Another Government Shutdown Thread

[LouderVol]

You should have scheduled OBGYN and mammogram appts.

I jokingly asked my (new-thanks Obama) doctor when I finally found one. She didn't find it very funny. would have been zero cost to me. I probably had a C cup at the time, upper Bs at the least.

no, Mcdad can't have any more photos.

 

[C-south]

Just completed my open enrollment for retiree healthcare at my former company. 55% increase in premiums. **** the ACA and all it did to screw up healthcare for all of us.

But leeches get more free s**t.

 

[hog88]

What should be headline news is the fact that this country has millions of people dependent on assistance be it food or health insurance subsidies.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I would really love some past examples of any president actually being a mediator. every situation I can remember had the president supporting his side, demanding the other side come work with them.

literally Obama being a mediator was "Elections have consequences, and I won". and that was on a secret bill he hadn't even read. Pelosi dropped the "we have to vote on it to see what is in it". that is how the Dems "negotiated".

Loading…

www.usnews.com

It is well-documented that President Bill Clinton made significant concessions to House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1996, in order to reform the US welfare system with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.

 

[Vol423]

Context for others coming in at this point: this is in response to someone saying that a minority shut down the government. This isn’t an attempt to apportion all blame to the Republican Party (or to absolve Democrats).

Respectfully, I don’t think that’s an accurate description of the situation leading up to this. But I don’t think it matters.

The filibuster creates an obligation to obtain 60 votes.

A majority caucus with less than 60 members has 3 choices:
1. Negotiate to get the remaining votes;
2. Don’t pass a bill to fund the government, costing taxpayers a bunch of money when the government reopens; or
3. Change the rules.

The fact that those options get progressively worse just reinforces the obligation to negotiate.

Leading up to the shutdown, the majority knew they weren’t getting 60 votes. Yet they didn’t make any effort to get minority votes. They didn’t do their homework and then tried to blame the homework for their failure to pass.
During the shutdown, the majority just kept calling votes on the same bill that couldn’t get any minority votes.

Now 40 days in, senate republicans offer a relatively modest compromise and peeled off the votes they needed. That’s how it is supposed to work.

So, when Democrats are in power, Republicans are supposed to vote for clean CR's ad inifinitum because only evil people would vote to shut down the federal government. Then, when Republicans are running the show and offer the exact same clean CR that has been approved ad nauseum, they are supposed to make concessions? Democrats can eat dirt.

 

[RockyTop85]

So it's your understanding that Republicans didn't offer this deal a month ago and if they did, Dems would've accepted it? I don't see it that way. Things like SNAP and pay for furloughed workers weren't even an issue until the shutdown got out of hand. The Republicans agreed to those concessions because the Dems voted 13x to shutdown the gov't

its interesting to me that implication is that the majority is the one under the obligation. That is not how I have commonly heard it argued. in the past it was the minority Rs obligation to align with the wants of the majority Ds because elections have consequences.

The Dems could also have made proposals for compromise.

and as I pointed out, this CR did have Democrat support back in March, I believe, whenever it was passed to cover until October. The Rs put up the same CR they had previously compromised on. but this time it wasn't enough for the Dems. the Dems came back and asked for more, and not a small or modest modification. 33% more spending.

at some point you can't give the Mouse a cookie. giving the mice, both sides, cookies, is how we ended up in this current failure.

It seems like both of you blew past that first paragraph and went straight to “but the democrats.”

The point isn’t that democrats are blameless. The point is that republicans aren’t.

I’d be happy to mete out the blame in exact measures, but not without first reconciling that that there’s a path to only needing 51 votes and it’s not appealing to anybody smarter than a marshmallow.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Can we at least change the name from ACA to UCA (unaffordable) because for millions of Americans that’s the reality. Even with a 55% increase we are fortunate that we can afford healthcare still. We also make considerably more than the median income even in retirement

 

[RockyTop85]

So, when Democrats are in power, Republicans are supposed to vote for clean CR's ad inifinitum because only evil people would vote yo shut down the federal government. Then, when Republicans are running the show and offer the exact same clean CR that has been approved ad nauseum, they are supposed to make concessions? Democrats can eat dirt.

First paragraph.

 

[RockyTop85]

It was childish, much like previous shutdowns.

So repeal the filibuster.

 

[Vol423]

It seems like both of you blew past that first paragraph and went straight to “but the democrats.”

The point isn’t that democrats are blameless. The point is that republicans aren’t.

I’d be happy to mete out the blame in exact measures, but not without first reconciling that that there’s a path to only needing 51 votes and it’s not appealing to anybody smarter than a marshmallow.

Republicans are blameless in this instance. They voted to have the government open every time.

 

[NorthDallas40]

So repeal the filibuster.

Here is a crazy idea. Totally off the wall instead of putting asshats in office that are loyal to party platform only and won’t compromise let’s put people in that are loyal to their constituents and work across the aisle to reach consensus! It’s completely crazy I know.

 

[Vol423]

So repeal the filibuster.

No need. It got passed and the Democrats further damaged their party in the process.

 

[Sea Ray]

It seems like both of you blew past that first paragraph and went straight to “but the democrats.”

The point isn’t that democrats are blameless. The point is that republicans aren’t.

I’d be happy to mete out the blame in exact measures, but not without first reconciling that that there’s a path to only needing 51 votes and it’s not appealing to anybody smarter than a marshmallow.

I'm open to the concept that Republicans share in the blame here. So what should they have done to avert this shutdown? The Dems come to them with $1.5T in additional spending and say "let's negotiate." If Republicans had said "no to your $1.5T but it's fine with us if we schedule a vote on OC in December."

You think such an offer would have alleviated this shutdown? I sure don't.

 

[Ritzwatch]

Context for others coming in at this point: this is in response to someone saying that a minority shut down the government. This isn’t an attempt to apportion all blame to the Republican Party (or to absolve Democrats).

Respectfully, I don’t think that’s an accurate description of the situation leading up to this. But I don’t think it matters.

The filibuster creates an obligation to obtain 60 votes.

A majority caucus with less than 60 members has 3 choices:
1. Negotiate to get the remaining votes;
2. Don’t pass a bill to fund the government, costing taxpayers a bunch of money when the government reopens; or
3. Change the rules.

The fact that those options get progressively worse just reinforces the obligation to negotiate.

Leading up to the shutdown, the majority knew they weren’t getting 60 votes. Yet they didn’t make any effort to get minority votes. They didn’t do their homework and then tried to blame the homework for their failure to pass.
During the shutdown, the majority just kept calling votes on the same bill that couldn’t get any minority votes.

Now 40 days in, senate republicans offer a relatively modest compromise and peeled off the votes they needed. That’s how it is supposed to work.

I think Point#1 is fair in a normal appropriations process. I do not think it is during a shutdown scenario.

In the shutdown, the minority side is so afraid that they won’t get what they want that everyone gets screwed. They leverage everything and everyone because they are in the minority.

If the two sides can’t agree during a new appropriations process, the default should be continuing the previous year’s (or most recent) budget. After all, both sides agreed to that spending, didn’t they? If it was good enough then, it should carry forward until the two sides can negotiate a new budget.

No shutdowns.

 

[Vol423]

Here is a crazy idea. Totally off the wall instead of putting asshats in office that are loyal to party platform only and won’t compromise let’s put people in that are loyal to their constituents and work across the aisle to reach consensus! It’s completely crazy I know.

So, what level of additional spending would you want your Senator to help authorize to get to the same result that we have now without additional spending?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'm open to the concept that Republicans share in the blame here. So what should they have done to avert this shutdown? The Dems come to them with $1.5T in additional spending and say "let's negotiate." If Republicans had said "no to your $1.5T but it's fine with us if we schedule a vote on OC in December."

You think such an offer would have alleviated this shutdown? I sure don't.

Fault lies equally with both parties. They are all sent there to govern not freaking play holdout.

 

[Sea Ray]

Loading…

www.usnews.com

It is well-documented that President Bill Clinton made significant concessions to House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1996, in order to reform the US welfare system with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.

I agree, the Clinton administration was the last time we had bipartisan cooperation but that compromise wasn't done at the gunpoint of a shutdown

 

[RockyTop85]

Here is a crazy idea. Totally off the wall instead of putting asshats in office that are loyal to party platform only and won’t compromise let’s put people in that are loyal to their constituents and work across the aisle to reach consensus! It’s completely crazy I know.

I said almost that exact thing earlier.

 

[NorthDallas40]

So, what level of additional spending would you want your Senator to help authorize to get to the same result that we have now without additional spending?

What I want my senator to do is vacate the ACA and for the federal government to get out of the healthcare business. They’re absolutely pathetic at everything they do so the last thing I want them touching is my healthcare.

They can reach across the aisle and agree it was all a horrible idea based on historical costs from the programs inception

 

[Sea Ray]

Fault lies equally with both parties. They are all sent there to govern not freaking play holdout.

Things are rarely 50:50. It's usually 51 or more on one side. Where do the R's deserve blame here?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I said almost that exact thing earlier.

I didn’t see it. I just used you as an easy target to vent. I don’t think you’d like to see the filibuster actually dissolved.

Historically the Senate are supposed to be the “adults”. The House has always been more prone to knee jerk but the Senate has time in office to actually work thru issues.

They all suck now. Equally. I don’t care about claiming which sucks worse you can’t put enough hot sauce on a **** sandwich to make it not taste like a **** sandwich.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Things are rarely 50:50. It's usually 51 or more on one side. Where do the R's deserve blame here?

Exactly where the D’s deserve blame. In not doing their damn job and keeping the government open.

 

[RockyTop85]

I think Point#1 is fair in a normal appropriations process. I do not think it is during a shutdown scenario.

In the shutdown, the minority side is so afraid that they won’t get what they want that everyone gets screwed. They leverage everything and everyone because they are in the minority.

If the two sides can’t agree during a new appropriations process, the default should be continuing the previous year’s (or most recent) budget. After all, both sides agreed to that spending, didn’t they? If it was good enough then, it should carry forward until the two sides can negotiate a new budget.

No shutdowns.

I do agree with what you’re saying and that solution would solve this problem. I would need to consider the ramifications in other contexts given the presidential veto power and the filibuster would make that seem like a slippery slope that’s hard to crawl back up.

Truthfully, I still think the easier solution is @NorthDallas40 ’s: Stop rewarding the petty ******** and party-first politics and elect people that want to go work across the aisle. I don’t know how realistic that is.

 

[Vol423]

What I want my senator to do is vacate the ACA and for the federal government to get out of the healthcare business. They’re absolutely pathetic at everything they do so the last thing I want them touching is my healthcare.

They can reach across the aisle and agree it was all a horrible idea based on historical costs from the programs inception

Yeah. That's not happening, and you know it. We couldn't even pass a clean CR through the Senate. There is NO WAY they were going to get Democrats to vote to repeal the ACA. They wouldn't vote for the CR unless Republicans gave an extra $1.5 trillion. You're obviously upset with the Republicans for allowing the government shutdown. So, with only one semi-rational Democrat in the Senate willing to vote to keep the government open without an additional $1.5 trillion of spending, how much additional spending did you want your Texas Senators to authorize to bribe Demacrats to vote to keep the federal government open?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]