Government Shutdown 2015

[Belsnickel]

Do you think it will happen? Over/under on number of days?

It seems the Senate is looking to pass a stop-gap that the left will like, but will Boehner go along with it? Interesting times ahead.

[CKwi88]

I'm voting no, but I'm being optimistic. You gotta think that the people in Washington will stop embarrassing themselves, right?


Right?

[GMDino]

I'm voting no also.

They CAN'T be that dumb...again...can they?

[Belsnickel]

I am actually going with yes. The Tea Party contingent isn't concerned with the fate of the GOP from what I can see. My big question is, tough, would it help or hinder the "non-establishment" candidates?

[Benton]

No.

Too close to the election. The 38-candidate GOP field needs to show it can be unified enough to get something done because, in the end, that's what people want. Whether they side left or right, they just want a candidate who will do something they want. So the GOP needs to show that their 44 guys and one gal can put their personal needs behind them and move the country forward.

[*bfine32*]

I vote no; however, I cannot guarantee this. I can guarantee if it does happen it will be the fault of the other party; regardless of the one I support.

[Rotobeast]

I vote that Rand Paul will make it his newest, greatest concern.

[CKwi88]

(09-22-2015, 11:38 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I vote that Rand Paul will make it his newest, greatest concern.

Can he filibuster a shutdown and then flex his nuts about it later? 




In response to Matt, I'd like to believe that a shutdown makes just about everyone in Washington look bad and is bad for everyone, but again, who the hell knows what those people are thinking. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2015, 01:45 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: In response to Matt, I'd like to believe that a shutdown makes just about everyone in Washington look bad and is bad for everyone, but again, who the hell knows what those people are thinking. 

Its is bad for everyone and looks bad for everyone, but the GOP is a little more concerned about it. This is likely because of the trouble they are already having with such a fractioned party. It's why the Senate did their part to prevent the shutdown early.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2015, 07:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Its is bad for everyone and looks bad for everyone, but the GOP is a little more concerned about it. This is likely because of the trouble they are already having with such a fractioned party. It's why the Senate did their part to prevent the shutdown early.

Seems like you already have a biased view on this. it appears you seem to think the only reason the GOP Senate is proactive on this is so they don't look bad; not their concern for the American people.

[fredtoast]

(09-22-2015, 11:14 PM)Benton Wrote: No.

Too close to the election. The 38-candidate GOP field needs to show it can be unified enough to get something done because, in the end, that's what people want. Whether they side left or right, they just want a candidate who will do something they want. So the GOP needs to show that their 44 guys and one gal can put their personal needs behind them and move the country forward.

But compromise is a sign of weakness.

I vote "yes".  I see it happening on a regular basis.  It is the new little game that they play.

Politics is all about theater now instead of substance.  And the government shut down is a good little piece of theater full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[Beaker]

Just as long as it doesn't hapen during our 8th grade DC field trip....like it did last time.

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2015, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems like you already have a biased view on this. it appears you seem to think the only reason the GOP Senate is proactive on this is so they don't look bad; not their concern for the American people.

The number of politicians in Washington that I think do anything for the American people over their own image and pocketbooks could be counted on one hand. If I didn't have any fingers, that is. Not a bias against one side or the other, just a bias against politicians.

[Rotobeast]

(09-23-2015, 05:47 PM)Beaker Wrote: Just as long as it doesn't hapen during our 8th grade DC field trip....like it did last time.

Ouch.... Did the kids get to see anything ?

[Benton]

(09-23-2015, 07:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Ouch.... Did the kids get to see anything ?

Beaker. Puppet. Show.

[StLucieBengal]

Gov shutdown is great.   I am hoping for one.  

It's just 15% less government .  Dear lord that's nothing.  

People make it out like 85% of the gov is shutting down.  

Fact is we should lose 15% of the current size of government.

If obama wants to close tours of the White house and not let vets see their memorials or close off observation points for Mount Rushmore then that's on him. He could choose 15% that doesn't affect people . But instead he plays politics and directly hurts citizens.

[Belsnickel]

(09-24-2015, 12:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If obama wants to close tours of the White house and not let vets see their memorials or close off observation points for Mount Rushmore then that's on him. He could choose 15% that doesn't affect people . But instead he plays politics and directly hurts citizens.

Or, you know, those are considered to be the non-essential parts that have been, by SOP, the parts that would halt right away in the case of a government shutdown for decades. The folks politicizing it are the ones blaming Obama for a policy he had no hand in making.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-24-2015, 07:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Or, you know, those are considered to be the non-essential parts that have been, by SOP, the parts that would halt right away in the case of a government shutdown for decades. The folks politicizing it are the ones blaming Obama for a policy he had no hand in making.

I don't remember any other president putting up barricades around vet memorials and keeping people from going down a road to an observation deck. These are petty things. Are they non essential? .... Of course. States can run these in their states.

But even you can admit I'm sure that we can stand to lose 15% of the size of government.

The shutdown should become Permanent, return national parks back to the states if obama thinks they are non essential. The Feds can take care of the ones in DC. Or Maryland and Virginia can split the costs.

[Belsnickel]

(09-24-2015, 08:39 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I don't remember any other president putting up barricades around vet memorials and keeping people from going down a road to an observation deck. These are petty things. Are they non essential? .... Of course. States can run these in their states.

But even you can admit I'm sure that we can stand to lose 15% of the size of government.

The shutdown should become Permanent, return national parks back to the states if obama thinks they are non essential. The Feds can take care of the ones in DC. Or Maryland and Virginia can split the costs.

I'm all for reducing the size of the federal government. Also, the only time we've had a government shutdown longer than a long weekend prior to 2013 was the 95-96 shutdown, and I don't know much about that one. My guess is that since it was winter that a lot of those outdoor parks weren't being visited and so not much a fuss was being caused.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-24-2015, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm all for reducing the size of the federal government. Also, the only time we've had a government shutdown longer than a long weekend prior to 2013 was the 95-96 shutdown, and I don't know much about that one. My guess is that since it was winter that a lot of those outdoor parks weren't being visited and so not much a fuss was being caused.

I know your also concerned about the size of the fed gov.  That's why I don't understand the uproar by the media and general public over the shutdown.   It should be the starting point .  If this 15% isnt essential then let them go.     If that means the fed can't manage parks then let the state's  take over that responsibility.    

Personally I would like to see a 25% haircut.   That would put us on the right track.

GOP should shut it down then go to the people and explain why we don't need the 15%. Change the media narrative. No one wants wasted money.