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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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/news...
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.
Yes, that’s the nature of how the Senate has worked at least the last 50 years. If you want a bill to pass, you need to propose one that’s going to get 60 votes. And it’s up the majority party to propose that bill, since the majority leader by and large controls what bills make it to the floor.
Bringing a budget bill that doesn’t have 60 votes and then refusing to negotiate isn’t members of the minority party failing to come to the table, that’s the majority party failing to govern.
The majority gets to block any bill they want by not bringing it to the floor. The minority can only block bills by not allowing them to get to 60 votes.
Budgets are a little different, since you kind of have to pass one to have a functioning government — so you need to build a 60 vote coalition, and since the majority proposes the bill it’s up to them to offer a budget that builds that coalition.
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.
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.
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.
> I don’t understand the filibuster thing and how it plays into this.
Senators are allowed to debate bills. A motion to end debate and move to vote can't happen until debate ends. A senator does not generally have a time limit on the amount of time they can debate, so unless they yield the floor, the process can't move forward.
Cloture is a process to force a closure of debate to force a vote (which has its own separate rules). This requires 3/5 of the senate to vote in favor of ending debate. In practice, senators are not speaking for hours on end anymore; it is simply the "threat" of filibuster which eventually stops the bill in its tracks. In this state it cannot progress to a vote nor does it go back to the House of Representatives. In order for it to proceed, they must pass it (and send it to the president) or amend it (and it goes back to the house of representatives).
> 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?
There is negotiation. Senators may try to convince each other to vote a certain way so they can gather enough votes to force cloture. This isn't a formal debate on the senate floor, but done behind the scenes. This may result in them finding enough votes to force the vote or it may result in an amended bill. If a bill is amended by the senate, it must go back to the house of representatives to be voted on. If it passes there, it moves on to the president. If it is amended, it goes back to the senate. Once both houses pass without amendments, it moves on to the president.
> If the opposition party was just expected to vote yes then why vote at all?
Currently they need 6 or 7 votes to pass. They have a few Democrats voting with the Republican majority and Rand Paul, a Republican, is voting against the Republican majority. In order to get the supermajority for cloture, they need to convince several more Democrats. It can happen, though without real amendments, it's unlikely.
> 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.
The reason why the Democrats are holding as of right now is because of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. If the bill opens the government without an extension, then it is taking that healthcare away, as you say. They are using the shutdown and the increased pressure on the government to reopen as leverage to extend these subsidies. The short term pain is dwarfed by the perceived benefit of ensuring that the funding for these subsidies is secured.
For the Republicans it is essentially the opposite. Extending these subsidies leaves it open to being a wedge point again down the road and midterm elections are coming up next year. They are using the shutdown to try to convince voters that Democrats don't care about government employees or other people because they won't fund the government (i.e not paying US service members, Air Traffic Controllers, Federal workers, etc.). Extending Affordable Care Act subsidies goes against their stated interest in aggressively reducing budgetary deficits over the next ten years.
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.
