Post New

Gotta hand it to the democrats. When they make people angry, they make *everybody* angry:

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1983966680872...

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby on the government shutdown: "It's putting stress on people, it's not fair to those people, it's also putting stress on the economy... it's been 30 days... I also think it is time to pass a clean CR."

Also standing right next to VP Vance.

Your move, Chuck. Find a way to claim you "fought the good fight" to save face.

The Dems live in a delusional reality. They actually thought that"leveraging" the suffering of the American people from a Dem-caused, totally unnecessary shutdown would be advantageous politically. Another aspect of this is that the Dems obviously don't think they will be able to demonstrate why the enhanced subsidies for the ACA should be extended based on the stand alone merits of that particular issue. If you have to blackmail the American people in order to extend those subsidies, it suggests you don't think the American people will agree with you, of their own free will. That says it all, doesn't it?

The Dems live in a delusional reality. They actually thought that"leveraging" the suffering of the American people from a Dem-caused, totally unnecessary shutdown would be advantageous politically. Another aspect of this is that the Dems obviously don't think they will be able to demonstrate why the enhanced subsidies for the ACA should be extended based on the stand alone merits of that particular issue. If you have to blackmail the American people in order to extend those subsidies, it suggests you don't think the American people will agree with you, of their own free will. That says it all, doesn't it?

What says it all… is the majority of Americans dont buy that horseshit.

What says it all… is the majority of Americans dont buy that horseshit.

You sure? We are a very credulous bunch.

As I said elsewhere recently, I'm not really sure what the smart play is (politically). If the Dems capitulate, there is a real probability that the Reps won't extend the subsidies. On the other hand, if they hold to their guns, the Reps are -mostly- perfectly happy with the government shutdown. They are always talking about cutting SNAP and Medicaid (and even Medicare), plus the ACA.

I don't think there's a good choice to be made. And I'm not certain which is the less-bad choice. Politically. Obviously, the short-term goal of restoring SNAP would be good. But longer term, what will happen? The Reps have little interest in discussing anything. And who will ultimately get the blame?

The smart play is for the Democrats in the Senate to vote for the CR and re-open the government. And that was always the smart and obvious play, which is why the Democrats didn't do it.

If they want thereafter try to undo the One Big Beautiful Bill; extend enhanced ACA subsidies; Medicaid for illegals; or whatever else may be on their minds--then they can try to do that on the merits or lack thereof of those various policy proposals.

The ultimate arbiters will be the American voters, on election day in 2026. If the voters don't like what the Republicans do in the intervening year, they will elect a Democrat majority to the House and/or the Senate.

That's what "democracy" is.

Seems the Democrats don't like "democracy," doesn't it?

The Republicans control the Executive Branch.

The Republicans control the Senate.

The Republicans control the House.

The Republicans control the SCOTUS.

But the shutdown is the fault of the Democrats.

You can’t fix stupid.

But the shutdown is the fault of the Democrats.

Well, there is the 60 vote threshold in the Senate.

I'm sorta surprised the Reps don't eliminate that (it is within their power), do what they want, and just before the next election, put it back in place. Maybe there's a procedural hurdle? They don't seem to care about setting bad precedents.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...

As the government shutdown enters its 22nd day, some Republicans in both chambers are floating an idea few in their party had ever even entertained: getting rid of the legislative filibuster to bring an end to the morass.

In recent years, Democrats have floated changing the filibuster. Former senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema blocked attempts to create a carveout to codify a new version of the Voting Rights Act. They hoped to do so again with abortion rights as the Supreme Court planned to overturn Roe v Wade in the Dobbs v Jackson decision, only to fail.

But now, some hard-right Republicans are floating the idea.

Trump himself suggested doing away with the filibuster in order to pass the CR. Therefore, eliminating the filibuster is a bad idea by definition, because Trump is in favor of it. No Progressive should be in favor of eliminating the filibuster. Schumer's Shutdown wouldn't exist but for the filibuster. Of course, the Democrats could negate the filibuster by simply voting for the C.R. right now. Dems love the filibuster though. Because Trump is against it, no doubt.

The Republicans control the Executive Branch.

The Republicans control the Senate.

The Republicans control the House.

The Republicans control the SCOTUS.

But the shutdown is the fault of the Democrats.

You can’t fix stupid.

That's just trolling. You know why Republicans can't pass the CR without Democrat votes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...

Interesting article, PucksFool.

But McConnell did so only after his predecessor, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, had invoked the “nuclear option” on the filibuster, the 60-vote threshold required to pass almost anything in the Senate, during Barack Obama’s presidency after Republicans repeatedly blocked Obama’s nominees.

The move had sweeping consequences: while Republican obstructionism had reached a fever pitch during Obama’s presidency, it meant that presidents no longer had to reach consensus choices. One could argue that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s control of the Health and Human Services Department, Kash Patel’s rule at the FBI, Pete Hegseth’s leadership at the Pentagon and, of course, Dobbs, date back to Reid’s choice.
...
But a government shutdown might be the final knife in the stomach for the procedure that keeps the Senate from turning into the meat grinder that is the House.

We really don't want that.

The Republicans control the Executive Branch.

The Republicans control the Senate.

The Republicans control the House.

The Republicans control the SCOTUS.

But the shutdown is the fault of the Democrats.


It is. They refuse to accept that have-nots, people who don't have money or the ability to generate enough money to pay for goods and services, are shit outta luck.

The people who do have a lotta money, and or the ability to get a lotta money, the haves, want the right to exploit the have-nots to the grave. AND, they want to force the have-nots to make more have-nots who will work to benefit the haves.

It gets interesting when have-nots believe they are haves....or believe they might become haves if they do the bidding of the haves.

...or when haves slip into have-not status and cannot accept that they were really have-nots all along.

The pilots.

The Federal workers.

The unions.

I guess all of them are Right Wing MAGA whackos.


Sheeple, what have you done?

The Republicans control the Executive Branch.

The Republicans control the Senate.

The Republicans control the House.

The Republicans control the SCOTUS.

But the shutdown is the fault of the Democrats.

You can’t fix stupid. - AW

--------------

You're right about that. It is like some of them overlook the filibuster rule in Senate.

What says it all… is the majority of Americans dont buy that horseshit.
****

With your help, they do. And did.

Ask President Harris, she'll tell you.

BAAAAAAAAA

NYT:
President Trump called on Senate Republicans late Thursday to eliminate the filibuster to force an end to the government shutdown, a move that would strip away a deeply rooted Senate rule.

The president said in a late-night Truth Social post that it was time for G.O.P. leaders “to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’” and get rid of the longstanding rule that means most Senate legislation needs 60 votes to pass rather than a simple majority.

Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats in the Senate. Democrats have repeatedly blocked a measure allowing funding for the government this month, as they argue that expiring subsidies tied to the Affordable Care Act must also be reinstated.

Senate G.O.P. leaders have shown reluctance to make further changes to the filibuster. Both parties have sought to erode the filibuster in recent years, but have stopped far short of eliminating it. Many Republicans fear that invoking the “nuclear option” with changes to the filibuster could come back to haunt them if Democrats regain control of Congress.

Earlier this month, Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, dismissed the idea of changing the filibuster in order to end the shutdown, saying the White House hadn’t put pressure on him to do so.

The president made his demand as a lapse in funding for antipoverty programs loomed and Americans shopping for plans on the federal health insurance marketplace were set to see price increases.

The pilots, federal workers, airline CEO's,and so forth are probably not MAGA (I know you were being tongue in cheek). However, they live in reality, and represent constituencies that have no choice but to live in reality.

Schumer's Shutdown is and was nothing more and nothing less than a political temper tantrum by spoiled children.

I would perhaps concede that maybe Dems could take a little flyer and try to shut down the government for a week or maybe two at the most, and see if you could get the Republicans to cave in on some or all of the One Big Beautiful Bill rollbacks the Dems have been fantasizing about. But they were way too greedy and too full of themselves. That's the delusional part. A little bit of shutdown may have been a plausible strategy--you know, the kind of thing Trump typically does--make HUUUGE demands and then cut the best deal he thinks he can, always stepping back from the brink.

But the Dems insisted on putting on a political suicide vest and either getting their way or taking the government, and the country, over the cliff with them. Again, a totally irrational and unnecessary strategy, doomed to failure from the start. What was Schumer's end game if the Republicans refused to budge? Let 42 million people starve (for example)?

But then the strategy soon gets very stale and totally counterproductive, as the more days pass by, the more the shutdown/impasse becomes established as the status quo. Both sides get locked into their positions and that was predictable.

It's a particularly stupid strategy when Republicans like Thune and Mike Johnson made it VERY clear that they were willing to haggle on the various policy issue,and make concessions of some sort or other, but they were unwilling to cave into political blackmail.

This is just a tantrum, a Democrat scream into the night, like all the memes we see of nutty Progressives when Trump got elected and re-elected.

Blame it on the Republicans and Trump all you want, a point I made earlier in the thread. Democrats have the power to immediately break the impasse regardless of what Trump or the Republicans do or don't do. The Democrats choose not to.

If the Dems claim to be operating on some sort of "principle" or moral high ground, they've never told us what exactly that principle might be. You lose an election, a bill gets passed that you don't like on a policy basis, and you're a sore loser and you're going to be like the crazy squirrel who gets on the field at a baseball game and runs away with the ball?

Yeah the Democrats are squirrely AF, I think it's an apt analogy.

That's just trolling. You know why Republicans can't pass the CR without Democrat votes.

I don’t think it’s trolling. Let me explain why.

The filibuster. I just checked my list of the 10 Commandments and filibuster wasn’t listed. In fact, I even checked my pocket copy of the United States Constitution, and it wasn't listed there, either.

The filibuster is simply a rule the Senate put in place in 1806 that eliminated the rule that allowed for a motion to end debate. This inadvertently created what is now known as the filibuster. In 1917, the Senate added a rule (cloture) that allowed the to end with 2/3 of the Senate vote. In 1975, the Senate changed the rule to allow 3/5 (60 votes) to end the filibuster. There is nothing sacrosanct about the filibuster. This is my understanding. Feel free to correct any errors.

So in theory, the Republicans control enough seats to change the filibuster rules. The reality is that they probably cannot change the rules because a handful of Republicans want to keep the 3/5 rule in place (much like Manchin and Sinema did when the Democrats had a small majority).

There are lots of pros and cons for the filibuster. One of the pros is that several Senators (from both parties) believe the filibuster encourages working together and, that nasty, dirty word, compromise.

It sure isn’t the Democrats’ fault that all the Republicans aren’t on the same page. The American people gave control of both houses to the Republicans. It’s on the Republicans to make things work. And that means changing the rules or compromising.

It is interesting to note that in recent decades, the party withholding votes gets the overwhelming blame for the government shutdown down. However, that’s not happening this time. While always subject to change, more Americans are blaming the Republicans for the shutdown. Recent polls show 45% blame Republicans and 33% blame Democrats with 22% unsure. Included in that are Independents who blame Republicans by a 2 to 1 margin.

Why is this? I think it has a lot to do with a letter I received in the mail yesterday. The letter said the cost of my health insurance in 2025 will be 39% higher than it is in 2024. We’re very fortunate that we can absorb this increase. Tens of millions of my fellow Americans are not so fortunate. They will have to give up basic needs or forgo having health insurance. In the wealthiest country the world has ever seen, that’s just plain sick.

So if the shutdown is to be shutdown, Republicans will need to compromise to get Democrat votes. It’s 100% on the Republicans. They’re in charge. Now Democrats aren’t asking for everything they want, but they are asking for affordable healthcare for regular American citizens.

So far, most Americans don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.

A couple of minor grammatical corrections (and yes, I proofed the damn thing 3 times):

In 1917, the Senate added a rule (cloture) that allowed the to end with 2/3 of the Senate vote.

In 1917, the Senate added a rule (cloture) that allowed the filibuster to end with 2/3 of the Senate vote.

It is interesting to note that in recent decades, the party withholding votes gets the overwhelming blame for the government shutdown down.

It is interesting to note that in recent decades, the party withholding votes gets the overwhelming blame for the government shutdown.


Sigh …………

So AlfalfaWolf,please clarify: Do you think the Democrats are RIGHT to not support the C.R.; or are they WRONG to not support the C.R.?

If the Democrats are RIGHT to NOT support the C.R., then you would also logically have to agree that the Republicans would ALSO be right to NOT break the fillibuster rule--and let the Democrats continue to block the government--simply because that's the RIGHT thing to do.

If the Democrats are WRONG to not support the C.R., then they should VOTE FOR IT--and no need to do away with the fillibuster.

Which is it, AlephWolf?

Your post to which this is a response, was basically double talk.

Understanding that the issue is whether or not to pass a clean C.R.--do you WANT it to pass, or NOT?

Take responsibility for what you believe in--if you even know what that is! I sure as heck can't figure it out.

So AlfalfaWolf,please clarify: Do you think the Democrats are RIGHT to not support the C.R.; or are they WRONG to not support the C.R.?

I’m sorry you found my response confusing. I’ll try to simplify it.

For starters, your right/wrong options are a straw man argument.

In the last election, the American people handed the keys to the car to Republicans. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate and the House as well as controlling the executive branch and, for good measure, the SCOTUS. Until the next election, it’s the Republicans job to run the government. Period. Full stop.

The Republicans had 2 choices about the CR in order to keep the government open.
1) Change the Senate filibuster rules so that 51 votes ends a filibuster, or
2) Compromise with Democrats to get some of their votes.

The Democrats have no reason to support a CR that will take away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans, so I think the Democrats were right to not support the CR.

The Republican’s job is to keep the government open. It is perfectly legal for them to choose choice #1 if they wanted or choice #2. By not choosing either choice, they chose to shut the government down.

The Republicans decided they wanted to continue tax breaks for billionaires and take away healthcare subsidies from middle class Americans. There’s no reason for Democrats to support that position. Let the Republicans defend their choice to Americans. Good luck with that. So far, they’re not buying it.

Hope the House is enjoying their vacation.

The Democrats have no reason to support a CR that will take away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans, so I think the Democrats were right to not support the CR.

I'd wholeheartedly agree with you if that were the case.

According to Google:
"Republicans advocated for a "clean" CR, which means a simple, short-term funding extension that maintains previous spending levels and does not include new policy changes or the extension of the ACA subsidies."

According to Google:
"Republicans advocated for a "clean" CR, which means a simple, short-term funding extension that maintains previous spending levels and does not include new policy changes or the extension of the ACA subsidies."

Exactly my point.

The C.R. isn't "taking away" health care from anyone. The termination of enhanced COVID-era subsidies at the end of this year was written into the legislation that was passed unilaterally by the Democrats, under Biden, during Covid.

Keep twisting away, you're better than Chubby Checker!

The C.R. isn't "taking away" health care from anyone. The termination of enhanced COVID-era subsidies at the end of this year was written into the legislation that was passed unilaterally by the Democrats, under Biden, during Covid.

The tax cuts from the TCJA that heavily favor the wealthiest Americans, and passed unilaterally by the Republicans, was set to expire in 2025, too.

Again, Republican priorities are to preserve tax cuts for billionaires and remove subsidies for the middle class to afford healthcare insurance.

Good luck selling that.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.