Post New

...because the last one only funded the government through November 21. There's no point on that one any longer.

So Johnson will have to bring the House back in and pass a new one. He'll have to swear in the new Congresswoman also. Then the games continue in the Senate.

...because the last one only funded the government through November 21. There's no point on that one any longer.

So Johnson will have to bring the House back in and pass a new one. He'll have to swear in the new Congresswoman also. Then the games continue in the Senate.

Yes. I think that's why Trump is taking the politically risky move of appealing the SNAP ruling, as well as ratcheting up the pressure on the filibuster.

If the November 21 date passes and the current CR disappears, I don't think Johnson is able to pass a new CR out of the House without an ACA subsidy fix. With the Grijalva appointment and the GOP vacancy, they have (I believe) only two votes to give - and I can't see Greene voting for a CR without the ACA stuff in it, at this point.

At that point, the politics of shutdown get even worse for the GOP. Right now, they can credibly argue that it's only the actions of the Democrats (in choosing to filibuster, not in refraining to vote) that trigger the shutdown - not everyone accepts that, but it's a credible argument. But if we move out of the Senate and back to the House, then it's all on the GOP again, since they have the ability to take the first step on the new CR without Democratic votes again.

Johnson can't have it come back to him. He needs the Senate to act on the current CR, even though it's only got two weeks in it. But that seems unlikely, since the Democrats probably only need to get through next week before even Johnson can't pretend that the House's job is done and only the Senate needs to act.

At that point, the politics of shutdown get even worse for the GOP.

Really? Seems the "JCs" would rather like it. No-one to audit their taxes. No FDA inspectors snooping around food processing plants. No Labor Dept people telling them what they can't do to their Proles. No OSHA people bugging them about unsafe working conditions. No EPA people crying when they shut off pollution controls to juice profits.

JC nirvana.

Steve

Yes. I think that's why Trump is taking the politically risky move of appealing the SNAP ruling, as well as ratcheting up the pressure on the filibuster.


There are multiple SNAP rulings now with the latest one where the judge ordered full payment of all the benefits. The problem is there's not nearly enough money for that until Congress appropriates it.

I don't think Johnson is able to pass a new CR out of the House without an ACA subsidy fix. With the Grijalva appointment and the GOP vacancy, they have (I believe) only two votes to give - and I can't see Greene voting for a CR without the ACA stuff in it, at this point.


Which sets up a scenario where the government stays shut down until ~Thanksgiving or so.

But if we move out of the Senate and back to the House, then it's all on the GOP again, since they have the ability to take the first step on the new CR without Democratic votes again.

That's the democrats' narrative. The fact of the matter is that there needs to be 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything and until the democrats break ranks, they're the ones continuing to vote not to have the government open.

Personally, I and my immediate family can wait out this shutdown until election day 2026 if that's how long it goes on for.

If the electorate wants to blame the Republicans more power to them, they can vote in a Democrat House and Senate. The Dems can remove the filibuster, pass whatever they want, including full amnesty from 20 million illegals, add Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. as states, tax the wazoo out of the evil billionaires, whatever.

A lot of people like air traffic controllers and military personnel will get fed up with not getting paid and will quit.

Perhaps many other essential government employees not being paid but having to work, will also quit.

Non-essentials on unpaid furlough will quit.

There will be a great deal of pain, perhaps an economic and political realignment, as people start to adjust to a new economy and a new society.

Maybe something good will come out of it. A steep recession may crash housing prices so people in their 20's and 30's who manage to hang on to their jobs may actually be able to buy homes. Especially if interest rates crash.

If there are fewer jobs available, maybe the notion of one parent being the primary breadwinner, while the other parent stays home doing family things and raising children, may start to make more sense to more people again.

Instead of 2,500+ houses being the minimum, maybe the default will return to 1,200 or so square foot houses. Cheaper and better for the environment.

Maybe a lot of people will conclude that they should not have placed so much reliance on the federal or local governments to take care of all their needs, in the first place.

Maybe society will grow to be far less tolerant of the grifters and moochers and LARPing Hamas loving college students and professors than they are right now.

Maybe if the ProGlibs actually have to ride those buses in urban areas that they heretofore would never be caught dead on, they might actually care when people get attacked by illegal immigrants shouting Allahu Akbar.

Their ProGlib privileges may diminish. They may have to face a little more reality.

And simultaneously, they will have a test-bed perfect case of whether a Communist running NYC can actually make things work better. Not for himself and his cronies, but for everyone. Let's see how the Commie does running NYC over the next year or so during a government shutdown.

People will get to see it for themselves. They will get to live it. Not just on social media, but in real life.

I see nothing bad about any of it, if it comes to pass.

Albaby,

It's not a politically risky move, it's a necessary legal move. These judges don't have the authority to micro-manage the executive branch, but they think they do.

The bottom line with the SNAP situation is that if full payments are made with the few billion that is left, all the SNAP money will be used up in probably a month or less. So the ruling doesn't solve the fundamental problem which is that King Schumer and the other Democrat Senate Kings refuse to pass the clean C.R.

The fact of the matter is that there needs to be 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything and until the democrats break ranks, they're the ones continuing to vote not to have the government open.

Right, but that changes once we hit November 21.

At that point, the CR that's in the Senate disappears. It only runs through November 21 - so if it isn't passed by November 21, it becomes a nullity.

If that happens, we're back in the House. It's no longer up to Democrats in the Senate to do anything (or Republicans in the Senate, for that matter). It's then up to the House again.

But it's highly unlikely that Johnson can repeat his feat in getting a clean CR through the House again. He was able to do it last time because Trump was able to knock the heads of the Freedom Caucus holdouts who normally cause problems with a CR.

I don't think he can do it again. The math is even a little tighter - I think (though I'm not sure) that Greene and Massie alone can kill a CR if they don't like it, assuming that there aren't any Democratic votes of course. And I think there's probably a few more Rep reps that might share Greene's position.

Normally, this would lead to some prospect of a deal being cut. The GOP now has their own ticking clock on when they want/need to get the current CR passed - so with both sides now having something to lose, it should create the space for a deal. The problem, though, is that there's no one with the credibility to actually strike that kind of a deal. The Democrats would have to go first (ie. vote for the current CR) - but they can't cut a deal with Thune and Johnson (if even Johnson were willing) without having Trump agree as well, and they probably won't ever trust Trump enough for that to matter.

So I think yes, we're probably shut down until Johnson's hand is forced - which would be November 21, or perhaps some time earlier that week.

I don't think he can do it again. The math is even a little tighter - I think (though I'm not sure) that Greene and Massie alone can kill a CR if they don't like it, assuming that there aren't any Democratic votes of course. And I think there's probably a few more Rep reps that might share Greene's position.

I actually agreed with you on this point. What they'll do is likely redefine what a "Clean" CR means by just adding in the Obamacare subsidies. Then off to the Senate it would go again.

At that point the dems have a problem: they've gone all in on the ACA payments and won't be able to NOT vote for it.

The Founding Fathers deliberately designed our system of government so as to create all kinds of checks and balances, with one of the core objectives being the limitation of government power.

So, gridlock, as is occurring right now with respect to the C.R. impasse, is a feature, not a bug.

When enough constituencies feel enough pain they will presumably petition their elected representatives for redress of grievances vociferously enough to where the impasse is broken.

That's how the system works, that's how it was designed, that's how it's supposed to work. That's democracy with a capital "D."

Assuming the majority (perhaps the vast majority) of non-military government employees who are furloughed without pay, or working without pay, or otherwise negatively impacted by the impasse, are liberals or Democrats--well, they have a decision to make. Do they want to let King Schumer and the Dem Senate Kings continue to play politics with their paychecks to get "leverage" over the Republicans--or do they want their paychecks to resume?

The Virginia elected spoke loud and clear when it elected Spanberger Governor by a wide margin. Many of those Dem voters work in the D.C. area and are government employees. They are more than capable of communicating what they want their politicans to do for them, at the ballot box, and otherwise.

Apparently, all those democrat government workers remain content to not get paid because they agree with King Schumer's "leverage" strategy of keeping the government shut down, so they can point the finger at Trump and the congressional republicans.

So be it. That's real democracy in action.

It's not a politically risky move, it's a necessary legal move. These judges don't have the authority to micro-manage the executive branch, but they think they do.

It is a politically risky move. The DOJ could choose to appeal the decision but not seek an immediate stay of the order. That would legally let them fund SNAP ("we were ordered to") while still not conceding the legal point of whether this is the sort of thing a judge can do. N.B. - as a general matter, judges have lots of authority to "micro-manage" the executive branch whenever there's a law that directs the Executive to take (or refrain from taking) actions on things; whether this is one of those instances is a longer discussion.

It wouldn't even be a very unusual move for them. The Administration has frequently gone ahead with actions that have a very good chance of being reversed on appeal, because they know that appeals take time and they can get facts on the ground before the courts end up stopping them - the most obvious example being his firing of a bunch of inspector generals without following the law, which the court held was blatantly illegal but by the time it got to final decision from the judiciary it was already too late to order any relief. So if the Administration wanted to, they could cry foul about how awful the judiciary was and how certain they are that they will prevail on appeal....but let the funding go through for now so that they don't get blamed for having declined a chance to prevent SNAP from collapsing.

I think the GOP's need to have this CR get through the Senate, rather than going back to the House, is affecting that decision. If the GOP is going to get the Democrats to fold, they pretty much have to do it next week. Else Mike Johnson and the House are back in the hot seat, and they probably don't have a way out if that happens.

At that point the dems have a problem: they've gone all in on the ACA payments and won't be able to NOT vote for it.

I don't think they'd have a problem with that. They'll declare victory, release the Senators to vote their states, and crow about it in the midterm campaigns.

Dope1 and albaby, a cogent analysis of what happens if we get to November 21 and it has to start all over again in the House.

Here's the problem: Since the King Schumer/Dem Senate King strategy was not to achieve a realistic goal, but rather, to assert political "leverage" in order to score political points against Trump and the Congressional Republicans, it is not going to matter WHAT the new CR after Nov. 21 does, or does not, contain.

King Schumer will instruct his caucus in the Senate not to provide the votes the Senate Republicans need to get to 60. It does not matter what is or isn't in the C.R.

King Schumer's strategy wasn't to actually solve a resource allocation dispute. It was to CREATE an impasse which could be blamed on the Republicans and Trump for political advantage.

So far, judging by the recent election results and the public opinion polling, King Schumer's strategy has worked beautifully.

You guys are both very intelligent and perceptive. Do you not realize that (especially with the election of Mamdani) Schumer will NEVER provide 60 votes?

King Schumer will never fold. Impasse (which he could blame on the Republicans) was his only and entire strategy.

A few Democrats will have to decide to defy Schumer to get anything done, whether before or after Nov. 21.

King Schumer will never fold. He's gone out on a limb to save his political future, and he's been getting positive feedback. The election of Mamdani is simply Schumer's impetus to be even more obstructionist.

Do you not realize that (especially with the election of Mamdani) Schumer will NEVER provide 60 votes?

I think that's completely wrong.

I think the Democrats opposed the CR because they needed to show their constituents that they were going to try to "fight" for some of their priorities, despite being in the minority. They picked the ACA subsidies because: i) that was one of the most popular "big" things that they could insist that the fight was about; ii)_a lot of GOP districts heavily rely on those subsidies; and iii) it's not anything that Trump particularly cares about fighting.

If the CR is amended to include the ACA subsidies that the Democrats want, they will cheerfully and happily declare how amazingly wonderful their strategy was, call on every Democrat to celebrate how they were able to force the GOP to do something for the benefit of the country that the GOP wasn't going to do, and carry that into the midterms. They will take the win.

They will not keep the government shut down if they get the ACA subsidies. Remember - the Democrats generally want government to be working; they're the party that believes that the government is capable of improving lives and doing good things. It's been hard enough for Schumer to keep another four Senators from crossing over; it would be impossible for him to do that if they had succeeded in getting their biggest ask.

The Founding Fathers deliberately designed our system of government so as to create all kinds of checks and balances,

You start out fine with a bedrock statement of American Constitutional democracy.

Then…… well…… how’s the weather on Uranus?

King Schumer's additions to the clean CR contained far more than the Covid ERA expansion of ACA subsidies.

He has painted himself into a corner.

You are operating under the assumption that this is about rational, reasonable, disputes over resource allocation.

It isn't. It's about the Dems using the suffering of their constituents to get political leverage over Trump and the Republicans.

Maybe there will be some defections amongst the Senate Dems.

But it is far far more likely that the Dems will now UP the ante, not attempt to reasonably compromise.

I don't know, but since your head is already up there, why don't you tell me?

At that point the dems have a problem: they've gone all in on the ACA payments and won't be able to NOT vote for it.

While the Democrats have many different priorities, the only one they are asking for is the ACA subsidy.

If the ACA subsidies are added to the CR, I think the vast majority of Democrats would gladly vote for the CR. I don’t think the Democrats would have a problem with that.

It's about the Dems using the suffering of their constituents to get political leverage over Trump and the Republicans.

Even if that were true, it doesn't support your point. If the Democrats obtain political leverage over Trump and the Republicans by forcing the CR back into the House and requiring Johnson to make changes to it, then they have to use that political leverage to gain something. If they just say "no" no matter what the GOP does, then they will lose all of their political leverage.

Schumer knows this - and the individual Democratic Senators who get to choose for themselves whether to cross over the line know this.

They'll take the win. Taking the win - and declaring it a win - gives them vastly more political leverage than saying no to everything and keeping the government shut down.

King Schumer hasn't ever said he would consider re-opening the government for anything less than the $1.5 trillion in goodies he wants added to the C.R.

I'm afraid you're engaging in wishful thinking here.

King Schumer has to face a very radicalized Democratic electorate when AOC primaries him.

Mamdani is the next Mayor of NYC.

To have any chance of beating AOC in the next primary, Schumer has to out-Mamdani, Mamdani.

"Compromise" is not part of that calculus.

King Schumer hasn't ever said he would consider re-opening the government for anything less than the $1.5 trillion in goodies he wants added to the C.R.

Maybe not, but there's no way he'd be able to turn down a win if the GOP buckles and redoes the CR with all the ACA subsidies extended.

It doesn't make any sense. Even if you want to believe that Chuck Schumer is evil right down to his cold black heart, which pumps not blood like yours and mine, but rather a thick, vomitous oil - it's just terrible politics to keep the government shut down forever no matter what you're given.

He's not going to do that. He's not going to want to do that. He wants to get a win that he can proclaim to the mountaintops, not an unending stalemate. If he refuses to ever take a win, he'll never get a win.

And he isn't a "King" over the other Democratic Senators. Right now, their hanging together because it looks like they might actually get a tangible win out of all of this - they might genuinely get the subsidies restored because of their strategy. But if the plan is actually, "we shutting down the government for a year and not accepting any yes for an answer," then he'll lose at least a dozen Senators and they'll just vote for the CR that has the ACA subsidies in it over his objections.

But it won't come to that. If they're able to force the subsidies into a new CR for a long enough period of time (they won't accept a day-long extension, won't refuse a decade-long extension, will land somewhere in between), the Democrats will say "yes" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

King Schumer has caved.

Huge loss for Schumer and the Democrats.

See the other thread I started.

King Schumer has caved.

Huge loss for Schumer and the Democrats.

See the other thread I started.

I did. Do you have any link to that $1.5 trillion figure (the GOP's calculation of costs) was based on anything that Schumer said were his demands for revising the CR?

Again, albaby1, you're too smart for this. Google fu it yourself.

"What?? Schumer always ONLY wanted to continue the ACA subsidies for a year!!"

Not so much.

It's a huge loss for Schumer, the Dems, and the ProgLibs on this board.

And that's assuming the Republicans even agree to it--which they obviously don't have to at this point.

Schumer is trying to save himself a figleaf of self respect. This is a last ditch effort to salvage a dumb and doomed to fail strategy.

I think the Republicans should say, "Sorry, King Schumer, no thanks. Open the government with the clean C.R., and then we will talk about the rest of it."

Schumer is finished politically no matter what else happens from here.

I think the Democrats opposed the CR because they needed to show their constituents that they were going to try to "fight" for some of their priorities, despite being in the minority.

Classic Clintonite inside the beltway institutional democratic response. This is an example of lip service to fighting for the working class versus actually fighting for the working class.

The democrats need to hold out. Trump can’t and won’t lose face so he will force the republicans to blow up the filibuster. They will get their clean CR, working class Americans will lose their health insurance, and the republicans will 100% own the economic disaster that will follow from owning it all.

We will see if we still have Al’s lip service democrats or a new fighting Democratic Party.

The democrats need to hold out. Trump can’t and won’t lose face so he will force the republicans to blow up the filibuster.

There aren't enough votes to blow up the filibuster for just a few weeks of government funding. No matter how much Trump jawbones Thune and the rest of the GOP Senators, there will be enough that won't go along.

They will get their clean CR, working class Americans will lose their health insurance, and the republicans will 100% own the economic disaster that will follow from owning it all.

Johnson and Thune aren't idiots. Even if they did blow up the filibuster (which they won't), they would introduce a bill in the House to restore some of the ACA subsidies - and then let the Democrats vote it down in the House. That's why it's so powerful to have the majority: you control the agenda, you can put things on the agenda that will help protect your vulnerable members, even if those things won't pass.

So GOP leadership will put a bill on the floor to extend the subsidies, it will get a ton of GOP votes and almost no Democratic votes, and die there. Then the GOP wouldn't "own" the end of the subsidies in the way you imagine. All their more vulnerable members will have ads they can run blaming the Democrats for putting in the expiration back in 2021, and then refusing to extend it when they had the chance.

Or....they do get enough votes out of the House, and it passes the Senate - and Trump signs the bill and takes credit for saving the workingman's health care.

Nope.

King Schumer is on the run and has lost control of his caucus. This was simply a desperate last ditch attempt for him not to come out of this looking like a complete fool.

Johnson and Thune have been consistent that this is a matter of principle.

They won't let America be blackmailed.

They know Schumer has caved 98.5% of the way and it is inevitable he will cave the rest of the way prior to Thanksgiving.

He has to. He's painted himself into a corner. He's shown himself as being the opposite of a man of principle.

He's admitted to causing the American people to suffer simply for political leverage.

I'm hoping Johnson and Thune stand fast and say "No" to anything but a clean C.R.

There are multiple SNAP rulings now with the latest one where the judge ordered full payment of all the benefits. The problem is there's not nearly enough money for that until Congress appropriates it.

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

That is no excuse. The imperial judiciary simply needs to order the Senate to pass the CR or even easier is to order the Treasury Department to print the money necessary.

No, Johnson and Thune have to stick firm to demanding a clean C.R. because Schumer has lost his caucus and has caved. Enough Dems have been feeling enough pressure from their constituents that the Republicans will pick up a few and get to 60.

Schumer is done, toast, stick a fork in him.

What a catastrophe the Democrats created. For absolutely no reason other than their own hubris.

Post New

Alphabet FAQ

---

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