Schumer threatens government shutdown if GOP includes Wall in budget

[Ronnie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/government-funding-bill-border-wall-democrats-235987

[ApatheticAustrian]

still stupid/dangerous/treasonous but at least a better reason this time.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I've never liked riders on bills. It strikes me as a needless exercise in arm-twisting.

[Virginiá]

So we're going to shut the govt down now on matters of policy too? Come on Schumer. I'm vehemently against this stuff, and I don't think PP should get defunded nor should Russia investigations be watered down or swept under the rug, but we can't create such a broad palette for this stuff. Shutting down the govt is a big, expensive ordeal that hurts a lot of workers, and it should not just be a regular part of each party's policy opposition toolkit.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I don't think it will have to come to that, we all know the difficulty the Republicans have with passing budgets. Tacking on a bunch of poison pill riders will only exacerbate intraparty divisions for the Republicans.

[Mr. Morden]

Again, I ask the same question I asked in the last government shutdown thread: Can't appropriations bills be passed via reconciliation?  In which case, why would they need 60 votes to avert a shutdown?  Can't the Republicans pass them on their own?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If Schumer is seriously going to hold up the entire government over funding for planned parenthood, he deserves to be forcibly removed from office. The american people knew that republicans wanted to defund this murderous organization, they voted for it, and they deserve to see it happen. And at the end of the day, if we have to shut down the government for a month or two to get such a murderous organization defunded, then I say shut it down! The ends justify the means.

[Hindsight was 2020]

If Schumer is seriously going to hold up the entire government over funding for planned parenthood, he deserves to be forcibly removed from office. The american people knew that republicans wanted to defund this murderous organization, they voted for it, and they deserve to see it happen. And at the end of the day, if we have to shut down the government for a month or two to get such a murderous organization defunded, then I say shut it down! The ends justify the means.

It's 2017 not 1917 abortion is the law of the land an on top of that as many have pointed out time an time again PP doesn't do a lot of abortions so by defunding you'd be hurting women's healthcare more then stopping abortions

[Cashew]

A wall is a stupid issue to shut the government down over. Let the republicans own the boondoggle fully. If it turns out to actually be cost effective and work than great. Even stupider is a government shutdown over public funding of abortion, especially considering how incompetent democrats are at PR. If anything, do it over something with popular support, like climate change.

[Blackacre]

A wall is a stupid issue to shut the government down over. Let the republicans own the boondoggle fully. If it turns out to actually be cost effective and work than great. Even stupider is a government shutdown over public funding of abortion, especially considering how incompetent democrats are at PR. If anything, do it over something with popular support, like climate change.

No federal funding goes towards abortions. The funding that PP gets is for other, non-abortion services

[Maxwell]

There isn't enough support for a border wall on either side of the legislative branch. A border wall is dead on arrival, imo.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If Schumer is seriously going to hold up the entire government over funding for planned parenthood, he deserves to be forcibly removed from office. The american people knew that republicans wanted to defund this murderous organization, they voted for it, and they deserve to see it happen. And at the end of the day, if we have to shut down the government for a month or two to get such a murderous organization defunded, then I say shut it down! The ends justify the means.

It's 2017 not 1917 abortion is the law of the land an on top of that as many have pointed out time an time again PP doesn't do a lot of abortions so by defunding you'd be hurting women's healthcare more then stopping abortions

Trump explicitly offered to drop his support of defunding PP if they stopped performing abortions. PP said this in response:

https://www.facebook.com/centerformedicalprogress/photos/a.1621514461423852.1073741828.1592459800995985/1856168574625105/?type=3&theater

Calling abortion a service that's as vital to your mission as birth control/cancer screenings really takes any believability out of the 3% statistic. If something is only 3% of your business, then by defintion it isn't as important as other services you provide. By denying that definition, PP is denying the 3% statistic.

A wall is a stupid issue to shut the government down over. Let the republicans own the boondoggle fully. If it turns out to actually be cost effective and work than great. Even stupider is a government shutdown over public funding of abortion, especially considering how incompetent democrats are at PR. If anything, do it over something with popular support, like climate change.

No federal funding goes towards abortions. The funding that PP gets is for other, non-abortion services

1. I have no reason to trust that PP actually follows the law.
2. Even if we assume that they do (a very risky assumption), the fact is that by giving them money to fund this service or that service, it frees up more money to spend on abortion then would otherwise be avaliable, therefore allowing the performance of more abortions.

[Cashew]

A wall is a stupid issue to shut the government down over. Let the republicans own the boondoggle fully. If it turns out to actually be cost effective and work than great. Even stupider is a government shutdown over public funding of abortion, especially considering how incompetent democrats are at PR. If anything, do it over something with popular support, like climate change.

No federal funding goes towards abortions. The funding that PP gets is for other, non-abortion services

That does not make that much of a difference.

If planned parenthood receives federal money that has to be used for non abortion purposes, than they will simply take that money and use it to pay for overhead costs, while the no strings attached money they receive from other sources will transferred from overhead costs and other serves to pay for abortion with no penalties.  

Again, you are technically correct, but the federal government does remain a "collaborator" so long as this loophole remains in place. Most Americans will see though this taking point if democrats are truly stupid enough to make this the highlight of 2016.

[Virginiá]

Trump explicitly offered to drop his support of defunding PP if they stopped performing abortions. PP said this in response:

https://www.facebook.com/centerformedicalprogress/photos/a.1621514461423852.1073741828.1592459800995985/1856168574625105/?type=3&theater

Calling abortion a service that's as vital to your mission as birth control/cancer screenings really takes any believability out of the 3% statistic. If something is only 3% of your business, then by defintion it isn't as important as other services you provide. By denying that definition, PP is denying the 3% statistic.

No, they aren't. Perhaps if you are eager to believe they are far more involved in abortion it does. Their position on this seems more out of principle - that they (rightfully) value their services in relation to abortion and the help it provides, and that they don't want to be bullied around by a bunch of conservatives emboldened by a big league sexist who weaseled his way into the White House without even plurality support, and has thus breathed new life into hack schemes like defunding PP, which, btw, do not enjoy public support either.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Trump explicitly offered to drop his support of defunding PP if they stopped performing abortions. PP said this in response:

https://www.facebook.com/centerformedicalprogress/photos/a.1621514461423852.1073741828.1592459800995985/1856168574625105/?type=3&theater

Calling abortion a service that's as vital to your mission as birth control/cancer screenings really takes any believability out of the 3% statistic. If something is only 3% of your business, then by defintion it isn't as important as other services you provide. By denying that definition, PP is denying the 3% statistic.

No, they aren't. Perhaps if you are eager to believe they are far more involved in abortion it does. Their position on this seems more out of principle - that they (rightfully) value their services in relation to abortion and the help it provides, and that they don't want to be bullied around by a bunch of conservatives emboldened by a big league sexist who weaseled his way into the White House without even plurality support, and has thus breathed new life into hack schemes like defunding PP, which, btw, do not enjoy public support either.

Well, that goes against your party's talking point that PP is an organization that focuses on birth control, cancer screenings, and mammograms, and doesn't focus on abortions. This really  shows how incoherent the democrats are here. They say we can fund PP because abortion is a very small % of what it does, reject dropping the service because it's "as vital as everything else", then deflect the charge that that invalidates the 3% statistic because "they value their services in respect to Abortion", which invalidates the talking point that cancer screenings, mammograms and birth control is their main focus.

Of course, the truth is that Dems are in love with Abortion and want to fund it, but know that centrist voters don't like it, so come up with a slew of bad talking points to get away with it. But don't worry, you don't have to use those talking points anymore, because PP will be defunded, and the the issue will be dead. And if that means we have to shut down the government for a month or two, then I say shut it down!

[RFayette]

Very upset, though not surprised, about the shutdown threat should PP be defunded.   Unlike the wall, that's a hill I want to die on, so hopefully Schumer and co will capitulate on that.

[Beet]

Again, I ask the same question I asked in the last government shutdown thread: Can't appropriations bills be passed via reconciliation?  In which case, why would they need 60 votes to avert a shutdown?  Can't the Republicans pass them on their own?

Heheh. You've asked the same question 3 times now, and no one has responded. Might it have something to do with the fact that reconciliation can only be used once, so if they use it for health care, they can't use it for the budget.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Again, I ask the same question I asked in the last government shutdown thread: Can't appropriations bills be passed via reconciliation?  In which case, why would they need 60 votes to avert a shutdown?  Can't the Republicans pass them on their own?

Heheh. You've asked the same question 3 times now, and no one has responded. Might it have something to do with the fact that reconciliation can only be used once, so if they use it for health care, they can't use it for the budget.

Why would they use it for healthcare? Is there even rumour of this?

[vote for pedro]

News for ya Chuck, only your side cares about government shutdowns.  Shut it down.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, this is ridiculous.

I'm all for a scorched-earth opposition to T***p, but nothing good will come out of this.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This might be what is needed to defeat all the red state Democrats in 2018.

I want those guys to survive, but if it comes to it, I'll take defunding pp over keeping them around.

[Virginiá]

Well, that goes against your party's talking point that PP is an organization that focuses on birth control, cancer screenings, and mammograms, and doesn't focus on abortions. This really  shows how incoherent the democrats are here. They say we can fund PP because abortion is a very small % of what it does, reject dropping the service because it's "as vital as everything else", then deflect the charge that that invalidates the 3% statistic because "they value their services in respect to Abortion", which invalidates the talking point that cancer screenings, mammograms and birth control is their main focus.

You're playing around with words now and you know it. Not wanting to be bullied into what services they can provide by conservatives is not evidence of what you're stating. In fact, personally, I think they should take the deal they were offered but I still fully understand why they might not want to.

And the idea that Democrats are "in love" with abortion seems like a funny way to put it. I am very pro-choice but I don't encourage abortion, and I think it's a very hard choice to make (as it should be). I, like many, many others, just support the right to have a choice in the matter.

As for this - to me, it really just seems like you have your mind made up and you're stretching whatever need be to try and prove it.

[ApatheticAustrian]

News for ya Chuck, only your side cares about government shutdowns.  Shut it down.

i would never ever propose that republicans als natural traitors to the country so i doubt that notion.

[Xing]

Ugh, I don't think shutdowns are helpful or justified, regardless of which party does them. If PP actually does get defunded, it's going to backfire on Republicans enormously, or "big league" if you will. And this isn't going to stop the wall, sadly.

[Adam Griffin]

Of all the things the Democrats could threaten a shutdown over, this is the hill they choose? Total incompetence. The wall is not an unpopular idea in broad scope.

Shut it down over any changes to ACA instead, or at least something that directly affects economic/social fortunes of a portion of the country that doesn't constitute either a niche or a non-existent bloc within the Democratic Party.