|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 28 2013 16:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 28 2013 06:13 IgnE wrote:On September 28 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 28 2013 00:09 IgnE wrote:On September 27 2013 22:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 15:23 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes. No, economists are fairly well aware of the implications. However, I stillI don't think you do. No, the damn thing isn't a short term effect. It will permanently cripple the US economy. Almost all literature on the subject agrees that it is impossible to know to what extent these things will occur. There is very little precedent for it. Nothing is permanent. In a debate that is defined by the hyperbole being tossed around by either side, let at least us, who do not have elections to win, dispense with it. How you and I define short-term is obviously very different. I think it's funny that you think Obamacare is what is going to tip this country over into an "inevitable crash." The wheels are coming off the cart man, any major perturbance could trigger a world crisis of capitalism. Obamacare is pretty mild in comparison. Capitalism isn't being threatened here, only the crony capitalism that we've designed and fed into for the past 100 years. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back, and Obamacare is a pretty huge, trillion dollar straw. Will it happen immediately? Nope. Will it happen eventually? Absolutely. Capitalism is definitely being threatened here. If we didn't have the crony capitalism and the socialism-lite of entitlement spending the people would have already risen up or the rich would have barricaded themselves in fortified compounds. Capital accretes capital, now more than ever. We are coming upon the limits of "endless growth" and capitalism is powerless to stop it. Funny how the richest two men in the history of the world were both born poor, and made their wealth through a much freer form of capitalism than we have now. Crassus wasn't born poor.
John D. Rockafeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and many more were born in poverty (Andrew Carnegie), or were born poor. There is great evidence that one's status in birth is not nearly as great limiting factor as you would make it out to be.
|
On September 29 2013 06:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +LOL the founders ASSUMED equality??? Are you serious? You do know that slaves counting as 3/5 of a vote is in the Constitution, right? More folk history.
The judicial precedent for equality is under the fifth amendment under due process, but that's only under a living constitution interpretation.
Getting back to Obamacare, why the fuck should anyone care about how the White House argued it? I'm serious. Is the White House a supreme justice now? They said it wasn't a tax and Roberts disagreed with them. And I have no idea where you assert that you can't tax someone for being a citizen. Pulled out of your ass. Especially as not having healthcare creates a free rider problem where everyone else is paying for your healthcare: something you expressly forbade in a previous sentence.
[Edit: so if anything its a tax on citizens who force others to pay for their healthcare.]
No, once again, the only difference between your interpretation and mine is that you're arrogant and zealous enough to think that yours is the One True Interpretation. The whole point is that we can determine what they are as society, not worship some Americo-Religious dogma
Did you think the ruling on the Voting Rights Act was "activism"? They mangled a law that was passed overwhelming in both houses and signed with large popular support, exactly as it previously was passed. The Constitution wasn't perfect. (nor were the Civil Rights Acts, but it was Constitutional (see section 5 of amendment 14)). The founders knew this, of course. That's why article 5 exists. But their view was that all free citizens under the law were to be treated equally. They counted slaves as three-fifths for representation purposes...without slavery they would have had NO Constitution whatsoever, so they made a compromise (the whole Constitution is a compromise, but everyone had the same general goals in mind). I can't address what you said about the fifth amendment only working under the living constitution because you still haven't really defined the term. But, at any rate, it's false. It's well documented that the Founders, generally speaking, wanted every citizen to be equal under the law. That's not new. Obamacare is an affront not only to the idea of enumerated powers but also to the Bill of Rights and the Commerce Clause (the poor, poor abused Commerce Clause). Ok, let me explain this once again: Our Constitution is a document of (using Obama's words) "negative liberties." What the government CANNOT do to you. Its powers are ENUMERATED. PERIOD. Go ahead and challenge this. You can't.. This doctrine means that the government CANNOT do what it is not given the power to do. So unless you can show me that the tax amendment was in ANY way construed to mean taxes for merely being a citizen, then you are wrong. You say I have no facts, but I shouldn't have to go back to middle school to show you the idea of enumerated powers and the concept of limited government. This is what the founders meant and intended. YOU would rewrite it simply because it's old and it gets in your way. There is such a hilarious amount of documentation for this. So here again I ask: what IS your view of the Constitution? What rationale do you use when deciding if something is constitutional or not? So far you just say: "it's living and breathing, times change, and I want this to mean something else now." I hope you haven't been in this thread expressing anger of the NSA, because on your view what they are doing is perfectly ok. They could force you to wear pink flip-flops every day because they decide it would be better for your health, and that would be ok. When does the Constitution matter, and when doesn't it? You are right though: I am arguing that my interpretation is the right one. And so far, I have logically defended it, on a basis or original intent (that seems reasonable). You have offered no real explanation of your view, instead you attack me as close minded. I notice you REFUSE to answer my more philosophically oriented questions, most likely because it would show the utter inanity and lack of a coherent thesis. I told you I'm not going to go more into specific rights because I don't even know exactly where you are coming from. Your defense of your own view is non-existent and consists almost entirely of attacking mine. So, before you reply again, answer the following: How is the Constitution to be interpreted? What makes something unconstitutional when the Constitution is "living and breathing?" Why not follow the law and try to pass amendments, instead of relying on 5 out of 9 FALLIBLE human beings? You think the issue is "debatable" but of course, while we are debating it, the government declares discussion over and simply acts. Show nested quote +Are there any decisions that you can name that were decided "wrong" (meaning that they are inconsistent with what the Founders would have wanted) but that you believe had a good outcome from a policy perspective? Or do you just happen to think that the Founders would have agreed with all of your policy preferences? If you haven't noticed, I am making more broad philosophical arguments, using some examples. I am not going to go down the list of every little policy decision, even the founders didn't all agree on policy. So of course I don't think they would all agree with me on each and every issue.
You have logically defended nothing. You have simply asserted that your way is the right way.
Maybe you're not understanding this. I'm saying that your view is just as bullshit as my view, but at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it. You just wave your flag around about what the founders really want, but you haven't determined that at all. You've relied on folk history and bullshit to justify your own biases. And I have yet to call you close-minded. I've called you intellectually dishonest. It's almost like you're just completely ignoring what I'm writing in my posts.
You keep asking me to tell you what my view is. I genuinely don't understand what you want from me. So please demonstrate what your view is. I gave you the ACLU website, they explain constitutional and legal things much better than I ever could. I don't know what you want from me.
I suppose I could copy and paste things from the Wikipedia entry on Living Constitution, where I would fall under Judicial Pragmatism:
This general view has been expressed by the former conservative/now centrist Judge Richard Posner:
"A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution."
This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable.
Again, Obamacare has a free rider problem. If pre-existing conditions are to be covered, then anybody without health insurance is going to be riding on the taxpayer's expense (this happens to a certain extent now as well). Therefore the tax. As I said in my edit, it's a tax on people riding on the taxpayer's expense. Which is perfectly defensible, except to you, who seems to just simply have a problem with Obamacare. And the way the law works is important to the constitutionality of the law. Judges are supposed to be pragmatic about things.
I'm all for limited government powers. We just disagree on Obamacare, which you find so mind-blowing that you accuse me tyranny or something. It's really quite silly, and I'm getting the impression that you don't understand the free-rider issue of Obamacare. Obamacare is a three-legged stool.
Besides, you're the one who directly argued against the idea that citizens have a right to privacy, marriage, and healthcare. And you accuse me of expanding government power? You're not paying attention.
This is why I function under pragmatism. So I don't end up looking so silly.
|
On September 29 2013 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:
I honestly wonder if the people for the shutdown actually believe what they are saying. I find it hard to believe someone can believe that shutting down the government and a default after are in any way comparable to a form of universal healthcare becoming law. Heck that shutting down the country is a better option then working with democrats to improve Obamacare into a legitimate universal healthcare.
Are these people this far removed from reality that they actually believe this and not just spouting what they know is BS to get re-elected.
No more Guverment! Freedam! Amuricyaaa!
|
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now.
|
Not one GOP House leader spoke on the floor in favor. Not Cantor, or Boehner. Interesting.
|
On September 29 2013 13:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Not one GOP House leader spoke on the floor in favor. Not Cantor, or Boehner. Interesting.
They're not really the leaders anymore in anything but name.
Cruze control baby!
|
On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now.
So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this.
If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it.
|
Also take note that Boehner could have presented, on the floor, a clean CR for a vote and it would have passed with Democratic support. But the lunatics have taken over the asylum and he may be trying to keep his speakership.
|
On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it.
The ball is in his court, as the fate of the bill that funds the government is in his hands and under his control (let's be honest, Obama is the Democrat leader, if he said to pass the bill as-is, Harry Reid would do it.)
I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. That is foolish in both political and moral terms. After years of casting the Republicans as obstructionist, he now puts himself in the position where he has to say: "I will not negotiate on anything! I will say no to (obstruct) everything!"
The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain.
|
On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. The ball is in his court, as the fate of the bill that funds the government is in his hands and under his control (let's be honest, Obama is the Democrat leader, if he said to pass the bill as-is, Harry Reid would do it.) I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. That is foolish in both political and moral terms. After years of casting the Republicans as obstructionist, he now puts himself in the position where he has to say: "I will not negotiate on anything! I will say no to (obstruct) everything!" The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain.
No if the Government Shutting down is not on Obama's watch, it is directly in Boehner's and the GOP. For weeks parrty leaders have been urging the Tea Party crowd not to pick a fight as they know what will happen. Also it is not a bill it is a law.
|
On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain.
Please explain how saying "everything shuts down unless you don't let something that already passed go into effect" is a compromise...
|
On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. The ball is in his court, as the fate of the bill that funds the government is in his hands and under his control (let's be honest, Obama is the Democrat leader, if he said to pass the bill as-is, Harry Reid would do it.) I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. That is foolish in both political and moral terms. After years of casting the Republicans as obstructionist, he now puts himself in the position where he has to say: "I will not negotiate on anything! I will say no to (obstruct) everything!" The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain.
"Both parties" apparently means both sides of the Republican party to you.
|
On September 29 2013 13:43 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. Please explain how saying "everything shuts down unless you don't let something that already passed go into effect" is a compromise...
It's a compromise because at least they gave a choice ;x
|
On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. The ball is in his court, as the fate of the bill that funds the government is in his hands and under his control (let's be honest, Obama is the Democrat leader, if he said to pass the bill as-is, Harry Reid would do it.) I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. That is foolish in both political and moral terms. After years of casting the Republicans as obstructionist, he now puts himself in the position where he has to say: "I will not negotiate on anything! I will say no to (obstruct) everything!" The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain.
See, everyone knows the Republican end-game is to repeal the ACA. Why on earth would Obama agree to anything that helps them do that?
Are you saying Republicans would give up trying to repeal the ACA if Obama agrees to their terms this time? If so, I might agree with you.
But we all know that's not true and you'd be living in some fantasy world to think otherwise.
|
On September 29 2013 13:43 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. Please explain how saying "everything shuts down unless you don't let something that already passed go into effect" is a compromise...
The ideal Republican bill was to defund Obamacare entirely while funding the government. They didn't pass that, and instead sent back their ideal version, which was funding the government with no concessions. Perfectly reasonable on their part, as that's how all good negotiations begin, with both parties outlining their ideal positions. Republicans then gave great concession in saying: Okay, we'll let it go through, but we want a delay and we want a repeal of the medical-device tax. Democrats have signaled that instead of making a counter-proposal (they way normal negotiation would work) they will send back their ideal bill that has no concessions...
That's not only arrogant, it's foolish. Why should Republicans have to be the ones that give all the concessions? A proper negotiation would be for them to send back a bill containing some concessions on their end in return for concessions on our end. Maybe not meeting us half-way, but not expecting us to go all the way either. To refuse to do so is ridiculous of them. That's not negotiation, that is tyranny. Well... don't try to be a tyrant when you have no power.
Republicans want to negotiate, Obama and the Democrats have said: "NO NEGOTIATION!" The American people want negotiation. The Democrats have said: Nope, sorry, we either get our way or everyone suffers."
It's utterly childish and they've just maneuvered themselves into checkmate by doing it. The blame will fall mostly on them when the government shuts down. Keep in mind that the American people already want Obamacare completely repealed/defunded. The American people want what the Republicans want. They don't want what Obama wants which is full-steam ahead with no consideration for the public's feelings or desires.
|
The so-called Republican concession is red-herring. At the next CR, it'll be back to "LET'S REPEAL OBAMACARE AGAIN".
That's why this is all a waste of time and Obama should not negotiate with them.
|
On September 29 2013 13:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:43 GTPGlitch wrote:On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. Please explain how saying "everything shuts down unless you don't let something that already passed go into effect" is a compromise... The ideal Republican bill was to defund Obamacare entirely while funding the government. They didn't pass that, and instead sent back their ideal version, which was funding the government with no concessions. Perfectly reasonable on their part, as that's how all good negotiations begin, with both parties outlining their ideal positions. Republicans then gave great concession in saying: Okay, we'll let it go through, but we want a delay and we want a repeal of the medical-device tax. Democrats have signaled that instead of making a counter-proposal (they way normal negotiation would work) they will send back their ideal bill that has no concessions... That's not only arrogant, it's foolish. Why should Republicans have to be the ones that give all the concessions? A proper negotiation would be for them to send back a bill containing some concessions on their end in return for concessions on our end. Maybe not meeting us half-way, but not expecting us to go all the way either. To refuse to do so is ridiculous of them. That's not negotiation, that is tyranny. Well... don't try to be a tyrant when you have no power. Republicans want to negotiate, Obama and the Democrats have said: "NO NEGOTIATION!" The American people want negotiation. The Democrats have said: Nope, sorry, we either get our way or everyone suffers." It's utterly childish and they've just maneuvered themselves into checkmate by doing it. The blame will fall mostly on them when the government shuts down. Keep in mind that the American people already want Obamacare completely repealed/defunded. The American people want what the Republicans want. They don't want what Obama wants which is full-steam ahead with no consideration for the public's feelings or desires.
Okay, you said a lot, but you haven't answered the question.
The law already passed.
I'll say it again. It already passed.
Why on earth should the Democrats have to negotiate over something that already passed, with the threat of the government being shut down if they don't stop what was already passed?
EDIT: To me, this is what it's like... In baseball you have the American League and the National League. Let's say it's the world series and the National League wins. Then, the Red Sox and the Yankees get everyone in the American League to say they won't play the next season of baseball unless the championship is nullified... That is fair negotiation how?
|
On September 29 2013 13:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:43 GTPGlitch wrote:On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. Please explain how saying "everything shuts down unless you don't let something that already passed go into effect" is a compromise... The ideal Republican bill was to defund Obamacare entirely while funding the government. They didn't pass that, and instead sent back their ideal version, which was funding the government with no concessions. Perfectly reasonable on their part, as that's how all good negotiations begin, with both parties outlining their ideal positions. Republicans then gave great concession in saying: Okay, we'll let it go through, but we want a delay and we want a repeal of the medical-device tax. Democrats have signaled that instead of making a counter-proposal (they way normal negotiation would work) they will send back their ideal bill that has no concessions... That's not only arrogant, it's foolish. Why should Republicans have to be the ones that give all the concessions? A proper negotiation would be for them to send back a bill containing some concessions on their end in return for concessions on our end. Maybe not meeting us half-way, but not expecting us to go all the way either. To refuse to do so is ridiculous of them. That's not negotiation, that is tyranny. Well... don't try to be a tyrant when you have no power. Republicans want to negotiate, Obama and the Democrats have said: "NO NEGOTIATION!" The American people want negotiation. The Democrats have said: Nope, sorry, we either get our way or everyone suffers." It's utterly childish and they've just maneuvered themselves into checkmate by doing it. The blame will fall mostly on them when the government shuts down. Keep in mind that the American people already want Obamacare completely repealed/defunded. The American people want what the Republicans want. They don't want what Obama wants which is full-steam ahead with no consideration for the public's feelings or desires.
What? The House passed a funding bill that would delay/defund Obamacare (Never mind the fact that the law is in now way connected to Congressional funding) that is when Cruz did his faux filibuster and voted for Cloture. The ACA defunding was stripped and sent back to the house, Boehner and the GOP then set up a list of demands, ACA defunded, net neutrality gutted, Keystone pipeline approved etc. Cruz and the Tea Party Reject Boehner's proposal and here we are.
|
On September 29 2013 14:03 Adila wrote:
The so-called Republican concession is red-herring. At the next CR, it'll be back to "LET'S REPEAL OBAMACARE AGAIN".
That's why this is all a waste of time and Obama should not negotiate with them.
That's how negotiation works. Nobody should be expected to give up their ideals, but they should definitely be willing to make concessions in the pursuit of achieving that ideal. Republicans are ready and willing to give concessions. They are ready and willing to negotiate. To be bi-partisan. To achieve a solution that isn't all-or-nothing. Democrats are not doing that. They are not willing to give concessions in pursuit of their ideal. They want everything right now or everyone gets to suffer. Well that's not how government should work. I have nothing against a Democrat who is trying to achieve his ideal solution, but they need to be willing to work toward that solution with concessions and not just dig in their heels and stop their ears like a petulant child who's been told, "No, you can't have the ENTIRE cookie jar, you can have one."
On September 29 2013 14:04 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:43 GTPGlitch wrote:On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. Please explain how saying "everything shuts down unless you don't let something that already passed go into effect" is a compromise... The ideal Republican bill was to defund Obamacare entirely while funding the government. They didn't pass that, and instead sent back their ideal version, which was funding the government with no concessions. Perfectly reasonable on their part, as that's how all good negotiations begin, with both parties outlining their ideal positions. Republicans then gave great concession in saying: Okay, we'll let it go through, but we want a delay and we want a repeal of the medical-device tax. Democrats have signaled that instead of making a counter-proposal (they way normal negotiation would work) they will send back their ideal bill that has no concessions... That's not only arrogant, it's foolish. Why should Republicans have to be the ones that give all the concessions? A proper negotiation would be for them to send back a bill containing some concessions on their end in return for concessions on our end. Maybe not meeting us half-way, but not expecting us to go all the way either. To refuse to do so is ridiculous of them. That's not negotiation, that is tyranny. Well... don't try to be a tyrant when you have no power. Republicans want to negotiate, Obama and the Democrats have said: "NO NEGOTIATION!" The American people want negotiation. The Democrats have said: Nope, sorry, we either get our way or everyone suffers." It's utterly childish and they've just maneuvered themselves into checkmate by doing it. The blame will fall mostly on them when the government shuts down. Keep in mind that the American people already want Obamacare completely repealed/defunded. The American people want what the Republicans want. They don't want what Obama wants which is full-steam ahead with no consideration for the public's feelings or desires. Okay, you said a lot, but you haven't answered the question. The law already passed. I'll say it again. It already passed. Why on earth should the Democrats have to negotiate over something that already passed, with the threat of the government being shut down if they don't stop what was already passed?
Because they lost immediately after passing that law. They lost the House and they lost power in the Senate. The people elected Republicans with a mandate to do everything they could to stop that law.
During the years leading up to the Civil War, concessions should have been made. Laws SHOULD have been repealed. They weren't, and the consequences were much higher for both sides than concessions could have ever been. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it should always remain so. Especially when the public has openly expressed that the majority don't want the law.
On September 29 2013 14:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:43 GTPGlitch wrote:On September 29 2013 13:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Adila wrote:On September 29 2013 13:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:
House approves bill that funds government, delays Obamacare for one year, and eliminates the medical-device taxes. Due to Democrat obstructionism in the Senate and White-House, a (temporary) government shutdown has become an almost 100% certainty.
They also have included a bill that guarantees military will be funded in case of a shutdown.
Ball is in Obama's court now. So much bullshit in this. It's not in Obama's court. He's made it clear that he's not going to negotiate on this. If he caves, then Republicans will just continue doing this until the end of his term. That is bad for the country and bad for Obama so he'd be stupid to agree to it. I mentioned his obstructionism and blatant refusal to compromise and reach a fair solution that satisfies both parties as evidence that the government shutdown is almost 100% going to occur. He could have come to the table, as the American people want, and helped Republicans craft a bi-partisan solution, but he openly refused to meet us with anything but unconditional surrender. The Republicans couldn't accept his "No negotiation. Unconditional surrender." That would be political suicide. We gave him a compromise (delay the bill, fund the government), but he said no. He's the hard-liner who can't see beyond the short-term political gain. Please explain how saying "everything shuts down unless you don't let something that already passed go into effect" is a compromise... The ideal Republican bill was to defund Obamacare entirely while funding the government. They didn't pass that, and instead sent back their ideal version, which was funding the government with no concessions. Perfectly reasonable on their part, as that's how all good negotiations begin, with both parties outlining their ideal positions. Republicans then gave great concession in saying: Okay, we'll let it go through, but we want a delay and we want a repeal of the medical-device tax. Democrats have signaled that instead of making a counter-proposal (they way normal negotiation would work) they will send back their ideal bill that has no concessions... That's not only arrogant, it's foolish. Why should Republicans have to be the ones that give all the concessions? A proper negotiation would be for them to send back a bill containing some concessions on their end in return for concessions on our end. Maybe not meeting us half-way, but not expecting us to go all the way either. To refuse to do so is ridiculous of them. That's not negotiation, that is tyranny. Well... don't try to be a tyrant when you have no power. Republicans want to negotiate, Obama and the Democrats have said: "NO NEGOTIATION!" The American people want negotiation. The Democrats have said: Nope, sorry, we either get our way or everyone suffers." It's utterly childish and they've just maneuvered themselves into checkmate by doing it. The blame will fall mostly on them when the government shuts down. Keep in mind that the American people already want Obamacare completely repealed/defunded. The American people want what the Republicans want. They don't want what Obama wants which is full-steam ahead with no consideration for the public's feelings or desires. What? The House passed a funding bill that would delay/defund Obamacare (Never mind the fact that the law is in now way connected to Congressional funding) that is when Cruz did his faux filibuster and voted for Cloture. The ACA defunding was stripped and sent back to the house, Boehner and the GOP then set up a list of demands, ACA defunded, net neutrality gutted, Keystone pipeline approved etc. Cruz and the Tea Party Reject Boehner's proposal and here we are.
First of all, Congress is the purse. Everything that is funded or not funded depends entirely upon their will, to some degree or another. They have both the power and the right to demand concessions from the Senate and the President in order to get them to open the purse. That's how our system was designed. It's called: "Checks and Balances" and almost every single American supports the idea of it.
Second, Cruz did not vote for cloture. He voted to allow the vote on Cloture. A genius move on his part, I might add, as it allowed the Senate bill to pass through like shit through a goose, giving the Republican House plenty of time to throw the hot-potato back to the Senate before shutdown occurs. Politically speaking, it was brilliant. He not only put the pressure on Republicans to not cave (with his "faux-filibuster") but he also gave them the time they needed so that the Senate will be holding the ball when the shutdown happens. They will be in control. The House can say: "Hey, we passed a funding bill, two of them actually. We aren't in control. The shutdown happened on their watch."
Cruz basically owned everyone. He not only propelled himself into leadership, he also maneuvered his "allies" under his dominance, and maneuvered his enemies into a very bad position. Machiavelli would be proud.
|
You have to be trolling if you're saying that the democrats are the ones who need to start negotiating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
