View Poll Results: Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, No money can be spend for a program unless House & Senate agree

    2 50.00%
  • No, any demand for $$ must be paid unless House and Senate say no

    0 0%
  • It depends upon whether I think the money should be spent or not

    2 50.00%
  • IDK/Other

    0 0%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

  1. #11
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,121

    Re: Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

    For those who support this strategy, imagine that the democrats control the house, while republicans control the senate and presidency. The house refuses to send a budget bill which doesn't raise the top marginal rate to seventy percent. This is the precedence being set by this nonsense, and eventually the other side will use it.

  2. #12
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

    It depends on whether people want to spend the money or not.

    A lot of polls have been done on Obamacare, with varying results, but the general consensus is that there are roughly the same number of people who dislike it as those who like it, with another large chunk who simply don't care or don't understand it well enough to have an opinion. I think that if it were more universally disliked, people wouldn't be blaming the republicans as much for the shutdown. To a lot of people, the Obamacare issue by itself is not a big enough deal to be making this huge of a fight out of it. There's pretty good evidence for that since several republicans have come out and said that they don't believe this is the right way to go about fighting Obamacare.

    My biggest problem with the whole thing is that the republicans haven't even given it a chance to take effect before crying doom. I think it would be much smarter for them to wait and see what happens with it. That way, if it works out okay, you didn't look like idiots for fighting so hard against it, and if it does go down the crapper, it makes you look good because you were right all along, and there will be much more support for repealing it. I don't blame the republicans nearly as much when they're fighting about raising the debt ceiling as I do when they've made a law that was passed only a couple years ago, that hasn't even gone into effect yet, such a hot button issue that they're shutting down the government because of it.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  3. #13
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    For those who support this strategy, imagine that the democrats control the house, while republicans control the senate and presidency. The house refuses to send a budget bill which doesn't raise the top marginal rate to seventy percent. This is the precedence being set by this nonsense, and eventually the other side will use it.
    A better example yet...the House refuses to send a bill unless all guns are registered with the Federal Government.
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  4. #14
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,209

    Re: Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Obama had nothing to do with the Republicans demanding that he defund Obamacare. That is totally the republicans doing. There's a civil war going on inside the Republican party between the centrists and the far right and it's bleeding over into the operation of the government. So how exactly is Obama responsible or supposed to control that?

    I don't see how Obama has overspent in lieu of ending the Iraq War and all the spending cuts imposed on him by Republicans, not to mention the sequestor. The healthcare law will actually reduce the budget deficit by $200 billion over the next ten years....so how exactly has Obama overspent?
    He the stated that the money we weren't spending on the wars would be applied to ObamaCare and other of his programs.

  5. #15
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Yes, they did....until McConnell decided to make Obama a one term president......
    Oh, you mean have a "chat" with the prez should he so deign it… what key proposals did the Republicans get to put forward in the bill, can you point those out? There was a very sincere attempt to work with the new and legitimate president… but this was going to pretty much go as Nancy, at the time, Harry and Barry wanted it, no worry the other party…super majority yanno. Was made plain and crystal clear.


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    After that, the GOP became the "party of no" and there wasn't and hasn't been much the Dems or Obama could do to appease them, let alone get a single vote from one republican. If the Dems weren't compromising or negotiable they would have had a universal or single payer healthcare plan instead of the watered down version they ended up with.

    It takes two sides to negotiate a compromise...not one side doing all the compromising and the other side making all the demands or just refusing to negotiate at all.
    The Party of NO to a more and more centrally planned economy, no to socialism by any other name you want to give to it. The degree to which government gets involved and where private business and individuals are on the sliding political/economic spectrum always seems to go back and forth, up and down like a teeter totter…and when it is not allowed to do that, that’s when things tend towards getting more dicey. When you lock things new, untested as an experiment [ and actually, to be truthful, tested in myriad countries in myriad ways, all pretty much negative at best ] into the system… should at least be sun-setted with a realistic evaluation of effects after maybe 5 years if prudent…but ya'll couldn’t do that.

    What should be the rule is states make their own decisions on these types of things, people can vote with their feet and if they stay, hey, that is a choice…right? That way the electorate in each tidy geographic unit, known as a state, gets to makes its own rules and keep its citizen electorate as happy as they can make a majority…why is the federal government so antsy to tell my state, and me, what to do? Seems a bit presumptuous, don’t you think?



    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I think that says more about Republican obstructionism and unwillingness to negotiate or compromise on a bill that they endorsed before Obama became president than it does the bill itself. Especially after Mitch McConnell said this.....

    "...It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,”
    Republicans did not any more endorse this plan before Obama than Moses fathered Charlemagne…and he didn’t by the way, There were some loose concepts that were promoted by Heritage et al to which some conservatives adhered, but by no means was it even approaching a majority, healthcare was never spoken of in this particular manner prior, the Republicans were countering a radical Clinton plan, trying to deal with the problem of “free riders”, etc... Plus there was no push for comprehensive coverage as it was to be more catastrophic… with individuals taking care of themselves and covering their own minor costs…

    The first two years of the O'admin they could not even properly obstruct, that is when Obamacare was put on the end of a crooked stick and jammed down all our throats. Crooked in how they had to even “bribe” some Dems to go along, swallow the horse pill…then you also add that the O was seemingly taking over major parts of the economy at the time with the bailouts of the car industry and banks, the stimulus and then…this gigantic whopper of a bill putting government more and more in the drivers seat in 17% of our economy, always edging towards that end game of single payer…which of course is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs. That my dear, is socialized medicine.

    So yes, the party of NO to socialism, which we have plenty of empirical evidence is a far worse system, at best.

    So of course it was not “O.K.”, we would pretty much have to become economic illiterates to believe so. Why do that, then both sides are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    And this...

    "....The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
    Well, it was not against the President only in that it was against his agenda/platform. Who cares who he is and to be pushing a plan like this that Americans have wrinkled our nose's at.

    But you wanna talk obstructionist? Was it not unlike the Democrats being against the Bush agenda/platform? Remember when Bush got reelected while at war, confirming the American people were behind him on that… do I remember correctly that the Democrats were tying a set date of withdrawal of our troops in Iraq to their funding bills? Yes I do.

    Oh....and...
    I do not know about you, but I do not want to become a satellite state of Europe’s, applying ourselves to its weakened self, aiming us in the direction of its ongoing feebleness and fluid failures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Well you're welcome to prove it with credible evidence...otherwise you're just repeating obtuse right wing talking points ad nauseum.
    I seriously doubt Obama wanted the sequestor considering it would slow the economy and cost jobs. Republicans just refused to raise revenues insisting only spending cuts whereas Obama wanted a more balanced approach that would include raising revenues and spending cuts. There is no way that the budget is going to be balanced with just spending cuts. So there was no compromise from Republicans on that score and they got their spending cuts alright.
    I believe we have gone over this ground thoroughly in the past and if the facts did not sway you then, well, I am sure you are not cured yet of that instability seeing as you have not changed your views any. Seems as futile as trying to get a snake to stand up on its hind legs…yanno?

    Seems we always give in on spending, ya’ll never meaningfully on spending cuts… I mean, puh-lease…

    And whether you doubt or not that Obama wanted the sequester, you would need to check with Obama and friends who, having created and nurtured this Frankenstein, now have to deal with it...yanno?
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  6. #16
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,297

    Re: Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    We should be discussing impeachment for any case, where a President does not stay within his budget and below the debt ceiling in such a way that it risks shutdown. This is scandalous.
    Just checking...have you ever mentioned it before?

    Because since 1940 it has been raised about one hundred times. More during Republican Administration than Dem Administrations.

    We would have impeached most Presidents at this point.

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,399

    Re: Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    Just checking...have you ever mentioned it before?

    Because since 1940 it has been raised about one hundred times. More during Republican Administration than Dem Administrations.

    We would have impeached most Presidents at this point.
    I do not believe I said that Obama was the first to shut down the government, though it has not happened very often. But are you suggesting, that the president should not be responsible for making sure the government runs on the money granted the executive?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •