• 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!

Fellow republicans: explain why the shutdown and default is good fiscal policy.

Until then, the GOP will do what it is doing. They passed a funding bill, denied. They passed a funding bill with a suspension of the individual mandate (as with the business mandate), denied. They passed 2 individual funding bills, denied. Denied by democrats in the senate. No negotiation. And you think the GOP looks childish? Yeah...the parks situation pretty much shows who the petulant children are. :lamo

Not desperate at all. Legislation is passed...amendments passed. Opponents should just get over it.

Yes they are acting like children because they can't get rid of the ACA unless they try throwing a temper tanturm, because they can't win elections. Yes, CHILDREN is what the GOP are at this time. You are desperate and it shows. You even try pulling gay marriage out of your ass to deflect and dodge. When the Dems hold up the government for gay marriage let me know. Until then, you have NOTHING. Please contiue though, your desperation is palpable.
 
Yes they are acting like children because they can't get rid of the ACA unless they try throwing a temper tanturm, because they can't win elections. Yes, CHILDREN is what the GOP are at this time. You are desperate and it shows. You even try pulling gay marriage out of your ass to deflect and dodge. When the Dems hold up the government for gay marriage let me know. Until then, you have NOTHING. Please contiue though, your desperation is palpable.
:lamo It's cute that you think the GOP elected to the majority in the house should just do what the democrats did.

It's not a question of holding up the government over gay marriage, it's a question of not accepting 'settled' law. Laws are passed, amendments are passed, you just have to comply even if you don't like it.
 
:lamo It's cute that you think the GOP elected to the majority in the house should just do what the democrats did.

It's not a question of holding up the government over gay marriage, it's a question of not accepting 'settled' law. Laws are passed, amendments are passed, you just have to comply even if you don't like it.

Again, where did I say you should quit trying to get something changed? I didn't. However, holding up the government because it is the ONLY way you can is acting like a spoiled brat like the GOP is doing. When the Dems hold up the government over gay marriage, let me know.

You think you are clever, but you're not. Pulling gay marriage out of your ass shows how desperate you are.
 
Again, where did I say you should quit trying to get something changed? I didn't. However, holding up the government because it is the ONLY way you can is acting like a spoiled brat like the GOP is doing. When the Dems hold up the government over gay marriage, let me know.

You think you are clever, but you're not. Pulling gay marriage out of your ass shows how desperate you are.
once again...the GOP is not holding up the government. They have passed 4 distinct separate options that would allow for a CR and discussion on the future of the ACA. The petulant children in the democrat party are the ones that reuse to consider any other option other than everything they want. Their childish actions at the parks throughout the county quite clearly demonstrate who is the 'problem'. And judging on recent opinion polls, even democrats are seeing it more and more.
 
It's a problem of partisanship. People will passively accept or even actively defend the very policies they rail against if it's people in their own parties orchestrating it.

Partisan liberals complain about the Bush tax cuts for the rich but suddenly go silent when you remind them of the Clinton/Summers capital gains tax cut of the late nineties (the REAL tax cut for the rich). They complain about financial deregulation but go silent about the fact that Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed the Senate with a 90-8 vote, championed strongly by Democrats, and also go silent about the fact that Obama and the Democrats cowered to the bank lobby and obediently pushed out the one guy in Washington with the balls to actually regulate derivatives. The go silent about non-defensive wars, environmentalism, and a host of other issues as long as their favorite political team is winning.

Partisanship is the disease here.

Totally agree. the irony.. is that both parties have now morphed into liberals.
 
As a republican and a staunch conservative... I really would like those that support the shutdown and the debt limit fight to explain how doing such is in line with fiscal responsibility

I back the republicans in the last debt ceiling debate because I believed they were trying to get the debt and spending under control. I don't have the foggiest idea what they are trying to accomplish this time around. Defund the ACA? I heard rumors that Boehner has dropped that. Lower spending, I heard other rumors that the Democrats dropped their bid to get an increase of 1.2 trillion and agreed to the Republican demand of 980 billion. So what am I missing here?
 
the debt ceiling and ACA are two separate issues, both of which need to be addressed and neither of which ARE being addressed. Its funny how you and others think it is only the GOP not addressing it when there is very obvious evidence just how petulant and childish the administration is being (especially funny what with you being a republican and all). The government doesn't have to be shut down. The GOP has to date given the democrats 4 separate options, none of which involve a repeal or elimination of the ACA. The democrats refuse to act on the ACA. Neither party is doing ANYTHING with regard to the debt ceiling other than spending more money. It's laughable to even call it a debt ceiling.

Well one... if they are separate issues.. then why did we republicans include it and continue to include it as part of the discussion.. the democrats did not do it. republicans did..

And two.. Quite frankly it seems quite a bit dishonest to claim that the democrats aren't addressing the issue of Obamacare when in fact Obama acted on the request from republicans to delay the mandate on business having to buy healthcare insurance for its employees. Which quite frankly is a great thing because that part of the Obamacare.. the mandate on business is a bad idea.

Its seems just a bit crazy of us.. and that's not lost on the general public by the way.. (remember 0-2 in general presidential elections) that on one hand we scream "why doesn't Obama address the ACA".. and then scream.. "how dare he change the rules on the ACA" when he does exactly what we requested he do...

And the fact is.. both parties have agreed to a lower amount of spending than previous. In fact lower than the ryan budget.

I still would like you to explain why this is fiscally responsible.
 
I back the republicans in the last debt ceiling debate because I believed they were trying to get the debt and spending under control. I don't have the foggiest idea what they are trying to accomplish this time around. Defund the ACA? I heard rumors that Boehner has dropped that. Lower spending, I heard other rumors that the Democrats dropped their bid to get an increase of 1.2 trillion and agreed to the Republican demand of 980 billion. So what am I missing here?

I don't think you are missing anything. I am stumped also because it looks like we want to run the economy into the ditch to show that we can do it.
 
There is NOTHING "staunch conservative" about your message. It is Democrats who shut down the government, not Republicans and it is not staunch conservative to declare it impossible not to endlessly increase the budget and debt. Your message is typical wolf in sheep's clothing.

I think he is a conservative on some issues but there are two ways to explain his position

1) he is worried-mainly based on what left wing pundits are saying-that the GOP will be blamed as much by the voters as it is by press turds like Chris Matthews

2) he is more dependent on government than perhaps we are
 
I don't think you are missing anything. I am stumped also because it looks like we want to run the economy into the ditch to show that we can do it.

the ever expanding malignant cycle of dependency by those who gain the votes of the dependent is what is driving the economy into the ditch
 
And the 40 times it was put to a vote, along with a SCOTUS decision, it PASSED. It wasn't just a ONE TIME thing as you claim.

Would someone explain why the WH talking point that continues to be repeated by it's lemmings regarding the supreme court saying the law, while lousy is constitutional has anything to do with what is being discussed.
 
If your cause is righteous, what's wrong with an honest answer?

Can I presume that you prefer the shutdown to allowing the House to vote on a "clean CR?"

?

What exactly is "Clean CR" ?

Thom Paine
 
As a republican and a staunch conservative... I really would like those that support the shutdown and the debt limit fight to explain how doing such is in line with fiscal responsibility

Frankly it isn't, and I'm against them actually helping to push it this far. If there was a reasonable expectation that they'd actually get the ACA defunded or substantially delayed then I'd understand the taking the gamble. But the juice isn't worth the squeeze here. There's little chance that it actually gets defunded, and in the mean time we cause a MULTITUDE of fiscal waste because of it.

Now, with that said...I've stated from the beginning I don't condemn nor knock any of the Representatives that are attempting to keep to their campaign pledges and promises and represent their constituents by attempting to fight the ACA by any means possible. I strongly disagree with their methods and I think politically it's foolish and from a fiscally conservative view point it's foolish, but I'm not going to condemn people for acting on principle and in line with what they were elected to do.

But no, there's nothing realistically fiscally responsible with what's going on. There is something fiscally responsible IN THEORY, but that theory is a poor one.
 
And the 40 times it was put to a vote, along with a SCOTUS decision, it PASSED. It wasn't just a ONE TIME thing as you claim.

Honest question, did it actually reach the senate floor for a vote those 40 times? Or did it get put up for a vote in the House, WON that vote, and then was buried in the Senate? If it's the later, then it's rather disingenuous to present "40 times it was put to a vote" as if those 40 votes came back as "no".
 
Fact. The democrats would pass a clean bill on the debt ceiling. The republicans are the ones saying no.. unless other conditions are met. and that squarely puts the shutdown in the republican corner. (by the way part of being a conservative is taking responsibility for ones actions. and rightly or wrongly.. the republicans are the cause of the shutdown.. fact).

That's not fact, that's opinion.

Here's the only true fact regarding why the government shut down.

The senate and house could not agree on a measure to fund the government after midnight, october 1st.

Everything else is posturing and you presenting your opinion.

Furthermore, it's based off a poor assumption that the Government being funded or not came down SINGULARLY to whether or not a "clean CR" would be passed. That's absolutely not the case. There were MULTIPLE steps that ultimately led to this shutdown, not the least of which is that both the House and Senate could not function together to actually pass a Budget. That, actually, has been the case for FIVE YEARS. For FIVE YEARS we have been using measures that are typically emergency, temporary, funding measures as full year appropriation measures...creating an environment where "standard" good faith notions such as "Clean CR's" become muddled because OTHER "standard" good faith notions were also not happening.

The mindset that the actions of the 24 hours prior to October 1st are the fully encompassing context of the government shutdown is an erroneous one.

Republicans ABSOLUTELY bear responsibility for this shutdown, but they in no way bear SOLE responsibility.
 
If your cause is righteous, what's wrong with an honest answer?

Can I presume that you prefer the shutdown to allowing the House to vote on a "clean CR?"

Do you prefer a default?

First you have to define what you are suggesting we are exactly defaulting on. Then we can have a debate on that premise.

As for your comment about "I presume that you prefer the shutdown to allowing the House to vote on a "clean CR?" Let me put it another way. Can I presume that you prefer the shutdown to not agreeing to negotiate with the House?" In other words Obama and the Senate have their view and the House has their, is it your view to have the government shutdown instead of trying to come to a compromise with the House. Remember we have three branches of government, we are not a dictatorship.

It is clear to me that Obama has said many times he will not negociate, the leader of the party of NO. Again I point out he is not a dictator, we have three branches of government and that means talking to one another. But Obama would rather have a government shutdown rather than talk to the other branch of government. Making him the dictator, which he is not, at least not yet.
 
Last edited:
Tell me... how would you feel about them "standing on principle".. if during those times.. they refused to allow the debt ceiling to be raised until they had a single payer healthcare system in America?

Won't speak for others, but when Harry Reid threatened to defund the government if we didn't defund Iraq I didn't fault him for that action. I disagreed with his view on the matter, I disagreed that his actions were intelligent or wise, but I didn't fault him for attempting to make a principled stand on what he was elected for.

You ask how people would feel about them "standing on principle" to do something I'd dislike? I'd have a significant disagreement with their goal, and I'd try to counter their goal as best as possible, but I wouldn't "feel" antipathy or anger towards them...nor declare them "terrorists", "anarchists", or any other sort of overblown hyperbolic rhetoric that POLITICIANS, not just typical nutjobs, are using....for the mere fact of standing on principle.
 
Republicans ABSOLUTELY bear responsibility for this shutdown, but they in no way bear SOLE responsibility.

The Koch brothers letter to Senate Repubs has them running for the rafters, let alone explicitly distancing from this tactic..
Treasury bills doubled in interest overnight, adding to the Ryan budget,,
a budget that Cantor has admitted he has all he wanted
 
Again, where did I say you should quit trying to get something changed? I didn't. However, holding up the government because it is the ONLY way you can is acting like a spoiled brat like the GOP is doing. When the Dems hold up the government over gay marriage, let me know.

You think you are clever, but you're not. Pulling gay marriage out of your ass shows how desperate you are.

While I disagree with this method, let's be honest here TNE. The supposed "power" of the House is the "power of the purse". The "Power" they are supposed to have in the dichotomy of the government is revolving around budgetary matters. Yet for FIVE YEARS we've not passed a budget, with some years the Senate majority leader not even allowing submitted budget proposals from the House to even REACH the senate floor for debate let alone actually let it reach a final vote.

You're right, one side of the Senate SHOULDN'T "hold up the government". That said, the other side of the Senate shouldn't essentially refuse to even DEAL with anything coming out of the other side simply because they dislike it, effectively "holding up the government" unless they go along with what the Senate wants.

BOTH sides have been playing these games, both sides are attempting to leverage every ounce of capabilities their portion of the government is able to do, and BOTH sides stubbornness and games of one-up's-menship are led to this eventual quagmire we're in currently.
 
That's not fact, that's opinion.

Here's the only true fact regarding why the government shut down.

The senate and house could not agree on a measure to fund the government after midnight, october 1st.
Do you agree with legislative add-ons and policy riders??
And now the talk of throwing in the three entitlements??
Or Paul Ryan's op ed not mentioning ACA before he got spanked?
 
The Koch brothers letter to Senate Repubs has them running for the rafters, let alone explicitly distancing from this tactic..
Treasury bills doubled in interest overnight, adding to the Ryan budget,,
a budget that Cantor has admitted he has all he wanted

Thank you for your random "Propoganda for Hyper Partisan Liberals" Madlibs response, it was amazingly useful for anyone who refuses to actually review and discuss things as adults or isn't a raging political hack simply out to score points for their party.
 
I back the republicans in the last debt ceiling debate because I believed they were trying to get the debt and spending under control. I don't have the foggiest idea what they are trying to accomplish this time around. Defund the ACA? I heard rumors that Boehner has dropped that. Lower spending, I heard other rumors that the Democrats dropped their bid to get an increase of 1.2 trillion and agreed to the Republican demand of 980 billion. So what am I missing here?

I've been hearing mixed messages on the above. I kept seeing reference to the 980 billion, but that it was only for a funding bill that lasts through the Debt Ceiling Crisis and not the level for the full year. In which case it's kind of a disingenuous notion to put out.

Politically speaking, the Republicans would've been far more intelligent to string out the ACA thing right up till the point of no return, and worked on getting a full year CR at lower spending levels as a fall back. Could've gone back to their base and truthfully say they did everything reasonably possible to stop ACA at this point, AND that they managed to cut spending. I think actually going forward with a shutdown over this was amazingly stupid politically.
 
Won't speak for others, but when Harry Reid threatened to defund the government if we didn't defund Iraq I didn't fault him for that action. I disagreed with his view on the matter, I disagreed that his actions were intelligent or wise, but I didn't fault him for attempting to make a principled stand on what he was elected for.

You ask how people would feel about them "standing on principle" to do something I'd dislike? I'd have a significant disagreement with their goal, and I'd try to counter their goal as best as possible, but I wouldn't "feel" antipathy or anger towards them...nor declare them "terrorists", "anarchists", or any other sort of overblown hyperbolic rhetoric that POLITICIANS, not just typical nutjobs, are using....for the mere fact of standing on principle.

Oddly, and this is another of those interesting areas where we just have a different, if consistent, worldview, I thought those efforts where a bunch of **** too. You don't hurt the country in order to get legislation passed. If you don't have the votes, and cannot get the votes, then so be it.
 
What exactly is "Clean CR" ?

Thom Paine

You know what "compromise" I would've rather them go with?

Go with the historical norm of CR's and give a "clean-one" in terms of additional policy measures....but demand the historical norm of the congress actually passing a ****ing budget, and demand that the Senate Majority Leader agree to allow any budget bills passed by the House to actually reach the Senate floor for discussion and vote.

It's laughable to demand that people adhere to the "norms" with regards to CR's when for the past five years we've been going AGAINST the norm for CR's, essentially utilizing those types of bills as the primary method of funding the government. We haven't been acting "normal" with CR's for 5 years.

I would've been estatic to see the norms brought back entirely....Clean CR for an emergency, TEMPORARY continuation of the government at Pre-Oct 1 levels (By the way, original attempts to expand that money to ABOVE sequester levels would not have been "clean" either) while actually allowing BUDGET discussions to occur legitimately in the Senate so we may finally get a god damn "normal" budget again.
 
Oddly, and this is another of those interesting areas where we just have a different, if consistent, worldview, I thought those efforts where a bunch of **** too. You don't hurt the country in order to get legislation passed. If you don't have the votes, and cannot get the votes, then so be it.

We may disagree, but I'll at least give you a big thumbs up for actually owning it. God knows almost everyone I've seen on the other side that hears this starts stammering and pulling out the always so fun to hear "IT'S DIFFFFERENT!" whine.

And I do get your point. Mine is that, typically in these situations, I at least have the belief that those acting...even if I disagree with them...feel that the damage done by their actions is less severe for the country in their minds then the thing they're fighting against.

I'm cynical at times, but I do generally think that no politician...on either side...is sitting there actively desiring or trying to hurt the country in a "net" sort of way. I may disagree greatly with the other side at times (and my OWN side at times), but that doesn't mean I think they're actively trying to harm the country. Santorum was a great example of this. I HATED him as a candidate and greatly feared him winning due to the potential harm I thought he'd do as President...but despite those things I vehemently disagreed with him about, there'd be no doubt in my mind he honestly believed that the net benefit would be positive for this country. (though i'd think he'd be nutso for thinking that)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom