• 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!

If the government shuts down due to defunding who is at fault?

If the government shuts down due to defunding who is at fault?


  • Total voters
    25
And as I pointed out, the amount that Republicans are suggesting ot cut from the current budget is SMALLER than what they campaigned on, IE a compromised number aimed at being more likely to be pased. That said, whether or not they took all the chambers of government, at the very least the 90 or so new house members who specifically were voted in largely due to the demand by their consituents to significantly cut spending would have to be complete idiots to go from the 100 billion they campaigned on down to 15 or 30 billion. That's compromising down to an almost 75% decrease from what they promised just a few months ago to get elected. They've already compromised by dropping down to about 60% of what they campaigned on by saying ~$60 billion in cuts. All houses or just one, it is unrealistic and ignorant to expect or base your actions off the assumption that people who literally just started 3 months ago in large part due to cuts in spending are going to cave and compromise to almost 25% or less of what they campaigned on within spitting distance of being placed into office.

But then, your post makes my other point. It is more the Democrats fault than the Republicans at this point because the Democrats DID have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency and yet still didn't pass a Budget during the first quarter of the Fiscal Year.

What the Voters Actually Said on Election Day — The American Magazine

As to economic policy going forward, 39 percent indicated that reducing the deficit should be the highest priority for the next Congress, 37 percent said spending to create jobs should be the priority, and 18 percent said cutting taxes should be.

That is slightly over a third. That is almost a dead heat with "creating jobs". You are overplaying the demand for cutting budget from their constituents. Further, failing to pass a bill to cut the budget due to not compromising means they failed to serve those who do want budget cuts.

You always have an excuse to not compromise. I find that interesting.
 
Hard to say to be honest. Probably not, but its a gamble worth taking in my mind as the positives outweight the negatives.

Furthermore, I think the result they want is more likely to come about from a government shut down rather than the other way around. Federal Workers are not exactly popular, getting it from both sides. I'll remind you it wasn't that long ago that we had this administration suggesting Federal Employees need to feel the same kind of pain as their private sector brethren and thus put forward the pay freeze. And that was from the side that, traditionally, federal employees are more often to side with. A federal shutdown is going to affect non-emergency, non-law enforcement individuals in the government...meaning primarily the democratic constituents of the work force. So a shut down is likely to exert far more pressure on Democrats to get something done than Republicans, meaning the pressure to compromise will be more on the Democrats than Republicans.

My honest opinion is that we'll shut down (Or narrowly avert it) and end up with something in the $45-$50 range of cuts. This is lower than the Republicans recent "sticking" point number of something like $63, but at the same time is around the 50% mark of what the Republicans campaigned on just a few months ago. So Democrats can lament how they had to do something to get federal employees back to work and got the Republicans to drop lower, while Republicans can suggest they had to compromise because they didn't have all houses but still managed to get a compromise that was equitable/slightly in their favor in regards to the percentage split.

I think if we're looking at a $30 or less number than the Republicans will have botched this and done poorly imho, and did their constituents who just elected them into office a disservice. They would not be serving the American people, at least not the segment of the population that elected them. Which would mean only ONE side of the aisle would be actively serving their constituents, leaving half of the American Public to pound sand.
 
What the Voters Actually Said on Election Day — The American Magazine

That is slightly over a third. That is almost a dead heat with "creating jobs". You are overplaying the demand for cutting budget from their constituents. Further, failing to pass a bill to cut the budget due to not compromising means they failed to serve those who do want budget cuts.

You're looking at numbers from the entire electorate. Have any specifically for the individuals that voted Republican? Look at the Republicans platforms, especially the majority that won in the house. Their focuses were the Obamacare, the Bush Tax Cuts, and fiscal responsability by and large. Flat out, I'll ask, are you seriously suggesting that for the majority of Republicans "fiscal responsability" or "reduce spending" was not easily one of the three to four largest factors they pushed in their campaigns, or pushed as the national message? When speaking to REPUBLICAN voters, are you suggesting reducing spending was not one of the main things they were concerned about?

I don't care about the entire number, Democrats didn't help get the Republicans elected so whether the Democratic contingent of those voters didn't want spending cuts is irrelevant to the facts of why the republicans were voted into office.

You always have an excuse to not compromise. I find that interesting.

If you find it interesting you should do a search and find my comments on compromise, and you'll likely find out why. I think "compromise" as its used in the general vernacular of politics today is a fraud, a cowardly and worthless thing that is the best way to get **** for everyone. I am for legitimate and worth while compromise, however 9 out of 10 times that work is used these days it doesn't fall into that. I find an "excuse" not to compromise because most of the time, regardless of which side is being told they need to compromise, its generally bull****.
 
Hard to say to be honest. Probably not, but its a gamble worth taking in my mind as the positives outweight the negatives.

Furthermore, I think the result they want is more likely to come about from a government shut down rather than the other way around. Federal Workers are not exactly popular, getting it from both sides. I'll remind you it wasn't that long ago that we had this administration suggesting Federal Employees need to feel the same kind of pain as their private sector brethren and thus put forward the pay freeze. And that was from the side that, traditionally, federal employees are more often to side with. A federal shutdown is going to affect non-emergency, non-law enforcement individuals in the government...meaning primarily the democratic constituents of the work force. So a shut down is likely to exert far more pressure on Democrats to get something done than Republicans, meaning the pressure to compromise will be more on the Democrats than Republicans.

My honest opinion is that we'll shut down (Or narrowly avert it) and end up with something in the $45-$50 range of cuts. This is lower than the Republicans recent "sticking" point number of something like $63, but at the same time is around the 50% mark of what the Republicans campaigned on just a few months ago. So Democrats can lament how they had to do something to get federal employees back to work and got the Republicans to drop lower, while Republicans can suggest they had to compromise because they didn't have all houses but still managed to get a compromise that was equitable/slightly in their favor in regards to the percentage split.

I think if we're looking at a $30 or less number than the Republicans will have botched this and done poorly imho, and did their constituents who just elected them into office a disservice. They would not be serving the American people, at least not the segment of the population that elected them. Which would mean only ONE side of the aisle would be actively serving their constituents, leaving half of the American Public to pound sand.

What pisses me off is the size of cuts should not be the debating point. We need cuts. What should be the debate is where the cuts come from. In some ways it is an easier debate to resolve.

What also pisses me off is that if the government does "shut down", then that means to my mind that our government has failed us. They have been unwilling to do what it takes to represent their districts and the US itself. Thank god our founding fathers did not play the game the way modern politicians do.
 
If there's a gov't shutdown it will be the fault of both sides. It means they suck at negotiating.
 
And as I pointed out, the amount that Republicans are suggesting ot cut from the current budget is SMALLER than what they campaigned on, IE a compromised number aimed at being more likely to be pased.

Well, that doesn't really mean anything in itself. Politicians overpromise all the time. If Obama had emphatically supported single-payer health care instead of cautiously pushing for a public option, would you feel better about the health care law that DID emerge, because he "compromised" more? I find that it doesn't really make much sense to judge legislation based on the specific numbers that were promised before the election, when the politicians weren't actually at the negotiating table. At that stage, any numbers they propose are nothing more than a wish list.

Zyphlin said:
All houses or just one, it is unrealistic and ignorant to expect or base your actions off the assumption that people who literally just started 3 months ago in large part due to cuts in spending are going to cave and compromise to almost 25% or less of what they campaigned on within spitting distance of being placed into office.

Any budget that emerges must have the support of some congressional Republicans, some congressional Democrats, and the Democrat president in order to pass. This is a mathematical fact. Therefore it's not going to work to just appeal to the hard right while picking off a few Democratic votes. The Republican House leadership would be far better off abandoning a few votes on their right flank in order to establish a broad bipartisan consensus. And I say that not in a kumbaya-can't-we-all-just-get-along sense, but in a practical sense: There's no other way to pass a budget.

Zyphlin said:
But then, your post makes my other point. It is more the Democrats fault than the Republicans at this point because the Democrats DID have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency and yet still didn't pass a Budget during the first quarter of the Fiscal Year.

I'm certainly not defending the congressional Democrats' behavior on this either.
 
Last edited:
I am tired of hearing people say the liberals hate the Constitution... Obama hates the Constitution, when it was Bush who told us to stop "throwing the Constitution in his face" and that "it's just a piece of paper."

Exactly which liberal stances are clearly against the Constitution?

I don't give a crap about what Bush thinks, he's not president. I'm talking about Obama and Liberals. I want anyone to obey the constitution.

I can think of two bills off the top of my head that were obviously unconstitutional recently trying to be passed by democrats. The Massachusetts law try to get ride of the electoral college bypassing amendment to the constitution processes. The Disclose Act, which obviously violates the 1st amendment to the constitution and it got pushed through the house of representatives by Liberals and got blocked in the senate with only one democrat (Henry Ried) who voted against cloture. These are two sound examples that Liberals have little regard for the constitution and will pass laws that fit their agenda regardless.

The Liberal Congress also abuses the Implied powers to socialize redistribution of wealth.
And Liberals tend to pass laws that Infringe on personal Liberty and justify taking money from the wealthy and give to the poor that don't deserve it, making the poor more and more dependent on the government and not dependant on themselves.

I gave a couple literal examples and a couple of philosophical examples the way Liberal violate the language of the constitution.
 
I can think of two bills off the top of my head that were obviously unconstitutional recently trying to be passed by democrats. The Massachusetts law try to get ride of the electoral college bypassing amendment to the constitution processes.

That isn't unconstitutional. The Constitution says that each state gets a certain number of electors and whoever wins the electoral college is the president. However, it doesn't say HOW the states are supposed to choose their electors, which means it's up to the state to decide. Traditionally, most states have awarded their electoral votes to whichever ticket gets the most votes in their respective state...but there is nothing in the Constitution REQUIRING them to do that.

What the new agreement would do is award a state's electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. It won't take effect until 270 EVs worth of states have signed on, thus switching us to a de facto popular vote system. However, the electoral college would still exist exactly as specified by the Constitution. It's perfectly legal.
 
Well, that doesn't really mean anything in itself. Politicians overpromise all the time. If Obama had emphatically supported single-payer health care instead of cautiously pushing for a public option, would you feel better about the health care law that DID emerge, because he "compromised" more? I find that it doesn't really make much sense to judge legislation based on the specific numbers that were promised before the election, when the politicians weren't actually at the negotiating table. At that stage, any numbers they propose are nothing more than a wish list.

If Obama campaigned in 2008 strongly on Single-Payer Health Care and then in February of 2009 began the actual legislative push to get it, I would suggest it'd be extremely unrealistic on the part of the Republicans to look at the situation as one where they should expect or base their actions off of the notion that Obama was going to sizable and significantly compromise on Single-Payer health care. Do people violate and not go as strong on major campaign themes? Sure, early 2000's showed this often for the Republicans. However, in general, this kind of thing doesn't tend to happen within the first 6 months of gaining office, let alone within 2 to 4 months as has been the case with this budget stuff.

And considering one of the biggest issues with this new crop was that many that voted for them seemed to do so with the notion that they're going to trust in this one more time, and if they are nothing but hollow words a 2nd time around that there's not going to be a 3rd. This set of Republicans are set in a very big "boy who cried wolf" type of situation, which to me makes it far more obvious, far more predictable, and far more understandable that they're likely to not be extremely compromise friendly on key things to them a few months into gaining office.

I'm not saying its right, I'm stating its simply an unreasonable expectation to think that wasn't going to happen and it was very ignorant and naive thinking on the part of the Democrats if they weren't, or aren't, planning or expecting that to be the case.

Any budget that emerges must have the support of some congressional Republicans, some congressional Democrats, and the Democrat president in order to pass. This is a mathematical fact. Therefore it's not going to work to just appeal to the hard right while picking off a few Democratic votes. The Republican House leadership would be far better off abandoning a few votes on their right flank in order to establish a broad bipartisan consensus. And I say that not in a kumbaya-can't-we-all-just-get-along sense, but in a practical sense: There's no other way to pass a budget.

I think they know they're going to have to compromise. I think they're figuring that a shut down is going to put more pressure on Democrats than it will on them and will lead to a compromise that is more palatable to the Republicans than they would get without it. I don't think they honestly believe that they won't have to compromise to a point, or at least I hope they're not that naive. I just think they're trying to get into the best position to get the most out of that compromise.

I'm certainly not defending the congressional Democrats' behavior on this either.

Gotcha. I'm not saying the Republicans don't have some blame. In many way's what you say is logical and makes sense, but I think it also is that way only inside a bubble when you don't take into account the past election and what things are meaning right now for their constituents. But they do hold some blame.
 
If the government shuts down due to defunding who is at fault? The Republicans? The Democrats? The President? Who do you believe would be at fault if congress doesn't pass a spending bill that funds the government? Please explain your answers.

Does someone have to be at fault? It's obviously a political question. And if we establish blame, then what? What will you do about it?
 
All of the above. The democrats for having too much pork and too much spending to begin with, the republicans for being too stubborn in their demands and stonewalling anything they don't like, and the president for not doing anything about it...or anything for that matter.
 
The government shutting down is the result of failed leadership of all representatives involved. There should be an "all of the above" option.
 
The Republicans promised to cut a tenth of a terabuck from this budget. They compromised to the point of cutting only sixty billion dollars.

The president and the leftist insulted the will of the American people expressed last November by proposing a mere four billion dollars in cuts.

100% of the blame lies with the President, for failing to lead, for being unable to surrender his obligations to the special interests. 100% of the blame also lies with the Democrats who can't seem to realize that the United States is broke and should not be borrowing money to continue paying their political pandering.
 
And this has what to do with what I wrote?

The whole mindset that we need spending cuts RIGHT NOW is silly. The government is not in imminent danger of going bankrupt. Yes, we have some serious problems with the long-term structural deficit that need to be solved, but that's no reason to cut off valuable spending now.

The whole problem with this quote is that there is TOO much WASTEFUL spending.
 
My idea of a radical Republican is one who unconscionably threatens to force this nation into default and bring about a worldwide financial catastrophe by refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless they get their way. My idea of a radical Republican is one who attaches riders to must pass budget bills in inane assaults on long standing national policies regarding women's health services, public broadcasting and a host of their other pet peeves despite not having held a single hearing or obtained a single committee vote. My idea of a radical Republican is one who goes to Washington and recklessly pursues a course that may result in shutting down the federal government and derailing our frail economic recovery.

What economic recovery? You mean the latest economic bubble...
 
What pisses me off is the size of cuts should not be the debating point. We need cuts. What should be the debate is where the cuts come from. In some ways it is an easier debate to resolve.

What also pisses me off is that if the government does "shut down", then that means to my mind that our government has failed us. They have been unwilling to do what it takes to represent their districts and the US itself. Thank god our founding fathers did not play the game the way modern politicians do.

And if the government has failed us, then the government needs replaced, wholly.
 
The Republicans promised to cut a tenth of a terabuck from this budget. They compromised to the point of cutting only sixty billion dollars.

The president and the leftist insulted the will of the American people expressed last November by proposing a mere four billion dollars in cuts.

100% of the blame lies with the President, for failing to lead, for being unable to surrender his obligations to the special interests. 100% of the blame also lies with the Democrats who can't seem to realize that the United States is broke and should not be borrowing money to continue paying their political pandering.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-budget-plan-would-cut-5-8-trln-10-yrs.html
 
All of the above..
 
If the government shuts down due to defunding who is at fault? The Republicans? The Democrats? The President? Who do you believe would be at fault if congress doesn't pass a spending bill that funds the government? Please explain your answers.

I don't think any party can be blamed specifically. The fundamental problem is that the current political climate is not one where compromise is popular and the politicians are reacting to that public mood.
 
It is more the Democrats fault than the Republicans at this point because the Democrats DID have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency and yet still didn't pass a Budget during the first quarter of the Fiscal Year.

True, but it wasn't the same kind of political hot button issue it is today, and very few will remember it. Timing is everything.

The public interest now is NOT to pass a bill that will do more harm than good for the most people, mine too, and when Reid and Obama make the case on TV that the Reps budget will cost thousands of jobs and foreclosures, the media and public will go along with them.

Any rebuttal the Reps make will be too convoluted for the average person to relate with.

ricksfolly
 
The Democrat Party, The Kenyan Tyrant, and the 50 million Obama Voters.........

The Democrat Party....for disregarding their Constitutional Duty (nothing new) of passing a Budget........because they were too busy defying the Will of The American People and shoving their Bull**** legislation down out throats.

The Kenyan Tyrant.....incapable of running a lemonade stand

The 50 million Obama Voters......the most gullible and naive life forms on the planet, who elect these absolute nincompoops.....from The Most Inexperienced President in history to Nazi Pelosi to the ****stain Harry Reid.
.
.
 
It's our fault for voting all these crooks into office again and again.
 
Both the congressional Republicans and Democrats are at fault. The president less so.

I hate the entire way we do annual budgets in this country. People shriek that spending is too high without even considering that in some cases, more spending now means less spending in the long run. I wish we had 5 year plans (or even better, 10 year plans) like they do in China, instead of annual budgets. Then we could worry more about how to reduce costs in the long run and minimize the structural deficit, instead of trying to minimize spending right now, which is stupid and counterproductive.


:confused: each one of our budgets is a 10-year plan.



The President deserves the lions' share of this one; Republicans in the House have passed their solution to keep the government funded; Democrats in the Senate have not done the same (nor have they even really attempted to), and the President has chosen the path of least resistance. his party and his nation deserve that he at least try to lead.
 
Last edited:
:confused: each one of our budgets is a 10-year plan.

Nominally. The CBO will score them for their 10-year impact, Congress will nod and smile, and then go back to talking about how much money we're spending right now. I noticed this mindset during Paul Ryan's response to the SOTU this year. He noted that Obama referred to "investments" when he really meant "spending." Actually, no. He DID mean investments. Spending more money now often means that we spend less money overall. This is especially true in areas like health care, education, and infrastructure...which is a pretty sizable chunk of the federal budget right there.

Yet many states (and possibly the federal government) are contemplating slashing expenditures in these areas to "save money." It might make our government's income statement look prettier this year, but in the long run it will cost far more.
 
Nominally. The CBO will score them for their 10-year impact, Congress will nod and smile, and then go back to talking about how much money we're spending right now. I noticed this mindset during Paul Ryan's response to the SOTU this year. He noted that Obama referred to "investments" when he really meant "spending." Actually, no. He DID mean investments. Spending more money now often means that we spend less money overall.

wrong. spending more now means that you have a higher baseline in the future. each dollar extra that you spend now is a dollar plus interest you have to spend later just to "keep spending level". that's government economics.
 
Back
Top Bottom