Other Resources The Political Joe » Government Shutdown Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 2
 
 
2018-01-22 3:26 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
9983
500020002000500100100100100252525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Government Shutdown
The 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

User image

Pro
15591
500050005000500252525
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

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
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

User image

Champion
9983
500020002000500100100100100252525
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

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
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

User image

Champion
9983
500020002000500100100100100252525
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

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
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

User image

Champion
9983
500020002000500100100100100252525
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.



  • .. 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.


  • 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

    User image

    Pro
    9391
    500020002000100100100252525
    Omaha, NE
    Subject: RE: Government Shutdown

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    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.
    ... 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.
    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!

    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

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    3023
    20001000
    Maryland
    Subject: RE: Government Shutdown

    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    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.
    ... 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.
    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!

    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

    User image

    Champion
    9983
    500020002000500100100100100252525
    Alabama
    Subject: RE: Government Shutdown
    Originally posted by dmiller5

    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    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.
    ... 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.
    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!

    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

    User image

    Pro
    9391
    500020002000100100100252525
    Omaha, NE
    Subject: RE: Government Shutdown

    Originally posted by dmiller5

    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    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.
    ... 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.
    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!

    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.
    Currently the Republicans control house/senate/governor in 25 states compared to 6 states by Democratic.
    in 2010 (couldn't find 2008) there were 10 states with full Republican Control and 17 Democratic.
    The wave didn't happen because everyone was happy with Obama's policies, that's for sure. ;-)

    2018-01-23 11:36 AM
    in reply to: tuwood

    User image

    Veteran
    485
    100100100100252525
    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

    User image

    Pro
    9391
    500020002000100100100252525
    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.

    As for overall impact, I'd say it's mostly a matter of convenience for most people where we have to reschedule things.

    2018-01-23 11:51 AM
    in reply to: tuwood

    User image

    Expert
    2373
    20001001001002525
    Floriduh
    Subject: RE: Government Shutdown
    Originally posted by tuwood

    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.

    As for overall impact, I'd say it's mostly a matter of convenience for most people where we have to reschedule things.


    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.

    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.
    New Thread
    Other Resources The Political Joe » Government Shutdown Rss Feed  
    Show Per page
     
     
    of 2