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 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

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

  1. #1
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    (FIRST OPTION TYPO - "CAN'T" not "CAN", ie no program can be funded unless House and Senate agree)

    There have been government shut downs in the past in relation to the size of the budget/debit. But this one is a very different matter.

    The question is: Once any agency, law, or action is voted into effect, it will continue forever and the amount of money that only ONE side of Congress wants MUST be spent on it or the entire government is shut down and it's the fault of the side not voting for it.

    For example, Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Congress voted for military action. Under the Democrats, Obama's and most of the media's view, once that resolution/was passed, LBJ, Nixon, and W. Bush could spend hundreds of billions, trillions or trillions upon trillions - and that president would ONLY need on side of Congress to agree. If Republicans in the House agreed with W. Bush to spend trillions of dollars on genocidal war even using weapons of mass destruction - and vowing to shut down the entire government if the Senate won't agree - if the Senate refused to vote to do so - then the Democrats in the Senate are anarchists and extortionists entirely responsible for government shutdown.

    Another example would be "faith based initiatives" - also which is law. Under the Democrat's theory, if W. Bush and House Republicans decided to give TRILLIONS of dollars to certain churches under that law - the Democrat Senate would have NO choice but to agree to that in the budget - and if not then the Democrats - offering to vote to pay for everything else - would still be responsible for a government shutdown until the Democrat Senate yielded. OR, if both the House and Senate refused, but the President vetoed any budget without those trillions for his favor religion, then it would be the fault of Congress because "faith based initiatives are the law."

    In my opinion, it takes BOTH sides of Congress AND the president for the government to spend money on anything - and on how much that is. If they do NOT agree on an item, that items isn't paid for. That would seem the core of how the entire system is designed.

    The precedent being set? Once any agency, law, regulations, military action, etc is made "law," it only takes a demand for the House OR by the Senate OR by the President for any unlimited amounts of money for that money demand to have to be met. If it isn't, they the right thing to do is to shutdown the entire government - and it is the fault of the branch or party that wouldn't vote to spend it.

    And since BOTH sides can ALWAYS do that, all negotiations are always each side wanting MORE $$ for their own agendas. Thus, we understand why the budget and debt now grows massively under BOTH political parties. The NEW concept that both houses of Congress AND the president are 3 total dictators able to demand MORE, MORE, MORE money and the other 2 MUST agree or they are "anarchists shutting down the entire government" is a terrible precedence.

    In the past and I think the design is that it took both Houses of Congress and the President's agreement - each year - to spend money on anything. Now it is being claimed that it takes the agreement of all 3 to stop any spending or spending increase that anyone 1 of the 3 wants.

    Which one do you think it SHOULD BE:

    It should take both branches of Congress and the president to approve spending money on any item, agenda or law?

    It should take both branches of Congress and the president to stop any spending demand by 1 of those 3 governmental entities?

    Are House Republicans REQUIRED to vote to fund what they do not want to fund? Would Democrats be forced to fund a war at any costs forever as long as Republicans in the House wanted it on behalf of a Republican President?
    Last edited by joko104; 10-02-13 at 03:02 AM.

  2. #2
    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 joko104 View Post
    (FIRST OPTION TYPO - "CAN'T" not "CAN", ie no program can be funded unless House and Senate agree)

    There have been government shut downs in the past in relation to the size of the budget/debit. But this one is a very different matter.

    The question is: Once any agency, law, or action is voted into effect, it will continue forever and the amount of money that only ONE side of Congress wants MUST be spent on it or the entire government is shut down and it's the fault of the side not voting for it.

    For example, Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Congress voted for military action. Under the Democrats, Obama's and most of the media's view, once that resolution/was passed, LBJ, Nixon, and W. Bush could spend hundreds of billions, trillions or trillions upon trillions - and that president would ONLY need on side of Congress to agree. If Republicans in the House agreed with W. Bush to spend trillions of dollars on genocidal war even using weapons of mass destruction - and vowing to shut down the entire government if the Senate won't agree - if the Senate refused to vote to do so - then the Democrats in the Senate are anarchists and extortionists entirely responsible for government shutdown.

    Another example would be "faith based initiatives" - also which is law. Under the Democrat's theory, if W. Bush and House Republicans decided to give TRILLIONS of dollars to certain churches under that law - the Democrat Senate would have NO choice but to agree to that in the budget - and if not then the Democrats - offering to vote to pay for everything else - would still be responsible for a government shutdown until the Democrat Senate yielded. OR, if both the House and Senate refused, but the President vetoed any budget without those trillions for his favor religion, then it would be the fault of Congress because "faith based initiatives are the law."

    In my opinion, it takes BOTH sides of Congress AND the president for the government to spend money on anything - and on how much that is. If they do NOT agree on an item, that items isn't paid for. That would seem the core of how the entire system is designed.

    The precedent being set? Once any agency, law, regulations, military action, etc is made "law," it only takes a demand for the House OR by the Senate OR by the President for any unlimited amounts of money for that money demand to have to be met. If it isn't, they the right thing to do is to shutdown the entire government - and it is the fault of the branch or party that wouldn't vote to spend it.

    And since BOTH sides can ALWAYS do that, all negotiations are always each side wanting MORE $$ for their own agendas. Thus, we understand why the budget and debt now grows massively under BOTH political parties. The NEW concept that both houses of Congress AND the president are 3 total dictators able to demand MORE, MORE, MORE money and the other 2 MUST agree or they are "anarchists shutting down the entire government" is a terrible precedence.

    In the past and I think the design is that it took both Houses of Congress and the President's agreement - each year - to spend money on anything. Now it is being claimed that it takes the agreement of all 3 to stop any spending or spending increase that anyone 1 of the 3 wants.

    Which one do you think it SHOULD BE:

    It should take both branches of Congress and the president to approve spending money on any item, agenda or law?

    It should take both branches of Congress and the president to stop any spending demand by 1 of those 3 governmental entities?

    Are House Republicans REQUIRED to vote to fund what they do not want to fund? Would Democrats be forced to fund a war at any costs forever as long as Republicans in the House wanted it on behalf of a Republican President?
    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.

  3. #3
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    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.
    The president has stayed within his budget. I think we should be discussing the removal of Boehner as speaker of the house. I have never seen such an incompetant leader in my life and to think he's third in line to the presidency gives me the heeby jeebies.

  4. #4
    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 Moot View Post
    The president has stayed within his budget. I think we should be discussing the removal of Boehner as speaker of the house. I have never seen such an incompetant leader in my life and to think he's third in line to the presidency gives me the heeby jeebies.
    I wouldn't want to argue for Boehner. I would, however say, that the President is responsible for maintaining the operation of government. He has not done it because he wants more money, that the House wants to give him and has played a bluff at the cost of the population. He speculated and the people lost.

    In effect, he has overspent even before he knew how much he had to spend.

  5. #5
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

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

    The government shutdown during the Clinton administration was prompted by a budgetary disagreement between the two parties. The current shutdown was provoked by the GOP's unheard of and unprecedented demand that in order to vote for government spending that both sides agree is necessary, Obama has to strip away funding for the health care law.

    What compromise are the Republicans making? That they won't shut down the government if Obama repeals, defunds, or delays his own landmark legislation that has been a law for three years now? Thats not a compromise....thats just plain thuggery and extortion.

  6. #6
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    I wouldn't want to argue for Boehner. I would, however say, that the President is responsible for maintaining the operation of government. He has not done it because he wants more money, that the House wants to give him and has played a bluff at the cost of the population. He speculated and the people lost.
    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?

    In effect, he has overspent even before he knew how much he had to spend.
    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?

  7. #7
    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
    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?
    Did Obama and the Democrats negotiate a compromise with Republicans on the original Obamacare? No.

    Not a single vote from our side, even the public was against it, as they are now, and so the House is doing exactly what we want them to do. There is no need to shut down the federal government, no need to stop people going to our national parks, from going to the self sustaining Army Navy football game [ that just shows the dirty politic tricks that your side will play to make us little guys hurt in this squeeze...and it will come back to bite your donkey ]...

    And Obama overspent by over a trillion $$ each of his first 4 years, it was only the sequester that brought him under this last year... and he takes credit for that, just tries to squirm out of taking credit for the idea of the sequester itself...he, and those around him, are empty suits, largely over their heads incompetents...sorry, that is just the way we and the rest of the world see our current, sad, administration...
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  8. #8
    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 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?
    In my book it is up to the guy granting funds to attach whatever restrictions he wants to. If we do not like it, we have to change the constitution. This is true for items we like as well as for the ones we dislike.

    Again in ma book it is the fact of spending more than my budget that determines overspend. It is not not a question of being difficult. Of course it is difficult. He is President.

  9. #9
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Did Obama and the Democrats negotiate a compromise with Republicans on the original Obamacare? No.
    Yes, they did....until McConnell decided to make Obama a one term president......
    "....Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad, and Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe—met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate's healthcare reform bill. ....<snip>.... Senate majority leaders Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and George J. Mitchell—the bill's drafters hoped to increase the chances of getting the necessary votes for passage.[74][75]

    However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threaten to filibuster any bills that contained it.[47] Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who lead the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections:[76]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act
    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.

    Not a single vote from our side, even the public was against it, as they are now, and so the House is doing exactly what we want them to do. There is no need to shut down the federal government, no need to stop people going to our national parks, from going to the self sustaining Army Navy football game [ that just shows the dirty politic tricks that your side will play to make us little guys hurt in this squeeze...and it will come back to bite your donkey ]...
    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,”

    And this...

    "....The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

    And Obama overspent by over a trillion $$ each of his first 4 years, it was only the sequester that brought him under this last year... and he takes credit for that, just tries to squirm out of taking credit for the idea of the sequester itself...he, and those around him, are empty suits, largely over their heads incompetents...sorry, that is just the way we and the rest of the world see our current, sad, administration...
    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.

  10. #10
    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
    This will only set a precedent if the GOP isn't heavily punished for this at the polls next year.

    But I think that's sure to happen.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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