Schumer Shutdown: Dems want shutdown to protect illegals!

[SlugSlinger]

Dems give up shutdown fight
By Stephen Dinan and S.A. Miller
Senate Democrats relinquished on the government shutdown Monday, agreeing to vote to reopen the government but insisting they’ll keep fighting for illegal immigrant “Dreamers” over the next weeks, with another shutdown deadline looming Feb. 8.

“I’m glad we’ve gotten past that,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said just ahead of a vote.

The House was expected to pass the bill later Monday, which would end the shutdown after three days.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/dems-give-shutdown-fight/

 

[SMS]

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.

I believe you’re getting the 2013 government shutdown and subsequent furlough mixed up with the 2013 budget sequestration. Those were two different and legally separate incidents.

Federal workers who were furloughed during the shutdown were paid back pay because it was deemed an unintended consequence of the lapse in funding.

Workers who had to take mandatory days off during sequestration did not receive back pay because it was an intentional cost cutting measure to meet spending caps.

 

[Dave70968]

Disagree. Democrats are to blame for this shutdown. There is no reason to have brought DACA, a totally separate issue, into funding the government.

Very little could be accomplished during the past year because of the Democrats "Resist" agenda. Frankly, what has been accomplished is good and a little surprising to me considering the battle against both the media and the Democrats. The priorities chosen during the past year - political appointments, dismantling of ISIS, and tax cuts, were a higher priority than worrying about a budget fight four months in advance. Now is not the time to throw childish fits but to keep advancing the interest of our country first. This year is about a budget solution and immigration reform with a DACA solution. Democrats need to sit down and let the adults put the country back on track.

Logrolling (amalgamating multiple topics into a single bill) is a long-standing tradition on the Hill. Remember, we got concealed carry in national parks through a similar tactic.

As to Democrats being to blame, do remember that Republicans have been in control of the House, Senate, and Oval Office for more than a year now. No, not veto-proof control, but control nonetheless. With the control comes the ability to determine what is scheduled for hearing and when. The new fiscal year was not exactly an unexpected event; it happens every year, on a very predictable schedule, and was entirely foreseeable. That the Republicans (who were in charge) failed to make addressing it a priority is squarely on their shoulders. The time for holding up Congressional business was a year ago, or eight months ago, or six months ago, not months after the start of the new year. I posit that the Congress has no function more important than passing a budget: just as an army travels on its stomach, every program runs on money. Failing to allocate that effectively halts every other program Congress authorizes, whether an explicit constitutional duty or not.

I'm not suggesting that the Democrats aren't being obstructionist, that they're blameless, but let's not kid ourselves by pretending that the Republicans are blameless victims, hostages to the big scary D's. They had a responsibility to act, they've had a year's worth of opportunity to do so, and have screwed around for all this time. A pox on all their houses; there's plenty of blame to go around.

 

[Dave70968]

Not necessarily. Once the debt is authorized, it can't be canceled, but it may not actually get paid.

See that word "including"? It means ANY debt authorized cannot be cancelled, not even a debt incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion - - - ANY debt authorized. Want to know why the national debt keeps rising? Even though it can't be cancelled, there is no mandate in the Constitution that it has to be paid off.

Wouldn't you just love to have a credit account that you never had to pay off? This section of the Fourteenth Amendment must be repealed (along with the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments) if we are ever to have a secure, debt free, and prosperous country.

Woody

Repealing that section would be a very bad idea. You think our national credit rating took a hit under Obama? Just wait until you make federal debts dischargeable! Would you loan money to someone who had the ability to say "yeah, I know I borrowed that, but I've decided I don't have to pay it back." Down that road lies madness.

A balanced budget amendment wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing (though it would need some sort of emergency provision to allow unbalanced borrowing, lest we find ourselves, say, attacked by a foreign power and drawn into a two-front world war), but making the public debt dischargeable by governmental whim? Watch the economy come to a screeching halt.

 

[Eagle Eye]

.....must voice support for republicans....or else... be labelled a Hillary and Obama lover!


The OSA dichotomy

 

[C_Hallbert]

If Slippery Chuck Schumer conceded to anything, it was ONLY because he saw a majority of public opinion going against him. He got his way with this little tantrum with a lot of Media Exposure where he got to perform his Evil Clown Act.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Repealing that section would be a very bad idea. You think our national credit rating took a hit under Obama? Just wait until you make federal debts dischargeable! Would you loan money to someone who had the ability to say "yeah, I know I borrowed that, but I've decided I don't have to pay it back." Down that road lies madness.

A balanced budget amendment wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing (though it would need some sort of emergency provision to allow unbalanced borrowing, lest we find ourselves, say, attacked by a foreign power and drawn into a two-front world war), but making the public debt dischargeable by governmental whim? Watch the economy come to a screeching halt.

The way I see it, if the credit of the United States is in the tank, it will only be able to spend the money from the taxes it collects. And, there is so much frivolous spending that is allowed to go on without question, if it could be addressed (challenged), there would not be so much frivolous spending being risked.

I agree wholeheartedly that a balanced budget amendment would not be a bad thing. In fact, I believe it is essential.

Woody

 

[Dave70968]

The way I see it, if the credit of the United States is in the tank, it will only be able to spend the money from the taxes it collects. And, there is so much frivolous spending that is allowed to go on without question, if it could be addressed (challenged), there would not be so much frivolous spending being risked.

I agree wholeheartedly that a balanced budget amendment would not be a bad thing. In fact, I believe it is essential.

Woody

Yes, I can see where tanking our credit rating would force us to live within our means, but it would be a disaster in the long run; sometimes, you just need to borrow money (see example above about war); sometimes, not having money right now is just that important because the alternative is just that bad.

The fault isn't with the validity of the debt, it's with the voters who decided that all these nifty programs are worth borrowing to achieve. There's no provision in law or Constitution that can't eventually fall victim to the will of the voters somehow.

 

[SMS]

.....must voice support for republicans....or else... be labelled a Hillary and Obama lover!


The OSA dichotomy

Yeah, that's been the mantra of many around here.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Yes, I can see where tanking our credit rating would force us to live within our means, but it would be a disaster in the long run; sometimes, you just need to borrow money (see example above about war); sometimes, not having money right now is just that important because the alternative is just that bad.

The fault isn't with the validity of the debt, it's with the voters who decided that all these nifty programs are worth borrowing to achieve. There's no provision in law or Constitution that can't eventually fall victim to the will of the voters somehow.

All we need is for Congress to have lawmakers with common sense. . . . . Mfff... umphf....HAR HAR HARdeHAR!

Woody