4 ms·

Of course. And what’s stopping Congress from coming together with a compromise bill the President will sign? Last year we had a bipartisan bill with $25 billio

by zaroth 8y ago

Of course. And what’s stopping Congress from coming together with a compromise bill the President will sign? Last year we had a bipartisan bill with $25 billion in Wall funding and DACA amnesty. Now he’s asking for $5.7 billion and has said he wants to negotiate. There is a long, long prescedent of bipartisan negotiation in these matters. The new Speaker of the House has said she will absolutely not negotiate and claims border walls (which we have in spades already) are immoral and racist. Ok then! Several days ago Donald met with Chuck and Nancy and asked if he signed a CR opening the govt for 30 days, would they take up wall funding and Nancy said No. There’s nothing stopping either “side” from unilaterally taking a simple step to fully open the government. So logically everyone is to blame.

fzeroracer 8y ago
What, exactly, was stopping congress from coming together to fund the wall before the democrats came into power? The answer: Absolutely nothing. The reason why they kicked this can down the road was solely for the purpose of using it as political leverage against the democrats. There was literally no excuse for not getting funding for his wall over the past two years. Except to use government employees as hostages. There is no two sides to blame here. Republicans had the power to do so. They didn't. Now at the 11th hour they want to do it, so they can blame Democrats for not adhering to their outlandish demands.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Actually, they didn’t have the votes in the Senate. They still don’t without bipartisan support. The funding Donald wanted is now less than the cost of the shutdown. $5.7 billion toward border security is not outlandish. Shutting down the government for 30 days absolutely is outlandish.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Objectively wrong. They HAD the votes in the Senate. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from employing the nuclear option to fund the wall. A simple majority was all they needed. If they wanted to fund the damn wall, they could've funded it. You're right that shutting down the government for 30 days is outlandish, and it falls squarely on Republicans and Trump.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      My understanding is that the so-called “nuclear option” was eliminating the 60-vote threshold only for Federal branch nominees and judicial appointments, not for basic legislation and particularly not the budget. Eliminating the 60-vote threshold for legislation would destroy a massive part of what makes the Senate the Senate. It is stunningly worse policy than spending $6b on marginally effective border security. But because Republicans didn’t do that, and Dems won’t vote for even $2 of Wall funding the only blame for the current shutdown is to Republicans. Do I understand your logic correctly?
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        No, your understanding was wrong. Please read up before you make claims about voting thresholds. And Republicans have already eliminated said threshold for ramming through a supreme court nomination. I want to get this straight though: Your argument now is that parliamentary procedure was more important for Republicans than building the wall. A wall that they're claiming is a national crisis resulting in widespread issues. Enough of an issue to shut down the government over it. If the wall was vital, then why didn't they employ the nuclear option (as was backed by Donald Trump, obviously) to build the wall. Why are are they, now that the Democrats are in power, demanding a wall be built? And yes, the only party to blame for the current shutdown is in fact, Republicans. They had two years to build a wall. They didn't.
        zaroth 8y ago
        My previous statement seems to jive with the Wikipedia on the subject. [1] I said Federal and judicial appointments. The Supreme Court is a judicial appointment. Legislation has always been a 60-vote threshold to end debate in the Senate. It’s one of the cornerstones of the Senate. I wouldn’t say Democrats are “in power” now. They took back the House and lost seats in the Senate. But the fact remains they have always needed Democratic votes to get to 60 in the Senate. You say they should have voted it through with just 50 in the Senate. Which by the way they don’t want to do even now. I think that would have far worse long-term effects for the country, and many Democrats and Republicans alike agree. You can obviously believe whatever you like. It’s your opinion, and I’m not trying to change it. My simple observation was that right now, with the House and Senate that we have, with the rules and procedures that have been in place for centuries, both parties are equally capable of funding the govnernment in less than an hour if they decide they want to do it. It will only cost them ~$6b one way or the other. Either party is indisputably capable of ending the shutdown, but both as of yet have chosen not to. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
int_19h 8y ago
There's a very simple way to determine who is responsible for the shutdown: look at who is passing the bills to fund everyday workings of the government, and who is refusing to advance them without their riders.

by zaroth 8y ago

fzeroracer 8y ago

What, exactly, was stopping congress from coming together to fund the wall before the democrats came into power? The answer: Absolutely nothing. The reason why they kicked this can down the road was solely for the purpose of using it as political leverage against the democrats. There was literally no excuse for not getting funding for his wall over the past two years. Except to use government employees as hostages. There is no two sides to blame here. Republicans had the power to do so. They didn't. Now at the 11th hour they want to do it, so they can blame Democrats for not adhering to their outlandish demands.

zaroth 8y ago
Actually, they didn’t have the votes in the Senate. They still don’t without bipartisan support. The funding Donald wanted is now less than the cost of the shutdown. $5.7 billion toward border security is not outlandish. Shutting down the government for 30 days absolutely is outlandish.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Objectively wrong. They HAD the votes in the Senate. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from employing the nuclear option to fund the wall. A simple majority was all they needed. If they wanted to fund the damn wall, they could've funded it. You're right that shutting down the government for 30 days is outlandish, and it falls squarely on Republicans and Trump.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    My understanding is that the so-called “nuclear option” was eliminating the 60-vote threshold only for Federal branch nominees and judicial appointments, not for basic legislation and particularly not the budget. Eliminating the 60-vote threshold for legislation would destroy a massive part of what makes the Senate the Senate. It is stunningly worse policy than spending $6b on marginally effective border security. But because Republicans didn’t do that, and Dems won’t vote for even $2 of Wall funding the only blame for the current shutdown is to Republicans. Do I understand your logic correctly?
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      No, your understanding was wrong. Please read up before you make claims about voting thresholds. And Republicans have already eliminated said threshold for ramming through a supreme court nomination. I want to get this straight though: Your argument now is that parliamentary procedure was more important for Republicans than building the wall. A wall that they're claiming is a national crisis resulting in widespread issues. Enough of an issue to shut down the government over it. If the wall was vital, then why didn't they employ the nuclear option (as was backed by Donald Trump, obviously) to build the wall. Why are are they, now that the Democrats are in power, demanding a wall be built? And yes, the only party to blame for the current shutdown is in fact, Republicans. They had two years to build a wall. They didn't.
      - zaroth 8y ago
        My previous statement seems to jive with the Wikipedia on the subject. [1] I said Federal and judicial appointments. The Supreme Court is a judicial appointment. Legislation has always been a 60-vote threshold to end debate in the Senate. It’s one of the cornerstones of the Senate. I wouldn’t say Democrats are “in power” now. They took back the House and lost seats in the Senate. But the fact remains they have always needed Democratic votes to get to 60 in the Senate. You say they should have voted it through with just 50 in the Senate. Which by the way they don’t want to do even now. I think that would have far worse long-term effects for the country, and many Democrats and Republicans alike agree. You can obviously believe whatever you like. It’s your opinion, and I’m not trying to change it. My simple observation was that right now, with the House and Senate that we have, with the rules and procedures that have been in place for centuries, both parties are equally capable of funding the govnernment in less than an hour if they decide they want to do it. It will only cost them ~$6b one way or the other. Either party is indisputably capable of ending the shutdown, but both as of yet have chosen not to. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

int_19h 8y ago

There's a very simple way to determine who is responsible for the shutdown: look at who is passing the bills to fund everyday workings of the government, and who is refusing to advance them without their riders.