Government Shutdown (Funding now expires 2/15/19) (2 Viewers)

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,578
Reaction score
58,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
Sticky Post
This one looking like it might happen, because two out of three interests seem to think it might help them - or at least not hurt them as much as others.

1. Democrats: (1) Trump gave them a huge gift when he proclaimed on live television that he would be proud to shut the government down over wall funding. There is always political risk to being party to a shutdown but that gave the Democrats strong plausible deniability and laid this shutdown right at Trump's feet. Had he not done that, he could have used his media advantage and gift for trash-talking to point the finger at the Democrats and that would have concerned them. Now, that pressure is lifted and though he will still try it, they have the upper hand (because he gave it to them); (2) the Democrats know that when the new Congress is sworn in, they will have a House majority, which gives them substantially more leverage to make bargains, so pushing funding debate back until January works in their favor.

2. Trump: (1) He knows that on January 3, 2019, things get dicier for him on Capitol Hill, so this might be his last best chance to get wall funding - so digging in now on the hopes that the Democrats will begin to get worried about losing face with the electorate might bring them around . . . this is probably not going to happen for the reasons stated above, but you never know how these things go until you get into them, so there's that; (2) Trump's base remains motivated by any appearance of 'insurgent' tactics to push their agenda - and "shutting down the government 'cause we can't get the wall built' likely plays well to that group and perhaps Trump sees the blue gains in November and things he needs to re-invigorate his 2016 demographic and a shutdown might actually help in that regard (not sure if that's true but it could be the calculus).

The Republicans in the Senate are the most obvious interest aligned against a shutdown. They know that shutdowns can be harmful and they know that Trump has already publicly claimed responsibility for any shutdown that might occur - so there's good reason for their concern that Trump might drag them along. To this end, it is clear that many Republican senators no longer feel that it is in their interest to remain aligned with Trump despite disagreement - the Saudi resolutions last week are clear proof of that.

Shutdowns really are problematic for many reasons - perhaps one of the most important (and overlooked by the average person) is just how much effort and energy it takes for a federal agency to go through a shutdown process. It requires every office within the agency to shift from the work they usually do in furtherance of their mission, to go through days of planning, paperwork, and contingency preparation to get a shutdown done in the orderly fashion it requires - and then there's work on the back end when they turn the lights back on. But perhaps because a shutdown from December 21 through the new year wouldn't have as noticeable impact as a shutdown in early October (when annual appropriations typically lapse), the interests involved have calculated that a shutdown now might be somewhat muted in its effect - making it more of a symbolic result than one that is truly damaging in the practical sense.

And that might actually increase the odds that it's going to happen. Right now, it appears that a shutdown is more likely than not.




 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,382
Reaction score
16,403
Offline
What a vile human being Coulter is. How do you logically support that ridiculous assertion? It’s like she’s just making shirt up.
 

crosswatt

Bulldawg was my friend
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
31,355
Reaction score
43,392
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Offline
So, we now have a bipartisan agreement that includes moneys that are less than 5% of the original proposed cost of the wall ($25 billion), and 24% less than the amount that the GOP controlled House and Senate could have brought to the floor last year ($5.7 billion). Is anyone still willing to pretend that the current oval office occupant is a master negotiator, let alone even a borderline competent deal maker?
 

TheRealJRad

The Artist Formerly Known as AgentJRad
Staff member
Tech-Admin
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
9,943
Reaction score
10,631
Age
35
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
I don’t think Trump is gonna like this. Nor will the radio people he listens to. Will he veto and setup and override vote, or just pout about it?
I reckon we’re going to hear how “Dems (who don’t care about the security of our country!) blocked my Wall! Willing to put federal workers out of jobs for illegals! I won’t let you be furloughed again! Build the Wall 2020!”
 
OP
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,578
Reaction score
58,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
So, we now have a bipartisan agreement that includes moneys that are less than 5% of the original proposed cost of the wall ($25 billion), and 24% less than the amount that the GOP controlled House and Senate could have brought to the floor last year ($5.7 billion). Is anyone still willing to pretend that the current oval office occupant is a master negotiator, let alone even a borderline competent deal maker?
From a tactical negotiation standpoint, it certainly appears that the deal is far closer to the Democrats negotiating position than the GOP - and I think you have to attribute a great deal of that to Trump playing the shut-down card the way he did. He removed just about all political risk for the Democrats, and he really got nothing for it.

It also certainly looks to me like the bed cap that came well into the negotiations might have been a move by the Democrats get to agreement on where they were with border funding. (Basically you add a new demand, dig in on it, then relinquish it to keep the adverse party from moving the line on the rest of the deal).

But we're definitely not out of the woods yet. Conservatives, and especially those with no skin in the game (e.g. the talk show hosts) appear to dislike this deal and they may push Trump to nix it. I doubt McConnell is going to let it go to vote if Trump won't sign it, so we're in the same situation as before. I still think a last minute CR to buy more time is the most likely scenario. But at some point, that's just fine for the Democrats and the GOP is going to have to come to a reckoning. I'm sure that McConnell is explaining these things to Trump.

The agreement came together during intense hours of closed-door negotiations at the Capitol, as lawmakers resurrected talks that had fallen apart over the weekend in a dispute over new Democratic demands to limit immigrant detention. Democrats ultimately dropped some of those demands, which had come under fire from Republicans, clearing the way for a deal.

Hurdles remained, and Trump’s ultimate backing was in doubt after quick opposition emerged from conservatives. But lawmakers on both sides said they were motivated to find agreement by the looming specter of another government shutdown Friday night, three weeks after the last one ended.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/top-lawmakers-meet-to-revive-stalled-border-talks-with-shutdown-days-away/2019/02/11/3cd0fc1a-2dff-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html?utm_term=.86d90b4aee39
 

crosswatt

Bulldawg was my friend
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
31,355
Reaction score
43,392
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Offline
From a tactical negotiation standpoint, it certainly appears that the deal is far closer to the Democrats negotiating position than the GOP - and I think you have to attribute a great deal of that to Trump playing the shut-down card the way he did. He removed just about all political risk for the Democrats, and he really got nothing for it.

It also certainly looks to me like the bed cap that came well into the negotiations might have been a move by the Democrats get to agreement on where they were with border funding. (Basically you add a new demand, dig in on it, then relinquish it to keep the adverse party from moving the line on the rest of the deal).

But we're definitely not out of the woods yet. Conservatives, and especially those with no skin in the game (e.g. the talk show hosts) appear to dislike this deal and they may push Trump to nix it. I doubt McConnell is going to let it go to vote if Trump won't sign it, so we're in the same situation as before. I still think a last minute CR to buy more time is the most likely scenario. But at some point, that's just fine for the Democrats and the GOP is going to have to come to a reckoning. I'm sure that McConnell is explaining these things to Trump.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/top-lawmakers-meet-to-revive-stalled-border-talks-with-shutdown-days-away/2019/02/11/3cd0fc1a-2dff-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html?utm_term=.86d90b4aee39
Which is exactly why I am now a non-practicing Republican. They had the entire government. The entire federal government. They had the votes to pass one of the other bills that fully funded the blessed wall. But they shirked their responsibility in favor of greed and fearmongering about the party that wasn't even in power, and failed to accomplish even the most basic of governmental duties.

I mean, it was bad enough that they chose to cast off the moral facets of the party, completely invalidating the character counts mantra that was the party's calling card during Clinton's Presidency, and allowed a reprehensible human to ascend to the party's eventual nomination for President. They follow that misstep up with indecision and faltering efforts to do their elected function? Yeah, you've lost me completely at that point.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,578
Reaction score
58,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
Which is exactly why I am now a non-practicing Republican. They had the entire government. The entire federal government. They had the votes to pass one of the other bills that fully funded the blessed wall. But they shirked their responsibility in favor of greed and fearmongering about the party that wasn't even in power, and failed to accomplish even the most basic of governmental duties.

I mean, it was bad enough that they chose to cast off the moral facets of the party, completely invalidating the character counts mantra that was the party's calling card during Clinton's Presidency, and allowed a reprehensible human to ascend to the party's eventual nomination for President. They follow that misstep up with indecision and faltering efforts to do their elected function? Yeah, you've lost me completely at that point.
They choose to muster all of their political capital to get a massive tax cut that favored corporations and wealthy individuals. That was first on their list, that was the thing they got done.

That is and will always be first priority. Everything else is just dogs and ponies.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,281
Reaction score
41,435
Location
70005
Online
And the judiciary. Don't forget the judges.
I don't care if they have to inject her with something to make her superhuman or have her writing opinions while hooked up to life support, but RBG cannot die while Trump's still playing president.
 
OP
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,578
Reaction score
58,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
I don't care if they have to inject her with something to make her superhuman or have her writing opinions while hooked up to life support, but RBG cannot die while Trump's still playing president.
Dude, she's already dead. She's only being perpetuated by a liberal conspiracy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-allies-think-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-hiding-or-dead-it-started-on-qanon
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426276-fox-friends-accidentally-shows-graphic-saying-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-dead
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
40,893
Reaction score
33,429
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
They choose to muster all of their political capital to get a massive tax cut that favored corporations and wealthy individuals. That was first on their list, that was the thing they got done.

That is and will always be first priority. Everything else is just dogs and ponies.
Yes, and this is going to be an interesting thing to follow.

Should talk more in the tax thread, but people's reactions to less or no refunds (forgetting if their tax liability was less or more) is going to cause a lot of angry people, some that were already angry, and others that voted for Trump and shocked at the consequence. I wouldn't underestimate how mad individuals will be.

Companies are the wild card here. the CEO of Boeing said on NPR that he used that tax savings to fund extra R&D and added $300M to the salary pay pool to boost incomes. I have friends at Boeing, so I'm going to ask around if that was true.

Quite a few are still working out the new tax structure and figuring out Capital Expenses, etc. So, if wages start to climb, and major investment occurs, then you'll see the anger die down a bit. Otherwise, other than judicial appointments, the Marquee Republican Law is going to just end up upsetting almost everyone.


Now, back to the funding bill.

I hope Mitch McConnel realizes that ever iteration of this deal, every CR added, has eroded the Republican position and lowered what they get out of this deal. Every single time.

And, from the Senate website.

"President Donald J. Trump has vetoed 0 bills."

For comparison, Obama and GW Bush vetoed 12 each.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

Of course, FDR and Grover Cleveland were the Big Mack Daddy's of Presidential Vetoes.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom