These people were elected to represent the wishes of their respective states, not to screw the country over for the express purpose of making the other party look bad. I don’t think any civilians are asking for a government shutdown. Since they only following their own egos, instead of the Constitution or their constituents, they should be fired if they make the choice to bring everything to a grinding halt.
I think you might be mistaken on why those people were elected. In their minds, the representatives and senators very well may be exercising what they consider to be the good of the entire country. Note that it doesn’t matter if you, I, or anyone else for that matter agrees with them on that.
I don’t think the government should have been shut down.
But do you really believe Congress is required to fund government at the levels requested by the president of the day? That “voting for a government shutdown” (i.e. disagreeing with the president, or the other chamber of Congress, depending on the circumstances) should never be allowed? (Also, why should congressmen be the ones fired? Why shouldn’t the president be fired for causing a government shutdown by not signing the spending bill sent to him by the first branch of government? What if the House and Senate disagree with each other and the president? Which one or two are causing the shutdown?)
I believe it should fund more.
This is fantastically irrelevant.
Then by definition so is this:
But do you really believe Congress is required to fund government at the levels mandated by the president of the day?
But it’s exactly what the OP proposed.
When they talk about “voting for a government shutdown” what they mean is “voting against the spending bill that the president won’t veto.” (Or, in other circumstances, the spending bill the other chamber will approve, or both.) So, if you only vote for a bill that the president has said he will veto, you are “voting for a government shutdown.”
There is no “wanna shut down the government? Yes or no” vote.
Yes but it is still childish too shut down the government just because you don’t get what you want. It is really only an option left open to republicans though because democrats would NEVER shut down the government. That means shutting down SSI checks and food stamps and what not. In other worst, I am saying, both parties can be obstructionist at times but there should be limits to the steps you take. Republicans went way way too far. Perhaps in a different situation democrats may go too far but in terms of this specific action, it is just the republicans acting like spoiled children.
Congress should not be required to fund government at the levels mandated by the President. But Congress should be required to fund government at the levels mandated by Congress. But the drunken idiots we have now in Congress (especially in one particular party in Congress) absolutely love spending, except for when it comes to the part about actually paying money.
That said, however, if congressmembers are to be fired, it must be by the people who hired them in the first place. If some congressmembers refuse to do their jobs, they should be voted out of office. Unfortunately, I’m not confident that this will happen.
Yes they should. Just because you don’t like what happened doesn’t mean you shut down the government. Suppose, theoretically, in 2006 congress/the senate more or less unanimously tell Bush, get out of Iraq completely. Bush declines. Maybe my scenario doesn’t work out, maybe they could shut down the war on their own. My point is, even if the president does something you are fundamentally against, shutting down the government is not the solution.
I can think of a few cases where it might have to be done, if the next president was intent on starting a nuclear war or something. If keeping the government running will literally destroy part of the planet, shut it down until it is resolved. But because you differ over spending? No.
[QUOTE=US Constitution]
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
[/QUOTE]
So there’s that little roadblock to overcome first.
Why does it work that way around? Why shouldn’t it be the president who has to sign anything Congress sends his way?
Frankly that sentence applies to both parties.
Yes, it does apply to both parties: Both parties have an obligation to represent their states, and to not screw over the country. One party is fulfilling that obligation, and the other is not.
This statement is not true.
Well, that certainly settles that!
Let’s be precise here. Senate Democrats just voted to filibuster a bill to fund the government because they oppose the Planned Parenthood rider that was attached. Does the OP propose that Senate Democrats be fired?
As a result of the filibuster, the funding bill is being modified to remove the rider. This clean bill will likely be sent to the House next week, where most Republicans will probably vote against it. Does the OP propose that these Republicans be fired?
You’re not a fan of Constitutional checks and balances, then?
This is Great Debates. Back up the statement (democrats will NEVER shut down the government) or pipe down, please.
or… maybe you could learn to recognize hyperbolic language