In the blue corner, weighing in at 49 senators, the DREAM TEAM:



and in the red corner, weighing in at 51 senators, the house, a tie breaker VP and the president, the WALL CABAL:

http://obstructionistlosers.com/

how bad can be a shutdown ? what is the worst scenario ?

thanks.

I find blaming one party for this type of shutdown to be ridiculous. You have a democratic system; you need votes from both parties in order to succeed. So when you then present a bill that only covers one party's demands, exactly how do you expect to reach 60% of the votes?

This post was edited by Leevee on Jan 20 2018 03:51am

With the GOP having a majority in Senate and House, it really isn't.

Not being able to whip your own party into line is the GOP's own damn fault. Add to this that the Dem proposal had everything the GOP wanted with DACA as the only bargaining chip.

"The problems start from the top and have to get solved from the top,"
"The president is the leader, and he's got to get everybody in a room and he's got to lead." - Trump in interview with FOX during 2013 Govt Shutdown.

Don't worry you guys. Trump is leading this shutdown.

During the 2013 shutdown the govt lost around $2b in productivity and the economy was significantly affected.

The longer it goes on the worse things get. Eventually American economy collapses. Ofc that's extremely unlikely just taking it to the extreme of what would happen if they stayed shutdown.

I have to say, weird as this system may be, I think it is a great way to force politicians to take responsibility. In Belgium -- where we went over a year without a government or a proper budget plan -- mandates were just taken by unelected people, politicians were making decisions that they weren't authorized for, and the debt kept stacking up due to the missing budget plan. It is the most undemocratic thing you could think of, and none of the politicians gave a shit about it.

The shutdown's effects are way more direct and immediate, and it puts politicians in their place. You can't reach consensus about a budget? Okay, no budget means no money. Enjoy watching how the entire country suffers billions in losses because of your inability to reach agreement.

in the remote chance that the impasse went on indefinitely and the economy started buckling, the logical way out would be for republicans to do a pseudo-nuclear option, ending the filibuster in the senate for the narrow budget scope, but then only passing a temporary funding measure that doesn't provide for the wall or shut down daca, kicking the can down the road, and then immediately voting to reinstitute the filibuster 60 vote threshold. Though it would weaken the filibuster, a show of good faith by not using it to secure the republican immigration initiatives, instead sticking to keeping the government running in exigent circumstances would keep the filibuster viable even when democrats one day take control, unlike other nuclear deployments
but we're not even a 1% chance of reaching that point, and it assumes things like republicans unifying to save the day, when democrats would rather defect from the party than let republicans be seen as victors anyway