• 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 would you blame?

Read the OP and vote accordingly...


  • Total voters
    36
… A shut down would … will actually save money.

False. While a government shutdown is definitely not the end of the world it doesn't save money either; indeed the costs are significant and wide ranging, both public and private. Historically, the 1995-1996 government shutdowns cost $800 million in losses for salaries paid to furloughed employees. But, there were other impacts too, then and now.


Excerpted from “If Government Shutdown Occurs, Prepare For Much Collateral Damage” by FRANK JAMES, National Public Radio, February 18, 2011
[SIZE="+2"]I[/SIZE]n 1995, for instance, it wasn't just government workers who took big hits, but tens of thousands of businesses somehow reliant on the government whether they knew it or not. And there were millions of Americans and foreigners as well who depend on government services like the provision of passports and visas.

An important difference between now and then is that the economy was growing more strongly in terms of employment. If a shutdown happens now, it would be at a time when the economy is much less robust.


“We saw in 1995 how politically motivated government shutdowns hit all Americans hard. In my State of Arizona, during the Government shutdown the Grand Canyon was closed for the first time in 76 years. I heard from people who worked close to the Grand Canyon. These were not Government employees. These were independent small business men and women. They told me that the shutdown cost them thousands of dollars because people could not go to the park. According to a CRS report, local communities near national parks alone lost an estimated $14.2 million per day in tourism revenues as a direct result of the Government shutdown, for a total of nearly $400 million over the course of the shutdown.

“The cost of the last Government shutdown cannot be measured in just dollars and cents. During the 1995 shutdown, millions of Americans could not get crucial social services. For example, 10,000 new Medicare applications, 212,000 Social Security card requests, 360,000 individual office visits and 800,000 toll-free calls for information and assistance were turned away each day. There were even more delays in services for some of the most vulnerable in our society, including 13 million recipients of AFDC, 273,000 foster care children, over 100,000 children receiving adoption assistance services and over 100,000 Head Start children—not to mention the new patients that were not accepted into clinical research centers, the 7 million visitors who could not attend national parks, or the 2 million visitors turned away at museums and monuments. And the list goes on and on.

“In addition, our Federal employees were left in fear wondering whether they would be paid, would they have to go to work, would they be able to pay their bills on time. In my State of Arizona, for example, of the 40,383 Federal employees, over 15,000 of them were furloughed in the 1995 Government shutdown.” — Senator John McCain¹

See also: “What might a government shutdown look like?” By Ed O'Keefe, “Keeping Tabs on the Government” (blog), The Washington Post, Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 02/17/2011
 
Both. If the government shuts down it means that both sides refused to compromise enough and both wanted to win far more than they wanted to help the country.

Exactly. This is a partisian pissing match between congress and the whitehouse, pure and simple. They might just as well just unzip, flop 'em out and grab a tape measure. This is all about wagging 'em, and whose is bigger.
 
Exactly. This is a partisian pissing match between congress and the whitehouse, pure and simple. They might just as well just unzip, flop 'em out and grab a tape measure. This is all about wagging 'em, and whose is bigger.

LOL! Reminds me of my two grandsons (ages 6 and 10) arguing over who really needs the bigger cup for softball. It's about the same maturity level, too.
 
Exactly. This is a partisian pissing match between congress and the whitehouse, pure and simple. They might just as well just unzip, flop 'em out and grab a tape measure. This is all about wagging 'em, and whose is bigger.
Nancy Pelosi will probably win then.
 
Nancy Pelosi will probably win then.

She can't see though, so she is disqualified. She only sees the violent rhetoric coming from one side and not the other.
 
Assuming that the Republicans hold their ground, Obama vetoes their budget bill and the federal government "shuts down", who would you blame and why?

I said other. Why do you claim this is a bad thing. Do you really think these choices are easy or that everyone agrees with one side or the other. Having one party run all three branches of the Gov is bad. Now that Republicans are in the House the two sides will have to work together. This is simple growing pains and is good for the country.
 
Assuming that the Republicans hold their ground, Obama vetoes their budget bill and the federal government "shuts down", who would you blame and why?
Neither, because it isn't going to happen. No how, no way! This would be dipterous.
 
Can I just say... the vote totally restores my faith in humanity, the people on this board, and Americans.
 
Assuming that the Republicans hold their ground, Obama vetoes their budget bill and the federal government "shuts down", who would you blame and why?

Both. They are now both making squawking sounds of budget cuts...so if they are sincere they will work together and plan long term effective cuts and not just target programs they know the other side is going to champion.
 
Assuming that the Republicans hold their ground, Obama vetoes their budget bill and the federal government "shuts down", who would you blame and why?

I would probably side with Republicans. Public opinion, should it follow a prior example everyone knows, would likely side with the President, who for all intents and purposes can always argue on the side of decisiveness and duty to keep the government open for business rather than bickering and a non-functioning lifestyle. People really do dislike their services from working, no matter who it is doing it and why they are doing it.
 
I love this idea. And you are right. In a way, we HIRED them to do a job, not play "who's the king of the mountain". They shut the government down, they should not get paid and should be fired for job abandonment.

Except "we hired" them to do a job with completely contradictory messages for how to do it and when to do it, leaving both feeling as if they are fulfilling the wishes of the public. Replacing them immediately just seems like silliness from my angle. "Damn you for doing what we wanted you to do! Now we are going to replace you all with people who will run into exactly the same problems as before!"
 
Last edited:
Assuming that the Republicans hold their ground, Obama vetoes their budget bill and the federal government "shuts down", who would you blame and why?

Why does the poll say Obama and Republicans... shouldn't it say Obama and Boehner?

If Boehner shuts down the government, then he is the one that shuts it down... I am pretty sure he has the most control over that decision.
 
That's ok, because then I only have to feel half guilty about it.

Being half south African, half british by blood has it's advantages.

Except that both have parts of their history that involve extensive subjegation of peoples... :mrgreen:


I used to have friend from South Africa, but that was in I lived in Germany. I cheered for South Africa in the World Cup for her though... :)
 
Normally Congress takes the hit on things like this but in this political climate I'm not so sure. The country is already heavily in debt and to propose increased spending in some areas and a pittance of a decrease in other areas just seems silly. November was people saying enough is enough. The President will take a direct hit if he allows the government shutdown. The Republicans have to stand their ground or lose out big in the next election. Obama for all intents and purposes is a cooked goose. Unless the Republicans nominate Mubarek he's gone.
 
Exactly. This is a partisian pissing match between congress and the whitehouse, pure and simple. They might just as well just unzip, flop 'em out and grab a tape measure. This is all about wagging 'em, and whose is bigger.

If the government does shut down, it would exemplify the pissing match you describe and how none of them really care... The worst thing about seeing the government shut down, would to see them reopen it and go back to work. If they have to shut the government down, then we should get to reelect new leaders... bs. If they can't keep the government running, then they are absolutely useless as political leaders and absolute failures.
 
Last edited:
I think that Obama would have to be a slight favorite. People have made it clear with the recent elections that spending at the top of the priority and he continues to request a massive budget?
 
Assuming that the Republicans hold their ground, Obama vetoes their budget bill and the federal government "shuts down", who would you blame and why?

I'd blame government for being stupid.
 
While it will be both of their faults, Obama will not face the wrath of constiuents that the Republicans will. Are we forgetting that we have saw this show before? It did not work out well for the GOP then either.
 
Back
Top Bottom