3 ms·

You have your parties muddled up. The democrats are not in power.

phantasmish 1y ago
Plus Trump's fighting in court to keep from having to release (as very fucking clearly required by law) SNAP funds that are already allocated by congress for exactly this kind of situation. Whatever your opinion on the rest of this, that part's certainly, 100%, on him personally.
tdb7893 1y ago
I'm a Democrat (well, nominally at least) but they clearly need some people from both parties to fund the government. Democrats won't vote for a "clean" bill and Republicans won't negotiate. The crazy thing is people predicted the shutdown in the spring and the government still drove the boat straight into this iceberg.
- koolba 1y ago
  > The crazy thing is people predicted the shutdown in the spring and the government still drove the boat straight into this iceberg. The Democrats also had ample opportunity to extend the bonus Covid era subsidies when they controlled all branches of government. They could have included in the overall reconciliation funding bill that bypassed the filibuster. Not doing so was deliberate.
  - hibikir 1y ago
    There were a variety of things they didn't predict, including the fact that the executive branch would believe that they have the right to not spend the money congress appropriated to do things. This is the real crux of the shutdown: Negotiations where you demand some spending in exchange for votes are unlikely when the other side can refuse to spend the money, so ultimately there is no credible basis on which to even begin negotiating.
    - koolba 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        You'd think that after more than half a year of outright destruction of your country you'd stop digging. Indeed, elections have consequences, so why are you so upset with the democrats? Aren't you going to fix things now? This is your finest hour, and it will be remembered for a long time, how you acted and what drove you to keep on digging that hole when it was abundantly clear that the path chosen wasn't working at all. Just one thing: don't tell me afterwards that you didn't know.
        koolba 1y ago
        > Indeed, elections have consequences, so why are you so upset with the democrats? Aren't you going to fix things now? The destruction I see is being done by the unreasonable Democrat Senators holding hostage hungry children and Federal workforce. > This is your finest hour, and it will be remembered for a long time, how you acted and what drove you to keep on digging that hole when it was abundantly clear that the path chosen wasn't working at all. The intransigence of the Democrats is what will be remembered here. They will eventually cave, their old guard that did so will be booted in the next primary, and their replacements will have their clocks cleaned in the next general elections.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        > The destruction I see is being done by the unreasonable Democrat Senators holding hostage hungry children and Federal workforce. Consider me amazed.
ecshafer 1y ago
Republicans could end filibuster, true. That would probably be bad. Republicans dont have a filibuster proof majority, they need to negotiate. Democrats are dying on this one hill which is not a good idea that has little benefit https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/newsroom?ID=8810F247-21B1-4DB9-BDFF-C04F53C6D732 https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/news...
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  Republicans could decide not to cut health care funding too. Both sides own the shutdown, now ask which side should give in and why.
ibejoeb 1y ago
It is true that democrats are not in the majority. However, it is factually true that 7 more democrats must vote for S.3019 (for a total of 60 votes) for the government to re-open. Ref: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/119-2025/s609 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/119-2025/s609
- barbazoo 1y ago
  Has the leading party made any efforts to convince any 7 of the other party? Were there reasonable concessions? If you don’t have the majority you have to negotiate, otherwise dissolve government and let the people vote again.
  - least 1y ago
    I’m not sure if you’re being tongue in cheek or not but the US government doesn’t really function like a parliamentary one. Elections can’t just be called, governments can’t just be dissolved, and any sort of coalition is within different factions of the two major parties. Republicans hold a majority in the Senate (which is akin to the upper house, House of Lords, or whatever else) but in order to forcefully end a filibuster (cloture), you must get 3/5 of the senate to vote for it (60 votes since there are 100 senators) The filibuster used to actually involve senators standing and speaking since the senate generally does not limit the amount of time that a senator may speak. Today it’s just a threat of filibuster. It’s controversial but neither party really wants to get rid of it.
    - barbazoo 1y ago
      I don’t understand the filibuster thing and how it plays into this. I’m seeing the vote for the government budget or something being voted on over and over. If there is a certain majority required to pass something then it is implied that there are negotiations. If the opposition party was just expected to vote yes then why vote at all? That’s why I’m asking, has the content of what was voted on changed significantly? Maybe taking away healthcare from people has to be done a different way. Make a bill that opens the government, then take healthcare away.

Plus Trump's fighting in court to keep from having to release (as very fucking clearly required by law) SNAP funds that are already allocated by congress for exactly this kind of situation. Whatever your opinion on the rest of this, that part's certainly, 100%, on him personally.

tdb7893 1y ago

I'm a Democrat (well, nominally at least) but they clearly need some people from both parties to fund the government. Democrats won't vote for a "clean" bill and Republicans won't negotiate. The crazy thing is people predicted the shutdown in the spring and the government still drove the boat straight into this iceberg.

koolba 1y ago
> The crazy thing is people predicted the shutdown in the spring and the government still drove the boat straight into this iceberg. The Democrats also had ample opportunity to extend the bonus Covid era subsidies when they controlled all branches of government. They could have included in the overall reconciliation funding bill that bypassed the filibuster. Not doing so was deliberate.
- hibikir 1y ago
  There were a variety of things they didn't predict, including the fact that the executive branch would believe that they have the right to not spend the money congress appropriated to do things. This is the real crux of the shutdown: Negotiations where you demand some spending in exchange for votes are unlikely when the other side can refuse to spend the money, so ultimately there is no credible basis on which to even begin negotiating.
  - koolba 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      You'd think that after more than half a year of outright destruction of your country you'd stop digging. Indeed, elections have consequences, so why are you so upset with the democrats? Aren't you going to fix things now? This is your finest hour, and it will be remembered for a long time, how you acted and what drove you to keep on digging that hole when it was abundantly clear that the path chosen wasn't working at all. Just one thing: don't tell me afterwards that you didn't know.
      - koolba 1y ago
        > Indeed, elections have consequences, so why are you so upset with the democrats? Aren't you going to fix things now? The destruction I see is being done by the unreasonable Democrat Senators holding hostage hungry children and Federal workforce. > This is your finest hour, and it will be remembered for a long time, how you acted and what drove you to keep on digging that hole when it was abundantly clear that the path chosen wasn't working at all. The intransigence of the Democrats is what will be remembered here. They will eventually cave, their old guard that did so will be booted in the next primary, and their replacements will have their clocks cleaned in the next general elections.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        > The destruction I see is being done by the unreasonable Democrat Senators holding hostage hungry children and Federal workforce. Consider me amazed.

ecshafer 1y ago

Republicans could end filibuster, true. That would probably be bad. Republicans dont have a filibuster proof majority, they need to negotiate. Democrats are dying on this one hill which is not a good idea that has little benefit https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/newsroom?ID=8810F247-21B1-4DB9-BDFF-C04F53C6D732 https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/news...

unethical_ban 1y ago
Republicans could decide not to cut health care funding too. Both sides own the shutdown, now ask which side should give in and why.

ibejoeb 1y ago

It is true that democrats are not in the majority. However, it is factually true that 7 more democrats must vote for S.3019 (for a total of 60 votes) for the government to re-open. Ref: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/119-2025/s609 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/119-2025/s609

barbazoo 1y ago
Has the leading party made any efforts to convince any 7 of the other party? Were there reasonable concessions? If you don’t have the majority you have to negotiate, otherwise dissolve government and let the people vote again.
- least 1y ago
  I’m not sure if you’re being tongue in cheek or not but the US government doesn’t really function like a parliamentary one. Elections can’t just be called, governments can’t just be dissolved, and any sort of coalition is within different factions of the two major parties. Republicans hold a majority in the Senate (which is akin to the upper house, House of Lords, or whatever else) but in order to forcefully end a filibuster (cloture), you must get 3/5 of the senate to vote for it (60 votes since there are 100 senators) The filibuster used to actually involve senators standing and speaking since the senate generally does not limit the amount of time that a senator may speak. Today it’s just a threat of filibuster. It’s controversial but neither party really wants to get rid of it.
  - barbazoo 1y ago
    I don’t understand the filibuster thing and how it plays into this. I’m seeing the vote for the government budget or something being voted on over and over. If there is a certain majority required to pass something then it is implied that there are negotiations. If the opposition party was just expected to vote yes then why vote at all? That’s why I’m asking, has the content of what was voted on changed significantly? Maybe taking away healthcare from people has to be done a different way. Make a bill that opens the government, then take healthcare away.