Shutting Down the Government

[Berzerker]

The polls are not trending well for the Dems, while people overwhelmingly support DACA more people object to shutting down the govt because of it. I think a CNN poll had a 51-34% result...

Battle of the Bases, score one for the Trumpets...

I dont want Trump's damn wall, I want migrating animals to be able to migrate. We're screwing this planet up enough without putting more obstacles in their way.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The polls are not trending well for the Dems, while people overwhelmingly support DACA more people object to shutting down the govt because of it. I think a CNN poll had a 51-34% result...Battle of the Bases, score one for the Trumpets...

And you complained that the media were on the side of the Democrats and yet its is the Republican side that is being repeated and believed. Oh well
Time for the Democrats to surrender again

 

[Berzerker]

This was a poll, not media talking heads ranting about Trump and the Republicans. You can look at the OP to see what media I'm griping about.

People dont need Republicans to know this is about DACA, the Dems have been quite clear about that.

 

[Lexicus]

I for one am proud of the Democrats for showing the first bit of spine I've seen from them, I think literally for my entire life.

 

[Berzerker]

I've been looking at past shutdowns, 5 times in Carter's 4 years with Dems in overwhelming control of the Senate and House. The shut downs since then happened with both parties sharing power. But the Dems didn't really have control under Carter, the Senate was 59-41 in their favor so even that wasn't filibuster proof along party lines. The main issue back then was abortion, but the parties were less divided along partisan lines on that issue.

 

[Commodore]

Nah, they'll quickly pass a smaller law funding military personnel. Neither camp can afford to look ungrateful to our servicemen and women.

Not to mention we all saw what happened during the fall of the Soviet Union when Soviet soldiers stopped getting paid. Soldiers are like anyone else in this world, they are only loyal as long as they are getting paid. Even the fiercest patriot in the military will start reconsidering his allegiance when the rent isn't getting paid.

I for one am proud of the Democrats for showing the first bit of spine I've seen from them, I think literally for my entire life.

You are proud of them for trying to look tough at the expense of the people? I thought you were a man of the people Lexicus. Guess not.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I've been looking at past shutdowns, 5 times in Carter's 4 years with Dems in overwhelming control of the Senate and House. The shut downs since then happened with both parties sharing power. But the Dems didn't really have control under Carter, the Senate was 59-41 in their favor so even that wasn't filibuster proof along party lines. The main issue back then was abortion, but the parties were less divided along partisan lines on that issue.

And Carter would have gotten away with it as well if it wasnt for that pesky AG.
GOP pulled a fast one alright, guess its time to eat that S**** sandwich

It’s true that Jimmy Carter and Democrats in Congress butted heads five separate times in 1977, 1978, and 1979, and couldn’t get their act together to fund the government (Carter was a bad president!). But that was before Carter’s attorney general issued guidance saying that when a funding gap like that exists, government functions must shut down. Carter’s “shutdowns” didn’t lead to any federal employees being sent home and denied pay.

Odd thing about this impending shutdown is it's happening over an issue (DACA codification) that the president and leaders of both parties claim to support. That wasn't the case in 2013 when the issue (ACA defunding) split along party lines.

This isn’t to pin exclusive blame on Republicans for the shutdown. Democrats have clearly decided that a shutdown is a price worth paying for a DACA deal. But what’s genuinely bizarre is that Republicans have decided a shutdown is a price worth paying for not doing a DACA deal, despite insisting they want to do a DACA deal.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/19/16911148/government-shutdown-unified-control

 

[Berzerker]

From what I understand the GOP objected to adding DACA to a CR spending bill, but new rules regarding funding and shutdowns were enacted in the early 70s so I guess the government was figuring out how to apply them under Ford and Carter. I dont see why they couldn't just pass the bill and use the 4 weeks resolving DACA.

 

[Lexicus]

You are proud of them for trying to look tough at the expense of the people? I thought you were a man of the people Lexicus. Guess not.

I'm proud of them for refusing to sign their names to a public declaration that the United States only wants white people to be Americans.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The shutdown happened because the Republicans didn't offer a bill the Dems would vote for. It is really very simple. When you need 60 votes and only have 51, you have to change the legislation to garner 8 or more votes. The republicans didn't do this.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

From what I understand the GOP objected to adding DACA to a CR spending bill, but new rules regarding funding and shutdowns were enacted in the early 70s so I guess the government was figuring out how to apply them under Ford and Carter. I dont see why they couldn't just pass the bill and use the 4 weeks resolving DACA.

Because when they did that four months ago the GOP reneged on the deal.

 

[Commodore]

I'm proud of them for refusing to sign their names to a public declaration that the United States only wants white people to be Americans.

Yeah, except that's not what a budget is. Without a budget millions of Americans are going to be negatively impacted. Americans of all races, religions, and genders. And why? Because the Democrats want to make a stand on DACA? A stand that could be made at a later date when the issue can be negotiated without using the extremely scummy tactic of getting what you want by attaching it to something our government needs to function. Yeah, no. The Democrats right now are looking just as scummy and disgusting for refusing to compromise as the Republicans did in 2013 when they refused to compromise.

You are also failing to see the long term here as well. Allowing this shutdown is giving the Republicans all the ammunition they need to ensure they beat the Democrats back again in the midterms. You are pissing away an opportunity at long term victories for the chance at a short term one. And that short term victory isn't even guaranteed. How about thinking about what's best for the country for once instead of thinking about the best way to piss off your political opponents?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not forgetting it, I said "if" Obamacare needed 60 votes for my hypothetical to Tim. If the GOP filibustered Obamacare they'd be blamed for its failure, not the Democrats.

You're either forgetting or you just didn't know, that Obamacare did in-fact need 60 votes to because the Republicans were in-fact threatening filibuster. That is why at the last minute the Democrats dropped the Public Option from the bill. They had 60 votes exactly to invoke cloture, but then at the very last minute, Joe Sleazeberman announced that his Insurance lobby overlords wanted him to kill the public option so he couldn't support the cloture vote.

So the the Democrats amended the bill to something that would pass (ie they dropped the public option) which allowed Sleazeberman to vote for cloture, which enabled Obamacare to pass. So now you can see how your Obamacare theory is completely wrong. The Democrats did exactly what a majority must... bring bills to the floor that can overcome the 60 vote cloture hurdle.

MH was accusing me of thinking there were no differences between the House and Senate based on who was or wasn't voting on the bill (past tense vs present tense). Please let him defend his strawman, I dont want to repeat our debate for you too. I know 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster, I just hadn't heard that a filibuster was threatened by the Democrats until a guest on MSNBC referred to it. Filibusters aren't always possible eg Obamacare and MSNBC didn't mention the Democrats would filibuster, that might conflict with their narrative of blaming the GOP.

What you don't seem to get, is that filibuster is always threatened on controversial issues like this. The "60 vote requirement" is synonymous with a filibuster threat. Whenever you hear that "there is a 60 vote requirement", it means that there is also a actual or expected/assumed filibuster threat in play.

I didn't need that pointed out to me, the thread's about how the media blamed the GOP for the impending shutdown when in reality 60 votes are needed, not a simple majority. So it doesn't matter that the GOP is in the majority, the Dems can still block them. Hell, I'm watching Schumer right now claiming this is Trump's shutdown because the GOP controls the Senate. He's ignoring the 60 vote requirement too.

See Tim's point about the difference between "control" and "ability to unilaterally do whatever flies into our collective funnels" (Thomas-the-tank reference).

That's what Sommer calls the "royal you." I'm usually careful to use "one" (not least as a form of quiet implicit protest of his goofy formulation). I'll go make the change.

Edit: actually, on second look, it's cleaner altogether with no pronoun.

Now you are starting to get it Feel free to start referring to it as "Sommerswerd's royal you" if it makes it easier to employ in the necessary situations.

Yeah, except that's not what a budget is. Without a budget millions of Americans are going to be negatively impacted. Americans of all races, religions, and genders. And why? Because the Democrats want to make a stand on DACA? A stand that could be made at a later date when the issue can be negotiated without using the extremely scummy tactic of getting what you want by attaching it to something our government needs to function. Yeah, no. The Democrats right now are looking just as scummy and disgusting for refusing to compromise as the Republicans did in 2013 when they refused to compromise.

You are also failing to see the long term here as well. Allowing this shutdown is giving the Republicans all the ammunition they need to ensure they beat the Democrats back again in the midterms. You are pissing away an opportunity at long term victories for the chance at a short term one. And that short term victory isn't even guaranteed. How about thinking about what's best for the country for once instead of thinking about the best way to piss off your political opponents?

I think you are miscalculating here... Going along with a CR in this instance is like supporting Hillary. Saying "Eff you we want DACA" is like supporting Bernie. Now I submit to you (not the royal you) that if you were faced with those alternatives, you would go along with the later... and that is what the Democrats seem... at the moment at least... to finally have the courage to do... to say "Eff the 'safe' option we're going for broke"

If they had done that in 2016 they would have gotten your vote... RIGHT? Or am I mis-remembering?

 

[Berzerker]

You're either forgetting or you just didn't know, that Obamacare did in-fact need 60 votes to because the Republicans were in-fact threatening filibuster. That is why at the last minute the Democrats dropped the Public Option from the bill. They had 60 votes exactly to invoke cloture, but then at the very last minute, Joe Sleazeberman announced that his Insurance lobby overlords wanted him to kill the public option so he couldn't support the cloture vote.

So the the Democrats amended the bill to something that would pass (ie they dropped the public option) which allowed Sleazeberman to vote for cloture, which enabled Obamacare to pass. So now you can see how your Obamacare theory is completely wrong. The Democrats did exactly what a majority must... bring bills to the floor that can overcome the 60 vote cloture hurdle. What you don't seem to get, is that filibuster is always threatened on controversial issues like this. The "60 vote requirement" is synonymous with a filibuster threat. Whenever you hear that "there is a 60 vote requirement", it means that there is also a actual or expected/assumed filibuster threat in play.See Tim's point about the difference between "control" and "ability to unilaterally do whatever flies into our collective funnels" (Thomas-the-tank reference).

It wasn't a theory, it was a hypothetical... If Obamacare needed 60 to pass and didn't get it because of GOP opposition, would you blame the GOP?

Because when they did that four months ago the GOP reneged on the deal.

When does DACA expire?

The shutdown happened because the Republicans didn't offer a bill the Dems would vote for. It is really very simple. When you need 60 votes and only have 51, you have to change the legislation to garner 8 or more votes. The republicans didn't do this.

The shutdown happened because Dems insisted on adding DACA to funding the government. And it looks like they're starting to lose the PR battle on that front. I support DACA and oppose Trump's wall, but what I want aint relevant to that fact. Fund the government today, deal with DACA later. That seems to be the rationale reflected in the polls.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It wasn't a theory, it was a hypothetical... If Obamacare needed 60 to pass and didn't get it because of GOP opposition, would you blame the GOP?

Once again... you don't need a hypothetical for this because it actually happened. Also, you don't need to ask my position on this (ie who would I blame), because I am on the record very clearly about who I blamed when the Democrats did in-fact fail to get the 60 votes. Look up how many times I have used the phrase "Sleazeberman" on these threads... I place the blame squarely on a Democrat for the failure to get 60 votes for the Obamacare public option.

I understand that you're trying to prove some kind of point about double standards by posing this "hypothetical" but you're just wrong and the record proves it. I blamed Democrats, one Democrat in particular, when your "hypothetical" actually happened. So again, there is no double standard, this current failure to get 60 votes to invoke cloture is 100% Republicans fault, and you can stop bringing up your hypothetical because all it does is highlight how wrong you are.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The shutdown happened because Dems insisted on adding DACA to funding the government.

It would be nice if it weren't, but at this point politics is the motive on both sides. Trump and the repubs don't want DACA because it will infuriate their base and do even more so if there is no wall. The Dems really want DACA for the Hispanic vote and it is the right thing to do. So there is an impasse that impacts lots of plain folks. It is a game of political chicken. But only the repubs can put up legislation. If they want to end the game they can any time. For a year the repubs have ignored the congressional dems in every effort: repeal of obamacare, taxes, confirmations hearings. And now that they need them, they get all huffy and demanding.

How the PR will fall out over the long run is anybody's guess. We will just have to wait to see who blinks first: Trump, repubs, or Dems. Hold tight guys.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And let's be clear - it's not even that all Republicans hate DACA and immigration. It's the teahadists that do and they are being allowed to control the agenda.

 

[Berzerker]

I just saw a clip of Sen Cotton claiming the reason DACA didn't pass earlier is because the proposal also included a mass amnesty for the parents who brought them here illegally. Is that true?

Once again... you don't need a hypothetical for this because it actually happened. Also, you don't need to ask my position on this (ie who would I blame), because I am on the record very clearly about who I blamed when the Democrats did in-fact fail to get the 60 votes. Look up how many times I have used the phrase "Sleazeberman" on these threads... I place the blame squarely on a Democrat for the failure to get 60 votes for the Obamacare public option.

I understand that you're trying to prove some kind of point about double standards by posing this "hypothetical" but you're just wrong and the record proves it. I blamed Democrats, one Democrat in particular, when your "hypothetical" actually happened. So again, there is no double standard, this current failure to get 60 votes to invoke cloture is 100% Republicans fault, and you can stop bringing up your hypothetical because all it does is highlight how wrong you are.

I didn't ask my hypothetical based on what you think I need or dont need, that was for someone else. Lieberman was an independent back then and you're blaming him for dropping the public option, so I find it hard to believe you wouldn't blame the GOP for Obamacare's hypothetical failure. Yeah, I see a double standard. The shutdown happened because Dems want DACA added to a bill funding the government. Thats not gonna play to their favor, Commodore is right.

And let's be clear - it's not even that all Republicans hate DACA and immigration. It's the teahadists that do and they are being allowed to control the agenda.

I saw a poll claiming 9 in 10 people support DACA, so even a majority of Trump's base support it

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Didn't you also just claim the opposite based on another poll?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Bottom line, the government is shut down because neither side cares about the harm it might do, and both sides believe they can use it against the other for political gain. On the Democrat side there is at least some amount of "the harm it is doing is less than the potential for good, while the Republicans have a track record of shutting down the government without really any pretense of any good coming from it, other than "screwing the lib'ruls," which always plays well with their base.

As to polling about "who takes the blame"...results are dubious.

In the specific poll Berzerker brings to the table, the question is "whether DACA is worth shutting down the government over," and a majority say no...but a vast majority do support DACA. As time goes on that question is likely to translate well into "why didn't you Republicans just put it in there and avoid the shutdown, since 80% of the people wanted it in the first place so we all knew you were gonna do it eventually?" That's a hard sell for the Republicans, and an easy sell for the Democrats, so it is very likely to shift their way over time.

In polls of "who's to blame" the right wing echo chamber is spewing stories about how "the plurality blames Democrats," and trying to calm their nerves by omitting that this plurality is running a couple points higher than "blames congressional Republicans" and "blames the Republican president" is a very close third. Add in the ten to fifteen percent who blame all three and the story of "plurality" reverses to 70% blame some sort of Republicans, at least in part. With the shutdown being a front and center news story, the procedures of congress are going to be analyzed and explained, and in terms of parliamentary procedure "blame the Democrats even though the Republicans control the agenda in both houses" is again a hard sell, so again over time this would be expected to shift in favor of the Democrats.

The thing standing in the way of these shifts is, of course, the president. He has far more access for speaking to the people than anyone else. The problem for Republicans is that he is just as likely to go on a "blame anyone but me" tack, and bury the congressional Republicans, as he is to actually help them. There's also the fact that a large majority of Americans will autoflip whatever he says because it has been proven to their satisfaction that he is most likely just going to lie, especially when he makes claims that he is not at fault.