What are the Republicans arguments for blaming the Democrats for the shutdown?
The President and other Republicans have been casting blame on the Democrats for being responsible for the current government shutdown.
If Republicans had a majority in the House and the Senate at the start of the shutdown, and also have control over the executive branch, what actions by the Democrats could give the Republicans a logical reason to place blame on them?
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows).
united-states republican-party government-shutdown
New contributor
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.
|
show 7 more comments
The President and other Republicans have been casting blame on the Democrats for being responsible for the current government shutdown.
If Republicans had a majority in the House and the Senate at the start of the shutdown, and also have control over the executive branch, what actions by the Democrats could give the Republicans a logical reason to place blame on them?
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows).
united-states republican-party government-shutdown
New contributor
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.
3
It's not the first time a funding gap has occurred when the president, the senate majority, and house majority, are of all of the same political party: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Andrew Grimm
Jan 4 at 22:50
4
@Aporter I don’t think it requires speculation at all. The question boils down to what are the mechanics/nuances of the US governmental system that allow a party with majority in Congress and control of the executive branch to logically be able to blame the opposing party. Who is actually to blame is somewhat irrelevant. Alexander was able to answer that in their response.
– Trent the Gent
Jan 6 at 0:15
3
@TrenttheGent If you consider Alexander's answer to answer your question, please edit the question so that it matches what he says. Because he doesn't actually address at all what you ask: what the Republicans's logic is that leads to their conclusion that the Democrats are to blame.
– curiousdannii
Jan 6 at 2:11
8
Re blame and fault: Opponents of the wall regard steadfast opposition as less of a fault than it would it is both a credit and a duty -- i.e. something they're proud to oppose. For them it would be like asking *"whose fault is it that the US fails to officially re-institute slavery?"
– agc
2 days ago
2
@Mike Scott at the start of the shutdown, the Rebublicans did have a majority in the House.
– Trent the Gent
2 days ago
|
show 7 more comments
The President and other Republicans have been casting blame on the Democrats for being responsible for the current government shutdown.
If Republicans had a majority in the House and the Senate at the start of the shutdown, and also have control over the executive branch, what actions by the Democrats could give the Republicans a logical reason to place blame on them?
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows).
united-states republican-party government-shutdown
New contributor
The President and other Republicans have been casting blame on the Democrats for being responsible for the current government shutdown.
If Republicans had a majority in the House and the Senate at the start of the shutdown, and also have control over the executive branch, what actions by the Democrats could give the Republicans a logical reason to place blame on them?
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows).
united-states republican-party government-shutdown
united-states republican-party government-shutdown
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
Machavity
15.3k44576
15.3k44576
New contributor
asked Jan 4 at 20:50
Trent the GentTrent the Gent
216127
216127
New contributor
New contributor
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.
3
It's not the first time a funding gap has occurred when the president, the senate majority, and house majority, are of all of the same political party: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Andrew Grimm
Jan 4 at 22:50
4
@Aporter I don’t think it requires speculation at all. The question boils down to what are the mechanics/nuances of the US governmental system that allow a party with majority in Congress and control of the executive branch to logically be able to blame the opposing party. Who is actually to blame is somewhat irrelevant. Alexander was able to answer that in their response.
– Trent the Gent
Jan 6 at 0:15
3
@TrenttheGent If you consider Alexander's answer to answer your question, please edit the question so that it matches what he says. Because he doesn't actually address at all what you ask: what the Republicans's logic is that leads to their conclusion that the Democrats are to blame.
– curiousdannii
Jan 6 at 2:11
8
Re blame and fault: Opponents of the wall regard steadfast opposition as less of a fault than it would it is both a credit and a duty -- i.e. something they're proud to oppose. For them it would be like asking *"whose fault is it that the US fails to officially re-institute slavery?"
– agc
2 days ago
2
@Mike Scott at the start of the shutdown, the Rebublicans did have a majority in the House.
– Trent the Gent
2 days ago
|
show 7 more comments
3
It's not the first time a funding gap has occurred when the president, the senate majority, and house majority, are of all of the same political party: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Andrew Grimm
Jan 4 at 22:50
4
@Aporter I don’t think it requires speculation at all. The question boils down to what are the mechanics/nuances of the US governmental system that allow a party with majority in Congress and control of the executive branch to logically be able to blame the opposing party. Who is actually to blame is somewhat irrelevant. Alexander was able to answer that in their response.
– Trent the Gent
Jan 6 at 0:15
3
@TrenttheGent If you consider Alexander's answer to answer your question, please edit the question so that it matches what he says. Because he doesn't actually address at all what you ask: what the Republicans's logic is that leads to their conclusion that the Democrats are to blame.
– curiousdannii
Jan 6 at 2:11
8
Re blame and fault: Opponents of the wall regard steadfast opposition as less of a fault than it would it is both a credit and a duty -- i.e. something they're proud to oppose. For them it would be like asking *"whose fault is it that the US fails to officially re-institute slavery?"
– agc
2 days ago
2
@Mike Scott at the start of the shutdown, the Rebublicans did have a majority in the House.
– Trent the Gent
2 days ago
3
3
It's not the first time a funding gap has occurred when the president, the senate majority, and house majority, are of all of the same political party: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Andrew Grimm
Jan 4 at 22:50
It's not the first time a funding gap has occurred when the president, the senate majority, and house majority, are of all of the same political party: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Andrew Grimm
Jan 4 at 22:50
4
4
@Aporter I don’t think it requires speculation at all. The question boils down to what are the mechanics/nuances of the US governmental system that allow a party with majority in Congress and control of the executive branch to logically be able to blame the opposing party. Who is actually to blame is somewhat irrelevant. Alexander was able to answer that in their response.
– Trent the Gent
Jan 6 at 0:15
@Aporter I don’t think it requires speculation at all. The question boils down to what are the mechanics/nuances of the US governmental system that allow a party with majority in Congress and control of the executive branch to logically be able to blame the opposing party. Who is actually to blame is somewhat irrelevant. Alexander was able to answer that in their response.
– Trent the Gent
Jan 6 at 0:15
3
3
@TrenttheGent If you consider Alexander's answer to answer your question, please edit the question so that it matches what he says. Because he doesn't actually address at all what you ask: what the Republicans's logic is that leads to their conclusion that the Democrats are to blame.
– curiousdannii
Jan 6 at 2:11
@TrenttheGent If you consider Alexander's answer to answer your question, please edit the question so that it matches what he says. Because he doesn't actually address at all what you ask: what the Republicans's logic is that leads to their conclusion that the Democrats are to blame.
– curiousdannii
Jan 6 at 2:11
8
8
Re blame and fault: Opponents of the wall regard steadfast opposition as less of a fault than it would it is both a credit and a duty -- i.e. something they're proud to oppose. For them it would be like asking *"whose fault is it that the US fails to officially re-institute slavery?"
– agc
2 days ago
Re blame and fault: Opponents of the wall regard steadfast opposition as less of a fault than it would it is both a credit and a duty -- i.e. something they're proud to oppose. For them it would be like asking *"whose fault is it that the US fails to officially re-institute slavery?"
– agc
2 days ago
2
2
@Mike Scott at the start of the shutdown, the Rebublicans did have a majority in the House.
– Trent the Gent
2 days ago
@Mike Scott at the start of the shutdown, the Rebublicans did have a majority in the House.
– Trent the Gent
2 days ago
|
show 7 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Rather than trying to address the claim of who is to blame, I will focus on the part of the question asking for the spefic actions that were taken and give you timeline of events to let you decide for yourself who deserves how much of the blame.
19th December, 2018:
Senate passes without any dissent by voice vote a bi-partisan short-term spending bill without funding for Trump's wall. That bill is expected to pass the House and be signed by the President. [1]
Fox and Friends, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter publicly criticize Trump for "folding" on the wall. [2]
20th December, 2018:
The president informed us that he will not sign the bill that came up from the Senate last evening because of his legitimate concerns for border security.
-- Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R)
Instead of voting on the bill the Senate passed, the House with Paul Ryan (R) as Speaker passes a different spending bill with $5 billion in border wall funding. This bill is not expected to pass the Senate, and ultimately did fail in the Senate, where 60 votes were needed and Republicans only had 51 seats. [3] [4]
3rd January, 2019:
The new House of Representatives with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker (D) passes a bill mirroring the one that passed the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) blocks the bill in the Senate, saying he will not bring a bill to vote without the president's approval. [5]
36
-1 because the question was "How could this be the Democrats' fault", and all this answer does is reiterate why it's Republicans' fault.
– Wes Sayeed
Jan 5 at 5:04
53
@WesSayeed I didn't say that. It may well be the logical conclusion, but that's just the way it is sometimes. Sometimes the premise of the question is wrong, or mostly wrong as I would say in this case.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 5:05
13
@Sascha It's technically a new one because the previous bill died when the previous Congress ended. My understanding is it is virtually identical though.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 19:27
3
(Dec 19) McConnell proposed amendment SA4163 (to HR695 ) to extend government funding through Feb 8, 2019. For some reason, this is being report as "passing 100-0" when in fact the margin is not known because this was a voice vote (see linked). See also C-Span coverage ~11:06PM (Dec 19) for a speech by senator Moran about why he voted no: c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate&date=2018-12-19
– BurnsBA
yesterday
5
Everyone: This answer is being discussed on Meta. If you do not feel it is a fair attempt at answering the question, please make your argument there. Not here. Comments are not a great place to discuss the nature of answers on Stack Exchange sites.
– yannis♦
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows), but to me the logic seems that if Republicans had the ability to pass the funding measure and then didn’t, wouldn’t the shutdown be the Republicans fault?
I think there are a couple things: first, the new Democratic majority; and second, the filibuster/cloture process in the Senate.
Yesterday (3 Jan.) was the first day of the 116th Congress. As of yesterday, the Democrats have a majority in the House (235 to 199, one disputed seat) and the Republicans have a majority in the Senate (53 to 47). At this point and going forward, both parties bear responsibility for passing or failing to pass spending bills.
However, before yesterday, the Republicans had a 236 to 196 majority in the House (three vacant seats) and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. In December, the (Republican) House passed a spending bill with funding for the president's proposed border wall. The Senate unanimously passed an alternative short-term spending measure without border wall funding, which the president then threatened to veto. Following that, the Senate Majority Leader stated that he would not support (or presumably schedule a vote for) any bill that the president threatened to veto.
Also, almost all bills in the Senate require 60 senators to invoke "cloture" in order to end debate and vote. Bills that fail to receive cloture are "filibustered," and given that Senate Republicans had an extremely slim majority in the last Congress, invoking cloture against a united Democratic conference was quite tough. Even in the new Congress, invoking cloture will be tricky for polarizing legislation (e.g. anything dealing with "the wall"), albeit marginally easier for the Republicans than in the last Congress.
In my opinion, anyone who assigns blame or responsibility for the shutdown to one party exclusively is trying to spin the facts to fit a partisan or ideological narrative. How you assign blame depends on your personal beliefs, what you think about the majorities in Congress and what you think about the filibuster.
New contributor
16
"Senate Majority Leader would not support" is misleading. He has stated emphatically he will not allow any bill to be presented to the Senate without Presidential approval. Regarding responsibility for the shutdown, Trump has previously declared he would accept ("Proudly") the responsibility,
– BobE
Jan 5 at 4:34
8
A fair minded answer. I would assert that Democrats in the Senate that would filibuster any bill that includes wall funding joining forces with a Democrat House that passes bills that do not include any funding against the President's wishes and veto power, makes it clear that a particular party, the Democrats, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running.
– enorl76
Jan 5 at 5:19
18
enorl76, why do only the President's wishes matter? The entire Senate already approved spending withoutbthe additional wall funding. Brought Republicans together by havimg the Senate and House pass different bills?
– Brooks Nelson
Jan 5 at 23:21
22
@enorl76 to crib your response... I would assert that Republican leadership in the Senate that would block any bill that does not includes wall funding even being debated joining forces with a Republican President willing to veto such bills even after the initial bill passes the Senate 100 to 0 and despite them opetating in seperate government branches, makes it clear that a particular party, the Republicans, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running
– Jontia
2 days ago
3
@enorl76 Since the president has declared he won't sign any bill without funding the wall then there is no way it can be claimed that he is compromising either. Since the democrat's bill includes 1.something billion for border security they can at least claim to be trying to find a solution that achieves the stated goals of secure borders and running the government.
– Craig
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
This isn't really that difficult: It's a typical standoff in which neither side wants to budge. Democrats could vote for the wall, but haven't. So, sure, it can be considered at least partially their fault. That's not to say Trump isn't to blame, either. But, if ending the shutdown were enough of a priority, then Democrats could simply vote for the money for the wall, and be done with it. If it's not, the standoff will continue.
New contributor
34
The same logic says "the Republicans could accept no wall funding and be done with it".
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 5 at 14:26
22
@EthanBolker : True, but the question asked about the arguments the Republicans are using.
– vsz
Jan 5 at 14:46
16
Exactly. Both sides want to blame the other for whatever bad thing is happening. Both sides are "to blame" in the sense that they could end the shutdown by caving in to the other side's demands.
– David Richerby
yesterday
1
Schumer in the past, has talked about getting a border wall built. Yet now insists on no funding for a wall because Trump wants it. Trump wants the wall because its a campaign pledge, and he'll run next cycle on how Democrats filibustered wall funding in the Senate, and wouldn't pass bills in the House to get it done. Democrats will lose this one, because border wall is border security and Democrats appear to be lacking on any border security funding.
– enorl76
yesterday
1
+1. When two sides are in a standoff, they each believe that the outcome that they are fighting for is the outcome with greater utility. It's possible that one side is right about this belief, and the other is wrong (depending on your definition of "utility"). If this is the case, then blame against the "wrong" side really is warranted by the "right" side. (Of course, in general, you have to weigh the utility of your position multiplied by the probability of it passing, purely against the utility of your opponents' position. Accounting for this, both sides can be "wrong".)
– Bridgeburners
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Passing a spending bill in the Senate requires bi-partisan cooperation because it requires overcoming a 60-vote requirement. The President demanded that any spending bill include a line for $5 billion (about 0.13% of the total yearly spending) for a border barrier (which he colloquially called a "wall").
The Republicans were willing to include the line for this spending. The Democrats were not. By this logic, the Democrats have a partial responsibility for the bill not passing.
Clearly they are not the only ones to blame. The President's unwillingness to give up on funding of "the wall" is to blame as well. But using the cloture rules to hold up a spending bill over a 0.13% spending line is the reason (or logic) for why the President is putting the failure to pass the spending bill at the Democrats' feet.
3
There is no 60 vote requirement, it is only required if there is a filibuster. Lots of laws have been passed with less than 60 votes and without filibuster.
– jmoreno
2 days ago
3
@jmoreno. You are correct that 60 votes are not required for the bill to pass. But 60 votes are required for to invoke cloture (aka "end the filibuster") to allow for the bill to be actually voted on. And even if 60 senators do vote to invoke the cloture, the bill may actually pass with less than 60 votes.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
If Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, and also have control over the executive branch, how could it be possible that the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown?
Answer: The Republicans' majority in the Senate isn't large enough.
In order to end debating a bill, 60 senators have to agree to start voting. Because the Republicans only held either 51 (just before the 2018 election) or 53 (after the 2018 election), the Democrats have enough votes to continue debating certain bills forever. This is known as 'filibusting' a bill.
As a result, the Republicans were not able to pass a bill that included the requested money for a border wall, even when they had majorities in both chambers of Congress.
10
This answer doesn't seem to add anything not covered by the existing answers.
– CrackpotCrocodile
Jan 4 at 23:03
3
@CrackpotCrocodile It's much shorter than the other ones. Listing which bills have passed doesn't answer why funding for a wall hasn't passed yet.
– Sjoerd
Jan 5 at 0:53
5
The question isn't about the funding for the wall though, but the government shutdown.
– Lebbers
Jan 5 at 3:16
1
@Jontia They couldn't pass a bill with funding for the wall due to the Democrats filibustering such a bill. As is proved by the fact that the bill with wall money approved by the House was never up for voting in the Senate. The Republicans have a Senate majority, but they don't control the Senate.
– Sjoerd
2 days ago
1
@T.E.D.Democrats had supermajority in House and 56 Senators. Republicans couldn't stop ACA because Reid (D) invoked the "nuclear option" to eliminate cloture rules of 60 votes, and put the ACA bill on the floor of the Senate, which passed because of the D majority in the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate and changed the cloture rules for the ACA. So why do Republicans blame Democrats just before and now? Because R's DIDNT invoke "nuclear option" and pass the bill, even though there's precedent. R's in Senate want it to pass without rule hijinx but cant overcome the D's filibuster.
– enorl76
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
protected by Philipp♦ Jan 5 at 13:52
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Rather than trying to address the claim of who is to blame, I will focus on the part of the question asking for the spefic actions that were taken and give you timeline of events to let you decide for yourself who deserves how much of the blame.
19th December, 2018:
Senate passes without any dissent by voice vote a bi-partisan short-term spending bill without funding for Trump's wall. That bill is expected to pass the House and be signed by the President. [1]
Fox and Friends, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter publicly criticize Trump for "folding" on the wall. [2]
20th December, 2018:
The president informed us that he will not sign the bill that came up from the Senate last evening because of his legitimate concerns for border security.
-- Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R)
Instead of voting on the bill the Senate passed, the House with Paul Ryan (R) as Speaker passes a different spending bill with $5 billion in border wall funding. This bill is not expected to pass the Senate, and ultimately did fail in the Senate, where 60 votes were needed and Republicans only had 51 seats. [3] [4]
3rd January, 2019:
The new House of Representatives with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker (D) passes a bill mirroring the one that passed the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) blocks the bill in the Senate, saying he will not bring a bill to vote without the president's approval. [5]
36
-1 because the question was "How could this be the Democrats' fault", and all this answer does is reiterate why it's Republicans' fault.
– Wes Sayeed
Jan 5 at 5:04
53
@WesSayeed I didn't say that. It may well be the logical conclusion, but that's just the way it is sometimes. Sometimes the premise of the question is wrong, or mostly wrong as I would say in this case.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 5:05
13
@Sascha It's technically a new one because the previous bill died when the previous Congress ended. My understanding is it is virtually identical though.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 19:27
3
(Dec 19) McConnell proposed amendment SA4163 (to HR695 ) to extend government funding through Feb 8, 2019. For some reason, this is being report as "passing 100-0" when in fact the margin is not known because this was a voice vote (see linked). See also C-Span coverage ~11:06PM (Dec 19) for a speech by senator Moran about why he voted no: c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate&date=2018-12-19
– BurnsBA
yesterday
5
Everyone: This answer is being discussed on Meta. If you do not feel it is a fair attempt at answering the question, please make your argument there. Not here. Comments are not a great place to discuss the nature of answers on Stack Exchange sites.
– yannis♦
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
Rather than trying to address the claim of who is to blame, I will focus on the part of the question asking for the spefic actions that were taken and give you timeline of events to let you decide for yourself who deserves how much of the blame.
19th December, 2018:
Senate passes without any dissent by voice vote a bi-partisan short-term spending bill without funding for Trump's wall. That bill is expected to pass the House and be signed by the President. [1]
Fox and Friends, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter publicly criticize Trump for "folding" on the wall. [2]
20th December, 2018:
The president informed us that he will not sign the bill that came up from the Senate last evening because of his legitimate concerns for border security.
-- Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R)
Instead of voting on the bill the Senate passed, the House with Paul Ryan (R) as Speaker passes a different spending bill with $5 billion in border wall funding. This bill is not expected to pass the Senate, and ultimately did fail in the Senate, where 60 votes were needed and Republicans only had 51 seats. [3] [4]
3rd January, 2019:
The new House of Representatives with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker (D) passes a bill mirroring the one that passed the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) blocks the bill in the Senate, saying he will not bring a bill to vote without the president's approval. [5]
36
-1 because the question was "How could this be the Democrats' fault", and all this answer does is reiterate why it's Republicans' fault.
– Wes Sayeed
Jan 5 at 5:04
53
@WesSayeed I didn't say that. It may well be the logical conclusion, but that's just the way it is sometimes. Sometimes the premise of the question is wrong, or mostly wrong as I would say in this case.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 5:05
13
@Sascha It's technically a new one because the previous bill died when the previous Congress ended. My understanding is it is virtually identical though.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 19:27
3
(Dec 19) McConnell proposed amendment SA4163 (to HR695 ) to extend government funding through Feb 8, 2019. For some reason, this is being report as "passing 100-0" when in fact the margin is not known because this was a voice vote (see linked). See also C-Span coverage ~11:06PM (Dec 19) for a speech by senator Moran about why he voted no: c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate&date=2018-12-19
– BurnsBA
yesterday
5
Everyone: This answer is being discussed on Meta. If you do not feel it is a fair attempt at answering the question, please make your argument there. Not here. Comments are not a great place to discuss the nature of answers on Stack Exchange sites.
– yannis♦
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
Rather than trying to address the claim of who is to blame, I will focus on the part of the question asking for the spefic actions that were taken and give you timeline of events to let you decide for yourself who deserves how much of the blame.
19th December, 2018:
Senate passes without any dissent by voice vote a bi-partisan short-term spending bill without funding for Trump's wall. That bill is expected to pass the House and be signed by the President. [1]
Fox and Friends, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter publicly criticize Trump for "folding" on the wall. [2]
20th December, 2018:
The president informed us that he will not sign the bill that came up from the Senate last evening because of his legitimate concerns for border security.
-- Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R)
Instead of voting on the bill the Senate passed, the House with Paul Ryan (R) as Speaker passes a different spending bill with $5 billion in border wall funding. This bill is not expected to pass the Senate, and ultimately did fail in the Senate, where 60 votes were needed and Republicans only had 51 seats. [3] [4]
3rd January, 2019:
The new House of Representatives with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker (D) passes a bill mirroring the one that passed the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) blocks the bill in the Senate, saying he will not bring a bill to vote without the president's approval. [5]
Rather than trying to address the claim of who is to blame, I will focus on the part of the question asking for the spefic actions that were taken and give you timeline of events to let you decide for yourself who deserves how much of the blame.
19th December, 2018:
Senate passes without any dissent by voice vote a bi-partisan short-term spending bill without funding for Trump's wall. That bill is expected to pass the House and be signed by the President. [1]
Fox and Friends, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter publicly criticize Trump for "folding" on the wall. [2]
20th December, 2018:
The president informed us that he will not sign the bill that came up from the Senate last evening because of his legitimate concerns for border security.
-- Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R)
Instead of voting on the bill the Senate passed, the House with Paul Ryan (R) as Speaker passes a different spending bill with $5 billion in border wall funding. This bill is not expected to pass the Senate, and ultimately did fail in the Senate, where 60 votes were needed and Republicans only had 51 seats. [3] [4]
3rd January, 2019:
The new House of Representatives with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker (D) passes a bill mirroring the one that passed the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) blocks the bill in the Senate, saying he will not bring a bill to vote without the president's approval. [5]
edited yesterday
answered Jan 4 at 21:19
Alexander O'MaraAlexander O'Mara
2,57111320
2,57111320
36
-1 because the question was "How could this be the Democrats' fault", and all this answer does is reiterate why it's Republicans' fault.
– Wes Sayeed
Jan 5 at 5:04
53
@WesSayeed I didn't say that. It may well be the logical conclusion, but that's just the way it is sometimes. Sometimes the premise of the question is wrong, or mostly wrong as I would say in this case.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 5:05
13
@Sascha It's technically a new one because the previous bill died when the previous Congress ended. My understanding is it is virtually identical though.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 19:27
3
(Dec 19) McConnell proposed amendment SA4163 (to HR695 ) to extend government funding through Feb 8, 2019. For some reason, this is being report as "passing 100-0" when in fact the margin is not known because this was a voice vote (see linked). See also C-Span coverage ~11:06PM (Dec 19) for a speech by senator Moran about why he voted no: c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate&date=2018-12-19
– BurnsBA
yesterday
5
Everyone: This answer is being discussed on Meta. If you do not feel it is a fair attempt at answering the question, please make your argument there. Not here. Comments are not a great place to discuss the nature of answers on Stack Exchange sites.
– yannis♦
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
36
-1 because the question was "How could this be the Democrats' fault", and all this answer does is reiterate why it's Republicans' fault.
– Wes Sayeed
Jan 5 at 5:04
53
@WesSayeed I didn't say that. It may well be the logical conclusion, but that's just the way it is sometimes. Sometimes the premise of the question is wrong, or mostly wrong as I would say in this case.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 5:05
13
@Sascha It's technically a new one because the previous bill died when the previous Congress ended. My understanding is it is virtually identical though.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 19:27
3
(Dec 19) McConnell proposed amendment SA4163 (to HR695 ) to extend government funding through Feb 8, 2019. For some reason, this is being report as "passing 100-0" when in fact the margin is not known because this was a voice vote (see linked). See also C-Span coverage ~11:06PM (Dec 19) for a speech by senator Moran about why he voted no: c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate&date=2018-12-19
– BurnsBA
yesterday
5
Everyone: This answer is being discussed on Meta. If you do not feel it is a fair attempt at answering the question, please make your argument there. Not here. Comments are not a great place to discuss the nature of answers on Stack Exchange sites.
– yannis♦
yesterday
36
36
-1 because the question was "How could this be the Democrats' fault", and all this answer does is reiterate why it's Republicans' fault.
– Wes Sayeed
Jan 5 at 5:04
-1 because the question was "How could this be the Democrats' fault", and all this answer does is reiterate why it's Republicans' fault.
– Wes Sayeed
Jan 5 at 5:04
53
53
@WesSayeed I didn't say that. It may well be the logical conclusion, but that's just the way it is sometimes. Sometimes the premise of the question is wrong, or mostly wrong as I would say in this case.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 5:05
@WesSayeed I didn't say that. It may well be the logical conclusion, but that's just the way it is sometimes. Sometimes the premise of the question is wrong, or mostly wrong as I would say in this case.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 5:05
13
13
@Sascha It's technically a new one because the previous bill died when the previous Congress ended. My understanding is it is virtually identical though.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 19:27
@Sascha It's technically a new one because the previous bill died when the previous Congress ended. My understanding is it is virtually identical though.
– Alexander O'Mara
Jan 5 at 19:27
3
3
(Dec 19) McConnell proposed amendment SA4163 (to HR695 ) to extend government funding through Feb 8, 2019. For some reason, this is being report as "passing 100-0" when in fact the margin is not known because this was a voice vote (see linked). See also C-Span coverage ~11:06PM (Dec 19) for a speech by senator Moran about why he voted no: c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate&date=2018-12-19
– BurnsBA
yesterday
(Dec 19) McConnell proposed amendment SA4163 (to HR695 ) to extend government funding through Feb 8, 2019. For some reason, this is being report as "passing 100-0" when in fact the margin is not known because this was a voice vote (see linked). See also C-Span coverage ~11:06PM (Dec 19) for a speech by senator Moran about why he voted no: c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate&date=2018-12-19
– BurnsBA
yesterday
5
5
Everyone: This answer is being discussed on Meta. If you do not feel it is a fair attempt at answering the question, please make your argument there. Not here. Comments are not a great place to discuss the nature of answers on Stack Exchange sites.
– yannis♦
yesterday
Everyone: This answer is being discussed on Meta. If you do not feel it is a fair attempt at answering the question, please make your argument there. Not here. Comments are not a great place to discuss the nature of answers on Stack Exchange sites.
– yannis♦
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows), but to me the logic seems that if Republicans had the ability to pass the funding measure and then didn’t, wouldn’t the shutdown be the Republicans fault?
I think there are a couple things: first, the new Democratic majority; and second, the filibuster/cloture process in the Senate.
Yesterday (3 Jan.) was the first day of the 116th Congress. As of yesterday, the Democrats have a majority in the House (235 to 199, one disputed seat) and the Republicans have a majority in the Senate (53 to 47). At this point and going forward, both parties bear responsibility for passing or failing to pass spending bills.
However, before yesterday, the Republicans had a 236 to 196 majority in the House (three vacant seats) and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. In December, the (Republican) House passed a spending bill with funding for the president's proposed border wall. The Senate unanimously passed an alternative short-term spending measure without border wall funding, which the president then threatened to veto. Following that, the Senate Majority Leader stated that he would not support (or presumably schedule a vote for) any bill that the president threatened to veto.
Also, almost all bills in the Senate require 60 senators to invoke "cloture" in order to end debate and vote. Bills that fail to receive cloture are "filibustered," and given that Senate Republicans had an extremely slim majority in the last Congress, invoking cloture against a united Democratic conference was quite tough. Even in the new Congress, invoking cloture will be tricky for polarizing legislation (e.g. anything dealing with "the wall"), albeit marginally easier for the Republicans than in the last Congress.
In my opinion, anyone who assigns blame or responsibility for the shutdown to one party exclusively is trying to spin the facts to fit a partisan or ideological narrative. How you assign blame depends on your personal beliefs, what you think about the majorities in Congress and what you think about the filibuster.
New contributor
16
"Senate Majority Leader would not support" is misleading. He has stated emphatically he will not allow any bill to be presented to the Senate without Presidential approval. Regarding responsibility for the shutdown, Trump has previously declared he would accept ("Proudly") the responsibility,
– BobE
Jan 5 at 4:34
8
A fair minded answer. I would assert that Democrats in the Senate that would filibuster any bill that includes wall funding joining forces with a Democrat House that passes bills that do not include any funding against the President's wishes and veto power, makes it clear that a particular party, the Democrats, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running.
– enorl76
Jan 5 at 5:19
18
enorl76, why do only the President's wishes matter? The entire Senate already approved spending withoutbthe additional wall funding. Brought Republicans together by havimg the Senate and House pass different bills?
– Brooks Nelson
Jan 5 at 23:21
22
@enorl76 to crib your response... I would assert that Republican leadership in the Senate that would block any bill that does not includes wall funding even being debated joining forces with a Republican President willing to veto such bills even after the initial bill passes the Senate 100 to 0 and despite them opetating in seperate government branches, makes it clear that a particular party, the Republicans, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running
– Jontia
2 days ago
3
@enorl76 Since the president has declared he won't sign any bill without funding the wall then there is no way it can be claimed that he is compromising either. Since the democrat's bill includes 1.something billion for border security they can at least claim to be trying to find a solution that achieves the stated goals of secure borders and running the government.
– Craig
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows), but to me the logic seems that if Republicans had the ability to pass the funding measure and then didn’t, wouldn’t the shutdown be the Republicans fault?
I think there are a couple things: first, the new Democratic majority; and second, the filibuster/cloture process in the Senate.
Yesterday (3 Jan.) was the first day of the 116th Congress. As of yesterday, the Democrats have a majority in the House (235 to 199, one disputed seat) and the Republicans have a majority in the Senate (53 to 47). At this point and going forward, both parties bear responsibility for passing or failing to pass spending bills.
However, before yesterday, the Republicans had a 236 to 196 majority in the House (three vacant seats) and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. In December, the (Republican) House passed a spending bill with funding for the president's proposed border wall. The Senate unanimously passed an alternative short-term spending measure without border wall funding, which the president then threatened to veto. Following that, the Senate Majority Leader stated that he would not support (or presumably schedule a vote for) any bill that the president threatened to veto.
Also, almost all bills in the Senate require 60 senators to invoke "cloture" in order to end debate and vote. Bills that fail to receive cloture are "filibustered," and given that Senate Republicans had an extremely slim majority in the last Congress, invoking cloture against a united Democratic conference was quite tough. Even in the new Congress, invoking cloture will be tricky for polarizing legislation (e.g. anything dealing with "the wall"), albeit marginally easier for the Republicans than in the last Congress.
In my opinion, anyone who assigns blame or responsibility for the shutdown to one party exclusively is trying to spin the facts to fit a partisan or ideological narrative. How you assign blame depends on your personal beliefs, what you think about the majorities in Congress and what you think about the filibuster.
New contributor
16
"Senate Majority Leader would not support" is misleading. He has stated emphatically he will not allow any bill to be presented to the Senate without Presidential approval. Regarding responsibility for the shutdown, Trump has previously declared he would accept ("Proudly") the responsibility,
– BobE
Jan 5 at 4:34
8
A fair minded answer. I would assert that Democrats in the Senate that would filibuster any bill that includes wall funding joining forces with a Democrat House that passes bills that do not include any funding against the President's wishes and veto power, makes it clear that a particular party, the Democrats, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running.
– enorl76
Jan 5 at 5:19
18
enorl76, why do only the President's wishes matter? The entire Senate already approved spending withoutbthe additional wall funding. Brought Republicans together by havimg the Senate and House pass different bills?
– Brooks Nelson
Jan 5 at 23:21
22
@enorl76 to crib your response... I would assert that Republican leadership in the Senate that would block any bill that does not includes wall funding even being debated joining forces with a Republican President willing to veto such bills even after the initial bill passes the Senate 100 to 0 and despite them opetating in seperate government branches, makes it clear that a particular party, the Republicans, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running
– Jontia
2 days ago
3
@enorl76 Since the president has declared he won't sign any bill without funding the wall then there is no way it can be claimed that he is compromising either. Since the democrat's bill includes 1.something billion for border security they can at least claim to be trying to find a solution that achieves the stated goals of secure borders and running the government.
– Craig
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows), but to me the logic seems that if Republicans had the ability to pass the funding measure and then didn’t, wouldn’t the shutdown be the Republicans fault?
I think there are a couple things: first, the new Democratic majority; and second, the filibuster/cloture process in the Senate.
Yesterday (3 Jan.) was the first day of the 116th Congress. As of yesterday, the Democrats have a majority in the House (235 to 199, one disputed seat) and the Republicans have a majority in the Senate (53 to 47). At this point and going forward, both parties bear responsibility for passing or failing to pass spending bills.
However, before yesterday, the Republicans had a 236 to 196 majority in the House (three vacant seats) and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. In December, the (Republican) House passed a spending bill with funding for the president's proposed border wall. The Senate unanimously passed an alternative short-term spending measure without border wall funding, which the president then threatened to veto. Following that, the Senate Majority Leader stated that he would not support (or presumably schedule a vote for) any bill that the president threatened to veto.
Also, almost all bills in the Senate require 60 senators to invoke "cloture" in order to end debate and vote. Bills that fail to receive cloture are "filibustered," and given that Senate Republicans had an extremely slim majority in the last Congress, invoking cloture against a united Democratic conference was quite tough. Even in the new Congress, invoking cloture will be tricky for polarizing legislation (e.g. anything dealing with "the wall"), albeit marginally easier for the Republicans than in the last Congress.
In my opinion, anyone who assigns blame or responsibility for the shutdown to one party exclusively is trying to spin the facts to fit a partisan or ideological narrative. How you assign blame depends on your personal beliefs, what you think about the majorities in Congress and what you think about the filibuster.
New contributor
I’m sure there is something that I am missing (certain vote percentages, loopholes, who knows), but to me the logic seems that if Republicans had the ability to pass the funding measure and then didn’t, wouldn’t the shutdown be the Republicans fault?
I think there are a couple things: first, the new Democratic majority; and second, the filibuster/cloture process in the Senate.
Yesterday (3 Jan.) was the first day of the 116th Congress. As of yesterday, the Democrats have a majority in the House (235 to 199, one disputed seat) and the Republicans have a majority in the Senate (53 to 47). At this point and going forward, both parties bear responsibility for passing or failing to pass spending bills.
However, before yesterday, the Republicans had a 236 to 196 majority in the House (three vacant seats) and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. In December, the (Republican) House passed a spending bill with funding for the president's proposed border wall. The Senate unanimously passed an alternative short-term spending measure without border wall funding, which the president then threatened to veto. Following that, the Senate Majority Leader stated that he would not support (or presumably schedule a vote for) any bill that the president threatened to veto.
Also, almost all bills in the Senate require 60 senators to invoke "cloture" in order to end debate and vote. Bills that fail to receive cloture are "filibustered," and given that Senate Republicans had an extremely slim majority in the last Congress, invoking cloture against a united Democratic conference was quite tough. Even in the new Congress, invoking cloture will be tricky for polarizing legislation (e.g. anything dealing with "the wall"), albeit marginally easier for the Republicans than in the last Congress.
In my opinion, anyone who assigns blame or responsibility for the shutdown to one party exclusively is trying to spin the facts to fit a partisan or ideological narrative. How you assign blame depends on your personal beliefs, what you think about the majorities in Congress and what you think about the filibuster.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Jan 4 at 21:30
AndrewAndrew
1,085411
1,085411
New contributor
New contributor
16
"Senate Majority Leader would not support" is misleading. He has stated emphatically he will not allow any bill to be presented to the Senate without Presidential approval. Regarding responsibility for the shutdown, Trump has previously declared he would accept ("Proudly") the responsibility,
– BobE
Jan 5 at 4:34
8
A fair minded answer. I would assert that Democrats in the Senate that would filibuster any bill that includes wall funding joining forces with a Democrat House that passes bills that do not include any funding against the President's wishes and veto power, makes it clear that a particular party, the Democrats, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running.
– enorl76
Jan 5 at 5:19
18
enorl76, why do only the President's wishes matter? The entire Senate already approved spending withoutbthe additional wall funding. Brought Republicans together by havimg the Senate and House pass different bills?
– Brooks Nelson
Jan 5 at 23:21
22
@enorl76 to crib your response... I would assert that Republican leadership in the Senate that would block any bill that does not includes wall funding even being debated joining forces with a Republican President willing to veto such bills even after the initial bill passes the Senate 100 to 0 and despite them opetating in seperate government branches, makes it clear that a particular party, the Republicans, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running
– Jontia
2 days ago
3
@enorl76 Since the president has declared he won't sign any bill without funding the wall then there is no way it can be claimed that he is compromising either. Since the democrat's bill includes 1.something billion for border security they can at least claim to be trying to find a solution that achieves the stated goals of secure borders and running the government.
– Craig
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
16
"Senate Majority Leader would not support" is misleading. He has stated emphatically he will not allow any bill to be presented to the Senate without Presidential approval. Regarding responsibility for the shutdown, Trump has previously declared he would accept ("Proudly") the responsibility,
– BobE
Jan 5 at 4:34
8
A fair minded answer. I would assert that Democrats in the Senate that would filibuster any bill that includes wall funding joining forces with a Democrat House that passes bills that do not include any funding against the President's wishes and veto power, makes it clear that a particular party, the Democrats, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running.
– enorl76
Jan 5 at 5:19
18
enorl76, why do only the President's wishes matter? The entire Senate already approved spending withoutbthe additional wall funding. Brought Republicans together by havimg the Senate and House pass different bills?
– Brooks Nelson
Jan 5 at 23:21
22
@enorl76 to crib your response... I would assert that Republican leadership in the Senate that would block any bill that does not includes wall funding even being debated joining forces with a Republican President willing to veto such bills even after the initial bill passes the Senate 100 to 0 and despite them opetating in seperate government branches, makes it clear that a particular party, the Republicans, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running
– Jontia
2 days ago
3
@enorl76 Since the president has declared he won't sign any bill without funding the wall then there is no way it can be claimed that he is compromising either. Since the democrat's bill includes 1.something billion for border security they can at least claim to be trying to find a solution that achieves the stated goals of secure borders and running the government.
– Craig
yesterday
16
16
"Senate Majority Leader would not support" is misleading. He has stated emphatically he will not allow any bill to be presented to the Senate without Presidential approval. Regarding responsibility for the shutdown, Trump has previously declared he would accept ("Proudly") the responsibility,
– BobE
Jan 5 at 4:34
"Senate Majority Leader would not support" is misleading. He has stated emphatically he will not allow any bill to be presented to the Senate without Presidential approval. Regarding responsibility for the shutdown, Trump has previously declared he would accept ("Proudly") the responsibility,
– BobE
Jan 5 at 4:34
8
8
A fair minded answer. I would assert that Democrats in the Senate that would filibuster any bill that includes wall funding joining forces with a Democrat House that passes bills that do not include any funding against the President's wishes and veto power, makes it clear that a particular party, the Democrats, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running.
– enorl76
Jan 5 at 5:19
A fair minded answer. I would assert that Democrats in the Senate that would filibuster any bill that includes wall funding joining forces with a Democrat House that passes bills that do not include any funding against the President's wishes and veto power, makes it clear that a particular party, the Democrats, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running.
– enorl76
Jan 5 at 5:19
18
18
enorl76, why do only the President's wishes matter? The entire Senate already approved spending withoutbthe additional wall funding. Brought Republicans together by havimg the Senate and House pass different bills?
– Brooks Nelson
Jan 5 at 23:21
enorl76, why do only the President's wishes matter? The entire Senate already approved spending withoutbthe additional wall funding. Brought Republicans together by havimg the Senate and House pass different bills?
– Brooks Nelson
Jan 5 at 23:21
22
22
@enorl76 to crib your response... I would assert that Republican leadership in the Senate that would block any bill that does not includes wall funding even being debated joining forces with a Republican President willing to veto such bills even after the initial bill passes the Senate 100 to 0 and despite them opetating in seperate government branches, makes it clear that a particular party, the Republicans, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running
– Jontia
2 days ago
@enorl76 to crib your response... I would assert that Republican leadership in the Senate that would block any bill that does not includes wall funding even being debated joining forces with a Republican President willing to veto such bills even after the initial bill passes the Senate 100 to 0 and despite them opetating in seperate government branches, makes it clear that a particular party, the Republicans, are clearly not interested in compromising to keep government running
– Jontia
2 days ago
3
3
@enorl76 Since the president has declared he won't sign any bill without funding the wall then there is no way it can be claimed that he is compromising either. Since the democrat's bill includes 1.something billion for border security they can at least claim to be trying to find a solution that achieves the stated goals of secure borders and running the government.
– Craig
yesterday
@enorl76 Since the president has declared he won't sign any bill without funding the wall then there is no way it can be claimed that he is compromising either. Since the democrat's bill includes 1.something billion for border security they can at least claim to be trying to find a solution that achieves the stated goals of secure borders and running the government.
– Craig
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
This isn't really that difficult: It's a typical standoff in which neither side wants to budge. Democrats could vote for the wall, but haven't. So, sure, it can be considered at least partially their fault. That's not to say Trump isn't to blame, either. But, if ending the shutdown were enough of a priority, then Democrats could simply vote for the money for the wall, and be done with it. If it's not, the standoff will continue.
New contributor
34
The same logic says "the Republicans could accept no wall funding and be done with it".
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 5 at 14:26
22
@EthanBolker : True, but the question asked about the arguments the Republicans are using.
– vsz
Jan 5 at 14:46
16
Exactly. Both sides want to blame the other for whatever bad thing is happening. Both sides are "to blame" in the sense that they could end the shutdown by caving in to the other side's demands.
– David Richerby
yesterday
1
Schumer in the past, has talked about getting a border wall built. Yet now insists on no funding for a wall because Trump wants it. Trump wants the wall because its a campaign pledge, and he'll run next cycle on how Democrats filibustered wall funding in the Senate, and wouldn't pass bills in the House to get it done. Democrats will lose this one, because border wall is border security and Democrats appear to be lacking on any border security funding.
– enorl76
yesterday
1
+1. When two sides are in a standoff, they each believe that the outcome that they are fighting for is the outcome with greater utility. It's possible that one side is right about this belief, and the other is wrong (depending on your definition of "utility"). If this is the case, then blame against the "wrong" side really is warranted by the "right" side. (Of course, in general, you have to weigh the utility of your position multiplied by the probability of it passing, purely against the utility of your opponents' position. Accounting for this, both sides can be "wrong".)
– Bridgeburners
8 hours ago
add a comment |
This isn't really that difficult: It's a typical standoff in which neither side wants to budge. Democrats could vote for the wall, but haven't. So, sure, it can be considered at least partially their fault. That's not to say Trump isn't to blame, either. But, if ending the shutdown were enough of a priority, then Democrats could simply vote for the money for the wall, and be done with it. If it's not, the standoff will continue.
New contributor
34
The same logic says "the Republicans could accept no wall funding and be done with it".
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 5 at 14:26
22
@EthanBolker : True, but the question asked about the arguments the Republicans are using.
– vsz
Jan 5 at 14:46
16
Exactly. Both sides want to blame the other for whatever bad thing is happening. Both sides are "to blame" in the sense that they could end the shutdown by caving in to the other side's demands.
– David Richerby
yesterday
1
Schumer in the past, has talked about getting a border wall built. Yet now insists on no funding for a wall because Trump wants it. Trump wants the wall because its a campaign pledge, and he'll run next cycle on how Democrats filibustered wall funding in the Senate, and wouldn't pass bills in the House to get it done. Democrats will lose this one, because border wall is border security and Democrats appear to be lacking on any border security funding.
– enorl76
yesterday
1
+1. When two sides are in a standoff, they each believe that the outcome that they are fighting for is the outcome with greater utility. It's possible that one side is right about this belief, and the other is wrong (depending on your definition of "utility"). If this is the case, then blame against the "wrong" side really is warranted by the "right" side. (Of course, in general, you have to weigh the utility of your position multiplied by the probability of it passing, purely against the utility of your opponents' position. Accounting for this, both sides can be "wrong".)
– Bridgeburners
8 hours ago
add a comment |
This isn't really that difficult: It's a typical standoff in which neither side wants to budge. Democrats could vote for the wall, but haven't. So, sure, it can be considered at least partially their fault. That's not to say Trump isn't to blame, either. But, if ending the shutdown were enough of a priority, then Democrats could simply vote for the money for the wall, and be done with it. If it's not, the standoff will continue.
New contributor
This isn't really that difficult: It's a typical standoff in which neither side wants to budge. Democrats could vote for the wall, but haven't. So, sure, it can be considered at least partially their fault. That's not to say Trump isn't to blame, either. But, if ending the shutdown were enough of a priority, then Democrats could simply vote for the money for the wall, and be done with it. If it's not, the standoff will continue.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Jan 5 at 13:27
mallenmallen
2532
2532
New contributor
New contributor
34
The same logic says "the Republicans could accept no wall funding and be done with it".
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 5 at 14:26
22
@EthanBolker : True, but the question asked about the arguments the Republicans are using.
– vsz
Jan 5 at 14:46
16
Exactly. Both sides want to blame the other for whatever bad thing is happening. Both sides are "to blame" in the sense that they could end the shutdown by caving in to the other side's demands.
– David Richerby
yesterday
1
Schumer in the past, has talked about getting a border wall built. Yet now insists on no funding for a wall because Trump wants it. Trump wants the wall because its a campaign pledge, and he'll run next cycle on how Democrats filibustered wall funding in the Senate, and wouldn't pass bills in the House to get it done. Democrats will lose this one, because border wall is border security and Democrats appear to be lacking on any border security funding.
– enorl76
yesterday
1
+1. When two sides are in a standoff, they each believe that the outcome that they are fighting for is the outcome with greater utility. It's possible that one side is right about this belief, and the other is wrong (depending on your definition of "utility"). If this is the case, then blame against the "wrong" side really is warranted by the "right" side. (Of course, in general, you have to weigh the utility of your position multiplied by the probability of it passing, purely against the utility of your opponents' position. Accounting for this, both sides can be "wrong".)
– Bridgeburners
8 hours ago
add a comment |
34
The same logic says "the Republicans could accept no wall funding and be done with it".
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 5 at 14:26
22
@EthanBolker : True, but the question asked about the arguments the Republicans are using.
– vsz
Jan 5 at 14:46
16
Exactly. Both sides want to blame the other for whatever bad thing is happening. Both sides are "to blame" in the sense that they could end the shutdown by caving in to the other side's demands.
– David Richerby
yesterday
1
Schumer in the past, has talked about getting a border wall built. Yet now insists on no funding for a wall because Trump wants it. Trump wants the wall because its a campaign pledge, and he'll run next cycle on how Democrats filibustered wall funding in the Senate, and wouldn't pass bills in the House to get it done. Democrats will lose this one, because border wall is border security and Democrats appear to be lacking on any border security funding.
– enorl76
yesterday
1
+1. When two sides are in a standoff, they each believe that the outcome that they are fighting for is the outcome with greater utility. It's possible that one side is right about this belief, and the other is wrong (depending on your definition of "utility"). If this is the case, then blame against the "wrong" side really is warranted by the "right" side. (Of course, in general, you have to weigh the utility of your position multiplied by the probability of it passing, purely against the utility of your opponents' position. Accounting for this, both sides can be "wrong".)
– Bridgeburners
8 hours ago
34
34
The same logic says "the Republicans could accept no wall funding and be done with it".
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 5 at 14:26
The same logic says "the Republicans could accept no wall funding and be done with it".
– Ethan Bolker
Jan 5 at 14:26
22
22
@EthanBolker : True, but the question asked about the arguments the Republicans are using.
– vsz
Jan 5 at 14:46
@EthanBolker : True, but the question asked about the arguments the Republicans are using.
– vsz
Jan 5 at 14:46
16
16
Exactly. Both sides want to blame the other for whatever bad thing is happening. Both sides are "to blame" in the sense that they could end the shutdown by caving in to the other side's demands.
– David Richerby
yesterday
Exactly. Both sides want to blame the other for whatever bad thing is happening. Both sides are "to blame" in the sense that they could end the shutdown by caving in to the other side's demands.
– David Richerby
yesterday
1
1
Schumer in the past, has talked about getting a border wall built. Yet now insists on no funding for a wall because Trump wants it. Trump wants the wall because its a campaign pledge, and he'll run next cycle on how Democrats filibustered wall funding in the Senate, and wouldn't pass bills in the House to get it done. Democrats will lose this one, because border wall is border security and Democrats appear to be lacking on any border security funding.
– enorl76
yesterday
Schumer in the past, has talked about getting a border wall built. Yet now insists on no funding for a wall because Trump wants it. Trump wants the wall because its a campaign pledge, and he'll run next cycle on how Democrats filibustered wall funding in the Senate, and wouldn't pass bills in the House to get it done. Democrats will lose this one, because border wall is border security and Democrats appear to be lacking on any border security funding.
– enorl76
yesterday
1
1
+1. When two sides are in a standoff, they each believe that the outcome that they are fighting for is the outcome with greater utility. It's possible that one side is right about this belief, and the other is wrong (depending on your definition of "utility"). If this is the case, then blame against the "wrong" side really is warranted by the "right" side. (Of course, in general, you have to weigh the utility of your position multiplied by the probability of it passing, purely against the utility of your opponents' position. Accounting for this, both sides can be "wrong".)
– Bridgeburners
8 hours ago
+1. When two sides are in a standoff, they each believe that the outcome that they are fighting for is the outcome with greater utility. It's possible that one side is right about this belief, and the other is wrong (depending on your definition of "utility"). If this is the case, then blame against the "wrong" side really is warranted by the "right" side. (Of course, in general, you have to weigh the utility of your position multiplied by the probability of it passing, purely against the utility of your opponents' position. Accounting for this, both sides can be "wrong".)
– Bridgeburners
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Passing a spending bill in the Senate requires bi-partisan cooperation because it requires overcoming a 60-vote requirement. The President demanded that any spending bill include a line for $5 billion (about 0.13% of the total yearly spending) for a border barrier (which he colloquially called a "wall").
The Republicans were willing to include the line for this spending. The Democrats were not. By this logic, the Democrats have a partial responsibility for the bill not passing.
Clearly they are not the only ones to blame. The President's unwillingness to give up on funding of "the wall" is to blame as well. But using the cloture rules to hold up a spending bill over a 0.13% spending line is the reason (or logic) for why the President is putting the failure to pass the spending bill at the Democrats' feet.
3
There is no 60 vote requirement, it is only required if there is a filibuster. Lots of laws have been passed with less than 60 votes and without filibuster.
– jmoreno
2 days ago
3
@jmoreno. You are correct that 60 votes are not required for the bill to pass. But 60 votes are required for to invoke cloture (aka "end the filibuster") to allow for the bill to be actually voted on. And even if 60 senators do vote to invoke the cloture, the bill may actually pass with less than 60 votes.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
Passing a spending bill in the Senate requires bi-partisan cooperation because it requires overcoming a 60-vote requirement. The President demanded that any spending bill include a line for $5 billion (about 0.13% of the total yearly spending) for a border barrier (which he colloquially called a "wall").
The Republicans were willing to include the line for this spending. The Democrats were not. By this logic, the Democrats have a partial responsibility for the bill not passing.
Clearly they are not the only ones to blame. The President's unwillingness to give up on funding of "the wall" is to blame as well. But using the cloture rules to hold up a spending bill over a 0.13% spending line is the reason (or logic) for why the President is putting the failure to pass the spending bill at the Democrats' feet.
3
There is no 60 vote requirement, it is only required if there is a filibuster. Lots of laws have been passed with less than 60 votes and without filibuster.
– jmoreno
2 days ago
3
@jmoreno. You are correct that 60 votes are not required for the bill to pass. But 60 votes are required for to invoke cloture (aka "end the filibuster") to allow for the bill to be actually voted on. And even if 60 senators do vote to invoke the cloture, the bill may actually pass with less than 60 votes.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
Passing a spending bill in the Senate requires bi-partisan cooperation because it requires overcoming a 60-vote requirement. The President demanded that any spending bill include a line for $5 billion (about 0.13% of the total yearly spending) for a border barrier (which he colloquially called a "wall").
The Republicans were willing to include the line for this spending. The Democrats were not. By this logic, the Democrats have a partial responsibility for the bill not passing.
Clearly they are not the only ones to blame. The President's unwillingness to give up on funding of "the wall" is to blame as well. But using the cloture rules to hold up a spending bill over a 0.13% spending line is the reason (or logic) for why the President is putting the failure to pass the spending bill at the Democrats' feet.
Passing a spending bill in the Senate requires bi-partisan cooperation because it requires overcoming a 60-vote requirement. The President demanded that any spending bill include a line for $5 billion (about 0.13% of the total yearly spending) for a border barrier (which he colloquially called a "wall").
The Republicans were willing to include the line for this spending. The Democrats were not. By this logic, the Democrats have a partial responsibility for the bill not passing.
Clearly they are not the only ones to blame. The President's unwillingness to give up on funding of "the wall" is to blame as well. But using the cloture rules to hold up a spending bill over a 0.13% spending line is the reason (or logic) for why the President is putting the failure to pass the spending bill at the Democrats' feet.
edited Jan 6 at 2:33
answered Jan 5 at 20:39
grovkingrovkin
2,81621238
2,81621238
3
There is no 60 vote requirement, it is only required if there is a filibuster. Lots of laws have been passed with less than 60 votes and without filibuster.
– jmoreno
2 days ago
3
@jmoreno. You are correct that 60 votes are not required for the bill to pass. But 60 votes are required for to invoke cloture (aka "end the filibuster") to allow for the bill to be actually voted on. And even if 60 senators do vote to invoke the cloture, the bill may actually pass with less than 60 votes.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
3
There is no 60 vote requirement, it is only required if there is a filibuster. Lots of laws have been passed with less than 60 votes and without filibuster.
– jmoreno
2 days ago
3
@jmoreno. You are correct that 60 votes are not required for the bill to pass. But 60 votes are required for to invoke cloture (aka "end the filibuster") to allow for the bill to be actually voted on. And even if 60 senators do vote to invoke the cloture, the bill may actually pass with less than 60 votes.
– grovkin
yesterday
3
3
There is no 60 vote requirement, it is only required if there is a filibuster. Lots of laws have been passed with less than 60 votes and without filibuster.
– jmoreno
2 days ago
There is no 60 vote requirement, it is only required if there is a filibuster. Lots of laws have been passed with less than 60 votes and without filibuster.
– jmoreno
2 days ago
3
3
@jmoreno. You are correct that 60 votes are not required for the bill to pass. But 60 votes are required for to invoke cloture (aka "end the filibuster") to allow for the bill to be actually voted on. And even if 60 senators do vote to invoke the cloture, the bill may actually pass with less than 60 votes.
– grovkin
yesterday
@jmoreno. You are correct that 60 votes are not required for the bill to pass. But 60 votes are required for to invoke cloture (aka "end the filibuster") to allow for the bill to be actually voted on. And even if 60 senators do vote to invoke the cloture, the bill may actually pass with less than 60 votes.
– grovkin
yesterday
add a comment |
If Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, and also have control over the executive branch, how could it be possible that the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown?
Answer: The Republicans' majority in the Senate isn't large enough.
In order to end debating a bill, 60 senators have to agree to start voting. Because the Republicans only held either 51 (just before the 2018 election) or 53 (after the 2018 election), the Democrats have enough votes to continue debating certain bills forever. This is known as 'filibusting' a bill.
As a result, the Republicans were not able to pass a bill that included the requested money for a border wall, even when they had majorities in both chambers of Congress.
10
This answer doesn't seem to add anything not covered by the existing answers.
– CrackpotCrocodile
Jan 4 at 23:03
3
@CrackpotCrocodile It's much shorter than the other ones. Listing which bills have passed doesn't answer why funding for a wall hasn't passed yet.
– Sjoerd
Jan 5 at 0:53
5
The question isn't about the funding for the wall though, but the government shutdown.
– Lebbers
Jan 5 at 3:16
1
@Jontia They couldn't pass a bill with funding for the wall due to the Democrats filibustering such a bill. As is proved by the fact that the bill with wall money approved by the House was never up for voting in the Senate. The Republicans have a Senate majority, but they don't control the Senate.
– Sjoerd
2 days ago
1
@T.E.D.Democrats had supermajority in House and 56 Senators. Republicans couldn't stop ACA because Reid (D) invoked the "nuclear option" to eliminate cloture rules of 60 votes, and put the ACA bill on the floor of the Senate, which passed because of the D majority in the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate and changed the cloture rules for the ACA. So why do Republicans blame Democrats just before and now? Because R's DIDNT invoke "nuclear option" and pass the bill, even though there's precedent. R's in Senate want it to pass without rule hijinx but cant overcome the D's filibuster.
– enorl76
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
If Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, and also have control over the executive branch, how could it be possible that the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown?
Answer: The Republicans' majority in the Senate isn't large enough.
In order to end debating a bill, 60 senators have to agree to start voting. Because the Republicans only held either 51 (just before the 2018 election) or 53 (after the 2018 election), the Democrats have enough votes to continue debating certain bills forever. This is known as 'filibusting' a bill.
As a result, the Republicans were not able to pass a bill that included the requested money for a border wall, even when they had majorities in both chambers of Congress.
10
This answer doesn't seem to add anything not covered by the existing answers.
– CrackpotCrocodile
Jan 4 at 23:03
3
@CrackpotCrocodile It's much shorter than the other ones. Listing which bills have passed doesn't answer why funding for a wall hasn't passed yet.
– Sjoerd
Jan 5 at 0:53
5
The question isn't about the funding for the wall though, but the government shutdown.
– Lebbers
Jan 5 at 3:16
1
@Jontia They couldn't pass a bill with funding for the wall due to the Democrats filibustering such a bill. As is proved by the fact that the bill with wall money approved by the House was never up for voting in the Senate. The Republicans have a Senate majority, but they don't control the Senate.
– Sjoerd
2 days ago
1
@T.E.D.Democrats had supermajority in House and 56 Senators. Republicans couldn't stop ACA because Reid (D) invoked the "nuclear option" to eliminate cloture rules of 60 votes, and put the ACA bill on the floor of the Senate, which passed because of the D majority in the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate and changed the cloture rules for the ACA. So why do Republicans blame Democrats just before and now? Because R's DIDNT invoke "nuclear option" and pass the bill, even though there's precedent. R's in Senate want it to pass without rule hijinx but cant overcome the D's filibuster.
– enorl76
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
If Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, and also have control over the executive branch, how could it be possible that the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown?
Answer: The Republicans' majority in the Senate isn't large enough.
In order to end debating a bill, 60 senators have to agree to start voting. Because the Republicans only held either 51 (just before the 2018 election) or 53 (after the 2018 election), the Democrats have enough votes to continue debating certain bills forever. This is known as 'filibusting' a bill.
As a result, the Republicans were not able to pass a bill that included the requested money for a border wall, even when they had majorities in both chambers of Congress.
If Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, and also have control over the executive branch, how could it be possible that the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown?
Answer: The Republicans' majority in the Senate isn't large enough.
In order to end debating a bill, 60 senators have to agree to start voting. Because the Republicans only held either 51 (just before the 2018 election) or 53 (after the 2018 election), the Democrats have enough votes to continue debating certain bills forever. This is known as 'filibusting' a bill.
As a result, the Republicans were not able to pass a bill that included the requested money for a border wall, even when they had majorities in both chambers of Congress.
answered Jan 4 at 22:11
SjoerdSjoerd
2,5101917
2,5101917
10
This answer doesn't seem to add anything not covered by the existing answers.
– CrackpotCrocodile
Jan 4 at 23:03
3
@CrackpotCrocodile It's much shorter than the other ones. Listing which bills have passed doesn't answer why funding for a wall hasn't passed yet.
– Sjoerd
Jan 5 at 0:53
5
The question isn't about the funding for the wall though, but the government shutdown.
– Lebbers
Jan 5 at 3:16
1
@Jontia They couldn't pass a bill with funding for the wall due to the Democrats filibustering such a bill. As is proved by the fact that the bill with wall money approved by the House was never up for voting in the Senate. The Republicans have a Senate majority, but they don't control the Senate.
– Sjoerd
2 days ago
1
@T.E.D.Democrats had supermajority in House and 56 Senators. Republicans couldn't stop ACA because Reid (D) invoked the "nuclear option" to eliminate cloture rules of 60 votes, and put the ACA bill on the floor of the Senate, which passed because of the D majority in the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate and changed the cloture rules for the ACA. So why do Republicans blame Democrats just before and now? Because R's DIDNT invoke "nuclear option" and pass the bill, even though there's precedent. R's in Senate want it to pass without rule hijinx but cant overcome the D's filibuster.
– enorl76
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
10
This answer doesn't seem to add anything not covered by the existing answers.
– CrackpotCrocodile
Jan 4 at 23:03
3
@CrackpotCrocodile It's much shorter than the other ones. Listing which bills have passed doesn't answer why funding for a wall hasn't passed yet.
– Sjoerd
Jan 5 at 0:53
5
The question isn't about the funding for the wall though, but the government shutdown.
– Lebbers
Jan 5 at 3:16
1
@Jontia They couldn't pass a bill with funding for the wall due to the Democrats filibustering such a bill. As is proved by the fact that the bill with wall money approved by the House was never up for voting in the Senate. The Republicans have a Senate majority, but they don't control the Senate.
– Sjoerd
2 days ago
1
@T.E.D.Democrats had supermajority in House and 56 Senators. Republicans couldn't stop ACA because Reid (D) invoked the "nuclear option" to eliminate cloture rules of 60 votes, and put the ACA bill on the floor of the Senate, which passed because of the D majority in the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate and changed the cloture rules for the ACA. So why do Republicans blame Democrats just before and now? Because R's DIDNT invoke "nuclear option" and pass the bill, even though there's precedent. R's in Senate want it to pass without rule hijinx but cant overcome the D's filibuster.
– enorl76
yesterday
10
10
This answer doesn't seem to add anything not covered by the existing answers.
– CrackpotCrocodile
Jan 4 at 23:03
This answer doesn't seem to add anything not covered by the existing answers.
– CrackpotCrocodile
Jan 4 at 23:03
3
3
@CrackpotCrocodile It's much shorter than the other ones. Listing which bills have passed doesn't answer why funding for a wall hasn't passed yet.
– Sjoerd
Jan 5 at 0:53
@CrackpotCrocodile It's much shorter than the other ones. Listing which bills have passed doesn't answer why funding for a wall hasn't passed yet.
– Sjoerd
Jan 5 at 0:53
5
5
The question isn't about the funding for the wall though, but the government shutdown.
– Lebbers
Jan 5 at 3:16
The question isn't about the funding for the wall though, but the government shutdown.
– Lebbers
Jan 5 at 3:16
1
1
@Jontia They couldn't pass a bill with funding for the wall due to the Democrats filibustering such a bill. As is proved by the fact that the bill with wall money approved by the House was never up for voting in the Senate. The Republicans have a Senate majority, but they don't control the Senate.
– Sjoerd
2 days ago
@Jontia They couldn't pass a bill with funding for the wall due to the Democrats filibustering such a bill. As is proved by the fact that the bill with wall money approved by the House was never up for voting in the Senate. The Republicans have a Senate majority, but they don't control the Senate.
– Sjoerd
2 days ago
1
1
@T.E.D.Democrats had supermajority in House and 56 Senators. Republicans couldn't stop ACA because Reid (D) invoked the "nuclear option" to eliminate cloture rules of 60 votes, and put the ACA bill on the floor of the Senate, which passed because of the D majority in the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate and changed the cloture rules for the ACA. So why do Republicans blame Democrats just before and now? Because R's DIDNT invoke "nuclear option" and pass the bill, even though there's precedent. R's in Senate want it to pass without rule hijinx but cant overcome the D's filibuster.
– enorl76
yesterday
@T.E.D.Democrats had supermajority in House and 56 Senators. Republicans couldn't stop ACA because Reid (D) invoked the "nuclear option" to eliminate cloture rules of 60 votes, and put the ACA bill on the floor of the Senate, which passed because of the D majority in the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate and changed the cloture rules for the ACA. So why do Republicans blame Democrats just before and now? Because R's DIDNT invoke "nuclear option" and pass the bill, even though there's precedent. R's in Senate want it to pass without rule hijinx but cant overcome the D's filibuster.
– enorl76
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
protected by Philipp♦ Jan 5 at 13:52
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
3
It's not the first time a funding gap has occurred when the president, the senate majority, and house majority, are of all of the same political party: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– Andrew Grimm
Jan 4 at 22:50
4
@Aporter I don’t think it requires speculation at all. The question boils down to what are the mechanics/nuances of the US governmental system that allow a party with majority in Congress and control of the executive branch to logically be able to blame the opposing party. Who is actually to blame is somewhat irrelevant. Alexander was able to answer that in their response.
– Trent the Gent
Jan 6 at 0:15
3
@TrenttheGent If you consider Alexander's answer to answer your question, please edit the question so that it matches what he says. Because he doesn't actually address at all what you ask: what the Republicans's logic is that leads to their conclusion that the Democrats are to blame.
– curiousdannii
Jan 6 at 2:11
8
Re blame and fault: Opponents of the wall regard steadfast opposition as less of a fault than it would it is both a credit and a duty -- i.e. something they're proud to oppose. For them it would be like asking *"whose fault is it that the US fails to officially re-institute slavery?"
– agc
2 days ago
2
@Mike Scott at the start of the shutdown, the Rebublicans did have a majority in the House.
– Trent the Gent
2 days ago