Oh tom, the Democrats did vote. In the Senate. And in a VERY bipartisan vote, they passed a funding bill with only 19 "No" votes.
Even though the bill would likely pass the House, McCarthy refused to schedule the vote.
This is ALL on the Republicans.
If 18 democrats voted for the House bill it would have passed & then it would have gone to conference. So the democrats are at fault also.
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
The 'conservatives' ( liberals, wash your ears out with a caustic cleaning agent and a high pressure hose if you need to) have generally been behind these shutdown events from a historical perspective. Long-standing philosophically corny conservative axioms that I personally ascribe to include limited government and fiscal responsibility (don't spend beyond your means; arguments are based on a means to an end in an attempt to curtail spending).
On the surface these current House R holdouts are standing their ground on these principles ...and they're also hard-line on some of the spending bill unrelated 'earmark ' attachments that routinely accompany these appropriations bills on both sides of the crooked, meandering aisle. I haven't seen any arguments in this thread that addresses the latter as a critical part of the overall current fight. Grandstanding by a few is a part of the theater, unfortunately. The reality of R actions hasn't always backed those long touted philosophical axioms in practice despite vocalized public arguments. I support the basic intent / principle of curtailing govt influence and profligate govt spending practices ( which has been in effect for decades, partially due to population growth) ; yet, accommodations / compromise have to be attained or else the divide expands and future political cost can/ will be measured. In the end, we get nowhere and this displays the continuous mirror image of division we're up to our necks in. Nobody gains / avoids considerable costs. So it's my hope that these within-party factions can STFU and sacrifice a bit and come to an agreement by Sat. night. The juice ain't worth the squeeze, imo. Then we can resume across - party dart flinging on multiplicative alternate issues..it'll be fun and unavoidable. Can't wait.
Previous shutdowns have affected daily American lives for certain government employees and in some cases certain agency service levels they routinely provide for the public. One could argue that the efficiency of those routinely provided govt agency services is poor in some instances, but that's another argument / issue that we can debate ad infinitum...starting next week. Currently, there's a bigger hump to scale.
According to an internet source (FWIW), the average length of these shutdowns is about a week's time, with many lasting just a few days. That average is greatly skewed upward by a limited few longer shutdowns (35 days under Trump, 21 days under Clinton..as examples).
From a glass half full perspective ( which is hard for me personally to align with when govt action is involved), I think they'll either agree before Sat night or within just a few days of any official shutdown. The R party members might just calculate the political cost of a prolonged event. Regardless, I don't think it will be an apocalyptic event as routinely advertised..and limited sufferage by involved affected employees and their families along with any impaired agency services should be a paramount consideration / goal.
And send money, of course...
Charles...one of the sacred holy noble principles I would expect your gang to adhere to is "pay your bills"...and as the current mess has NOTHING to do with spending (that ship has sailed for the current budget year), that's all we need to invoke, hm? Fiscal responsibility? Principles? How 'bout not telling the world that we'll only pay our bills if we feel like it and the political party that controls the process considers it politically expedient to do so?
I mean...YECCH!
You talk of compromise, but a select gang of RepubliQ thugs considers that to be a dirty word. Burn it all down, they say. Is it in anybody's interest to let that small gang hold everything and everyone hostage?
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
Oh tom, the Democrats did vote. In the Senate. And in a VERY bipartisan vote, they passed a funding bill with only 19 "No" votes.
Even though the bill would likely pass the House, McCarthy refused to schedule the vote.
This is ALL on the Republicans.
Stupid Tom no doubt ignores the fact that the bill the RepubliQ wanted contained massive and unreasonable spending cuts. The Democrats weren't going to vote for it. The RepubliQ bill was just a nonsense straw man so they could try to lay the blame on the Democrats.
It's like you want $5000 for your used car, some guy walks up to you and offers you fifteen cents, you refuse, and he calls you unreasonable.
Tommie-poo is stupid (strike one), a Trumper (strike two), and a RepubliQ moron (strike three).
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Charles...one of the sacred holy noble principles I would expect your gang to adhere to is "pay your bills"...and as the current mess has NOTHING to do with spending (that ship has sailed for the current budget year), that's all we need to invoke, hm? Fiscal responsibility? Principles? How 'bout not telling the world that we'll only pay our bills if we feel like it and the political party that controls the process considers it politically expedient to do so?
I mean...YECCH!
You talk of compromise, but a select gang of RepubliQ thugs considers that to be a dirty word. Burn it all down, they say. Is it in anybody's interest to let that small gang hold everything and everyone hostage?
I already answered / asserted that multiple times. They ( the recalcitrant R members) have to compromise for the general overall public and political interest on this appropriations bill. I made that succinctly clear. Your ilk could learn a thing or two about accommodation as well, but I'll somewhat tactfully beat them upside the head for their past and present failures so you don't have to ( you can stay within your protective D cocoon that way)..when necessary. That sounds equitable..sorta. Both sides have to win and lose on occasion...that corny give and take thing.
Originally posted by: tom
If 18 democrats voted for the House bill it would have passed & then it would have gone to conference. So the democrats are at fault also.
There is no need for a conference because THE SENATE BILL HAS THE VOTES TO PASS IN THE HOUSE.
Here, let me say that again:
THE SENATE BILL HAS THE VOTES TO PASS IN THE HOUSE.
But McCarthy won't allow the vote. So this is 100% on the Republicans.
Originally posted by: MisterPicture
Oh tom, the Democrats did vote. In the Senate. And in a VERY bipartisan vote, they passed a funding bill with only 19 "No" votes.
Even though the bill would likely pass the House, McCarthy refused to schedule the vote.
This is ALL on the Republicans.
Actually that was a vote to end debate and send it for a vote, so it hasn't passed yet.
And how does mp know the Senate bill would pass, which only puts off the inevitable for 2 months
Schumer engaged republicans to craft the senate bill which is why republicans voted for it. McCarthy stiff armed democrats with his bill so he could appease Matt Gaetz. And Tom wonders why dems won't sign on?
it's a real head scratcher isn't it?
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
Schumer engaged republicans to craft the senate bill which is why republicans voted for it. McCarthy stiff armed democrats with his bill so he could appease Matt Gaetz. And Tom wonders why dems won't sign on?
it's a real head scratcher isn't it?
I just loathe the hypocrisy of the Republicans putting up a horrible bill that gives them everything they want and when the Democrats rejected it--as they expected--accusing the Dems of being unwilling to compromise.
Perhaps stupid Tommie-poo doesn't compreh3nd that "compromise" doesn't mean "You guys roll over and we'll get everything we want." To give the RepubliQ credit where it's due, most of them aren't resorting to that hypocritical bleat and it fact, are yelling at their own Nutjob Caucus.
Stupid Tommie-poo.
