A very specific "off ramp" to end to the shutdown, majority rules. (Poll)

[citygator]

Elections have consequences. Democrats are being unreasonable even after Republicans passed 13 CRs during Biden.

We cant be held hostage. If the shutdown goes past14-days Thune should go nuclear.

How long should government workers go without a paycheck? Two weeks is more than long enough.

Elections have consequences. If America wanted enough Senators to overturn a filibuster they would have sent 60 republicans to congress.

 

[kyzr]

#1 Only 51 votes are currently needed to pass appropriation bills. Ending debate on the bill (cloture) is a different issue.
#2 If you change the rules just for appropriations, then suddenly every bill will have some aspect of "appropriations" in it to fall under that rule.
Better to get past the my way or the highway mentality currently infecting BOTH parties.
WW

1. OK, 51 votes to end debate, whatever.
2. Word it for "only" appropriations bills, i.e. money/budget items only, not non-money items.
3. Neither party will budge. They need an off-ramp. 51 votes looks like the only option to me.

 

[Care4all]

OK, but Mike Johnson said it was a "clean CR".

Debunking the Democrats’ Shutdown Delusion

mikejohnson.house.gov

Washington, September 29, 2025
WASHINGTON — Republicans have acted responsibly by advancing a clean, nonpartisan 24-page continuing resolution that keeps funding at current levels through November 21 with no partisan policy riders. It averts a government shutdown and ensures essential services and benefits continue uninterrupted for the American people.

Current levels is all the cuts to American's healthcare cuts that were passed this year in the big beautiful bill....and those cuts to healthcare just went in to place....the CR he mentions as a Clean CR is NOT a clean CR that we ran our govt on last fiscal year, is what we are being told....Mike's CR is the BBB just passed this year.

 

[citygator]

The reason the republicans wont do this is that it neuters them if they are ever in the minority - likely soon. They have no interest in making the only two stakeholders with a voice a GOP president and a democrat. They want the stakeholders to always be the legislature even out of power.

 

[kyzr]

Elections have consequences. If America wanted enough Senators to overturn a filibuster they would have sent 60 republicans to congress.

There is nothing sacred about the 60-vote filibuster. The last 60-vote "filibuster-proof" senate was 1979.

In olden days senators were more open to giving in to the majority. Not today. Today its dog-eat-dog in the senate.

The filibuster is good for "permanent major legislation", but shouldn't be needed for annual or short-term items like approving admin nominees, or budget items like appropriations.

 

[kyzr]

Current levels is all the cuts to American's healthcare cuts that were passed this year in the big beautiful bill....and those cuts to healthcare just went in to place....the CR he mentions as a Clean CR is NOT a clean CR that we ran our govt on last fiscal year, is what we are being told....Mike's CR is the BBB just passed this year.

I think you are wrong. Biden's last budget ran thru September. The GOP needs to pass appropriations for new money.
The CR would keep Bidens numbers from 10/1 thru 11/21.

 

[struth]

Current levels is all the cuts to American's healthcare cuts that were passed this year in the big beautiful bill....and those cuts to healthcare just went in to place....the CR he mentions as a Clean CR is NOT a clean CR that we ran our govt on last fiscal year, is what we are being told....Mike's CR is the BBB just passed this year.

Yes it is.

The subs the dems are fighting for to big insurance companies are set to expire in Dec, they were set by the dems and xiden in their big inflation bill

 

[WorldWatcher]

Government needs to function. The senate can pass specific rules for specific items and not just delete the filibuster.
Harry Reid used it to pass appointments, 51 votes instead of 60. I think 51 votes should be used for passing appropriations bills, but still need 60 votes for "major legislation".

Of course.

And the DEMs will be able to do the same thing in the future. Remember rule changes in the Senate only require a simple majority.

So watch what you ask for. You just might get it and not like the results. Don't think just this bill, think 5, 10 years down the line.

1. Who would have won? I call bullshit. The US was not happy with democrat rule, hence their toxic 19% approval, and 75% wrong-track number.

They aren't happy with Republican rule either.

They are so happy with Republicans that the DEMs currently lead GOP in polls on Congressional ballots.

2. The razor thin margin in the House was caused by the open borders, letting 12,000,000 illegals in, and then illegally counting them in the 2020 census giving democrats 24 extra House seats.

Stop. There was no "illegally counting" done. The Constitution calls for the counting of "persons".

WW

 

[kyzr]

The reason the republicans wont do this is that it neuters them if they are ever in the minority - likely soon. They have no interest in making the only two stakeholders with a voice a GOP president and a democrat. They want the stakeholders to always be the legislature even out of power.

There is the rub.
The democrats would never "pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" as in the Declaration of Independence.
Without Manchin and Sinema the democrats would have ended the filibuster last term.
We know damn well that whenever the dems have 51 votes they will end the filibuster and pass their fucked-up wish list.

So keep the government functioning, by any means necessary.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. OK, 51 votes to end debate, whatever.

Which I'm fine with BTW. Just watch what you ask for because that means when the DEMs are back in power they can do the EXACT SAME THING. Think.

2. Word it for "only" appropriations bills, i.e. money/budget items only, not non-money items.

Word it any way you want. It can still be changed with a simple majority. That's the point you seem to be missing. If you change the rules with a simple majority because you want "X", don't complain then the DEMs change the rules with a simple majority because they want "Y".

3. Neither party will budge. They need an off-ramp. 51 votes looks like the only option to me.

Fair enough.

But I think the change in rules isn't to allow "filibusters" to continue in the current fashion. I think that this idea that a single senator can hold up legislation indefinately by puting a "hold" on the cloture of debate needs to go way. Allow unlimited debate? Find, but you have to hold the floor in-person and all other Senate business stops during the debate.

WW

 

[citygator]

There is the rub.
The democrats would never "pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" as in the Declaration of Independence.
Without Manchin and Sinema the democrats would have ended the filibuster last term.
We know damn well that whenever the dems have 51 votes they will end the filibuster and pass their fucked-up wish list.

So keep the government functioning, by any means necessary.

Republicans have jumped the shark. They forgot this is America and not Republica.

Look, I get an enormous amount of joy getting Trump’s policy benefits for me at the expense of you rubes. It’s like watching you set yourselves on fire to keep me warm. I appreciate it.

 

[kyzr]

Of course.
And the DEMs will be able to do the same thing in the future. Remember rule changes in the Senate only require a simple majority.
So watch what you ask for. You just might get it and not like the results. Don't think just this bill, think 5, 10 years down the line.

I remember when the democrats tried to end the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema stopped them. We know that a soon as democrats get 51 votes they will kill the filibuster an pass their wish-list.

They aren't happy with Republican rule either.
They are so happy with Republicans that the DEMs currently lead GOP in polls on Congressional ballots.

We'll see how 2026 hakes out. If voters put democrats in, they deserve what happens.

Stop. There was no "illegally counting" done. The Constitution calls for the counting of "persons".

View attachment 1169625
WW

"Persons" can be interpreted by he Supreme Court to mean "citizens", because you cut the quote off to exclude the "and subject to the laws thereof" (or something similar) to exclude foreign diplomats, (and illegals).
I'm not sure if the Supreme Court ruled on this matter yet/

 

[kyzr]

Republicans have jumped the shark. They forgot this is America and not Republica.
Look, I get an enormous amount of joy getting Trump’s policy benefits for me at the expense of you rubes. It’s like watching you set yourselves on fire to keep me warm. I appreciate it.

If you're happy with Trump, so are we. Enjoy the next 40-months.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I remember when the democrats tried to end the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema stopped them. We know that a soon as democrats get 51 votes they will kill the filibuster an pass their wish-list.

We'll see how 2026 hakes out. If voters put democrats in, they deserve what happens.

"Persons" can be interpreted by he Supreme Court to mean "citizens", because you cut the quote off to exclude the "and subject to the laws thereof" (or something similar) to exclude foreign diplomats, (and illegals).
I'm not sure if the Supreme Court ruled on this matter yet/

I didn't cut off anything. Subject to the jurisdiction has NOTHING to do with the census. That is in Section 1 pertaining to jus soli citizenship.

Section 2 has to do with the apportionment of Representative based on counting "whole persons".

WW
.
.
.

 

[struth]

I remember when the democrats tried to end the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema stopped them. We know that a soon as democrats get 51 votes they will kill the filibuster an pass their wish-list.

We'll see how 2026 hakes out. If voters put democrats in, they deserve what happens.

"Persons" can be interpreted by he Supreme Court to mean "citizens", because you cut the quote off to exclude the "and subject to the laws thereof" (or something similar) to exclude foreign diplomats, (and illegals).
I'm not sure if the Supreme Court ruled on this matter yet/

You make a good point. I remember that too. Make no mistake about it, if the. Dems take power again they will undo our democratic norms and upend our republic.

 

[kyzr]

I didn't cut off anything. Subject to the jurisdiction has NOTHING to do with the census. That is in Section 1 pertaining to jus soli citizenship.
Section 2 has to do with the apportionment of Representative based on counting "whole persons".
WW

OK, sorry. But you added the part I was referring to, below. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which illegals are not, since they are not citizens, don't pay taxes, don't vote, etc.

Did the Supreme Court rule on the 2020 census counting illegals yet?

 

[citygator]

If you're happy with Trump, so are we. Enjoy the next 40-months.

I’ll save ~$120,000 in taxes… so, I will.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, sorry. But you added the part I was referring to, below. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which illegals are not, since they are not citizens, don't pay taxes, don't vote, etc.

Did the Supreme Court rule on the 2020 census counting illegals yet?

View attachment 1169638

The part has nothing to to with the apportionment of Representative.

Section 1 of the 14th deals with jus soli citizenship. Section 2 deals with apportionment.

WW

Did the Supreme Court rule on the 2020 census counting illegals yet?

Yes. They told the administration no.

Supreme Court tosses citizenship question from 2020 census forms, a victory for Democratic states

The court found that while the Commerce Department has a right to reinstate the question, it did not provide an adequate justification for doing so.

www.nbcnews.com

WW

 

[Soupnazi630]

How long can the shutdown last? A month? Two months?

We have two entrenched/obstinate political parties, neither willing to compromise.

The military and other "essential workers" get screwed by having their paychecks held up, but their bills aren't.

Here is one possibility:
1. Sen. Thune re-writes the senate rules for shutdowns, that if a shutdown lasts longer than 14-days, a clean CR can be passed by a simple majority.

2. If that CR expires, appropriations bills can also be passed with a simple majority.

The United States of America should not be held hostage by either political party. The senate majority, with the VP breaking ties, should be able to pass a budget.

Like 99% of ALL Americans i learned yesterday that the government is shut down . I learned this because someone on a forum like this one mentioned it.

The vast majority of Americans did not even notice.

So why should anyone care? If the government can shut down and no one even notices which they HAVE NOT. We should seriously consider simply get rid of most of the government. Just leave it shut down and be done with it.

trillions of dollars of debt to run a needlessly bloated and worthless institution.

 

[Dekster]

Considering what Wall Street did today, the shutdown can go on for months.

Wall Street will get the jitters as a month approached. Paychecks went out. At a month the checks won't go out and people will start struggling to pay bills/buy stuff