗法进一步升级。特朗普政府 借"停摆"向民主党发起猛攻，削减民主党支持的项目、解散民主党主导的联邦机构。民主党则展现 出"罕见团结"，希望在斗争中挽回支持率。 美国舆论认为，两党围绕政府"停摆"的新一轮争斗与以往大不相同，以"更大的敌意和恶意"把"党争推 到了新高度"，这凸显美国愈演愈烈的政治极化，同时给美国民众带来了更大伤害。 不同之一：特朗普借"停摆"加大攻势 "'停摆'能带来很多好处。我们可以除掉很多我们不想要的东西——民主党的东西。"特朗普话音未落， 白宫便频下狠手。 美国能源部2日宣布终止涉及16个州的223个能源项目，相关资金总计约75.6亿美元。美联社报道，在去 年的总统选举中，这16个州都把票投给了民主党候选人，其参议员在几天前对共和党人临时拨款法案也 投了反对票。 特朗普政府还声称将借"停摆"推进联邦政府裁员计划，大规模解雇联邦雇员。"许多人会被解雇，他们 会是民主党的人。"特朗普说。 不同之二：民主党展现"罕见的团结" "特朗普在政府'停摆 ...

前言 9月30日深夜，华盛顿的街道依然灯火通明，国会两党正在为新财年的拨款问题激烈争斗。与此同时，来自中国的大豆进口量骤然暴跌92%，几乎几乎归 零。这一冷冰冰的数字背后，意味着中西部农业州选民的信心动摇，那些曾坚定支持特朗普的选民正悄然失望。迫使白宫高层不得不紧急召开与国会关键人 物的闭门会议。 80万人饭碗悬于一线 华盛顿弥漫着一股紧张的气氛，政府停摆的阴影正逼近。这一次，和以往短暂的僵局不同，这场危机由贸易战带来的反噬、农业经济的严重受创以及党派对 立加剧等多重因素交织，形成了一个可能动摇国家治理根基的挑战。 数据显示，约80万名联邦雇员的职业生涯岌岌可危。白宫的管理和预算办公室已经着手准备应对极端情况，这次停摆不仅可能导致无薪休假，更有可能引发 大规模裁员。NASA的火星探测任务将暂停，国家公园关闭，联邦法院审理进程停滞，小企业贷款审批也将延迟，所有这些影响正从首都蔓延至全国，形成 了一张密布的负面效应网。 更令人担忧的是，关键经济数据可能会陷入"发布真空"。劳工统计局等机构可能推迟或暂停公布就业、消费者价格指数（CPI）等重要数据，意味着美联储 在制定利率政策时会失去关键依据，这就像在浓雾中驾驶高速 ...

由于美国会参议院9月30日先后否决两党拨款法案，当地时间10月1日0时1分，美国联邦政府近7年以来再次"关门"， 数十万联邦雇员不得不面临强制休假或被裁员，众多联邦部门的服务也"停摆"。 当地时间30日晚，白宫管理和预算办公室（OMB）主任沃特发布备忘录，指示各政府机构开始执行其"有序停摆"的 预案。不受影响的部门包括军方、联邦调查局和国土安全部等执法部门、联邦航空管理局和邮政局等。 对华盛顿而言，这不是一次孤立的政治事故，而是四十年来反复延续上演的财政困局与制度痼疾。 1980至今：一部危机史 政府停摆在美国已经不是什么新戏码。据统计，1980年至今，已有14次政府停摆。 1980年，卡特政府因司法解释改变而首次执行真正意义上的政府停摆，联邦贸易委员会短暂停运。此后，里根时代 多次因减税与国防开支拉锯而出现短暂关门。 1995至1996年，克林顿与共和党众院议长金里奇的对峙将停摆推向高潮，两段累计26天的关门打乱了政府雇员薪资 和社会保障事务，让华盛顿一度陷入政治瘫痪。 2013年，围绕"奥巴马医保"的激烈争执再次导致联邦政府瘫痪16天，白宫和独立经济机构估算，当季经济增长因此 蒸发数十亿美元；消费者信心骤 ...

新华财经北京9月30日电（崔凯）随着新财年启动在即，美国联邦政府面临自2019年以来最严峻的停摆 风险。据机构预测数据显示，政府于10月1日部分停摆的概率已攀升至约70%。这一风险的核心主要源 于国会两党在短期拨款法案中就医疗保健政策无法达成共识，但本质上是一场关于"政府资金应否附加 政策条件"的政治博弈。 此次僵局不仅关乎短期拨款，更折射出美国政治极化对经济治理的深远影响，市场需警惕政府停摆可能 引发的经济数据真空、民生服务中断及长期财政不确定性。 停摆在即，两党互相推责，白宫会谈无果 在美国联邦政府资金即将于10月1日午夜到期的前不到48小时，总统特朗普于周一在白宫召集国会两党 领导人举行紧急会谈，试图打破僵局。然而，双方在关键议题上仍未取得突破——民主党坚持要求将延 长医疗补贴、撤销对医疗补助（Medicaid）的削减等条款纳入短期拨款法案，而共和党则拒绝在临时支 出案中附加任何政策内容。 美国副总统万斯（JD Vance）在会后直言："我认为我们正在走向停摆，因为民主党不愿做正确的 事。"他试图将潜在停摆的责任归于民主党，同时表示："我希望他们改变主意，但我们拭目以待。" 参议院民主党领袖查克·舒默（ ...

Core Points - The memorial service for Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist, turned into a politically charged rally attended by high-profile figures including President Trump and Vice President Vance [1][3] - Trump referred to Kirk as a "martyr for American freedom" and called for supporters to continue his mission, while also criticizing the "radical left" [3][4] - The event highlighted the polarization in American politics, with conservatives viewing Kirk's death as a consequence of leftist attacks on free speech, while liberals warned against politicizing individual actions [4][5] Group 1 - The memorial service lasted for five hours and was described as a large-scale gathering filled with political rhetoric [1] - Trump's speech lasted half an hour, emphasizing Kirk's legacy and calling for continued activism against perceived leftist threats [3] - Kirk's widow, Erica Kirk, expressed her intention to carry on her husband's legacy and took over leadership of the organization he founded, "Turning Point USA" [3] Group 2 - The event attracted numerous Republican figures, including current and former lawmakers, and notable business leaders like Elon Musk [4] - The assassination of Kirk has intensified discussions around political polarization and free speech in the U.S., with heightened security measures at the memorial [4] - Democrats condemned the violence but criticized Trump and right-wing politicians for allegedly exploiting Kirk's death to incite further division [5]

Group 1 - The narrow vote of 48 to 47 for the Federal Reserve Board appointment highlights the severe polarization in American politics, raising concerns about the stability of major economic decisions that impact global markets [2][4] - The appointment of a single individual to both the Federal Reserve and the White House Economic Advisory Council is unprecedented, creating potential conflicts of interest and risks of power abuse [4][11] - The political climate in the U.S. is characterized by extreme polarization, which can lead to instability in decision-making processes that affect the global economy [22][25] Group 2 - The visit of President Trump to the UK following the contentious vote serves as a political maneuver to divert attention from domestic issues, showcasing a strategy of crisis management [8][9] - The U.S. military actions against Venezuela, framed as a response to crime, are seen as a tactic to shift focus from internal economic challenges and the controversial Federal Reserve appointment [15][16] - The geopolitical implications of U.S. military actions in Venezuela reflect a desire to assert dominance and secure energy resources, while also reinforcing Trump's strongman image domestically [16][18] Group 3 - The ongoing political turmoil in the U.S. presents both opportunities and challenges for major powers like China, Russia, and the EU, as they reassess their relationships with an increasingly unpredictable America [23][26] - The concept of "coin politics" in the U.S. raises questions about the reliability of its political system, which could lead to a reevaluation of global alliances and strategies [22][25] - The historical context of political instability leading to decline suggests that the U.S. must either restore institutional integrity or risk further descent into chaos [25][26]

Core Points - The assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent figure in the MAGA movement, has intensified political tensions in the United States, leading to a national outcry and a divided response from both Republican and Democratic parties [1][17][18]. Group 1: Incident Overview - Charlie Kirk was shot on September 10, 2025, while addressing a crowd of 3,000 students at Utah Valley University [2][3][4]. - The shooting occurred around 12:20 PM, with Kirk being struck in the neck by a bullet from a rooftop approximately 200 yards away [7][8]. - Following the incident, chaos ensued on campus, and Kirk succumbed to his injuries later that evening [10][11]. Group 2: Political Reactions - President Trump ordered flags to be flown at half-mast across federal buildings until September 14, expressing deep sorrow over the loss of a close ally [14][15]. - Vice President Vance personally retrieved Kirk's body, highlighting the significance of his death within the political landscape [15][16]. - The assassination quickly became a contentious political issue, with both parties blaming each other for fostering a climate of violence [17][18]. Group 3: Charlie Kirk's Influence - Kirk, born in 1993, founded the organization "Turning Point USA" at the age of 18, aiming to combat liberal ideologies on college campuses [20][22]. - He gained prominence as a key figure in the MAGA movement, leveraging social media to mobilize young conservative voters [24][48]. - Kirk's organization has expanded to over 3,000 schools nationwide, significantly increasing its influence and financial resources, with annual revenue soaring from $4.3 million in 2016 to $92.4 million in 2023 [60]. Group 4: Broader Implications - Kirk's assassination has raised concerns about the rising political violence in the U.S., with experts warning of a "vicious cycle" where political polarization leads to hate speech and violence [70][71]. - The incident has sparked discussions about the potential for further escalation in political conflicts, with some commentators suggesting it could mark a turning point in American politics [19][81]. - The political landscape is increasingly characterized by extreme rhetoric and division, as evidenced by the reactions from both sides of the aisle following Kirk's death [78][80].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the increasing frequency and diversity of political violence in the United States, highlighting a significant shift in the political landscape characterized by heightened polarization and a lack of consensus among different political factions [3][4][10]. Political Violence Trends - Political violence incidents in the U.S. are on the rise, with over 250 threats and harassment events tracked against local officials in the first half of 2025, marking a 9% increase from the same period in 2024 [7]. - The current environment is described as a "violent populism era," with both right and left-wing individuals being targeted, indicating that political violence is not limited to a specific ideology or location [8][9]. Societal Division and Polarization - The article notes a significant decline in the proportion of self-identified moderates in the U.S., dropping from an average of 43% in 1992 to 34% in 2024, the lowest recorded level [11]. - A Pew Research Center poll indicates that 80% of American adults believe there is not only a policy divide but also a lack of consensus on basic facts between Republican and Democratic supporters [11]. Factors Contributing to Political Violence - The article identifies several conditions that facilitate political violence, including a rapid regression of democratic systems, societal divisions based on race or religion, and the easy availability of firearms [12][13]. - The political climate is described as one of "zero-sum" thinking, where opposing factions view each other as existential threats, leading to a decrease in willingness to compromise [11][12]. Responses to Political Violence - Following the assassination of a political figure, leaders from both major parties condemned the violence, yet their responses reflected deep partisan divides, with accusations directed at opposing factions [15][16]. - Experts suggest that addressing the root causes of political violence requires bipartisan condemnation of violence and accountability for inflammatory rhetoric from political leaders and media figures [16].

Core Viewpoint - The current political violence in the United States is escalating, with a significant increase in incidents targeting political figures, reflecting a deepening societal divide and a lack of consensus across the political spectrum [2][4][5]. Political Violence Trends - Political violence incidents are becoming more frequent and diverse, affecting both left and right-wing individuals, and occurring in various public and private settings [4][5]. - A study from Princeton University indicates that over 250 threats and harassment incidents against local officials were tracked in the first half of 2025, marking a 9% increase compared to the same period in 2024 [4]. - The Chicago University’s research highlights that the U.S. is experiencing a "violent populism era," with assassination attempts and violent protests reaching historical highs [5]. Societal Division and Polarization - The political landscape is characterized by extreme polarization, with both liberal and conservative factions viewing each other as existential threats, leading to a rise in violent behavior among psychologically unstable individuals [6][7]. - Polling data shows a decline in the proportion of self-identified moderates from an average of 43% in 1992 to 34% in 2024, indicating a significant shift towards extremism [7]. - A Pew Research Center poll reveals that 80% of American adults believe there is a lack of consensus on basic facts between Republican and Democratic supporters [7]. Public Sentiment on Political Violence - Despite a majority opposing political violence, a growing number of individuals are beginning to accept it as a means to achieve political goals, with 22% of Democratic respondents and 12% of Republican respondents finding the murder of a health insurance CEO "somewhat acceptable" [5]. - A Marist poll indicates that about one-fifth of Americans believe violence could be a way to "get the country back on track," with Republican respondents supporting this view at a rate more than double that of Democrats [5]. Calls for Change - Political leaders from both parties have condemned the recent violence, yet responses often reflect partisan divides, complicating efforts to address the underlying issues [9][10]. - Experts suggest that political leaders must take immediate steps to de-escalate tensions, including bipartisan condemnation of violence and accountability for inflammatory rhetoric [11].