• 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!

Government Shutdown Negotiations Stuck On Sequestration

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Government Shutdown Negotiations Stuck On Sequestration

Under a Senate Republican proposal crafted by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the government would have been funded at $988 billion for the next six months. Many Senate Democrats said they could live with that number -- just not for that long.

“If we can have a short term [continuing resolution at $988 billion] to get us through, say, the first of December, that is fine with me,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told The Huffington Post.

The question, said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), was: “Are we locked into the number for what amounts to the next year, or are we going to be able to get to the point where there are budget negotiations that can work with that number?”

The concern for Harkin and King, among others, is that the party could sacrifice too much negotiating power by signing off on Collins’ plan. Under the Budget Control Act, annual spending will be reduced to $967 billion around Jan. 15, regardless of the budget at the time. Democrats want to avoid that. They've concluded that it would be a misstep to put off a motivating moment (such as a budget deal ending) for those negotiations for six months, or to go on record supporting a six-month, $988 billion budget.

anyone have any thoughts?
 
My thoughts are that we should give our legislators an ultimatum: Either get the government back on track, or we'll vote against every incumbent for the next couple of elections at least.
 
My thoughts are that we should give our legislators an ultimatum: Either get the government back on track, or we'll vote against every incumbent for the next couple of elections at least.

And they'll laugh at your ultimatum because they know damn well 90% of them are getting re-elected anyway.
 
And they'll laugh at your ultimatum because they know damn well 90% of them are getting re-elected anyway.

Unfortunately, they're probably right. I'm not sure just what it might take for there to be a real revolution at the ballot box in this nation, but that's what we need.
 
Unfortunately, they're probably right. I'm not sure just what it might take for there to be a real revolution at the ballot box in this nation, but that's what we need.

I think there are fundamental structural problems that can no longer be overcome. This cement dried out decades ago.
 
I love that we could continue to fund the government based off the "emergency" levels buttressed by Stimulus for years and years, but it's inconceivable to continue to fund government based off the "emergency" levels of Sequestration for 6 months.
 
How to solve this problem:

We should vote ever single current member out for creating this mess. They are all responsible in one way or another. It is about time Americans demand more from their government officials.
 
And they'll laugh at your ultimatum because they know damn well 90% of them are getting re-elected anyway.

already bought and paid for
 
Does seem ironic, both ways..IMHO, they should use Fed funds for the "snowstorm" disaster, epic even for W. SD..
In the article I'm still on, Senate Dems seem to be using the quotes "good talks" quite a lot.
I love that we could continue to fund the government based off the "emergency" levels buttressed by Stimulus for years and years, but it's inconceivable to continue to fund government based off the "emergency" levels of Sequestration for 6 months.
 
My thoughts are that we should give our legislators an ultimatum: Either get the government back on track, or we'll vote against every incumbent for the next couple of elections at least.
But we should be doing that anyway.
 
I love that we could continue to fund the government based off the "emergency" levels buttressed by Stimulus for years and years, but it's inconceivable to continue to fund government based off the "emergency" levels of Sequestration for 6 months.

I'm not sure I'd call it inconceivable seeing as how the Democrats actually agreed to the spending levels demanded by the GOP.

It's also interesting that you are pointing out that someone might hold the opinion "We could spend MORE than this, but it's bad to spend LESS than this!" As if that's contradictory or something?

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant!
 
I'm not sure I'd call it inconceivable seeing as how the Democrats actually agreed to the spending levels demanded by the GOP.

It's also interesting that you are pointing out that someone might hold the opinion "We could spend MORE than this, but it's bad to spend LESS than this!" As if that's contradictory or something?

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant!

I've come down hard on the GOP as the cause of this idiotcy. That is because the way I understand, the Democrats wanted a 1.2 trillion CR and in negotiation with Republicans agreed to a 986 billion figure prior to the shutdown. Then the Republicans threw in the defunding rider derailing the agreement reached thus causing the shutdown.

The Democrats then hollared, just give us a clean CR, apparently that is what Collins offered. A clean CR as what was demanded and pretty close to the agreement between both parties before this defunding Obamacare stupidity. It looks like the Dems won. But they want to exceed sequester. All I heard from dems during this shutdown was Obamacare was the law of the land and the Republicans should abide by it. Well sequester is also the law of the land, the democrats in return should abide by it.

I'll have to check into this more, but it now seems until I do, that the onus for the continuing shut down is shifting from basically a solely Republican caused shutdown to a Democrart responsibility for continuing it.
 
I've come down hard on the GOP as the cause of this idiotcy. That is because the way I understand, the Democrats wanted a 1.2 trillion CR and in negotiation with Republicans agreed to a 986 billion figure prior to the shutdown. Then the Republicans threw in the defunding rider derailing the agreement reached thus causing the shutdown.

The Democrats then hollared, just give us a clean CR, apparently that is what Collins offered. A clean CR as what was demanded and pretty close to the agreement between both parties before this defunding Obamacare stupidity. It looks like the Dems won. But they want to exceed sequester. All I heard from dems during this shutdown was Obamacare was the law of the land and the Republicans should abide by it. Well sequester is also the law of the land, the democrats in return should abide by it.

I'll have to check into this more, but it now seems until I do, that the onus for the continuing shut down is shifting from basically a solely Republican caused shutdown to a Democrart responsibility for continuing it.

From what I understand, Reid didn't like Collin's offer, even though there were Dems that worked with her on this, so it died. Reid seems to have adopted the attitude that only he is right about everything, thus here we are! :thumbdown:
 

Yep. Remember the idiots that said, "it's settled law" or "it's the law of the land" so it shouldn't be changed or eliminated when referring to Obamadon'tcare. Now is the time for them to stand up and be counted against Obama and Reid for doing what they said was "stupid", "crazy", "ludicrous" and so on. Or will they just sliver away knowing they were the ones, "stupid", "crazy", "ludicrous" and so on? if I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet on either. What I'd bet on is them continuing to tell more lies and fairy tales in their support of Obama and Reid. No matter what they do.
 
I'm not sure I'd call it inconceivable seeing as how the Democrats actually agreed to the spending levels demanded by the GOP.

It's also interesting that you are pointing out that someone might hold the opinion "We could spend MORE than this, but it's bad to spend LESS than this!" As if that's contradictory or something?

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant!

Oh, I fully understand that some think there should be more spending, some think less, in general.

My "rant" was more born from frustration recently of hearing liberal friends scoff at the notion of keeping it at sequestration levels because sequestration was only meant for one year and it's unreasonable and unfair to expect those levels to be a new baseline....despite one year, emergency funding levels have been the new baseline for multiple years now, just the other direction.

My annoyance was less at wanting a larger amount, and more at the argument as to WHY
 
From what I understand, Reid didn't like Collin's offer, even though there were Dems that worked with her on this, so it died. Reid seems to have adopted the attitude that only he is right about everything, thus here we are! :thumbdown:

Reid in a way has crowned himself kingmaker along with attempting to become the destroyer of the other party. The problem is in his destroyer custom he may be destroying the nation in order to destroy his enemy. Yes, from what I read, Manchin the D senator from WV work real close with here. Perhaps she should have let Manchin bring it to Reid, he might have considered it then.
 
Reid in a way has crowned himself kingmaker along with attempting to become the destroyer of the other party. The problem is in his destroyer custom he may be destroying the nation in order to destroy his enemy. Yes, from what I read, Manchin the D senator from WV work real close with here. Perhaps she should have let Manchin bring it to Reid, he might have considered it then.

I doubt it, Pero. Reid considers Manchin a rebel since he doesn't always toe the party line! I like people like Manchin! :thumbs:
 
I doubt it, Pero. Reid considers Manchin a rebel since he doesn't always toe the party line! I like people like Manchin! :thumbs:

Me too, Manchin, Collins, Alexander is good, There are a few senators who look out for the country and her people. But the far majority only look out for their party.
 
Oh, I fully understand that some think there should be more spending, some think less, in general.

My "rant" was more born from frustration recently of hearing liberal friends scoff at the notion of keeping it at sequestration levels because sequestration was only meant for one year and it's unreasonable and unfair to expect those levels to be a new baseline....despite one year, emergency funding levels have been the new baseline for multiple years now, just the other direction.

My annoyance was less at wanting a larger amount, and more at the argument as to WHY

You're the first person I've ever heard refer to the sequestration as "emergency" funding.
 
I've come down hard on the GOP as the cause of this idiotcy. That is because the way I understand, the Democrats wanted a 1.2 trillion CR and in negotiation with Republicans agreed to a 986 billion figure prior to the shutdown. Then the Republicans threw in the defunding rider derailing the agreement reached thus causing the shutdown.

The Democrats then hollared, just give us a clean CR, apparently that is what Collins offered. A clean CR as what was demanded and pretty close to the agreement between both parties before this defunding Obamacare stupidity. It looks like the Dems won. But they want to exceed sequester. All I heard from dems during this shutdown was Obamacare was the law of the land and the Republicans should abide by it. Well sequester is also the law of the land, the democrats in return should abide by it.

I'll have to check into this more, but it now seems until I do, that the onus for the continuing shut down is shifting from basically a solely Republican caused shutdown to a Democrart responsibility for continuing it.

Collins didn't offer a clean CR. Just cleaner than what the GOP had been demanding.

And the Democrats agreed to 986 billion literally months ago. The GOP reneged and demanded more. This is not how negotiations work. The GOP is to blame.
 
Collins didn't offer a clean CR. Just cleaner than what the GOP had been demanding.

And the Democrats agreed to 986 billion literally months ago. The GOP reneged and demanded more. This is not how negotiations work. The GOP is to blame.

Was the one she presented to Reid, the one Collins and Manchin worked on together to come up with? No, I think both parties are to blame, sure the republicans more so than the Democrats. But both parties have been marching in lock step toward something like this since November of 2010. Both parties attitude of my way or the highway is the main reason. Still trying to change the existing sequester law after hollaring the the ACA is the law of the land, seems a bit ingenious if not hypocritical.
 
Was the one she presented to Reid, the one Collins and Manchin worked on together to come up with? No, I think both parties are to blame, sure the republicans more so than the Democrats. But both parties have been marching in lock step toward something like this since November of 2010. Both parties attitude of my way or the highway is the main reason. Still trying to change the existing sequester law after hollaring the the ACA is the law of the land, seems a bit ingenious if not hypocritical.

The Democrats agreed to the initial demands of 986 billion. This is not "my way or the highway." This is literally giving the GOP what it asked for. Then the GOP went back on their word.

Collins new plan still includes a delay of the medical device tax. (previously was a repeal of that tax)

This "sequester is law of the land" is a faulty new talking point. The stimulus spending was also the law of the land. Keyword: was. Both were temporary measures that have since expired. Additional point: the sequester is a budget deal. Eliminating major health care law changes is not a budget deal. The two aren't comparable in a "law of the land" fashion.

The GOP is 100% to blame.

Further question on this line: why should Democrats accept any of this in exchange for 10 weeks of additional government? What are the Republicans going to extort then?
 
You're the first person I've ever heard refer to the sequestration as "emergency" funding.

So Deuce, going to continue to play stupid and ignore the vast majority of what I state and the actual point I make to nit pick little lines? I just want to know whether I should bother actually having a discussion with you or just go ram my head against a wall? Because if you want to keep playing dumb and deflecting, I'll just go with the Wall as that way I'm not wasting time THINKING it's actually interested in engaging in discussion.

Notice the only time I described the sequestration as emergency funds was in the first post I made, placing it in quotes around it that, along with the context, should've made it clear it was not being literal but more highlighting that both Sequestration and The Stimulus were similar in that they were implied to be temporary actions done in response to a serious situation needing immediate action....the staggered economy for Stimulus, and the inability of Congress to come to a deal regarding spending with regards to sequestration.
 
Keyword: was. Both were temporary measures that have since expired.

Exactly. However, despite Stimulus "expiring"...the congresses's inability to pass a REAL budget and thus doing CR's and bills similar to CR's basically utilized the spending levels under the *temporary measure* of Stimulus as the new "baseline" for which to continue to fund the government at. Attempting to make Sequestration levels a new baseline is no less legitimate or reasonable than when the same general thing was done with regards to Stimulus.
 
Back
Top Bottom