Impending Shutdown of DHS

[Andara Bledin]

Didn't Democrats do similar things, and then claim Republicans were being "obstructionists" when the bills either didn't pass or Boener wouldn't put them up for a vote?

This is nothing but a distraction. Democrats sometimes do similar things. Republicans have done so constantly for the past 6 years. It's like they're trying to set a record for least effective Congress for two separate decades in a row.

And in a lot of cases, I think, Congress will then go from "I'm going to do what I think will get me re-elected" to "I'm going to do what I think is the right thing to do."

All that will happen is it will go from "get re-elected" to "get a cushy lobbying job." Their own short-sighted idea of their best interests will be served regardless of what their long-term plans might be.

[s_stabeler]

most basically, while Democrats have indeed forced shutdowns in the past, that was due to fiscal reasons. ( aka, they disagreed with an item in the spending bill in question.) The republicans are suing spending bills to re-fight issues they've already lost. (I have no real issue with the republicans bringing repeal bills to Congress- if you think a piece of legislation is unfair, feel free to try to repeal it. What I have a problem with is when political issues are tied to fiscal ones- or in other words, don't hold the country to ransom because you want your political ideas instituted. You fiscal ideas, fine. Though honestly, i think filibustering should be illegal on supply bills. ( aka, if a bill is to keep the government running, make it simple-majority for cloture.)

[mjr]

This is nothing but a distraction. Democrats sometimes do similar things.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, or so I'm told. I'm not saying it makes it right. I'm just saying it makes it harder for someone to point a finger at one side and say, "I'm mad that they're doing it!" when your side is doing it, too.

That's like the old one "But officer, why did you pull ME over? Everyone else was speeding, too!"

All that will happen is it will go from "get re-elected" to "get a cushy lobbying job." Their own short-sighted idea of their best interests will be served regardless of what their long-term plans might be.

This is why there also needs to be lobbying reform.

It was done as a comedy routine, but I think the late Robin Williams (and I think others did the same or a similar bit) was onto something when he suggested Congress dress like a race car driver. They could have "sponsorships" (i.e. donors and lobbying money) on their suits.

I would be for lobbying reform. Congress SHOULD be under a microscope. If a Congressperson or Senator gets "comped" a cruise, don't you feel it's your right to know about it? Especially if it may affect a policy that affects you?

EVERY lobbying dollar/perk/expense should be noted. As well as who it came from, who it was for, and what it was.

But that's just my opinion. Your's may differ.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm just saying it makes it harder for someone to point a finger at one side and say, "I'm mad that they're doing it!" when your side is doing it, too.

Didn't we cover why "Both sides are bad" doesn't work as an argument any more in another thread? Both sides do routinely go back and forth inserting things into bills, typically as a means of negotiation between opposing positions. As a tit for tat thing. I'll give you x if you give us y.

However, only the Republicans stated from the moment Obama was elected that they would oppose everything he did and have been doing so ever since. To the complete detriment of the country. As Andara mentioned, they do this to grand stand on issues they already lost. Not to actually accomplish anything. Its just political theatre for their mouth breathing base.

There have been funding shut down showoffs in the past under both Republican and Dem presidents ( With the most being on Reagan's watch and typically over defence spending ). But these were usually over hotly debated and actually important topics.

Under Obama, the GOP pulled a funding shut down stand off and near destroyed the US economy again to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act for the umpteenth time. Now they're doing the same thing again but with Obama's immigration reform. Though they've smartened up somewhat and are only holding the DHS hostage instead of the entire country.

There's no precedent for the level of obstructionist fuckery the GOP has lowered itself too under Obama. Nor the rhetoric that's so deranged and divorced from reality they've basically become a caricature of themselves.

Even with a GOP controlled house they still can't govern let alone behave like adults.

[mjr]

Though they've smartened up somewhat and are only holding the DHS hostage instead of the entire country.

Unfortunately, in Congress, and it seems for the past few Presidents, the word "compromise" means "give me what I want, or you're an obstructionist". You and I both know this.

It's like that scene in the Big Bang Theory when Sheldon and Barry both want the same office.

Sheldon's version of compromise is "I'll take the office, and you'll find a way to be OK with it."

The problem with "fixing" the immigration issue in the U.S. is that nobody really wants to fix it. If you think they do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Here's a great example. You know that girl that the President was supposed to have at the State of the Union who would benefit from the DREAM act? She was here illegally, and NOBODY thought to ask her (since, at the time, she was, or would soon be a legal adult) if she had taken the Citizenship test, or if she was planning to.

The SIMPLE solution there is to do away with the DREAM act, and put a simple policy in place: You want college, especially with "in state" tuition? Become a citizen FIRST.

Wanna fix immigration? HEAVY fines for those who hire "undocumented" workers. Implement eVerify across the board. Demand dries up.

But the immigration issue seems to be one that the President WON'T compromise on. Isn't that part of the problem?

[mjr]

Though honestly, i think filibustering should be illegal on supply bills. ( aka, if a bill is to keep the government running, make it simple-majority for cloture.)

Not a bad thought. But I don't think there should be "riders" for funding bills, either.

That said, if you're talking filibusters, I think it needs to be "old school" style. You have to stay on the floor the whole time, and you have to keep talking the whole time.

Take the "easy" out of filibustering, and see how often it happens.

[s_stabeler]

That's another thing- since WHEN did they make filibustering merely a matter of saying "i'm filibustering this bill" and then it magically needs a supermajority to pass? Filibustering SHOULD be difficult. It's meant to be an extreme technique, to show someone's dedication to opposing a bill. It's not meant to be a way for a minority to be a pain in the ass to a majority. (and when it was the budget issue last year, it WAS a minority holding up the thing)

Also annoying as fuck is when they promptly say "well, if Obama had given into our demands, the budget would have passed, so it's his fault your family aren't getting paid"- I'm sorry, but that is the logic of bullies. " It wouldn't have happened if they'd agree to our demands, despite the fact that they have been voted on umpteen million times already"

edit- I should make ti clear that if a party was honest, and said "We know this is hard for you, but we ask that you put up with it, because the result if what we want doesn't ahppen will be X, which si worse" then I'd actually have more respect for them. But when they try to pass the blame for their childish antics...

[mjr]

That's another thing- since WHEN did they make filibustering merely a matter of saying "i'm filibustering this bill" and then it magically needs a supermajority to pass? Filibustering SHOULD be difficult.

Remember, the House and the Senate basically get to make their own rules, I think. And neither wants to acquiesce, and make the rules harder.

Texas has somewhat of an "old school" filibuster style, I believe. I think it was in effect their last legislative session. I think they tried to use it against Wendy Davis. She had to stand up and talk for 13 hours straight, if I recall correctly. She couldn't eat, sit down, or lean on the desk, or the others could call for an immediate vote.

" It wouldn't have happened if they'd agree to our demands, despite the fact that they have been voted on umpteen million times already"

Again, something both sides do.

Democrats: "We'll vote NO because the Republicans won't take the immigration stuff out of the DHS funding bill! If they'd just give us what we want, that wouldn't happen!"

Republicans: "We're not taking the immigration stuff out of the bill. If you'd just vote YES on it, and give us what we want, then the DHS will get funded."

But when they try to pass the blame for their childish antics...

Exactly what it is...from both sides of the aisle.

[s_stabeler]

except for the difference is, the Republicans deliberately inserted a poison pill- either the Democrats ditch their immigration reform, or the DHS loses it's funding, and the Republicans WILL say "Obama supports Terrorists! Look, he sacrificed funding for anti-terror efforts!"- immigration reform that (presumably) has already been voted upon, and passed. If the republicans get their way, then a precedent is set that anything and everything is acceptable in order to get your way. How long would it be until the Republicans ( for example) demanded a bill banning abortion in exchange for passing the Budget? ( it's the same principle- that a fiscal bill can be held hostage for a political reason, rather than a fiscal one)

The Democrats? just want a simple, clean fiscal bill- going by the principle that you don't screw with the ability for the government to pay the bills for political reasons.

AM I saying the democrats never filibuster? no. However, everywhere else in the world there is a convention that fiscal bills aren't subject to political shenanigans. ( it's actually illegal for the House of Lords in the UK to reject a fiscal bill- they can only delay it) THAT is the problem here.

[Gravekeeper]

Democrats: "We'll vote NO because the Republicans won't take the immigration stuff out of the DHS funding bill! If they'd just give us what we want, that wouldn't happen!"

Republicans: "We're not taking the immigration stuff out of the bill. If you'd just vote YES on it, and give us what we want, then the DHS will get funded."

You can't seriously be equating these two? That's not even logical. Disagreeing with someone doing something Bad(tm) isn't doing something equally Bad(tm) yourself. You're in full false equivalence territory or you don't know the full details of what's going on.

This is all political theatre by the GOP. They had no intention of really passing the bill with the riders they inserted about immigration. They know full well that even if it did manage to get to Obama's desk he would veto it. Because he already told them up front he would veto any bullshit they tried to pull over immigration.

The entire thing the GOP is "objecting" too is Obama taking executive action on immigration reform. Something he did because the GOP refused to put forward any immigration plan of their own for years. Until he warned them that if they didn't get their shit together and address the issue he would do it himself.

They of course did not get their shit together because that's the entire game plan the GOP flat out stated from day one of Obama's presidency. They refuse to govern so that they can then try and lay the blame for the resulting mess at Obama's feet. They refused to do anything about immigration themselves for years despite Obama's urging until he used executive action. Which is what they wanted so they could then go through the same childish song and dance routine yet again trying to blame Obama for their own inability or unwillingness to govern.

The GOP created this situation so they could yell at it and pretend they were the victims standing up to Big Bad Obama. The same way they did over the government shut down fiasco a little while back. When they near destroyed your economy, yet again, and got your credit rating downgraded. While the rest of the world watched in horror and embarrassment at the way they were conducting themselves. Worried that the global economy would get tanked again because some fucking idiots that are suppose to run your country can't grow the fuck up and act like adults.

So stop with this both sides are bad bullshit. They are *not* equal in this fuckery off that is US politics. They haven't been equal in years. Nor does the damage the GOP does just affect your country.

Even other Republicans know this is crazy and are now sort of watching in disbelief that there's this "Freedom Caucus" of 52 Tea Party Republicans that are still clinging too. The GOP's bluff was called and they're trying to find the least embarrassing way to extract themselves from the mess they created. Only to find these have this one group of even bigger idiots that genuinely drank the Koolaid.

The GOP told you up front they were going to do everything they could to ruin Obama's presidency. They obstruct everything, they try to repeal anything that does get through and even when they don't get their way they push ways to sabotage things they don't like. They lost on the Affordable Health Care Act, both politically and in the arena of public opinion. They can't repeal it so instead they try to defund it. It's their entire MO to sabotage any politician decision they don't agree with even if they lost that decision through the legitimate mechanisms of government.

And that, is the entire problem and the thing I do not understand about the US. Democracy means accepting the will of the people even if you do not agree with it. Not actively working to sabotage the will of the people if they don't agree with you.

A democracy does not function if those on the "losing" side of a discussion cannot accept the outcome of the system they agreed to be part of.

[Greenday]

immigration reform that (presumably) has already been voted upon, and passed.

Pretty sure it was an Executive Order, not a law voted on.

[AccountingDrone]

Texas has somewhat of an "old school" filibuster style, I believe. I think it was in effect their last legislative session. I think they tried to use it against Wendy Davis. She had to stand up and talk for 13 hours straight, if I recall correctly. She couldn't eat, sit down, or lean on the desk, or the others could call for an immediate vote.

*snicker* then I would be perfect, can't make me stand and my wheelchair is comfy =) and I have no major objection to being cathed and hiding a pee bag under my clothing. And if you can not eat from dinner to breakfast, you can manage a 13 hour fast. [in general, most people do not actually time their meals to be exactly 8 hours apart ...]

[mjr]

and I have no major objection to being cathed and hiding a pee bag under my clothing. And if you can not eat from dinner to breakfast, you can manage a 13 hour fast.

I think she did something very similar to that. I don't recall all the details, but people were more interested in the pink sneakers she was wearing.

But it wouldn't surprise me.

But yeah, old-school filibusters need to be brought back.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, at least make the fuckers work for it.

Pretty sure it was an Executive Order, not a law voted on.

Correct. The House and Senate have been picking their ass about immigration reform for years. Hell, for pretty much Obama's entire presidency and half of Bush's before him. The stupidest part is Reagan and Bush Sr did the exact same thing with executive action but of course its not a problem when they do it. Hell, not many people outside of the GOP even have a problem with it when Obama does it. Considering public opinion in favour of immigration reform sits at 76% and is high across all party/religious/race lines.

It still polls like Obamacare though. Tell Republicans about it and they like it, tell them its Obama's and they dislike it:

When there is no mention of Obama, two-thirds (67 percent) of Republicans favor allowing illegal immigrants who are parents of those with legal status to avoid deportation if they meet certain requirements. But when Obama is linked to the policy, support among Republicans drops 16 points to 51 percent. Support among independents also falls 13 points when Obama is linked to the policy, from 77 percent to 64 percent. Among Democrats, there is no statistically significant effect in support.

The “Obama Effect” is even more pronounced in attitudes about the DREAM Act. When Obama is not identified with the policy, six in ten (60 percent) Republicans favor allowing illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to gain legal resident status if they attend college or join the military. Once Obama is identified with the policy, Republican attitudes invert: Support plummets 23 points to only 37 percent, while opposition rises to nearly 6-in-10 (58 percent).

We get it he's black, etc. -.-

[Greenday]

We get it he's black, etc. -.-

You do realize people dislike Obama for more reasons than he's black. And the people who dislike Obama for being black are probably the people who already said they don't like immigrants.