Government Shutdowns: A History

[jmotivator]

Government Shutdowns: A History


"Overall, the statistics might surprise: Of the 17 shutdowns in America’s history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened under unified government! This makes sense. Government shutdowns are caused by legitimate and welcome disagreement between equal branches. They are certainly more likely to happen in divided government, but it is not a prerequisite."

So yeah, liberals seem to have forgotten all they knew about Government shutdowns...

 

[rocket88]

Government Shutdowns: A History


"Overall, the statistics might surprise: Of the 17 shutdowns in America’s history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened under unified government! This makes sense. Government shutdowns are caused by legitimate and welcome disagreement between equal branches. They are certainly more likely to happen in divided government, but it is not a prerequisite."

So yeah, liberals seem to have forgotten all they knew about Government shutdowns...

That's an overly partisan and dumb conclusion to reach. So what, "The stupid Democrats won't get rid of Obamacare, therefore they are to blame?"

Obama and 90 something percent of Congress agree on having a clean CR. 30 House members won't give in. Even Boehner didn't want to put Obamacare in there, but is trying to save his own skin. If he showed some balls and let a clean bill come up for a vote, we'd have the problem solved. He's refusing to act like the Speaker and the leader of House Republicans and is letting a minority yank him around.

 

[Harshaw]

That's an overly partisan and dumb conclusion to reach. So what, "The stupid Democrats won't get rid of Obamacare, therefore they are to blame?"

Who said that? That is neither in the OP nor in the article cited.

Obama and 90 something percent of Congress agree on having a clean CR.

Do you have a roll call for that? 'Coz last I heard (an hour ago), only 19 Republicans have come out in favor of that. You got a ways to go for "90 something percent."

 

[Tigger]

....Even Boehner didn't want to put Obamacare in there, but is trying to save his own skin. If he showed some balls and let a clean bill come up for a vote, we'd have the problem solved. He's refusing to act like the Speaker and the leader of House Republicans and is letting a minority yank him around.

If he went down this road he'd be out of the Speakership the next day, and his replacement would likely be a Democrat based on a divided Republican side of the aisle.

 

[MMC]

Government Shutdowns: A History


"Overall, the statistics might surprise: Of the 17 shutdowns in America’s history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened under unified government! This makes sense. Government shutdowns are caused by legitimate and welcome disagreement between equal branches. They are certainly more likely to happen in divided government, but it is not a prerequisite."

So yeah, liberals seem to have forgotten all they knew about Government shutdowns...

"Uh oh", JM :shock: .....now ya have gone and done it. Pulled out those facts about who has shut down the Government the most. The left wont like seeing that. Not much they can say about their party holding that dubious distinction now can they?

 

[sangha]

Government Shutdowns: A History


"Overall, the statistics might surprise: Of the 17 shutdowns in America’s history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened under unified government! This makes sense. Government shutdowns are caused by legitimate and welcome disagreement between equal branches. They are certainly more likely to happen in divided government, but it is not a prerequisite."

So yeah, liberals seem to have forgotten all they knew about Government shutdowns...

Incredibly misleading

Many of those shutdowns were the result of Presidential vetoes, and none were caused because the House insisted on a defunding a program that they had unsuccessfully tried to repeal dozens of times.

 

[rocket88]

If he went down this road he'd be out of the Speakership the next day, and his replacement would likely be a Democrat based on a divided Republican side of the aisle.

So he's more interested in his leadership position than he is in actually leading. This makes him better than Obama in what way?

 

[rocket88]

"Uh oh", JM :shock: .....now ya have gone and done it. Pulled out those facts about who has shut down the Government the most. The left wont like seeing that. Not much they can say about their party holding that dubious distinction now can they?

What matters is not what happened back in history, but what is happening today.

 

[Tigger]

So he's more interested in his leadership position than he is in actually leading. This makes him better than Obama in what way?

It makes him human. That leadership position comes with power, money, and a much better shot at re-election. Especially when compared to being... "Ousted FROMER Speaker of the House..."

 

[rocket88]

It makes him human. That leadership position comes with power, money, and a much better shot at re-election. Especially when compared to being... "Ousted FROMER Speaker of the House..."

No doubt it's better. But shouldn't he be LEADING the GOP instead of following a small group of them?

 

[Tigger]

No doubt it's better. But shouldn't he be LEADING the GOP instead of following a small group of them?

The problem for his is that the small group is the much more motivated, vocal, and citizen-supported portion of his party. To that end, if he has aspirations of ever running for the White House, he has to keep them molified or risk losing their support.

 

[jmotivator]

Incredibly misleading

Many of those shutdowns were the result of Presidential vetoes, and none were caused because the House insisted on a defunding a program that they had unsuccessfully tried to repeal dozens of times.

So, for those keeping score at home, the Democrats excuses are now as follows:

If the president vetoes a bill and it leads to a standoff with congress and a shutdown then that is the president's fault. On the other hand, if the President and Senate refuse to negotiate and the President PROMISES to veto legislation before it is passed then it's the House's fault.

And in all cases Blame Bush and Republicans.

Special Rule: There is also no place for discussions of setting funding levels in budget negotiations! *

* Bonus Special Rule: Unless the negotiation is on how much more to give a program. **

** Double Bonus Rule: Unless the negotiation is about National Defense, then only cut levels may be discussed.


... There, I think that pretty well covers all the bases.

 

[sangha]

So, for those keeping score at home, the Democrats excuses are now as follows:

If the president vetoes a bill and it leads to a standoff with congress and a shutdown then that is the president's fault. On the other hand, if the President and Senate refuse to negotiate and the President PROMISES to veto legislation before it is passed then it's the House's fault.

And in all cases Blame Bush and Republicans.

Special Rule: There is also no place for discussions of setting funding levels in budget negotiations! *

* Bonus Special Rule: Unless the negotiation is on how much more to give a program. **

** Double Bonus Rule: Unless the negotiation is about National Defense, then only cut levels may be discussed.


... There, I think that pretty well covers all the bases.

You left our something

In all cases, pretend that every shut down the govt is the same, even if none of the previous shutdown were about ending Obamacare

Special Rule: Pretend that Obama has threatened to veto this budget bill

*Bonus Rule: Pretend that republicans like Reagan didn't veto budgets because they spent less than he asked for.

**Double Bonus Rule: Pretend that the Republicans are not doing this just to put on a show for their supporters and really do think they have a chance at defunding Obamacare

 

[jmotivator]

You left our something

In all cases, pretend that every shut down the govt is the same, even if none of the previous shutdown were about ending Obamacare

They were about ending and defunding other federal programs. Your splitting hairs so illogically is quite telling.

Special Rule: Pretend that Obama has threatened to veto this budget bill

White House Press release on the first CR passed by the House:

“The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.J. Res. 59, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes, because it advances a narrow ideological agenda that threatens our economy and the interests of the middle class,” the Office of Management and Budget said in the statement.

“The Resolution would defund the Affordable Care Act, denying millions of hard-working middle class families the security of affordable health coverage.

“If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 59, he would veto the bill.”

*Bonus Rule: Pretend that republicans like Reagan didn't veto budgets because they spent less than he asked for.

False. The closest to that was 1983 when he sought a cut in some domestic spending and stop a number of defense cuts.

**Double Bonus Rule: Pretend that the Republicans are not doing this just to put on a show for their supporters and really do think they have a chance at defunding Obamacare

It's always been a bargaining chip. The Democrats can decide that they will hold out for everything they want but it won't do them any favors.