So, like the prophets predicting the end of the world will arrive on a certain date, you are maintaining you are still correct on your prediction, but just off on the date a little bit, therefore adaher is still wrong. Am I getting this right?
He’s right on the result, wrong on the reasoning, even if a basic fact hadn’t surprisingly changed. What’s the problem, other than you looking for a Gotcha?
No, he’s right on the reasoning. Boehner is/was determined to avoid a shutdown. The majority of Senate Republicans are also determined to avoid a shutdown.
You should give him credit for being correct.
The way I read this post, he’s not just talking about October 1, 2015.
First of all, neither the OP nor the Daily Kos post that the OP linked to mentioned that date in so many words.
Second, the notion that they’d want to avoid a shutdown “after losing the political battle around two in a row” is an assessment of GOP sentiment that hardly comes and goes this week. If it’s true, it’s almost certainly going to be true in December, and if it’s false then, it was probably false now as well.
So I’m gonna say that if we have a December shutdown that actually lasts into the following week (the government is funded through the end of Friday, December 11 if the House passes the Senate bill), adaher is at most partly correct, and I think that’s being generous. If we have a long shutdown in December, then I’d have to say he totally misgauged the mood of the GOP caucus in a way that gave us something very different from “no shutdown.”
That has always been the case. But it’s happened multiple times anyway, hasn’t it?
Nothing has changed, or will change significantly with McCarthy, to make it less likely, no matter who is determined to do or not do what. The only thing left unclear is how far the can gets kicked. Right now that’s December 11.
What are you talking about? Most Senate Republicans voted for the shutdown in 2013, and Boehner specifically refused a lot of pressure to hold an early vote to end the shutdown by relying on Democratic votes. Now, you have Senate Republicans voting against a shutdown, and Boehner agreeing to rely on Democratic votes. Things are not the same today as three years ago, and I’m not sure why you think they are.
Voting for something doesn’t necessarily mean favoring it, not in the world of tactical politics. Or are you claiming the party was mostly Teahadists in 2013, but now, despite being pretty much the same individuals, the sanes are back in charge?
I’m sure you can see how a politician voted and stare deeply into their hearts and know what they really intended, but I can’t. If someone votes for one government shutdown and against the second, I’m generally of the opinion that they have changed their minds. And if they haven’t changed their minds, I don’t really care, because their vote is counted however they cast it.
Shutdown postponed until December 12. It appears that the House first voted for a version that also stops Planned Parenthood spending for a year, then voted to replace that with a Senate-passed version that leaves that part out. Whether or not this means they’re going to want to include it in the next extension, if necessary, remains to be seen.
There could very well be a shutdown in December. The reason I said there would be none this time was because Republicans were very publicly saying, “No shutdown”. If they stop saying that, then a shutdown is quite possible.
But if we assume that Republicans are responsible for shutdowns, then all it takes for Republicans to avoid shutdowns is to not want to have shutdowns.
I think he may be on to something here.
The problem with that logic is “which Republicans?” and “how badly?”
It seems clear in retrospect that John Boehner basically jumped off the ledge, knowing that if he didn’t, he’d likely be pushed soon enough. All it takes are 30 Republicans to prevent a deal passing the House on GOP votes only, and Kevin McCarthy surely knows that if he passes a budget (or a longer-term clean CR) with mostly Dem votes, he’ll be the next one pushed, and the GOPers who vote with him can expect primary challenges.
So it isn’t enough for the Speaker and the majority of Republicans to not want a shutdown. They’ve got to be sufficiently opposed to one to put their careers in jeopardy to avoid one.
I just read that the so-called Freedom Causus doesn’t publish its membership list. So they are more of a cabal really. I can’t say I blame them - maybe they should don white sheets like their good friends do. It would help protect their anonymity.
What’s the difference between Planned Parenthood and the Republican Party? Planned Parenthood prevents abortions.
I wouldn’t cry too many tears for Boehner. He has cushy prospects as a lobbyist in another year - so it makes sense to resign ASAP. If he didn’t love the Hastert Rule so much -more so than Hastert himself apparently- he might have considered acting like a real leader and aiming for 218 votes by hook and crook. When the Dems ran things back in the 1950s-1990s, they had no Hastert rule, because they favored America over mindless partisanship. Let’s not forget that Boehner embraced obstructionism in early 2009, in the teeth of the worst downturn since WWII.
I agree. The Hastert rule has to go.
Me too. I wish they would adopt a rule that any measure supported by 40%+ of the membership must be put up a vote. We can’t have the whackiest members of the majority party dictate what gets voted on.
That’s a conclusion from the facts, not an assumption.
And they accomplish that how - by simply passing a series of CR’s, effectively locking the budget into the amounts and distributions of 2011 forever? Or do you have something else in mind that could actually be described as governing?
We the People are still in charge. We do have a way to prevent the Republicans from causing shutdowns. Individuals who want them to keep that power anyway, like you, need to get on board with us, don’t you?
Keeping funding at 2011 levels is a good thing. It’s why the deficit is disappearing.
I think this is much too simplistic thinking. There are things that we should spend more money on, and there are things that we should spend less on.
Why not just pass a budget locking it in, then? Save a lot of tedious drama.
Nice attempt at showing your guys to be fiscally responsible, at any rate.
Sure, let’s pretend that there is no increase in traffic volumes and never build new roads! Let’s pretend that the population isn’t growing and not spend any more on health care for the old and education for the young. Let’s pretend that government workers and suppliers aren’t impacted by inflation and that we can keep getting the same prices for our bids as we did in 2011! Yes, let’s just pretend our way to a balanced budget!