Schumer Shutdown: Dems want shutdown to protect illegals!

[SMS]

I suspect you don’t quite appreciate the complexities of this situation:

First, the Democrats have been operating as a solid, unified block since the Pelosi years in the House.

Second, there’s a Senatorial Caveat (this time since 1975) that to End Debate a 60% Majority for Closure is required before a Bill can move to a Vote. This has repeatedly caused impasse, inefficiency and deadlock.

Third, the Democratic Party strategy in this situation is to hold as much of our Government Hostage in the hope of delivering as many as 4M currently Illegal Aliens into their Constituency with the DACA Plan. Despite the rhetoric, there is nothing altruistic in their motivation; its purely a grab for power.

Full Control of the Legislature by the Republicans under these circumstances is an illusion. Even without the Closure Rule, RINOs like McCain, Corker and Flake are disloyal to the Republican Party and trying to appease a mixed constituency of Liberals along with their own traditionally loyal supporters. So, with a small apparent majority (even including the vote of the President pro tempore), this numerical advantage has rarely proved functional.

Democratic Strategists and the Party Leadership know that the inclusion of another 2-4 million votes in support of their agenda to end freedom and democracy will be decisive in future elections thus manifesting their long awaited dream for a Socialist State tightly controlled through Cultural Marxism. They are not going to give up this fight.

So, this stalemate is not due to ineffective leadership by our President, House and Senate Leaders, or even the grabasstic lack of cooperation and coordination among Republicans, but to the effective employment of Senate Rules by the Democrats who march on command and in unison in good faith on the command of their Party Leadership to advance an agenda the consequences of which they don’t even recognize.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fully understand the complexities.

Answer this question. How many full fiscal year length appropriations bills for fiscal year 18 were passed or introduced by the House or Senate leading up to the beginning of the fiscal year?

We are not where we are, in January when we should be discussing the FY19 budget, because the Democrats blocked the effort that should have occurred during the normal federal budgeting process for FY18. The Republicans simply did not follow it...instead they chose to continually kick the can down the road with CRs and brinkmanship. The problem with repeated brinkmanship is eventually someone calls your bluff and then what?

 

[C_Hallbert]

I fully understand the complexities.

Answer this question. How many full fiscal year length appropriations bills for fiscal year 18 were passed or introduced by the House or Senate leading up to the beginning of the fiscal year?

We are not where we are, in January when we should be discussing the FY19 budget, because the Democrats blocked the effort that should have occurred during the normal federal budgeting process for FY18. The Republicans simply did not follow it...instead they chose to continually kick the can down the road with CRs and brinkmanship. The problem with repeated brinkmanship is eventually someone calls your bluff and then what?

I cannot speak for this not being privy to the full situation. Passing the Tax Bill and attempting to accomplish the unfulfilled mandate to repeal the ACA were in part responsible for the sequence in which the Federal Budget came up for business. Maybe Mcconnell believed that the Democrats would be more concerned with the welfare of our Nation than the self interests of their own Party. It seems he didn’t see this coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

has this interpretation ever been tested in the supreme court?

Not that I know of. The wording is not ambiguous.

Woody

 

[SMS]

I cannot speak for this not being privy to the full situation. Passing the Tax Bill and attempting to accomplish the unfulfilled mandate to repeal the ACA were in part responsible for the sequence in which the Federal Budget came up for business. Maybe Mcconnell believed that the Democrats would be more concerned with the welfare of our Nation than the self interests of their own Party. It seems he didn’t see this coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As of September 14th 2017, two weeks before the new FY, the House passed all 12 appropriation bills for FY18. The Senate passed zero and didn't even get all 12 bills out of committee. They never brought a single spending bill up for vote. The time for this fight was then...not January 2018.

McConnell is inept. He is as much, if not more, responsible for this situation as Schumer.

 

[Ryan500L]

Then you should have gotten back pay. Did you read the articles I posted a link to?

I know the FAA people got paid back, they were off for almost 2 weeks straight if I remember. We were off Fridays only for 7 weeks straight.

 

[C_Hallbert]

As of September 14th 2017, two weeks before the new FY, the House passed all 12 appropriation bills for FY18. The Senate passed zero and didn't even get all 12 bills out of committee. They never brought a single spending bill up for vote. The time for this fight was then...not January 2018.

McConnell is inept. He is as much, if not more, responsible for this situation as Schumer.

Schumer ‘Senate Minority Leader’ is causing the bottleneck in the Senate. He won’t even consider compromise. With the Filibuster and a Filibuster Closure Rule requiring 60% Vote l, the Democrats (under Schumer’s Control) have brought the Senate to a virtual standstill. McConnell cannot resort to reason; absolute appeasement is the only way to move unless they suspend the Closure Rule, but good luck with this with Flake, Corker and McCain consorting with the enemy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pokinfun]

Not that I know of. The wording is not ambiguous.

Woody

I think you are making an assumption. at the time of the 14th Amendment I don't think anyone assumed a debt by the government or by anyone did not have to be paid. It is much later before the government starts to build debt that they do not intend to pay back. Actually, because of Johnson's vetoes I think the radical republicans were saying that the debt of congress had to be paid.

 

[Slim Deal]

I 'm not a contractor and in fact a federal worker at TAFB and we did not get back pay

During times like this everyone ends up giving a little to gain something in return. I am of the opinion that if you work you should get paid however if you did not work then pay is not an obligation.

America is in the shape it is in because we have politicians and bureaucrats that will pass any law, hand out any appropriation and generally screw the US Citizens as long as it fits their needs and the needs of their friends. They have made government jobs too damned cushy and most federal employees nowadays feel 'entitled'.

Now don't get ticked off because I am not attacking you personally. I have 10 years of federal experience working for the U.S. Courts which I left in the mid 90's. I do know what I am talking about. But I still believe in 'no workee, no payee'. I don't give a crap what the law or statute says.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I think you are making an assumption. at the time of the 14th Amendment I don't think anyone assumed a debt by the government or by anyone did not have to be paid. It is much later before the government starts to build debt that they do not intend to pay back. Actually, because of Johnson's vetoes I think the radical republicans were saying that the debt of congress had to be paid.

Assuming a debt of the United States would be paid back is just that: An assumption. It is not written in the Constitution that Congress has to pay it back. If Congress doesn't pay its debts, the credit of the United States goes in the toilet and there is no credit for the United States to borrow against. Any debt you or I incur and don't pay back will ruin our credit as well.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, authorizes Congress to collect taxes for, among other things, to pay the debts of the United States as incurred by Article I, Section 8, Clause 2. Congress has direct authorization to borrow money. How and when - if ever - those authorized debts are paid back is not mandated by anything in the Constitution.

The exercise of the powers granted to Congress are not mandates - exercise of those powers are discretionary. For example, Congress has the power to declare war, but it doesn't have to. If it were to say that Congress SHALL pay the debts of the United States, that would be different.

If you want to loan money to the United States, make sure you get it under law as to when and how you are to be paid back, and with what interest.

Woody

 

[Pokinfun]

Assuming a debt of the United States would be paid back is just that: An assumption. It is not written in the Constitution that Congress has to pay it back. If Congress doesn't pay its debts, the credit of the United States goes in the toilet and there is no credit for the United States to borrow against. Any debt you or I incur and don't pay back will ruin our credit as well.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, authorizes Congress to collect taxes for, among other things, to pay the debts of the United States as incurred by Article I, Section 8, Clause 2. Congress has direct authorization to borrow money. How and when - if ever - those authorized debts are paid back is not mandated by anything in the Constitution.

The exercise of the powers granted to Congress are not mandates - exercise of those powers are discretionary. For example, Congress has the power to declare war, but it doesn't have to. If it were to say that Congress SHALL pay the debts of the United States, that would be different.

If you want to loan money to the United States, make sure you get it under law as to when and how you are to be paid back, and with what interest.

Woody

I am not saying they have to pay the debt, I am saying that they cannot keep the president from spending the money once it has been authorized.