- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
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.
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.
And they'll laugh at your ultimatum because they know damn well 90% of them are getting re-elected 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.
But we should be doing that anyway.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.
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'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'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!
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.
I doubt it, Pero. Reid considers Manchin a rebel since he doesn't always toe the party line! I like people like Manchin! :thumbs:
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
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.
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.
You're the first person I've ever heard refer to the sequestration as "emergency" funding.
Keyword: was. Both were temporary measures that have since expired.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?