• 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!

Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

Is the current view of "the shutdown" establishing a terrible precedence?

  • Yes, No money can be spend for a program unless House & Senate agree

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • No, any demand for $$ must be paid unless House and Senate say no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It depends upon whether I think the money should be spent or not

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
(FIRST OPTION TYPO - "CAN'T" not "CAN", ie no program can be funded unless House and Senate agree)

There have been government shut downs in the past in relation to the size of the budget/debit. But this one is a very different matter.

The question is: Once any agency, law, or action is voted into effect, it will continue forever and the amount of money that only ONE side of Congress wants MUST be spent on it or the entire government is shut down and it's the fault of the side not voting for it.

For example, Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Congress voted for military action. Under the Democrats, Obama's and most of the media's view, once that resolution/was passed, LBJ, Nixon, and W. Bush could spend hundreds of billions, trillions or trillions upon trillions - and that president would ONLY need on side of Congress to agree. If Republicans in the House agreed with W. Bush to spend trillions of dollars on genocidal war even using weapons of mass destruction - and vowing to shut down the entire government if the Senate won't agree - if the Senate refused to vote to do so - then the Democrats in the Senate are anarchists and extortionists entirely responsible for government shutdown.

Another example would be "faith based initiatives" - also which is law. Under the Democrat's theory, if W. Bush and House Republicans decided to give TRILLIONS of dollars to certain churches under that law - the Democrat Senate would have NO choice but to agree to that in the budget - and if not then the Democrats - offering to vote to pay for everything else - would still be responsible for a government shutdown until the Democrat Senate yielded. OR, if both the House and Senate refused, but the President vetoed any budget without those trillions for his favor religion, then it would be the fault of Congress because "faith based initiatives are the law."

In my opinion, it takes BOTH sides of Congress AND the president for the government to spend money on anything - and on how much that is. If they do NOT agree on an item, that items isn't paid for. That would seem the core of how the entire system is designed.

The precedent being set? Once any agency, law, regulations, military action, etc is made "law," it only takes a demand for the House OR by the Senate OR by the President for any unlimited amounts of money for that money demand to have to be met. If it isn't, they the right thing to do is to shutdown the entire government - and it is the fault of the branch or party that wouldn't vote to spend it.

And since BOTH sides can ALWAYS do that, all negotiations are always each side wanting MORE $$ for their own agendas. Thus, we understand why the budget and debt now grows massively under BOTH political parties. The NEW concept that both houses of Congress AND the president are 3 total dictators able to demand MORE, MORE, MORE money and the other 2 MUST agree or they are "anarchists shutting down the entire government" is a terrible precedence.

In the past and I think the design is that it took both Houses of Congress and the President's agreement - each year - to spend money on anything. Now it is being claimed that it takes the agreement of all 3 to stop any spending or spending increase that anyone 1 of the 3 wants.

Which one do you think it SHOULD BE:

It should take both branches of Congress and the president to approve spending money on any item, agenda or law?

It should take both branches of Congress and the president to stop any spending demand by 1 of those 3 governmental entities?

Are House Republicans REQUIRED to vote to fund what they do not want to fund? Would Democrats be forced to fund a war at any costs forever as long as Republicans in the House wanted it on behalf of a Republican President?
 
Last edited:

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
(FIRST OPTION TYPO - "CAN'T" not "CAN", ie no program can be funded unless House and Senate agree)

There have been government shut downs in the past in relation to the size of the budget/debit. But this one is a very different matter.

The question is: Once any agency, law, or action is voted into effect, it will continue forever and the amount of money that only ONE side of Congress wants MUST be spent on it or the entire government is shut down and it's the fault of the side not voting for it.

For example, Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Congress voted for military action. Under the Democrats, Obama's and most of the media's view, once that resolution/was passed, LBJ, Nixon, and W. Bush could spend hundreds of billions, trillions or trillions upon trillions - and that president would ONLY need on side of Congress to agree. If Republicans in the House agreed with W. Bush to spend trillions of dollars on genocidal war even using weapons of mass destruction - and vowing to shut down the entire government if the Senate won't agree - if the Senate refused to vote to do so - then the Democrats in the Senate are anarchists and extortionists entirely responsible for government shutdown.

Another example would be "faith based initiatives" - also which is law. Under the Democrat's theory, if W. Bush and House Republicans decided to give TRILLIONS of dollars to certain churches under that law - the Democrat Senate would have NO choice but to agree to that in the budget - and if not then the Democrats - offering to vote to pay for everything else - would still be responsible for a government shutdown until the Democrat Senate yielded. OR, if both the House and Senate refused, but the President vetoed any budget without those trillions for his favor religion, then it would be the fault of Congress because "faith based initiatives are the law."

In my opinion, it takes BOTH sides of Congress AND the president for the government to spend money on anything - and on how much that is. If they do NOT agree on an item, that items isn't paid for. That would seem the core of how the entire system is designed.

The precedent being set? Once any agency, law, regulations, military action, etc is made "law," it only takes a demand for the House OR by the Senate OR by the President for any unlimited amounts of money for that money demand to have to be met. If it isn't, they the right thing to do is to shutdown the entire government - and it is the fault of the branch or party that wouldn't vote to spend it.

And since BOTH sides can ALWAYS do that, all negotiations are always each side wanting MORE $$ for their own agendas. Thus, we understand why the budget and debt now grows massively under BOTH political parties. The NEW concept that both houses of Congress AND the president are 3 total dictators able to demand MORE, MORE, MORE money and the other 2 MUST agree or they are "anarchists shutting down the entire government" is a terrible precedence.

In the past and I think the design is that it took both Houses of Congress and the President's agreement - each year - to spend money on anything. Now it is being claimed that it takes the agreement of all 3 to stop any spending or spending increase that anyone 1 of the 3 wants.

Which one do you think it SHOULD BE:

It should take both branches of Congress and the president to approve spending money on any item, agenda or law?

It should take both branches of Congress and the president to stop any spending demand by 1 of those 3 governmental entities?

Are House Republicans REQUIRED to vote to fund what they do not want to fund? Would Democrats be forced to fund a war at any costs forever as long as Republicans in the House wanted it on behalf of a Republican President?

We should be discussing impeachment for any case, where a President does not stay within his budget and below the debt ceiling in such a way that it risks shutdown. This is scandalous.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,459
Reaction score
15,371
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We should be discussing impeachment for any case, where a President does not stay within his budget and below the debt ceiling in such a way that it risks shutdown. This is scandalous.

The president has stayed within his budget. I think we should be discussing the removal of Boehner as speaker of the house. I have never seen such an incompetant leader in my life and to think he's third in line to the presidency gives me the heeby jeebies.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The president has stayed within his budget. I think we should be discussing the removal of Boehner as speaker of the house. I have never seen such an incompetant leader in my life and to think he's third in line to the presidency gives me the heeby jeebies.

I wouldn't want to argue for Boehner. I would, however say, that the President is responsible for maintaining the operation of government. He has not done it because he wants more money, that the House wants to give him and has played a bluff at the cost of the population. He speculated and the people lost.

In effect, he has overspent even before he knew how much he had to spend.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,459
Reaction score
15,371
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The government shutdown during the Clinton administration was prompted by a budgetary disagreement between the two parties. The current shutdown was provoked by the GOP's unheard of and unprecedented demand that in order to vote for government spending that both sides agree is necessary, Obama has to strip away funding for the health care law.

What compromise are the Republicans making? That they won't shut down the government if Obama repeals, defunds, or delays his own landmark legislation that has been a law for three years now? Thats not a compromise....thats just plain thuggery and extortion.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,459
Reaction score
15,371
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wouldn't want to argue for Boehner. I would, however say, that the President is responsible for maintaining the operation of government. He has not done it because he wants more money, that the House wants to give him and has played a bluff at the cost of the population. He speculated and the people lost.
Obama had nothing to do with the Republicans demanding that he defund Obamacare. That is totally the republicans doing. There's a civil war going on inside the Republican party between the centrists and the far right and it's bleeding over into the operation of the government. So how exactly is Obama responsible or supposed to control that?

In effect, he has overspent even before he knew how much he had to spend.
I don't see how Obama has overspent in lieu of ending the Iraq War and all the spending cuts imposed on him by Republicans, not to mention the sequestor. The healthcare law will actually reduce the budget deficit by $200 billion over the next ten years....so how exactly has Obama overspent?
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,941
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama had nothing to do with the Republicans demanding that he defund Obamacare. That is totally the republicans doing. There's a civil war going on inside the Republican party between the centrists and the far right and it's bleeding over into the operation of the government. So how exactly is Obama responsible or supposed to control that?

I don't see how Obama has overspent in lieu of ending the Iraq War and all the spending cuts imposed on him by Republicans, not to mention the sequestor. The healthcare law will actually reduce the budget deficit by $200 billion over the next ten years....so how exactly has Obama overspent?
Did Obama and the Democrats negotiate a compromise with Republicans on the original Obamacare? No.

Not a single vote from our side, even the public was against it, as they are now, and so the House is doing exactly what we want them to do. There is no need to shut down the federal government, no need to stop people going to our national parks, from going to the self sustaining Army Navy football game [ that just shows the dirty politic tricks that your side will play to make us little guys hurt in this squeeze...and it will come back to bite your donkey ]...

And Obama overspent by over a trillion $$ each of his first 4 years, it was only the sequester that brought him under this last year... and he takes credit for that, just tries to squirm out of taking credit for the idea of the sequester itself...he, and those around him, are empty suits, largely over their heads incompetents...sorry, that is just the way we and the rest of the world see our current, sad, administration...
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama had nothing to do with the Republicans demanding that he defund Obamacare. That is totally the republicans doing. There's a civil war going on inside the Republican party between the centrists and the far right and it's bleeding over into the operation of the government. So how exactly is Obama responsible or supposed to control that?

I don't see how Obama has overspent in lieu of ending the Iraq War and all the spending cuts imposed on him by Republicans, not to mention the sequestor. The healthcare law will actually reduce the budget deficit by $200 billion over the next ten years....so how exactly has Obama overspent?

In my book it is up to the guy granting funds to attach whatever restrictions he wants to. If we do not like it, we have to change the constitution. This is true for items we like as well as for the ones we dislike.

Again in ma book it is the fact of spending more than my budget that determines overspend. It is not not a question of being difficult. Of course it is difficult. He is President.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,459
Reaction score
15,371
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Did Obama and the Democrats negotiate a compromise with Republicans on the original Obamacare? No.

Yes, they did....until McConnell decided to make Obama a one term president......
"....Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad, and Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe—met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate's healthcare reform bill. ....<snip>.... Senate majority leaders Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and George J. Mitchell—the bill's drafters hoped to increase the chances of getting the necessary votes for passage.[74][75]

However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threaten to filibuster any bills that contained it.[47] Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who lead the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections:[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

After that, the GOP became the "party of no" and there wasn't and hasn't been much the Dems or Obama could do to appease them, let alone get a single vote from one republican. If the Dems weren't compromising or negotiable they would have had a universal or single payer healthcare plan instead of the watered down version they ended up with.

It takes two sides to negotiate a compromise...not one side doing all the compromising and the other side making all the demands or just refusing to negotiate at all.

Not a single vote from our side, even the public was against it, as they are now, and so the House is doing exactly what we want them to do. There is no need to shut down the federal government, no need to stop people going to our national parks, from going to the self sustaining Army Navy football game [ that just shows the dirty politic tricks that your side will play to make us little guys hurt in this squeeze...and it will come back to bite your donkey ]...

I think that says more about Republican obstructionism and unwillingness to negotiate or compromise on a bill that they endorsed before Obama became president than it does the bill itself. Especially after Mitch McConnell said this.....

"...It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,”

And this...

"....The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

And Obama overspent by over a trillion $$ each of his first 4 years, it was only the sequester that brought him under this last year... and he takes credit for that, just tries to squirm out of taking credit for the idea of the sequester itself...he, and those around him, are empty suits, largely over their heads incompetents...sorry, that is just the way we and the rest of the world see our current, sad, administration...
Well you're welcome to prove it with credible evidence...otherwise you're just repeating obtuse right wing talking points ad nauseum.

I seriously doubt Obama wanted the sequestor considering it would slow the economy and cost jobs. Republicans just refused to raise revenues insisting only spending cuts whereas Obama wanted a more balanced approach that would include raising revenues and spending cuts. There is no way that the budget is going to be balanced with just spending cuts. So there was no compromise from Republicans on that score and they got their spending cuts alright.
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,835
Reaction score
24,874
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This will only set a precedent if the GOP isn't heavily punished for this at the polls next year.

But I think that's sure to happen.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
83,229
Reaction score
73,146
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For those who support this strategy, imagine that the democrats control the house, while republicans control the senate and presidency. The house refuses to send a budget bill which doesn't raise the top marginal rate to seventy percent. This is the precedence being set by this nonsense, and eventually the other side will use it.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,752
Reaction score
5,227
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It depends on whether people want to spend the money or not.

A lot of polls have been done on Obamacare, with varying results, but the general consensus is that there are roughly the same number of people who dislike it as those who like it, with another large chunk who simply don't care or don't understand it well enough to have an opinion. I think that if it were more universally disliked, people wouldn't be blaming the republicans as much for the shutdown. To a lot of people, the Obamacare issue by itself is not a big enough deal to be making this huge of a fight out of it. There's pretty good evidence for that since several republicans have come out and said that they don't believe this is the right way to go about fighting Obamacare.

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that the republicans haven't even given it a chance to take effect before crying doom. I think it would be much smarter for them to wait and see what happens with it. That way, if it works out okay, you didn't look like idiots for fighting so hard against it, and if it does go down the crapper, it makes you look good because you were right all along, and there will be much more support for repealing it. I don't blame the republicans nearly as much when they're fighting about raising the debt ceiling as I do when they've made a law that was passed only a couple years ago, that hasn't even gone into effect yet, such a hot button issue that they're shutting down the government because of it.
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,835
Reaction score
24,874
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For those who support this strategy, imagine that the democrats control the house, while republicans control the senate and presidency. The house refuses to send a budget bill which doesn't raise the top marginal rate to seventy percent. This is the precedence being set by this nonsense, and eventually the other side will use it.

A better example yet...the House refuses to send a bill unless all guns are registered with the Federal Government.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama had nothing to do with the Republicans demanding that he defund Obamacare. That is totally the republicans doing. There's a civil war going on inside the Republican party between the centrists and the far right and it's bleeding over into the operation of the government. So how exactly is Obama responsible or supposed to control that?

I don't see how Obama has overspent in lieu of ending the Iraq War and all the spending cuts imposed on him by Republicans, not to mention the sequestor. The healthcare law will actually reduce the budget deficit by $200 billion over the next ten years....so how exactly has Obama overspent?
He the stated that the money we weren't spending on the wars would be applied to ObamaCare and other of his programs.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,941
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, they did....until McConnell decided to make Obama a one term president......
Oh, you mean have a "chat" with the prez should he so deign it… what key proposals did the Republicans get to put forward in the bill, can you point those out? There was a very sincere attempt to work with the new and legitimate president… but this was going to pretty much go as Nancy, at the time, Harry and Barry wanted it, no worry the other party…super majority yanno. Was made plain and crystal clear.


After that, the GOP became the "party of no" and there wasn't and hasn't been much the Dems or Obama could do to appease them, let alone get a single vote from one republican. If the Dems weren't compromising or negotiable they would have had a universal or single payer healthcare plan instead of the watered down version they ended up with.

It takes two sides to negotiate a compromise...not one side doing all the compromising and the other side making all the demands or just refusing to negotiate at all.
The Party of NO to a more and more centrally planned economy, no to socialism by any other name you want to give to it. The degree to which government gets involved and where private business and individuals are on the sliding political/economic spectrum always seems to go back and forth, up and down like a teeter totter…and when it is not allowed to do that, that’s when things tend towards getting more dicey. When you lock things new, untested as an experiment [ and actually, to be truthful, tested in myriad countries in myriad ways, all pretty much negative at best ] into the system… should at least be sun-setted with a realistic evaluation of effects after maybe 5 years if prudent…but ya'll couldn’t do that.

What should be the rule is states make their own decisions on these types of things, people can vote with their feet and if they stay, hey, that is a choice…right? That way the electorate in each tidy geographic unit, known as a state, gets to makes its own rules and keep its citizen electorate as happy as they can make a majority…why is the federal government so antsy to tell my state, and me, what to do? Seems a bit presumptuous, don’t you think?



I think that says more about Republican obstructionism and unwillingness to negotiate or compromise on a bill that they endorsed before Obama became president than it does the bill itself. Especially after Mitch McConnell said this.....

"...It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,”
Republicans did not any more endorse this plan before Obama than Moses fathered Charlemagne…and he didn’t by the way, There were some loose concepts that were promoted by Heritage et al to which some conservatives adhered, but by no means was it even approaching a majority, healthcare was never spoken of in this particular manner prior, the Republicans were countering a radical Clinton plan, trying to deal with the problem of “free riders”, etc... Plus there was no push for comprehensive coverage as it was to be more catastrophic… with individuals taking care of themselves and covering their own minor costs…

The first two years of the O'admin they could not even properly obstruct, that is when Obamacare was put on the end of a crooked stick and jammed down all our throats. Crooked in how they had to even “bribe” some Dems to go along, swallow the horse pill…then you also add that the O was seemingly taking over major parts of the economy at the time with the bailouts of the car industry and banks, the stimulus and then…this gigantic whopper of a bill putting government more and more in the drivers seat in 17% of our economy, always edging towards that end game of single payer…which of course is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs. That my dear, is socialized medicine.

So yes, the party of NO to socialism, which we have plenty of empirical evidence is a far worse system, at best.

So of course it was not “O.K.”, we would pretty much have to become economic illiterates to believe so. Why do that, then both sides are wrong.

And this...

"....The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Well, it was not against the President only in that it was against his agenda/platform. Who cares who he is and to be pushing a plan like this that Americans have wrinkled our nose's at.

But you wanna talk obstructionist? Was it not unlike the Democrats being against the Bush agenda/platform? Remember when Bush got reelected while at war, confirming the American people were behind him on that… do I remember correctly that the Democrats were tying a set date of withdrawal of our troops in Iraq to their funding bills? Yes I do.

Oh....and...
I do not know about you, but I do not want to become a satellite state of Europe’s, applying ourselves to its weakened self, aiming us in the direction of its ongoing feebleness and fluid failures.

Well you're welcome to prove it with credible evidence...otherwise you're just repeating obtuse right wing talking points ad nauseum.
I seriously doubt Obama wanted the sequestor considering it would slow the economy and cost jobs. Republicans just refused to raise revenues insisting only spending cuts whereas Obama wanted a more balanced approach that would include raising revenues and spending cuts. There is no way that the budget is going to be balanced with just spending cuts. So there was no compromise from Republicans on that score and they got their spending cuts alright.
I believe we have gone over this ground thoroughly in the past and if the facts did not sway you then, well, I am sure you are not cured yet of that instability seeing as you have not changed your views any. Seems as futile as trying to get a snake to stand up on its hind legs…yanno?

Seems we always give in on spending, ya’ll never meaningfully on spending cuts… I mean, puh-lease…

And whether you doubt or not that Obama wanted the sequester, you would need to check with Obama and friends who, having created and nurtured this Frankenstein, now have to deal with it...yanno?
 

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
24,102
Reaction score
21,550
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
We should be discussing impeachment for any case, where a President does not stay within his budget and below the debt ceiling in such a way that it risks shutdown. This is scandalous.

Just checking...have you ever mentioned it before?

Because since 1940 it has been raised about one hundred times. More during Republican Administration than Dem Administrations.

We would have impeached most Presidents at this point.;)
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Just checking...have you ever mentioned it before?

Because since 1940 it has been raised about one hundred times. More during Republican Administration than Dem Administrations.

We would have impeached most Presidents at this point.;)

I do not believe I said that Obama was the first to shut down the government, though it has not happened very often. But are you suggesting, that the president should not be responsible for making sure the government runs on the money granted the executive?
 
Top Bottom