Rand Paul: I Don't Want a Government Shutdown, I Just Wanna Shutdown the Government

[GodHatesBengals]

Like the fork-tongued dishonest weasel that he and his father is, Rand "Curly" Paul announced on CNN today that shutting the government down is somehow not an "either-or situation".

In Planet Curly, Congress can avoid shutting down the government by stopping all spending, taking a bunch of time to discuss each and every government program, and then forcing a Congressional supermajority to approve of renewing any government programs, one at a time.

Thinking people presumably wondered how Curly's plan is any different from shutting down the government, but undeterred, Curly assured cynics that as long as he manipulated his words carefully enough, his plan to shut down the government would not technically be "shutting down the government".

Quote:Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer whether he preferred a continuing resolution to shutting down the government, Paul said that he didn't think it was an "either-or situation."

"We should no longer continue to spend money at the same rate we are spending money, so yes, we should let all spending expire and then we should renew those programs that are working," Paul said."It should require a supermajority to get the new programs started."

That would mean shutting down the government and then getting 60 votes in the Senate to fund each individual government program.

[...]

"I'm not advocating a shutdown, but I am advocating that all the spending expire, that we have a serious discussion of every program to see what's working, what isn't working, what is wasteful and what is duplicative," he said.

[Belsnickel]

Yeah, that will work. When was the last time a budget passed through Congress? And Paul thinks its feasible for them to not only go through it all like that, but with a supermajority?

Seems he is not much of a realist.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-29-2015, 08:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Seems he is not much of a realist.

Well, he certainly lives somewhere outside the borders of reality, that's for sure.

Maybe we can get Trump to make him pay for a wall so he stays over there.

[StLucieBengal]

That's not shutting the gov down. They can put up the spending bills and vote.


Just letting them expire. Whether you like spending or not Continuing resolutions are not a productive way forward.

And as a side note i have never supported the 60 vote. Simple majority on all bills is what it should be. .

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-29-2015, 08:33 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That's not shutting the gov down.   They can put up the spending bills and vote.  


Just letting them expire.  Whether you like spending or not Continuing resolutions are not a productive way forward.    

And as a side note i have never supported the 60 vote.   Simple majority on all bills is what it should be.   .

Right. So you're not "shutting it down". You're just "allowing it to shut its self when your hand is on the door".

Damn, I should write Curly's talking points.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-29-2015, 08:36 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Right. So you're not "shutting it down". You're just "allowing it to shut its self when your hand is on the door".

Damn, I should write Curly's talking points.

I am in favor of shutting it all down. So your talking to wrong person on that point.

The issue of continuing resolution is a serious matter. That's been abused. These spending budgets reflect the electorate when obama got elected. +20% each year. This is a different electorate now and the budget should reflect.

[crispy]

(09-29-2015, 08:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, that will work. When was the last time a budget passed through Congress? And Paul thinks its feasible for them to not only go through it all like that, but with a supermajority?

Seems he is not much of a realist.

Realist? No.
Idealist? Sure.

I understand what he wants and it's not a bad idea.  But going about it this way would be a disaster.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-29-2015, 09:41 PM)crispy Wrote: Realist? No.
Idealist? Sure.

I understand what he wants and it's not a bad idea.  But going about it this way would be a disaster.

It isn't? Explain.

[crispy]

(09-29-2015, 10:08 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It isn't? Explain.

If I read it right (I didn't read the article just what you posted), he wants the government to re-evaluate where it is spending money.  Wants to stop the frivolous spending.  How is this a bad thing?

[fredtoast]

(09-29-2015, 10:34 PM)crispy Wrote: If I read it right (I didn't read the article just what you posted), he wants the government to re-evaluate where it is spending money.  Wants to stop the frivolous spending.  How is this a bad thing?

He wants to do this after the program has shut down.  That could lead to many problems.  For example what if we completely shut down a government office and then after months of "debate" decided that it was a vital program that should have never been shut down.  Or what if after months of "debate" there is still no agreement?

Do you realize how long it has been since congress has agreed on any budget proposal?  His plan is impossible.

[crispy]

(09-29-2015, 11:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He wants to do this after the program has shut down.  That could lead to many problems.  For example what if we completely shut down a government office and then after months of "debate" decided that it was a vital program that should have never been shut down.  Or what if after months of "debate" there is still no agreement?

Do you realize how long it has been since congress has agreed on any budget proposal?  His plan is impossible.

Which is why I said going about it this way would be a disaster.....

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 08:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am in favor of shutting it all down.

What is it about anarchy you prefer to our government?

[StLucieBengal]

(09-30-2015, 01:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What is it about anarchy you prefer to our government?

I just want to have a vote on how we spend money. In all phases. Simple majority. And I want this to happen every time. I'm ok with any spending voted on and passed. No continuing resolutions, I may not agree on all spending. But there should be a vote on everything.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-29-2015, 11:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He wants to do this after the program has shut down.  That could lead to many problems.  For example what if we completely shut down a government office and then after months of "debate" decided that it was a vital program that should have never been shut down.  Or what if after months of "debate" there is still no agreement?

Do you realize how long it has been since congress has agreed on any budget proposal?  His plan is impossible.

Which is why these votes should be simple majority.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-30-2015, 01:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I just want to have a vote on how we spend money.   In all phases.   Simple majority.    And I want this to happen every time.   I'm ok with any spending voted on and passed.   No continuing resolutions, I may not agree on all spending.   But there should be a vote on everything.

What prevented the govt shut downs in the past?

[Benton]

Paul was pretty well out when the Donald announced. He was the extremist among the group, but the extra attention that person gets shifted to Trump. Which means he won't pull enough true conservatives or enough far right voters to get a nod.