Illegal land occupation

[webfact]

U.S. Democrats flex muscles as Congress confronts a government shutdown

By Richard Cowan

 

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan speaks at a news conference with House Republican leaders after a closed conference meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 5, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats have a rare chance to win major concessions in a U.S. Congress they do not control by taking advantage of a battle within the Republican Party over keeping the government open.

 

With a Friday deadline looming when most funding for federal agencies runs out, Democrats finally have some clout. But their power is strongest while the Republicans in Congress remain fractured and fighting.

 

The showdown with Republicans could come to a head on Thursday when Democrats are expected to press their demands to President Donald Trump at a White House meeting.

 

For Trump, the complex, and very public, battle over the shutdown will also be a demonstration of his ability to deliver on a central 2016 campaign promise of adding billions of dollars to the U.S. military budget. That issue is at the core of Republicans' behind-the-scenes negotiations with Democrats.

 

Most Republicans want a defence buildup. But many also want to limit government spending. While many Democrats also support bolstering defence, they insist on raising spending on non-defence programs too.

 

Democrats' top two demands include passage of legislation that has eluded them for 16 years: protecting from deportation nearly 700,000 young people known as "Dreamers," whose parents brought them illegally to the United States as children.

 

The Democrats also want to shore up Obamacare by reversing Trump's decision to stop monthly subsidy payments to insurance companies offering healthcare policies to lower-income people.

 

Democrats will enter the White House meeting knowing their support is crucial to Senate Republicans passing any spending bills. Republicans control the chamber by 52-48, but need 60 vote for passage of most spending measures.

 

While a partial government shutdown would keep emergency services and the military mainly operating, thousands of operations would be suspended, such as the operation of national parks.

 

Republicans have clear control of the House of Representatives. But a core of conservative Republicans who consistently vote against funding bills in their drive for smaller government could balk. Democrats have a history of strongly supporting stopgap funding bills, providing the cushion for victory in the Republican House.

 

Conservative Republicans said on Tuesday they would try to pass temporary spending bills without House Democrats' support. If so, it is unclear whether such a bill could clear the Senate, where Democratic votes are necessary to pass most bills.

 

WHICH TRUMP?

 

There is another wild card for both parties in Thursday's meeting: Trump. Democrats will test the unpredictable president to see whether he is willing to go the bipartisan route in order to keep federal agencies running smoothly or whether he will be in a confrontational mood.

 

In May, angry he did not win money to build his promised wall along the border with Mexico, Trump said the United States needed a "good shutdown" to force his agenda on Congress. Just last week, he wrote on Twitter about the spending bills: "I don't see a deal."

 

Democrats are counting on the bipartisan Trump showing up, betting that he and fellow Republicans in Congress do not want to leave the immigration legislation, popularly known as the Dreamers Act, to fester until a March deadline, so close to the 2018 congressional election season.

 

Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader, are calculating that voters' wrath would rain down on Republicans if the government lights go out.

 

Republicans would blame Democrats. At a news conference last Thursday, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that if Democrats vote against the temporary spending bill because they have not won their demands, "then they will have chosen to shut the government down."

 

Republicans already are trying to exploit possible differences among Democrats over whether to link support for the stopgap spending bill to the immigration measure.

 

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said she expected Democrats to vote for the government funding bill this week, telling Reuters in an interview that while it "is important to all of us" to take care of the Dreamers, "I don’t think we should shut the government down."

 

Senator Dick Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, told the Washington Post last week he would oppose any spending bill if Congress had not first taken care of the Dreamers.

 

On Tuesday, Schumer noted there were "good negotiations" under way on the immigration measure.

 

This week's vote to keep the government operating on temporary funding is likely to be the first of a three-step process that could stretch to Jan. 31.

 

A second step would be another short-term funding bill, followed by one to fund the government through the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

 

(Reporting by Richard Cowan; Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Edited by Damon Darlin and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-06

[boomerangutang]

Americans spend too much, period.  It's a nanny state on steroids.

 

Quote

Trump said the United States needed a "good shutdown"

 

It will be a good shutdown, when there's no money to pay for WH staff (or pay for electricity or water), and Trump has to make a fire of twigs on the WH lawn to roast acorns - in order to get breakfast.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by boomerangutang

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Americans spend too much, period.  It's a nanny state on steroids.

 

 

It will be a good shutdown, when there's no money to pay for WH staff (or pay for electricity or water), and Trump has to make a fire of twigs on the WH lawn to roast acorns - in order to get breakfast.

 

 

Perhaps. But the US seems to have done quite well over the years. Hard to argue with success. And no worse a nanny state than most other western nations.

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps. But the US seems to have done quite well over the years. Hard to argue with success. And no worse a nanny state than most other western nations.

I only wish it were a nanny state like most Northern nations in western europe. 

[Thaidream]

Actually, the US has done quite poorly- America has the highest cost of healthcare in the World and there is no universal healthcare compared to every other industrialized nation in the World.

America has the World's highest military budget and the current administration is adding another $70 Billion to be paid for by the middle  class and poor who are being shafted by Trump as he gives away billions more in tax cuts to the wealthy.

 

How about the cost of a college education in America in which a graduate becomes indentured to the State for 20 years paying back a higher than normal interest rate because the US Government refuses to fund the tuition like many other nations in the World provide for their citizens.

 

This is not doing well- it is symptomatic of the elite stealing from the poor so they can maintain control and get richer.

[farcanell]

27 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

This is not doing well- it is symptomatic of the elite stealing from the poor so they can maintain control and get richer.

Like the new tax law enriching trump.... quiet an achievement really, to legally manipulate the system to give millions of dollars to yourself (does that still need passing?)

 

anyway.... if yall want to see a real nanny state.... visit down under.

[smotherb]

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Americans spend too much, period.  It's a nanny state on steroids.

 

 

It will be a good shutdown, when there's no money to pay for WH staff (or pay for electricity or water), and Trump has to make a fire of twigs on the WH lawn to roast acorns - in order to get breakfast.

 

 

No, he will just have one of his senior advisors get a couple of McMuffins and covfefe

[hawker9000]

Flexed muscles?  ROFL.  Yeah, there was a lot of "muscle flexing" going on when the House overwhelmingly voted down that whackjob Al Green's bill to impeach the President.  Even that mother-of-all-whackjobs Pelosi voted against it. 

 

PS   The lowest-earning 46% of the electorate doesn't even pay any income tax to begin with (!), and so could care less about govt waste OR this tax measure (but they DO love those nanny-state handouts so).  So claiming this tax measure "hurts the poorest" is just ridiculous (but typical wingnut misinformational drivel).   But you want to know who it DOES hurt?   BLUE states (like NY & CA) whose predominant wingnuts will now have the pleasure of NOT being able to any longer deduct their exorbitant state taxes on their federal tax returns.   LOL    I think Texas should be expecting a lot of population growth soon...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

17 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Americans spend too much, period.  It's a nanny state on steroids.

 

 

It will be a good shutdown, when there's no money to pay for WH staff (or pay for electricity or water), and Trump has to make a fire of twigs on the WH lawn to roast acorns - in order to get breakfast.

 

 

I didn't read that McDonalds would be shutting down.

[hawker9000]

'Don't know about acorn nuts, but let the wingnut scaremongering begin!

 

[wwest5829]

16 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I only wish it were a nanny state like most Northern nations in western europe. 

Agree. Give a national healthcare scheme like, you know, all other advanced nations.

[hawker9000]

1 minute ago, wwest5829 said:

Agree. Give a national healthcare scheme like, you know, all other advanced nations.

"Advanced"...   hehe    Just what we need.... to be even more broke than we already are.  If we're lucky, we might even be able to be as "advanced" as Greece!   Woohoo!

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Agree. Give a national healthcare scheme like, you know, all other advanced nations.

We were on our way with the ACA until Trump killed it.  No, it wasn't perfect, but better than what Trump's proposing.