Government Shutdown

[*pally*]

(09-21-2023, 10:50 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Obviously they will never be our friends. But, if we stopped the funding to Ukraine, A) we save money B) we don’t give Russia and China any more unnecessary reason to be bigger butt buddies than they are C) fewer people die. Just imagine for a second that anyone other than Trump supports ending funding to Ukraine, so that you aren’t automatically programmed to hate the idea. I think you’ll acknowledge that it may be a good idea. 

Where then do we draw the line? Your naive if you think Putin will stop with Ukraine. Which sovereign democracy is worth supporting? Or are you proposing we hand him back the entire old Soviet block because rebuilding the USSR is his goal

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Dill]

(09-21-2023, 10:50 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Obviously they will never be our friends. But, if we stopped the funding to Ukraine, A) we save money B) we don’t give Russia and China any more unnecessary reason to be bigger butt buddies than they are C) fewer people die. Just imagine for a second that anyone other than Trump supports ending funding to Ukraine, so that you aren’t automatically programmed to hate the idea. I think you’ll acknowledge that it may be a good idea. 

A. I've already granted we would "save money" over the short term. 
    But I don't want to sacrifice principle and geopolitical position to save that money.

B. If the U.S. and Europe cede geopolitical space to Putin and Xi, why should that message to the world bring "peace in our time"?    

C. Fewer Americans would have died in WWII if we'd just ceded the Pacific to Japan. Short term, anyway.
    And they might not have attacked Pearl Harbor. In the short term.
    At the time, millions of America Firsters were of a mind we shouldn't piss off Hitler, either.

   I'm puzzled you think ignoring authoritarian aggression in Europe is a way to STOP people from dying,
   and that my only possible motivation for opposing that could be Trump hate.

   But as I said in another post, you and I are judging politics/policy by different metrics.

   So we should be talking about those metrics, maybe, evaluating them. They're what we'll be voting on in 2024.
    

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2023, 11:02 AM)pally Wrote: The optics will be bad for the Republicans.  Sep 28 rhey are holding an "impeachment " inquiry hearing and 2 days later they shut down the government because they can't even get a workable deal to the floor for a vote.
Are they grandstanding or governing?  

This flashes back to their campaign to repeal and replace the ACA. After years of promising, they had no bill ready to go. And thus the ACA lives on.

This simply drives home the fact that the current crop of Republicans can't or won't actually govern. Not a good picture heading into an election year

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

The insanely simplistic thinking from the left leaning posters in this thread is honestly mind boggling.  If a small group of GOP Rep's are holding up the budget then an equally small number of moderate Dems could step in and fill the gap, thus passing a budget.  So, no, this isn't the GOP shutting down the government, it's both parties shutting down the government.  Or are the Dems in the House just there to fill seats and whine on Twitter?

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-21-2023, 11:23 AM)Dill Wrote: A. I've already granted we would "save money" over the short term. 
    But I don't want to sacrifice principle and geopolitical position to save that money.

B. If the U.S. and Europe cede geopolitical space to Putin and Xi, why should that message to the world bring "peace in our time"?    

C. Fewer Americans would have died in WWII if we'd just ceded the Pacific to Japan. Short term, anyway.
    And they might not have attacked Pearl Harbor. In the short term.
    At the time, millions of America Firsters were of a mind we shouldn't piss off Hitler, either.

   I'm puzzled you think ignoring authoritarian aggression in Europe is a way to STOP people from dying,
   and that my only possible motivation for opposing that could be Trump hate.

   But as I said in another post, you and I are judging politics/policy by different metrics.

   So we should be talking about those metrics, maybe, evaluating them. They're what we'll be voting on in 2024.
    

Most of that is fair. Edit: some of that is fair.

A) What principle? Are you looking at us defending one of the most corrupt countries on earth as a humanitarian measure? Outside of agricultural imports and the occasional successful startup tech company, Ukraine is a corrupt country that contributes very little to the world. 

B) Geopolitical space: I don’t know your stance on energy. But the current administration is shooting itself in the foot by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Ceding Ukraine won’t have near the impact, the only thing the Ukraine war does for this is provide a very expensive excuse to put sanctions on Russia to make it more difficult for them to export oil. Less energy independence weakens us geopolitically as we will have less and less influence on global oil markets and reduced ability to defend our allies if we were to depend more than we should on foreign oil imports. We’re still a net exporter but not like we used to be. It’s really not that complicated. Oil. It’s not going anywhere. Unless we switch to nuclear, which we won’t, dependence on oil will outlive every member of this board. We have it. We must use it. The US and Russia are in constant competition over production, exports and market share. We’re throwing Russia a very large bone in the geopolitical space by choosing not to dominate them. 

C) Ceding Ukraine to Russia is different from ceding a NATO ally to Russia. Ceding Ukraine is different from ceding the Pacific to Japan and ignoring an attack on US soil. It’s not our war. We do not have the military might that we used to have. We do not have the money that we used to have. We can’t just put Russia and China in their places anymore. They’ve become too powerful. 

[*pally*]

(09-21-2023, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The insanely simplistic thinking from the left leaning posters in this thread is honestly mind boggling.  If a small group of GOP Rep's are holding up the budget then an equally small number of moderate Dems could step in and fill the gap, thus passing a budget.  So, no, this isn't the GOP shutting down the government, it's both parties shutting down the government.  Or are the Dems in the House just there to fill seats and whine on Twitter?

Republicans want draconian cuts to every department but the DOD, the most wasteful one of all.
Democrats aren't going to sign onto that. If Republicans need or want Democratic support they need to present a budget in line with the deal agreed to with the debt ceiling increase.
McCarthy wants to protect his leadership at the expense of the American people

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Dill]

(09-21-2023, 12:22 PM)pally Wrote: Republicans want draconian cuts to every department  but the DOD, the most wasteful one of all.  
Democrats aren't going to sign onto that.  If Republicans need or want Democratic support they need to present a budget in line with the deal agreed to with the debt ceiling increase.  
McCarthy wants to protect his leadership at the expense of the American people

This is so simplistic, Pally. The deadlock would be over today were the Dems to give Trump what he wants.

Then the House could get back to doing the people's business--prosecuting the Biden Crime Family.

Clearly "both sides" are at fault here.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-led-longest-government-shutdown-141158834.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALjqsNQgh2ELDjnQGczAbVgLiDzYYoi2AXyBE5wnEbUi0utl3VwIqoyF2bAY50oBJrhc9UimsMu_95KMG-GpugorhduJa0n391rRiqMokxOEGI5PMn1Q5BGx9FNyAMyl0LNkooCMrHs-8H_fMR_Ucfgi7abGiiDSeiDwqcuAp3Dt

[GMDino]

(09-21-2023, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The insanely simplistic thinking from the left leaning posters in this thread is honestly mind boggling.  If a small group of GOP Rep's are holding up the budget then an equally small number of moderate Dems could step in and fill the gap, thus passing a budget.  So, no, this isn't the GOP shutting down the government, it's both parties shutting down the government.  Or are the Dems in the House just there to fill seats and whine on Twitter?

From what I skimmed last night, and I have not delved too deeply unfortunately, it seem the group is about 116 members?

FIVE members blocked bringing one deal to a vote, along with Democrats....though I did read somewhere that two may have changed their minds now on a slightly different proposal.

Democrats are not going to ever agree to billions in cuts to social services, including Social Security which has little to nothing to do with the debt, and no cuts to anything else.  That's not negotiating in good faith at all.

Nonetheless this is a GOP problem when McCarthy is cancelling votes because he doesn't have the votes.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-21-2023, 10:35 AM)Dill Wrote: We do have a way to reduce the debt--increase taxes on the upper quintile.

And how much *supposedly will we get by doing that? 

How many years of that will it take when the interest alone is 6-700B annually?

[Dill]

(09-21-2023, 12:16 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: A) What principle? Are you looking at us defending one of the most corrupt countries on earth as a humanitarian measure? Outside of agricultural imports and the occasional successful startup tech company, Ukraine is a corrupt country that contributes very little to the world. 

B) Geopolitical space: I don’t know your stance on energy. But the current administration is shooting itself in the foot by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Ceding Ukraine won’t have near the impact, the only thing the Ukraine war does for this is provide a very expensive excuse to put sanctions on Russia to make it more difficult for them to export oil. Less energy independence weakens us geopolitically as we will have less and less influence on global oil markets and reduced ability to defend our allies if we were to depend more than we should on foreign oil imports. We’re still a net exporter but not like we used to be. It’s really not that complicated. Oil. It’s not going anywhere. Unless we switch to nuclear, which we won’t, dependence on oil will outlive every member of this board. We have it. We must use it. The US and Russia are in constant competition over production, exports and market share. We’re throwing Russia a very large bone in the geopolitical space by choosing not to dominate them. 

C) Ceding Ukraine to Russia is different from ceding a NATO ally to Russia. Ceding Ukraine is different from ceding the Pacific to Japan and ignoring an attack on US soil. It’s not our war. We do not have the military might that we used to have. We do not have the money that we used to have. We can’t just put Russia and China in their places anymore. They’ve become too powerful. 

Excellent, substantive response. Hits all the crucial questions/issues. Regarding A:

For starters, the invasion is a violation of the UN Charter 2(4) which upholds the integrity of sovereign states and advances their security against armed aggression. Think of this in local community rather than international terms. If some gang invades a family's house and robs and kills some members to take possession of it, should the police ignore that if the family has a reputation for "corruption" and/or doesn't contribute much to the community? If you think not, then you are standing on several principles, among them equality before the law, and the notion that selective enforcement weakens the legitimacy and effectiveness of law overall. That's true of the international community as well.

Ukraine's agricultural imports are vital to a number of developing countries, especially in the Middle East, Africa, and Indonesia. They are vital to global food security, and so to political stability, and so to the free flow of trade through, near, and around these regions. They are also one of the primary contributors to UN relief. Impending famine in the Sahel and South Sudan when the flow of Ukrainian grain is disrupted. It's not just about oil.
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000137463/download/?_ga=2.58383210.1137841221.1695311452-324417549.1695311450

As far as corruption--the biggest driver of that corruption is their connection to Russia. That's why they ousted Yanukovych, and why Russia then seized the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. The US should be supporting that effort, tied as it is to democracy, not abandoning it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2023, 12:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: From what I skimmed last night, and I have not delved too deeply unfortunately, it seem the group is about 116 members?

FIVE members blocked bringing one deal to a vote, along with Democrats....though I did read somewhere that two may have changed their minds now on a slightly different proposal.

Democrats are not going to ever agree to billions in cuts to social services, including Social Security which has little to nothing to do with the debt, and no cuts to anything else.  That's not negotiating in good faith at all.

Nonetheless this is a GOP problem when McCarthy is cancelling votes because he doesn't have the votes.  

I'm not seeing where you're getting the 116 members.  Your source cites "more than a dozen" GOP'ers voting against the continued resolution.  You are correct that it's solely a GOP issue if it's not even brought to a vote, but it would be brought to a vote if it could pass, which again involves the Dems.  If we're all being honest the Dems are using this potential crises as a political football.  Hence they're playing games with our country just as much as anyone else.

As for the GOP, I actually have zero issue with an entire party not being in lockstep.  The Dems view them all being entirely on the same page as some sort of badge of honor.  It's not.  What is important to a Dem district in Alabama or Texas is not the same as a Dem district in NYC.  

[Dill]

(09-21-2023, 12:16 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: B) Geopolitical space: I don’t know your stance on energy. But the current administration is shooting itself in the foot by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Ceding Ukraine won’t have near the impact, the only thing the Ukraine war does for this is provide a very expensive excuse to put sanctions on Russia to make it more difficult for them to export oil. Less energy independence weakens us geopolitically as we will have less and less influence on global oil markets and reduced ability to defend our allies if we were to depend more than we should on foreign oil imports. We’re still a net exporter but not like we used to be. It’s really not that complicated. Oil. It’s not going anywhere. Unless we switch to nuclear, which we won’t, dependence on oil will outlive every member of this board. We have it. We must use it. The US and Russia are in constant competition over production, exports and market share. We’re throwing Russia a very large bone in the geopolitical space by choosing not to dominate them. 

C) Ceding Ukraine to Russia is different from ceding a NATO ally to Russia. Ceding Ukraine is different from ceding the Pacific to Japan and ignoring an attack on US soil. It’s not our war. We do not have the military might that we used to have. We do not have the money that we used to have. We can’t just put Russia and China in their places anymore. They’ve become too powerful. 

To B and C

You are again placing profits over principle. And I think it is in part because we measure US power differently; because of that, we have different ideas of what constitutes US power and what maintains or weakens it.

A great part of US "power" is a consequence, not simply of how many aircraft carriers we have, but of our alliances and treaties. The most important ones--with Europe. Japan, Australia and NZ--we maintain by defining and working towards COMMON interests, not just what's good for the U.S. at this moment. People are willing to partner with us, to the point of fighting alongside us, to the degree that we stand for the well being and rights of others as well as our own, i.e., to the point that we, with them, want to secure ends like global trade and international order based on rule of law and human rights.

Japan and our European allies, and many others, don't have the oil resources we do, and so want a peaceful and structured international order which allows them to barter for it without coercion. That makes it important NOT to look the other way when national sovereignty is violated by aggressor nations, and especially when disruption of hydrocarbon resources is leveraged into the aggression. All the more important when the victims of aggression are countries that "don't contribute much," because in those cases it is most clearly about principle.

C) Certainly ceding Ukraine to Russia is different from ceding a NATO ally, whom we are treaty-bound to defend, to Russia. But
I don't see how it is different from ceding the Pacific to the Japanese in 1941, especially if the argument back then were that Singapore is corrupt and the Pacific Islands don't contribute much to the world. We leave a vacuum filled by an aggressor, strengthening him and weakening our allies, who must then negotiate their security with the aggressor, on the aggressor's terms, strengthening him and weakening us.

Trump's already ceded massive diplomatic space to China by pulling out of the Iran Deal and the TPP; that hasn't "saved us money." Rather it has cost us and our diplomatic/trading partners, and sent shock waves through our allies and encouraged Russia and China to step into the vacuum.

[Dill]

(09-21-2023, 12:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And how much *supposedly will we get by doing that? 

How many years of that will it take when the interest alone is 6-700B annually?

It's a start, right?

Think of how much the debt rose after the Trump tax cuts.

[Dill]

(09-21-2023, 12:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: From what I skimmed last night, and I have not delved too deeply unfortunately, it seem the group is about 116 members?

FIVE members blocked bringing one deal to a vote, along with Democrats....though I did read somewhere that two may have changed their minds now on a slightly different proposal.

Democrats are not going to ever agree to billions in cuts to social services, including Social Security which has little to nothing to do with the debt, and no cuts to anything else.  That's not negotiating in good faith at all.

Nonetheless this is a GOP problem when McCarthy is cancelling votes because he doesn't have the votes.  

Most voters can see the easy solution:

Democrats give in to the cuts wanted by Trump and a House MAGA clique.

But how many will really see Dem backbone as "both sidesism" in this case?

As in "both sides" put the country at risk every time one side runs us up to a shutdown and refuses to compromise.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-21-2023, 11:05 AM)pally Wrote: Where then do we draw the line?  Your naive if you think Putin will stop with Ukraine.  Which sovereign democracy is worth supporting?  Or are you proposing we hand him back the entire old Soviet block because rebuilding the USSR is his goal

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

There’s a big gap between “supporting sovereign democracy” and “giving him back the entire old Soviet block.” 

Ukraine is HARDLY a “sovereign democracy” by our Western standards. At best, it’s a fragile democracy that can EASILY be undermined by outside forces, but more realistically, it’s just a corrupt government run by oligarchs with a weak judiciary. Let Russia have them and pull out the big guns (if we haven’t already exhausted too many on Ukraine) when they attack someone who actually matters to us. 

If Trump were doing this, no one would be in favor of it. They’d be calling him a war monger and probably accusing him of money laundering through Ukraine. This proxy war is silly. There is no up side.

[*pally*]

(09-21-2023, 02:48 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: There’s a big gap between “supporting sovereign democracy” and “giving him back the entire old Soviet block.” 

Ukraine is HARDLY a “sovereign democracy” by our Western standards. At best, it’s a fragile democracy that can EASILY be undermined by outside forces, but more realistically, it’s just a corrupt government run by oligarchs with a weak judiciary. Let Russia have them and pull out the big guns (if we haven’t already exhausted too many on Ukraine) when they attack someone who actually matters to us. 

If Trump were doing this, no one would be in favor of it. They’d be calling him a war monger and probably accusing him of money laundering through Ukraine. This proxy war is silly. There is no up side.

so where do you draw the line?  Which country is 1 too far since you've already conceded him Ukraine?

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-21-2023, 03:01 PM)pally Wrote: so where do you draw the line?  Which country is 1 too far since you've already conceded him Ukraine?

Our allies. NATO. Actual democracies as opposed to corrupt oligarchies masquerading as democracies. I’m all for fighting to the death to protect NATO countries against Russia. In the meantime, put as many sanctions on Russian oil exports as we can get away with, use that as our humanitarian measure that helps us and our allies while punishing war hungry authoritarianism. And stay out of the war. We have the potential to have so much more leverage than we already do over the Russian oil industry. Make them pay for being war mongers. And again, stay out of the damn war.

[basballguy]

some of the logic in this thread is a little mind blowing.

The vote goes 212-216 but that handful of republicans are the ones trying to cause a shutdown...not the 200 democrats that also voted against it.

SMH

[GMDino]

(09-21-2023, 03:27 PM)basballguy Wrote: some of the logic in this thread is a little mind blowing.  

The vote goes 212-216 but that handful of republicans are the ones trying to cause a shutdown...not the 200 democrats that also voted against it.  

SMH

I acknowledged that the bill would never get a Democratic vote.  It called for slashing spending on Social Security and Medicare.  No one should have voted for it TBH.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2023, 03:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I acknowledged that the bill would never get a Democratic vote.  It called for slashing spending on Social Security and Medicare.  No one should have voted for it TBH.

If the budget is as bad as you claim in this regard then it won't get past the senate.  Whose fault will it be then?

[*pally*]

(09-21-2023, 03:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If the budget is as bad as you claim in this regard then it won't get past the senate.  Whose fault will it be then?

still Republican...its the House's job to pass a bill that the Senate will confirm not one that will force their extremist views on everyone.

The House has adjourned until next week.  Man are they working hard trying to get the budget funded