• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who do you hold at fault for the Govt shutdown?

Who is at fault for the shutdown?

  • Republicans

    Votes: 87 45.3%

  • Democrats

    Votes: 32 16.7%

  • Both

    Votes: 65 33.9%

  • Neither

    Votes: 8 4.2%
  • Total voters
    192
mac said:
Why would they hold bills they have no issue with hostage? That's just silly.
Click to expand...

Because Ted Cruz is a member and fake filibusters bills he supports?
 
mac said:
Why would they hold bills they have no issue with hostage? That's just silly.
Click to expand...

How about actually debate the issues and take votes on them and see who wins instead of defunding the government if you don't get your way? Are we gonna allow each side to threaten to shut down the government when they don't get their way?

This is ridiculous and your partisanship is blinding you to the truth.
 
Your Star said:
Defunding the program, no it doesn't have to be in the budget.
Click to expand...

Obamacare does have to be in the budget, period. Whether it's funding it or defunding it. Further, the Republicans offered a simple delay while funding the rest of govt to discuss the issue with it everyone knows is a train wreck. Dems refused.

They did lose, they lost the presidency and they didn't gain control of the senate. The democrats control 2/3 of the government and the republicans are just going to have to learn to live with it. They lost, period. These tactics are not a safeguard against the majority these tactics will kill our nation.
Click to expand...

So, Dems control 2/3 of govt but couldn't keep it open?

I don't know the specifics of those instances, but if it was like this then yes it was. This kind of tactic is irresponsible and harms the entire country.
Click to expand...

It doesn't do much harm to the country, in fact. Just pinches those that aren't getting paid, until the bill is passed backpaying those of us actually affected.
 
mac said:
Who, in your opinion, is primarily at fault for the shutdown?
Click to expand...

The main culprits in the shutdown, in my view, are the American electorate who can't seem to make up their minds. Until you're comfortable with electing people who actually do what they say they're going to do and not what you hope they'll change into, you're going to continue to get government that disappoints you.

Almost all the so called "suicide caucus" on the Republican side were sent to Washington by their constituents to put a stop to wasteful spending, put a stop to accumulating debt, and put a stop to Obamacare. Seems to me, these people are actually the ones doing the people's business and yet the electorate allows them to be bad-mouthed by a media that wouldn't know principles if they got slapped in the face by some and they believe politicians should be blamed when they do exactly as they were elected to do. I hope the people who live in the districts of these representatives let them know how much they support them for standing up for them.
 
mac said:
That's not what happened in the mid-90's.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Clinton didn't win re-election or anything.

And it's not like Newt didn't lose his speakership over the ordeal.
 
Your Star said:
How about actually debate the issues and take votes on them and see who wins instead of defunding the government if you don't get your way? Are we gonna allow each side to threaten to shut down the government when they don't get their way?
Click to expand...

They didn't vote to defund govt, they sent over a bill that funds govt. :shrug:
If Dems refuse to negotiate, what does debate do?

This is ridiculous and your partisanship is blinding you to the truth.
Click to expand...

That is funny.
 
Your Star said:
Yeah, because Clinton didn't win re-election or anything.

And it's not like Newt didn't lose his speakership over the ordeal.
Click to expand...

Neither one of those points is what was talked about. "Holding every bill hostage" was.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
How about actually debate the issues and take votes on them and see who wins instead of defunding the government if you don't get your way? Are we gonna allow each side to threaten to shut down the government when they don't get their way?

This is ridiculous and your partisanship is blinding you to the truth.
Click to expand...

Yep. The way to get your way is to win elections, not engage in brinksmanship to extort concessions. That being said, I do believe in using the minority, or control of one chamber of Congress, creatively to get things done that would otherwise be impossible, but not shutting down the government or default. What I have in mind are things like forcing Reid to hold votes he'd rather not hold, which they already accomplished and should have been satisfied with.
 
mac said:
Do you know what the top marginal rate has been and how it got there?

To answer your question, no, I would not support it and would probably settle on a smaller increase....as the Republicans did earlier this year. Compromise, see how that works?
Click to expand...

awesome, now we're getting somewhere. next up, assault weapons.

there's another mass shooting, and the Democrats refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling without a full assault weapons ban being attached. after some wrangling, the compromise is one assault weapon per household, and all ammunition purchases are logged into a database so that those who are making large purchases can be flagged and investigated.

isn't this fun? we've found a new way to pass controversial legislation!

in reality, if this happened, the same people who support this tactic now would be in the gun forum calling for civil war. you just don't see it because you support the side that's doing it this time. i don't like the PPACA, either; i think it should have been scrapped once single payer was off the table. i like this tactic even less, though. this shutdown makes us look like complete idiots, and it's going to cost money. if it looks like we're going to default, that will be an utter disaster. interest on the debt will go up, our credit rating will go down, and we risk losing global reserve currency status. this will end up amounting to the largest tax increase in modern history, and all because some representatives wanted to throw a tantrum over health care. we cannot and should not govern this way.
 
Helix said:
awesome, now we're getting somewhere. next up, assault weapons.

there's another mass shooting, and the Democrats refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling without a full assault weapons ban being attached. after some wrangling, the compromise is one assault weapon per household, and all ammunition purchases are logged into a database so that those who are making large purchases can be flagged and investigated.

isn't this fun? we've found a new way to pass controversial legislation!

in reality, if this happened, the same people who support this tactic now would be in the gun forum calling for civil war. you just don't see it because you support the side that's doing it this time. i don't like the PPACA, either; i think it should have been scrapped once single payer was off the table. i like this tactic even less, though. this shutdown makes us look like complete idiots, and it's going to cost money. if it looks like we're going to default, that will be an utter disaster. interest on the debt will go up, our credit rating will go down, and we risk losing global reserve currency status. this will end up amounting to the largest tax increase in modern history, and all because some representatives wanted to throw a tantrum over health care. we cannot and should not govern this way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is fun. Why didn't Democrats go this route in the lead up to a govt shutdown?
 
mac said:
Yeah, this is fun. Why didn't Democrats go this route in the lead up to a govt shutdown?
Click to expand...

they did. that's why we have the heritage foundation's "solution" instead of single payer.
 
Helix said:
they did. that's why we have the heritage foundation's "solution" instead of single payer.
Click to expand...

They didn't, as indicated by unanimous Republican opposition.
 
mac said:
Right, leading to unanimous opposition. I knew you'd get it.
Click to expand...

and it's a shame that you can't or won't. I'll let you have the last word, though.
 
Helix said:
and it's a shame that you can't or won't. I'll let you have the last word, though.
Click to expand...

Can't get what? That a lack of willingness to negotiate or compromise leads to deadlock? I get it. :shrug:
 
mac said:
Can't get what? That a lack of willingness to negotiate or compromise leads to deadlock? I get it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

What you're not getting is that if this practice becomes more commonplace, the other side is going to use the strategy to force through things that you hate. You're also not getting that after a vote, a court challenge, a presidential election, and 42 attempts to repeal, it's still the law and must be funded. We both lost. Get over it.
 
Helix said:
What you're not getting is that if this practice becomes more commonplace, the other side is going to use the strategy to force through things that you hate. You're also not getting that after a vote, a court challenge, a presidential election, and 42 attempts to repeal, it's still the law and must be funded. We both lost. Get over it.
Click to expand...

This precedent that you think is so new is actually longstanding, it's simply a process in our established system of government. Now, this court challenge failed on govt's right to tax, something the Obama administration claimed it wasn't...a tax. Also, parts of it didn't survive the court challenge if you remember. Lastly, it doesn't have to be funded, just like laws don't have to be defended...as illustrated, again, by the Obama administration.

:shrug:
 
mac said:
They didn't, as indicated by unanimous Republican opposition.
Click to expand...

the republicans have opposed health care reform of any kind, ever since obama made the goal of health care reform his administrations top priority in his first term.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the republicans have opposed health care reform of any kind, ever since obama made the goal of health care reform his administrations top priority in his first term.
Click to expand...

They are anti-Obama. It doesn't matter what he does. They will obstruct anything he supports.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the republicans have opposed health care reform of any kind, ever since obama made the goal of health care reform his administrations top priority in his first term.
Click to expand...
That could be because the only form of health care discussed was distinctly liberal, and when it came down to it, the GOP was shut out of the legislation. Surely you remember that. I do. Many of us believed at the time that the proposal was so sweeping in magnitude it deserved an open and bipartisan discussion before enacting anything. As it transpired, it was anything but that.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the republicans have opposed health care reform of any kind, ever since obama made the goal of health care reform his administrations top priority in his first term.
Click to expand...

That's, actually, patently false. Do some reading.
 
humbolt said:
That could be because the only form of health care discussed was distinctly liberal, and when it came down to it, the GOP was shut out of the legislation. Surely you remember that. I do. Many of us believed at the time that the proposal was so sweeping in magnitude it deserved an open and bipartisan discussion before enacting anything. As it transpired, it was anything but that.
Click to expand...

i don't think the republicans would have gotten 160 ammendments into the bill if they were supposedly locked out of negotiation's

Timeline of the health care law - CNN.com

July 15, 2009 -- The Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passes The Affordable Health Choices Act. The bipartisan bill includes more than 160 Republican amendments accepted during the month-long mark-up, one of the longest in congressional history.
Click to expand...
 
humbolt said:
That could be because the only form of health care discussed was distinctly liberal, and when it came down to it, the GOP was shut out of the legislation. Surely you remember that. I do. Many of us believed at the time that the proposal was so sweeping in magnitude it deserved an open and bipartisan discussion before enacting anything. As it transpired, it was anything but that.
Click to expand...

You remember strangely. I remember a health care plan that was invented by the extreme liberals at the Heritage foundation and first implemented by the extreme liberal who the Republicans nominated in 2012.

I remember health care being a principle point of debate in the 08 election.
The 2008 Presidential Candidates' Health Reform Proposals: Choices for America - The Commonwealth Fund

McCain would change the tax code to encourage people to buy coverage through the individual insurance market and effectively loosen state rules governing the sale of insurance by allowing people to buy policies across state lines. Obama would encourage the continuing participation of employers in the health insurance system, expand eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and create a new insurance market "exchange"—with consumer protections, choice of public and private health plans, and income-based premium subsidies—that would largely replace the individual market.

Obama won the 08 election and implemented a more conservative version of his plan in the hopes of bringing on some Republican support. However, the GOP leadership decided that supporting anything Obama did would all but ensure a second term victory, so they made the political calculation to be obstructionists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom