Government Shutdown on the clock thread

[cabiness42]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/11...le-for-support/

 

A spokeswoman with the White House budget office said they "believe that time remains for Congress to pass full-year appropriations for FY 2015, and prevent a government shutdown." Nevertheless, she said agencies are preparing "for all contingencies, including a potential lapse in funding" out of an "abundance of caution."

 

That is not true. There has been no preparation for any contingency here. Today was 100% business as usual.

[Cknolls]

Will the Dems shut down the govt?

[cabiness42]

Will the Dems shut down the govt?

 

The bill up for consideration has been approved by the House Budget Committee, Senate Budget Committee and the White House, yet can't get enough votes to pass.

 

I get that the bill has a lot of things Democrats don't like, but the alternative is to pass a short term CR and then the the Republicans run the Senate when the next deadline comes. The Dems probably need to cut their losses.

[Balta1701]

Will the Dems shut down the govt?

Which party has a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives?

[ptatc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...-to/?tid=pm_pop

 

 

 

sigh

 

 

 

ugh

 

 

 

I'm sure both my dad and HH will be out spending lavishly now!

 

 

 

How. How is this still a thing.

 

 

 

This sounds horrible.

 

 

 

Republicans seem to actively hate nature.

Illinois passed a bill to scale back my pension. Luckily the courts found it unconstitutional. Where do they get off getting a 1% raise? I haven't gotten one for 2 years. Howver next year I get a 1.5%.

[cabiness42]

Which party has a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives?

 

And which party has the White House, which has endorsed the bill?

 

The Democrats have three choices:

 

1) Approve the current bill, which sucks

2) Approve a CR and then get faced with a bill in January that sucks worse

3) Don't approve either and get blamed for shutting down the government

 

[Cknolls]

Which party has a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives?

 

Ah a question with a question. Say no more...

[Balta1701]

And which party has the White House, which has endorsed the bill?

 

The Democrats have three choices:

 

1) Approve the current bill, which sucks

2) Approve a CR and then get faced with a bill in January that sucks worse

3) Don't approve either and get blamed for shutting down the government

Why exactly does the party with a minority in the House have to approve the bill? In fact, how could they? They are, by definition, a minority. It is literally impossible for them to pass a bill on their own.

[Balta1701]

Well guys, the good news is you can all breathe easier, you're now guaranteeing Citibank's bets on the stock market again.

[StrangeSox]

Lol, trying to blame it on the minority democrats in the house.

 

Republicans don't need a single democrat to vote yes to pass this in the house.

[EvilMonkey]

Lol, trying to blame it on the minority democrats in the house.

 

Republicans don't need a single democrat to vote yes to pass this in the house.

And yet when the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote to pass ANYTHING, it was always the eeeeevil Republicans fault for obstructing.

[StrangeSox]

That was only true for a grand total of about 60 days when they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

 

The house has no filibuster and thus the republicans can pass whatever they want on a straight party line vote.

[cabiness42]

Why exactly does the party with a minority in the House have to approve the bill? In fact, how could they? They are, by definition, a minority. It is literally impossible for them to pass a bill on their own.

 

The party with the minority in the House has to help approve the bill because the compromise bill does not contain provisions stripping funding for the President's executive order on immigration.

 

Would you prefer the House pass a bill that couldn't garner any Democratic support and then fail in the Senate? Would that make you feel better?

[StrangeSox]

The party with the minority in the House has to help approve the bill because not enough Republicans will vote for it

 

edit: the most you can say is that enough members of both parties needed to compromise and pass this bill. Trying to lay the blame solely at the feet of the minority party in the house of Congress that does not have a filibuster is just silly, though.

Edited December 12, 2014 by StrangeSox

[cabiness42]

edit: the most you can say is that enough members of both parties needed to compromise and pass this bill. Trying to lay the blame solely at the feet of the minority party in the house of Congress that does not have a filibuster is just silly, though.

 

I'm looking at it from the standpoint that the President and the Senate Budget Committee chair signed off on this bill, knowing full well that it would take some House Democratic yes votes to overcome the House Republican no votes. It would have been a failure of the Democratic Party not to get those votes. You can't honestly say that the House Democrats don't have some responsibility to help pass the bill, knowing full well that any bill that could pass the House without any Democratic votes would be a bill that you would find even more objectionable than this one.

 

In any case, the bill has now passed the House, so it's now in the hands of the Senate.

 

This is why it's more fun not to affiliate with either party--I can be on the right side of the argument in both 2013 and 2014.

[Balta1701]

I can be on the right side of the argument in both 2013 and 2014.

That's really easy.

 

All you have to do is be in favor of giving wall street all your moneys and all everyone else's moneys.

 

It's the one thing both sides agree on. Citibank deserves your paycheck.

[StrangeSox]

I'm looking at it from the standpoint that the President and the Senate Budget Committee chair signed off on this bill, knowing full well that it would take some House Democratic yes votes to overcome the House Republican no votes. It would have been a failure of the Democratic Party not to get those votes. You can't honestly say that the House Democrats don't have some responsibility to help pass the bill, knowing full well that any bill that could pass the House without any Democratic votes would be a bill that you would find even more objectionable than this one.

 

In any case, the bill has now passed the House, so it's now in the hands of the Senate.

 

This is why it's more fun not to affiliate with either party--I can be on the right side of the argument in both 2013 and 2014.

 

Well that's why it's silly to say that it'd be the Democrats' fault if the bill had failed. At worst, it'd equally be caused by the Democrats who didn't want Dodd-Frank changed and the Republicans who wouldn't vote for a bill without immigration changes.

[cabiness42]

Well that's why it's silly to say that it'd be the Democrats' fault if the bill had failed. At worst, it'd equally be caused by the Democrats who didn't want Dodd-Frank changed and the Republicans who wouldn't vote for a bill without immigration changes.

 

No it's not silly to say that. Before the bill comes up for a vote, leadership of both parties get together to agree on whatever compromise they think they can pass, with each party pledging a certain number (or at least a ballpark estimate) of the number of votes their party can provide. If your side doesn't provide the votes promised, then the failure is on your side.

 

In 2013, Boehner and Reid negotiated a bill, and then after that, the Republicans took a hard line and refused to pass what had been negotiated and passed something different. Sure, the Republicans tried to point out that the House bill had as much right to be considered as the Senate bill, but the reality is that the Republicans did not stick to the deal that their leadership negotiated.

 

In 2014, a bill was again negotiated, with the understanding that it would need (and have) a certain amount of Democratic support in the House. When it initially looked like that support wasn't going to be there, that would have been the Democrats' fault for not holding up their end of the bargain. Just because they are the minority party in the House doesn't absolve them from being accountable to what their leadership has agreed to.

 

At the end of the day, the Democrats did eventually hold up their end of the bargain. You can chalk that up to some combination of (1) unlike the Republicans in 2013, the Democrats in 2014 had the pressure of the White House to face, which even in a lame duck WH is substantial and (2) the Democrats just aren't willing to be assholes to the extent that Republicans are.

 

I didn't want Dodd-Frank changed either, but there are a lot of worse things the Republicans wanted to do that ended up not happening. This is the best deal that we could have possibly gotten given the makeup of the Senate. Not passing anything and having another shutdown, aside from personally making my life much more difficult, would have ended with a bill leaning much more to the right than the one we have now.

Edited December 12, 2014 by HickoryHuskers

[Balta1701]

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP MorganChase, was personally calling people in Congress to whip for votes on that bill last night.

 

Remember how I said that I had no real good way of convincing a person who thought their vote didn't count why they should actually vote? Yup.

[EvilMonkey]

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP MorganChase, was personally calling DEMOCRATS in Congress to whip for votes on that bill last night.

 

Remember how I said that I had no real good way of convincing a person who thought their vote didn't count why they should actually vote? Yup.

Fixed that for ya.

[NorthSideSox72]

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP MorganChase, was personally calling people in Congress to whip for votes on that bill last night.

 

Remember how I said that I had no real good way of convincing a person who thought their vote didn't count why they should actually vote? Yup.

 

Much as this legislation pains me, you made an absurd leap there.

 

Fixed that for ya.

 

Well yeah. The GOP is essentially already within two known camps - the Tea Partiers who are against it on principle, and the rest of them who are in the pockets of banks. The Dems aren't as set in stone that way. Of course he called mostly Dems.

 

[Balta1701]

Much as this legislation pains me, you made an absurd leap there.

That Wall Street can get whatever they want, including the setup for the next collapse and bailout, and what the rest of the country wants doesn't matter in the least? I think that's pretty fair.

[NorthSideSox72]

That Wall Street can get whatever they want, including the setup for the next collapse and bailout, and what the rest of the country wants doesn't matter in the least? I think that's pretty fair.

Who said it was fair?

 

You are a master at conflating things despite a massive chasm between them.

 

It is stupid. It is unfair. It is dangerous. And absolutely votes still matter.

 

[Balta1701]

Who said it was fair?

 

You are a master at conflating things despite a massive chasm between them.

 

It is stupid. It is unfair. It is dangerous. And absolutely votes still matter.

Study from earlier this year - interests of businesses and economic elites correlate strongly to actions of government, will of actual voters has little to no influence whatsoever.

 

Which sounds a whole lot like the head of JP Morgan being able to call people in Congress and lobby directly to me.

[NorthSideSox72]

Study from earlier this year - interests of businesses and economic elites correlate strongly to actions of government, will of actual voters has little to no influence whatsoever.

 

Which sounds a whole lot like the head of JP Morgan being able to call people in Congress and lobby directly to me.

All the more reason to vote - for different people. That's kinda the idea.