6 ms·
Granted, the other way of thinking about it is that spending 5 billion on the wall is a lot less expensive than continuing the shutdown.
by manfredo 8y ago
Granted, the other way of thinking about it is that spending 5 billion on the wall is a lot less expensive than continuing the shutdown.
- shereadsthenews 8y agoNegotiating with hostage takers never makes sense.
- nightski 8y agoUnfortunately that is the stance both sides are taking right now.
- manfredo 8y agoWhich is also the stated reason why Trump isn't negotiating with Democrats. Both Democrats and Republicans have the ability to end the shutdown, so both sides can accuse the other of hostage taking. Of course, the real problem I see is that the whole budget needs to be renewed by Congress and the Executive, rather than just approving changes in the budget. Makes more sense to me that we vote on the delta. But I guess a lot about US politics doesn't make sense.
- phailhaus 8y agoThe difference is that Democrats and the GOP were on the verge of passing the CR until Trump changed his mind and refused to sign. In this case it is very clear that the GOP shoulders the blame for the shutdown.
- assblaster 8y agoShouldn't Pelosi be considered the hostage taker by essentially denying funding for the single biggest promise to the electorate made during the 2016 election? It seems more like subversion by Pelosi.
- shereadsthenews 8y agoThe promise as I recall was that Mexico was paying. In any case the constitution is clear that spending originates from the House not the White House. Several continuing resolutions have passed and the President should sign one.
- cc81 8y agoWhy didn't they build it earlier when Republicans was in full control?
- assblaster 8y agoThe US Senate needs 60 votes to pass this kind of legislation/funding, and Republicans didn't have 60 votes in the Senate because moderate Democrats were prevented from voting for it by minority leader Chuck Schumer.
- orwin 8y agoYour Senate works weirdly, why a 60% majority is needed for budget allocation? Do you have a link that explain that well (if possible non-partisan link)?
- dragontamer 8y ago60% of the vote is needed to end the debate on a subject. If 41 Senators continue to debate, the vote will never hit the floor. The technique in modern times is to have 41 Senators endlessly debate ideas they don't like. This is called a Filibuster.
- jedberg 8y agoIt's not correct. Only 50% is needed. But 60% is needed to break a filibuster (which used to be when a Senator literally just keeps talking until the bill is dead, but now is just procedural). The assumption is that in our current environment, there will always be a filibuster on a budget bill, so you need 60 votes to make sure you can break the filibuster.
- pastor_elm 8y agoworked out for Obama in 2013.
- sremani 8y agoHonestly, in a real hostage takers situation, you negotiate and negotiate so much they lose the will to hold. Here is an interesting book about it, https://www.amazon.com/Never-Split-Difference-Negotiating-Depended/dp/0062872303/ref=tmm_mmp_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1547675465&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Never-Split-Difference-Negotiating-De... So your nugget of wisdom is actually bad advice in real world, wrong analogy when arguing about separation of powers and checks and balances.
- kingofpandora 8y agoSerious comment: I assume this advice holds when the hostage taker has no means of escape but perhaps is less applicable when their location is not known? In the latter case, negotiation is probably still a good option but for different reasons.
- atomi 8y agoCapitulating would be a bad precedent.
- hellisothers 8y agoI initially read that as “bad president”
- murph-almighty 8y agoWe could have also spent 1.7 billion on other forms of security instead!
- SolaceQuantum 8y agoIIRC money has already been offered to boosting border security and have been turned down explicitly in desire to a wall. This is an uncomfortable situation that my first impression is to see it as a hostage situation, but I try to avoid such extreme descriptions. I'm struggling to find other, more neutral depictions of the situation, though.
- manfredo 8y agoAnd Republicans look at the same situation, and see Democrats standing in the way of one of 2016's biggest campaign promises. Opposition to the wall is commendable, but I think we're* playing a hand that is substantially disadvantageous. Republicans generally think less government is better, so they're a lot better equipped to endure a shutdown than Democrats. \* assuming you're also a Democrat.
- SolaceQuantum 8y agoAnd Republicans look at the same situation, and see Democrats standing in the way of one of 2016's biggest campaign promises. Didn't the shut down happen before the democrats had any power? I'm very confused. (Not in a sarcastic, caustic way. I'm actually genuinely confused why it is the democrats fault if the shut down occured before they had any power to stop anything.) (EDIT: I guess my policies align with more democrat??? views but I'm very much a voter on policies not party.)
- jedberg 8y agoIt did start before they had power. It's completely a political play by the GOP. The Senate literally passed the same budget bill last session that has now come back to their desk, but they refuse to vote on it. Yes, the Democrats could in theory stop this by allocating money for the wall, but much like giving your lunch money to the bully while he's beating you, it's not really a good idea.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- omegaworks 8y agoSenate Democrats asked for a report justifying the $5b after they had already passed a bill allocating $1.6b. What they got was an outdated report for the $1.6b. There's no way $5b will be the end of it. We're talking about a wall along a 2000 mile long imaginary line. A wall dividing a literal continent.