login
Government Shutdown (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2018-01-22 3:26 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion  10157    Alabama |  Subject: RE: Government ShutdownThe dems cut their losses. Reps are never going to approve DACA unless we end chain migration, visa lottery and get better border security. Reps and dems alike, inlcuding Schumer, Obama and Clinton all are on the record saying amestry increases the draw of illegals across the border and you can’t give a path to citizenship without controlling the border. If you approve DACA you are basically telling immigrants if they can get their kids across the border they will become citizens. I don’t blame them for wanting to come. If I lived in a s-hole country I’d die trying to get my kids across the border so they might have a better life in America. |
| 2018-01-22 3:35 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by Rogillio If I lived in a s-hole country I’d die trying to get my kids across the border so they might have a better life in America. Amen! And I'd likely fight and die for people's rights to come here. But we are a nation of laws, dammit......that can't be compromised. The REAL fight should be to make LEGAL immigration easier. |
| 2018-01-22 3:39 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Rogillio If I lived in a s-hole country I’d die trying to get my kids across the border so they might have a better life in America. Amen! And I'd likely fight and die for people's rights to come here. But we are a nation of laws, dammit......that can't be compromised. The REAL fight should be to make LEGAL immigration easier. Bingo |
| 2018-01-23 9:09 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? |
| 2018-01-23 9:19 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by Rogillio I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? If they went nuclear, they could just pass a long term budget and pretty much pass the entire Republican agenda from beginning to end without a single Democratic vote. |
| 2018-01-23 9:47 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? If they went nuclear, they could just pass a long term budget and pretty much pass the entire Republican agenda from beginning to end without a single Democratic vote. Egggzactly! Which is why Trump's "all in" move worked IMO. He got the media to start talking nuclear and if people started to understand that the stalemate could end if the reps just changed the rules there would soon be calls to do just that. I actually think it still might be needed if the country is ever to pass a real budget and stop this CR non-sense. Dems may take the Senate but they still won't have enough votes to override a veto. I think rep and dems and the WH do a very poor PR job. If I were running things, I would let the people know what the congress actually voted on. Publish the bills or make summary charts showing what is in the bill and what the bill does.....feed this to the media. If people understood there was nothing in the bill about DACA and included protection of the children's insurance program and the bill simply extended funding the government the public support would have been overwhelming. |
| 2018-01-23 10:20 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Expert 2373 Floriduh | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? If they went nuclear, they could just pass a long term budget and pretty much pass the entire Republican agenda from beginning to end without a single Democratic vote. Egggzactly! Which is why Trump's "all in" move worked IMO. He got the media to start talking nuclear and if people started to understand that the stalemate could end if the reps just changed the rules there would soon be calls to do just that. I actually think it still might be needed if the country is ever to pass a real budget and stop this CR non-sense. Dems may take the Senate but they still won't have enough votes to override a veto. I think rep and dems and the WH do a very poor PR job. If I were running things, I would let the people know what the congress actually voted on. Publish the bills or make summary charts showing what is in the bill and what the bill does.....feed this to the media. If people understood there was nothing in the bill about DACA and included protection of the children's insurance program and the bill simply extended funding the government the public support would have been overwhelming. ... and you guys would be freeking apoplectic if the dems were running everything so chillax. The Senate has to learn to work through things and take the centrist road. Now just gotta tame the House. |
| 2018-01-23 10:48 AM in reply to: Oysterboy |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by Oysterboy Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? If they went nuclear, they could just pass a long term budget and pretty much pass the entire Republican agenda from beginning to end without a single Democratic vote. Egggzactly! Which is why Trump's "all in" move worked IMO. He got the media to start talking nuclear and if people started to understand that the stalemate could end if the reps just changed the rules there would soon be calls to do just that. I actually think it still might be needed if the country is ever to pass a real budget and stop this CR non-sense. Dems may take the Senate but they still won't have enough votes to override a veto. I think rep and dems and the WH do a very poor PR job. If I were running things, I would let the people know what the congress actually voted on. Publish the bills or make summary charts showing what is in the bill and what the bill does.....feed this to the media. If people understood there was nothing in the bill about DACA and included protection of the children's insurance program and the bill simply extended funding the government the public support would have been overwhelming. Oh, you mean like when the dems crammed Obamacare down our throats? :-) Seriously I fundamentally agree with you and wish the Senate would learn to compromise but I am a realist and I look at not only how divided the country is but the trajectory of the country and I think we become more divided every day. Both parties worry more about the next election and staying in power or regaining power than they do about doing what is right for the country. I think I read that it was 1917 when the senate changed the rules.....originally to 67 votes but changed to 60 in 1975. It has been since 2009 since Congress passed a budget! That is just shameful. Time to move on from the wishes that congress will learn to compromise. Run the Senate just like the House....simple majority on budgets. If one party takes both houses and the WH, they get what they want. If the other party can take one of the legs out of that 3-legged stool, then it forces compromise.....or shutdown. Argh! |
| 2018-01-23 10:57 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Oysterboy Oh, you mean like when the dems crammed Obamacare down our throats? :-) Seriously I fundamentally agree with you and wish the Senate would learn to compromise but I am a realist and I look at not only how divided the country is but the trajectory of the country and I think we become more divided every day. Both parties worry more about the next election and staying in power or regaining power than they do about doing what is right for the country. I think I read that it was 1917 when the senate changed the rules.....originally to 67 votes but changed to 60 in 1975. It has been since 2009 since Congress passed a budget! That is just shameful. Time to move on from the wishes that congress will learn to compromise. Run the Senate just like the House....simple majority on budgets. If one party takes both houses and the WH, they get what they want. If the other party can take one of the legs out of that 3-legged stool, then it forces compromise.....or shutdown. Argh! Originally posted by Rogillio ... and you guys would be freeking apoplectic if the dems were running everything so chillax. The Senate has to learn to work through things and take the centrist road. Now just gotta tame the House. Originally posted by tuwood Egggzactly! Which is why Trump's "all in" move worked IMO. He got the media to start talking nuclear and if people started to understand that the stalemate could end if the reps just changed the rules there would soon be calls to do just that. I actually think it still might be needed if the country is ever to pass a real budget and stop this CR non-sense. Dems may take the Senate but they still won't have enough votes to override a veto. I think rep and dems and the WH do a very poor PR job. If I were running things, I would let the people know what the congress actually voted on. Publish the bills or make summary charts showing what is in the bill and what the bill does.....feed this to the media. If people understood there was nothing in the bill about DACA and included protection of the children's insurance program and the bill simply extended funding the government the public support would have been overwhelming. Originally posted by Rogillio I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? If they went nuclear, they could just pass a long term budget and pretty much pass the entire Republican agenda from beginning to end without a single Democratic vote. I agree on the simple majority for everything. Parties still have to be sensible or they'll get whacked. Remember, the Democrats had super majorities in 2008 and went ham on the far left agenda and America did not like it one bit. They pretty much lost every election nationally for the next 8 years and there was a massive wave culminating with Trump going the other way. So if the Republicans go ham on the right wing agenda forcing everyone to wear a cross on their head and mandatory gun ownership for every 5 year old then it will just as easily swing the other way. There's still checks and balances in the simple majority. |
| 2018-01-23 11:05 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Oysterboy Oh, you mean like when the dems crammed Obamacare down our throats? :-) Seriously I fundamentally agree with you and wish the Senate would learn to compromise but I am a realist and I look at not only how divided the country is but the trajectory of the country and I think we become more divided every day. Both parties worry more about the next election and staying in power or regaining power than they do about doing what is right for the country. I think I read that it was 1917 when the senate changed the rules.....originally to 67 votes but changed to 60 in 1975. It has been since 2009 since Congress passed a budget! That is just shameful. Time to move on from the wishes that congress will learn to compromise. Run the Senate just like the House....simple majority on budgets. If one party takes both houses and the WH, they get what they want. If the other party can take one of the legs out of that 3-legged stool, then it forces compromise.....or shutdown. Argh! Originally posted by Rogillio ... and you guys would be freeking apoplectic if the dems were running everything so chillax. The Senate has to learn to work through things and take the centrist road. Now just gotta tame the House. Originally posted by tuwood Egggzactly! Which is why Trump's "all in" move worked IMO. He got the media to start talking nuclear and if people started to understand that the stalemate could end if the reps just changed the rules there would soon be calls to do just that. I actually think it still might be needed if the country is ever to pass a real budget and stop this CR non-sense. Dems may take the Senate but they still won't have enough votes to override a veto. I think rep and dems and the WH do a very poor PR job. If I were running things, I would let the people know what the congress actually voted on. Publish the bills or make summary charts showing what is in the bill and what the bill does.....feed this to the media. If people understood there was nothing in the bill about DACA and included protection of the children's insurance program and the bill simply extended funding the government the public support would have been overwhelming. Originally posted by Rogillio I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? If they went nuclear, they could just pass a long term budget and pretty much pass the entire Republican agenda from beginning to end without a single Democratic vote. I agree on the simple majority for everything. Parties still have to be sensible or they'll get whacked. Remember, the Democrats had super majorities in 2008 and went ham on the far left agenda and America did not like it one bit. They pretty much lost every election nationally for the next 8 years and there was a massive wave culminating with Trump going the other way. So if the Republicans go ham on the right wing agenda forcing everyone to wear a cross on their head and mandatory gun ownership for every 5 year old then it will just as easily swing the other way. There's still checks and balances in the simple majority. yeah they totes lost EVERY ELECTION NATIONALLY including that little one in 2012. |
| 2018-01-23 11:08 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Oysterboy Oh, you mean like when the dems crammed Obamacare down our throats? :-) Seriously I fundamentally agree with you and wish the Senate would learn to compromise but I am a realist and I look at not only how divided the country is but the trajectory of the country and I think we become more divided every day. Both parties worry more about the next election and staying in power or regaining power than they do about doing what is right for the country. I think I read that it was 1917 when the senate changed the rules.....originally to 67 votes but changed to 60 in 1975. It has been since 2009 since Congress passed a budget! That is just shameful. Time to move on from the wishes that congress will learn to compromise. Run the Senate just like the House....simple majority on budgets. If one party takes both houses and the WH, they get what they want. If the other party can take one of the legs out of that 3-legged stool, then it forces compromise.....or shutdown. Argh! Originally posted by Rogillio ... and you guys would be freeking apoplectic if the dems were running everything so chillax. The Senate has to learn to work through things and take the centrist road. Now just gotta tame the House. Originally posted by tuwood Egggzactly! Which is why Trump's "all in" move worked IMO. He got the media to start talking nuclear and if people started to understand that the stalemate could end if the reps just changed the rules there would soon be calls to do just that. I actually think it still might be needed if the country is ever to pass a real budget and stop this CR non-sense. Dems may take the Senate but they still won't have enough votes to override a veto. I think rep and dems and the WH do a very poor PR job. If I were running things, I would let the people know what the congress actually voted on. Publish the bills or make summary charts showing what is in the bill and what the bill does.....feed this to the media. If people understood there was nothing in the bill about DACA and included protection of the children's insurance program and the bill simply extended funding the government the public support would have been overwhelming. Originally posted by Rogillio I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? If they went nuclear, they could just pass a long term budget and pretty much pass the entire Republican agenda from beginning to end without a single Democratic vote. I agree on the simple majority for everything. Parties still have to be sensible or they'll get whacked. Remember, the Democrats had super majorities in 2008 and went ham on the far left agenda and America did not like it one bit. They pretty much lost every election nationally for the next 8 years and there was a massive wave culminating with Trump going the other way. So if the Republicans go ham on the right wing agenda forcing everyone to wear a cross on their head and mandatory gun ownership for every 5 year old then it will just as easily swing the other way. There's still checks and balances in the simple majority. yeah they totes lost EVERY ELECTION NATIONALLY including that little one in 2012. Totes? Did you say totes? What's a tote? (ala what's a yute?) |
| 2018-01-23 11:17 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Oysterboy Oh, you mean like when the dems crammed Obamacare down our throats? :-) Seriously I fundamentally agree with you and wish the Senate would learn to compromise but I am a realist and I look at not only how divided the country is but the trajectory of the country and I think we become more divided every day. Both parties worry more about the next election and staying in power or regaining power than they do about doing what is right for the country. I think I read that it was 1917 when the senate changed the rules.....originally to 67 votes but changed to 60 in 1975. It has been since 2009 since Congress passed a budget! That is just shameful. Time to move on from the wishes that congress will learn to compromise. Run the Senate just like the House....simple majority on budgets. If one party takes both houses and the WH, they get what they want. If the other party can take one of the legs out of that 3-legged stool, then it forces compromise.....or shutdown. Argh! Originally posted by Rogillio ... and you guys would be freeking apoplectic if the dems were running everything so chillax. The Senate has to learn to work through things and take the centrist road. Now just gotta tame the House. Originally posted by tuwood Egggzactly! Which is why Trump's "all in" move worked IMO. He got the media to start talking nuclear and if people started to understand that the stalemate could end if the reps just changed the rules there would soon be calls to do just that. I actually think it still might be needed if the country is ever to pass a real budget and stop this CR non-sense. Dems may take the Senate but they still won't have enough votes to override a veto. I think rep and dems and the WH do a very poor PR job. If I were running things, I would let the people know what the congress actually voted on. Publish the bills or make summary charts showing what is in the bill and what the bill does.....feed this to the media. If people understood there was nothing in the bill about DACA and included protection of the children's insurance program and the bill simply extended funding the government the public support would have been overwhelming. Originally posted by Rogillio I suppose negotiating with Jello is tough....getting spanked by Jello must be really hard. I have to wonder if Trump's tweet about going nuclear didn't give some of the dems pause. I had people talking about and that is exactly what Trump wanted to accomplish with that tweet. If the shutdown continued there would increasing call to go nuclear fund the government. If the senate change the rules the dems would have no bargaining chip at all. Trump putting that out there was pretty shrewd IMO....the art of the deal? stable genius? If they went nuclear, they could just pass a long term budget and pretty much pass the entire Republican agenda from beginning to end without a single Democratic vote. I agree on the simple majority for everything. Parties still have to be sensible or they'll get whacked. Remember, the Democrats had super majorities in 2008 and went ham on the far left agenda and America did not like it one bit. They pretty much lost every election nationally for the next 8 years and there was a massive wave culminating with Trump going the other way. So if the Republicans go ham on the right wing agenda forcing everyone to wear a cross on their head and mandatory gun ownership for every 5 year old then it will just as easily swing the other way. There's still checks and balances in the simple majority. yeah they totes lost EVERY ELECTION NATIONALLY including that little one in 2012. lol, you always take everything so literal. :-P They lost the house, they lost the senate, they lost the Presidency. |
| 2018-01-23 11:36 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran 485 Elmira, ON | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown from a confused Canadian looking in from the outside...can someone explain what a shutdown actually means? They happened when Obama was in power...and media said it saved a lot of money and the impact was minimial. It happens now and apparantly the world is coming to an end. They happened with Dubya and Clinton and I dont even recall if it made the news cycle with them... So without getting partisan...is there a non bias..kinda summary where I can know whats going on without all the politicial spin? Do these shutdowns actually save the government money or cost them? Are they a bad thing or a good thing? What are they? |
| 2018-01-23 11:42 AM in reply to: TheCrownsOwn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by TheCrownsOwn from a confused Canadian looking in from the outside...can someone explain what a shutdown actually means? They happened when Obama was in power...and media said it saved a lot of money and the impact was minimial. It happens now and apparantly the world is coming to an end. They happened with Dubya and Clinton and I dont even recall if it made the news cycle with them... So without getting partisan...is there a non bias..kinda summary where I can know whats going on without all the politicial spin? Do these shutdowns actually save the government money or cost them? Are they a bad thing or a good thing? What are they? You're assuming we know? haha In my non-expert opinion I tend to agree that they're really not that big of a deal other than inconvenience for most people. They do shut down non-critical things such as federal parks and administrative things and those people basically don't get a paycheck for that time period. For critical jobs such as the military they do continue to operate like normal and get paid like normal. So, probably the only people that truly get impacted are non-essential government employees and contractors who are paid by the government. They could potentially lose some real money. |
| 2018-01-23 11:51 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Expert 2373 Floriduh | Subject: RE: Government Shutdown Originally posted by tuwood They cost us money because all of the workers eventually get paid even thought they don't work during the shutdown thus there is lost productivity. Shutdowns happen because there is no budget and therefore the spending of money is not authorized by congress. As Rog indicated above the US has been running for years (a decade) with no budget, just a series of "Continuing Resolutions" (CR) that authorize spending from some relatively short period of time. Originally posted by TheCrownsOwn from a confused Canadian looking in from the outside...can someone explain what a shutdown actually means? They happened when Obama was in power...and media said it saved a lot of money and the impact was minimial. It happens now and apparantly the world is coming to an end. They happened with Dubya and Clinton and I dont even recall if it made the news cycle with them... So without getting partisan...is there a non bias..kinda summary where I can know whats going on without all the politicial spin? Do these shutdowns actually save the government money or cost them? Are they a bad thing or a good thing? What are they? You're assuming we know? haha In my non-expert opinion I tend to agree that they're really not that big of a deal other than inconvenience for most people. They do shut down non-critical things such as federal parks and administrative things and those people basically don't get a paycheck for that time period. For critical jobs such as the military they do continue to operate like normal and get paid like normal. So, probably the only people that truly get impacted are non-essential government employees and contractors who are paid by the government. They could potentially lose some real money. Rog, just to correct, the Dems never had a supermajority in the senate. A supermajority would be 60, enough to block any filibuster. Looking at Wikipedia, they got to 57 in 2008, but lost Ted Kennedy's seat so soon went down to 56. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK