|
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 October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up.
Oh come on. If you come to a negotiation demanding the moon i just shut the door in your face.
Ofc you dont open with your bottom line but the kitchen sink sure shouldnt be included. There is such a thing as unrealistic beyond consideration.
|
On October 01 2013 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 06:53 aksfjh wrote:On October 01 2013 05:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 05:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2013 22:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 15:54 Falling wrote:
What was he supposed to compromise on? Beyond 'don't do ACA at all.' Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall many strong arguments being made for tinkering with ACA or even making larger changes to it. I mostly remember the battleground being fought over the very existence of the bill. It's hard to compromise on a bill if the compromise is supposed to be 'throw the entire thing out.' More like capitulation. But again my memory might be faulty. Just speculating but eliminating the employer mandate would alleviate a lot of the fears that Obamacare will kill jobs. The individual mandate could also be reworked so that it's no longer 'a tax for not doing something'. I don't know if those changes would make the GOP fine with Obamacare, but those two mandates seem to be the things complained about the most. How can you have a universal healthcare without an individual mandate? The fact that everyone has to pay into health care to spread costs is the very foundation of universal healthcare. It's a difference in name only. You'd increase taxes (likely across the board), then provide tax credits based on income and insurance enrollment. It would effectively be the same. The employer mandate is there to save the system that we have now. Dumping ~30 million people onto a market is hard but doable. Dumping ~300 million people onto a new market would likely crash everything and cost a LOT more upfront. Without the penalty/incentive for businesses to keep their coverage for employees, many more people would be thrown onto an unproven market. Why would employers stop offering insurance without the mandate when they already don't have the mandate? Same reason many went from funded pension plans to 401k matching plans. Assuming you're correct that would be something that plays out over a period of decades, not a quick dump of ~300 million insured.
That would be the hope, but the employer mandate ensures it, or it would become such a cash cow for the program that they could build the government infrastructure to handle that much quickly.
|
On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up.
Can you really call this an opening demand? I guess you could if your real goal was to fight over the debt ceiling, but these things just seem like a conservative wish list and are so far out there that I don't see where he goes from here.
|
Maybe if the House Republicans really wanted these things, they could have voted on them earlier in the year in actual proposed bills instead of voting to repeal Obamacare 40 (or more, I lost count) times.
|
There's no reason to negotiate over the budget with that though. If they want to defund Obamacare, they should do that, and ask what the Democrats want in return. That's the difference between negotiation and hostage-taking.
This is just stupid. There's no reason to negotiate. Like Obama said, it's saying "I'll do my job but only if you give in to my demands."
No. Do your job. Then we negotiate.
|
On October 01 2013 07:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 06:53 aksfjh wrote:On October 01 2013 05:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 05:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2013 22:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 15:54 Falling wrote:
What was he supposed to compromise on? Beyond 'don't do ACA at all.' Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall many strong arguments being made for tinkering with ACA or even making larger changes to it. I mostly remember the battleground being fought over the very existence of the bill. It's hard to compromise on a bill if the compromise is supposed to be 'throw the entire thing out.' More like capitulation. But again my memory might be faulty. Just speculating but eliminating the employer mandate would alleviate a lot of the fears that Obamacare will kill jobs. The individual mandate could also be reworked so that it's no longer 'a tax for not doing something'. I don't know if those changes would make the GOP fine with Obamacare, but those two mandates seem to be the things complained about the most. How can you have a universal healthcare without an individual mandate? The fact that everyone has to pay into health care to spread costs is the very foundation of universal healthcare. It's a difference in name only. You'd increase taxes (likely across the board), then provide tax credits based on income and insurance enrollment. It would effectively be the same. The employer mandate is there to save the system that we have now. Dumping ~30 million people onto a market is hard but doable. Dumping ~300 million people onto a new market would likely crash everything and cost a LOT more upfront. Without the penalty/incentive for businesses to keep their coverage for employees, many more people would be thrown onto an unproven market. Why would employers stop offering insurance without the mandate when they already don't have the mandate? Same reason many went from funded pension plans to 401k matching plans. Assuming you're correct that would be something that plays out over a period of decades, not a quick dump of ~300 million insured. That would be the hope, but the employer mandate ensures it, or it would become such a cash cow for the program that they could build the government infrastructure to handle that much quickly.
I'm not following your logic. Employer provided health insurance is a tax efficient way for companies to pay employees. Obamacare doesn't change that. If employers pay for insurance today, they'll pay for it tomorrow, with or without the mandate. They only reason they'll drop it is if insurance continues to get more expensive relative to salaries. If that happens it will happen over a long period of time and is something Obamacare is supposed to address anyways.
And why do we want to preserve employer provided insurance anyways? It's considered one of the bad aspects of our healthcare system by both the left and the right.
Your second explanation is the right one I think. The employer mandate is both a means for back door government spending on healthcare and a revenue source. And it's an inefficient way to go about both those things.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
FEC Faces Shutdown, Fundraisers Carry OnLet the fundraisers party on! After all, nobody will be watching. If Congress fails to prevent a government shutdown tonight, almost all federal work will halt, and that includes the labors of the Federal Election Commission. It's one of those agencies that most of America won't miss -- at least for a while. According to a plan released by the FEC earlier this month, all of the agency's 335 employees are expected to be furloughed without pay until the government opens again. The commissioners stay in place. The plan, which you can read in full here, allows for a handful of employees to stay on the job briefly while they wind down work and secure data. The website will stay functional, an FEC spokesperson said, but will not add any new data while there is a shutdown. This won't stop fundraising, of course: there are at least five members of Congress with some sort of fundraising event scheduled for tomorrow. But depending on how long the shutdown lasts, it could affect the public disclosure of data about the money that's raked in. Read more: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/fec-faces-shutdown-website-will-rem.html
|
On October 01 2013 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:09 aksfjh wrote:On October 01 2013 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 06:53 aksfjh wrote:On October 01 2013 05:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 05:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2013 22:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 15:54 Falling wrote:
What was he supposed to compromise on? Beyond 'don't do ACA at all.' Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall many strong arguments being made for tinkering with ACA or even making larger changes to it. I mostly remember the battleground being fought over the very existence of the bill. It's hard to compromise on a bill if the compromise is supposed to be 'throw the entire thing out.' More like capitulation. But again my memory might be faulty. Just speculating but eliminating the employer mandate would alleviate a lot of the fears that Obamacare will kill jobs. The individual mandate could also be reworked so that it's no longer 'a tax for not doing something'. I don't know if those changes would make the GOP fine with Obamacare, but those two mandates seem to be the things complained about the most. How can you have a universal healthcare without an individual mandate? The fact that everyone has to pay into health care to spread costs is the very foundation of universal healthcare. It's a difference in name only. You'd increase taxes (likely across the board), then provide tax credits based on income and insurance enrollment. It would effectively be the same. The employer mandate is there to save the system that we have now. Dumping ~30 million people onto a market is hard but doable. Dumping ~300 million people onto a new market would likely crash everything and cost a LOT more upfront. Without the penalty/incentive for businesses to keep their coverage for employees, many more people would be thrown onto an unproven market. Why would employers stop offering insurance without the mandate when they already don't have the mandate? Same reason many went from funded pension plans to 401k matching plans. Assuming you're correct that would be something that plays out over a period of decades, not a quick dump of ~300 million insured. That would be the hope, but the employer mandate ensures it, or it would become such a cash cow for the program that they could build the government infrastructure to handle that much quickly. I'm not following your logic. Employer provided health insurance is a tax efficient way for companies to pay employees. Obamacare doesn't change that. If employers pay for insurance today, they'll pay for it tomorrow, with or without the mandate. They only reason they'll drop it is if insurance continues to get more expensive relative to salaries. If that happens it will happen over a long period of time and is something Obamacare is supposed to address anyways. And why do we want to preserve employer provided insurance anyways? It's considered one of the bad aspects of our healthcare system by both the left and the right. Your second explanation is the right one I think. The employer mandate is both a means for back door government spending on healthcare and a revenue source. And it's an inefficient way to go about both those things.
That's probably true. If only we had government wanting/willing to fix the law...
|
Rep. Pete King (R-NY) told National Review Online that moderate Republicans would revolt against House leadership's latest ploy to derail Obamacare in exchange for funding the government.
King said he had 25 House Republicans who would oppose the latest plan, which would delay Obamacare's individual mandate for a year and eliminate subsidies for Congress members and staff. If that's true and House Democrats united against the plan, it likely wouldn't have the votes to pass.
“This is going nowhere,” he told NRO. "If Obamacare is as bad as we say it’s going to be, then we should pick up a lot of seats in the next election and we should win the presidency in 2016. This idea of going through the side door to take something you lost through the front door -- to me it’s wrong.”
King acknowledged, though, that the verbal committment of those moderates to oppose the plan wasn't a guarantee that they would actually vote against it when the House votes Monday evening.
“How many of them are going to follow up today with the pressure and everything else, I don’t know,” King said.
Another Moderate Republican, Rep. Charlie Dent (PA), told TPM he intends to vote against a rule that would bring up a new continuing resolution with new anti-Obamacare provisions on Monday evening. He supports passing a "clean" continuing resolution to continue funding the government at current levels.
Source
|
On October 01 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up. Oh come on. If you come to a negotiation demanding the moon i just shut the door in your face. Ofc you dont open with your bottom line but the kitchen sink sure shouldnt be included. There is such a thing as unrealistic beyond consideration.
obviously xdaunt was right. What the Democrats should have done in 2009 is come in and said 100% confiscatory taxes and fema death camps for anyone who opposes it. Then bargained 'down' to Mitt Romney's healthcare plan. By trying to be reasonable they made Mitt Romney's healthcare plan the base line -- and everyone knows their baseline is outright communism-marxisim -- 'compromise' can only happen with a shift to the right. And the fact that the 2012 elections, where Democrats got the majority of votes in all 3 federal offices -- and were denied majority in the house of reps thanks to gerrymandering in 2010 -- is meaningless because superfan said so.
|
Moderate Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) intends to vote against a "rule" on Monday to bring up Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) new continuing resolution to chip away at Obamacare, TPM has learned.
He and other GOP moderates are upset with their leadership for taking the country to the brink of a shutdown and support a "clean" CR to maintain the status quo and avert a shutdown.
It's unclear if Boehner has the votes to bring up -- and pass -- the new bill. Opposition from moderates like Dent may scuttle it.
Source
|
Anybody know if you can kick a Speaker out of his position before a new session?
|
On October 01 2013 07:57 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up. Oh come on. If you come to a negotiation demanding the moon i just shut the door in your face. Ofc you dont open with your bottom line but the kitchen sink sure shouldnt be included. There is such a thing as unrealistic beyond consideration. obviously xdaunt was right. What the Democrats should have done in 2009 is come in and said 100% confiscatory taxes and fema death camps for anyone who opposes it. Then bargained 'down' to Mitt Romney's healthcare plan. By trying to be reasonable they made Mitt Romney's healthcare plan the base line -- and everyone knows their baseline is outright communism-marxisim -- 'compromise' can only happen with a shift to the right. And the fact that the 2012 elections, where Democrats got the majority of votes in all 3 federal offices -- and were denied majority in the house of reps thanks to gerrymandering in 2010 -- is meaningless because superfan said so.
To be honest, both parties gerrymande. I recently heard there was only 35 districs that are in contention that isn't a land slide... Would any of the 2 parties do electoral reform in the US? If not, I think you guys are basically stuck with that form of districs until the population either votes 3rd party, or gets a powerful champion for electoral reform on the federal level or if not on the state level. Since it's the states that make up the districs for the House (and maybe Senate).
|
On October 01 2013 07:34 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 07:09 aksfjh wrote:On October 01 2013 06:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 06:53 aksfjh wrote:On October 01 2013 05:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 05:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2013 22:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 15:54 Falling wrote:
What was he supposed to compromise on? Beyond 'don't do ACA at all.' Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall many strong arguments being made for tinkering with ACA or even making larger changes to it. I mostly remember the battleground being fought over the very existence of the bill. It's hard to compromise on a bill if the compromise is supposed to be 'throw the entire thing out.' More like capitulation. But again my memory might be faulty. Just speculating but eliminating the employer mandate would alleviate a lot of the fears that Obamacare will kill jobs. The individual mandate could also be reworked so that it's no longer 'a tax for not doing something'. I don't know if those changes would make the GOP fine with Obamacare, but those two mandates seem to be the things complained about the most. How can you have a universal healthcare without an individual mandate? The fact that everyone has to pay into health care to spread costs is the very foundation of universal healthcare. It's a difference in name only. You'd increase taxes (likely across the board), then provide tax credits based on income and insurance enrollment. It would effectively be the same. The employer mandate is there to save the system that we have now. Dumping ~30 million people onto a market is hard but doable. Dumping ~300 million people onto a new market would likely crash everything and cost a LOT more upfront. Without the penalty/incentive for businesses to keep their coverage for employees, many more people would be thrown onto an unproven market. Why would employers stop offering insurance without the mandate when they already don't have the mandate? Same reason many went from funded pension plans to 401k matching plans. Assuming you're correct that would be something that plays out over a period of decades, not a quick dump of ~300 million insured. That would be the hope, but the employer mandate ensures it, or it would become such a cash cow for the program that they could build the government infrastructure to handle that much quickly. I'm not following your logic. Employer provided health insurance is a tax efficient way for companies to pay employees. Obamacare doesn't change that. If employers pay for insurance today, they'll pay for it tomorrow, with or without the mandate. They only reason they'll drop it is if insurance continues to get more expensive relative to salaries. If that happens it will happen over a long period of time and is something Obamacare is supposed to address anyways. And why do we want to preserve employer provided insurance anyways? It's considered one of the bad aspects of our healthcare system by both the left and the right. Your second explanation is the right one I think. The employer mandate is both a means for back door government spending on healthcare and a revenue source. And it's an inefficient way to go about both those things. That's probably true. If only we had government wanting/willing to fix the law...
I'll agree with you on that 
|
On October 01 2013 08:11 aksfjh wrote:
Anybody know if you can kick a Speaker out of his position before a new session?
Cantor wants the Speakership and nothing would please him more than to see him go. Want a real "House of Cards" scenario? Ted Cruz and Cantor reach a deal for which Boehner loses his job and Cantor gets his dream job and Ted Cruz gets to continue the conservative purity tests and purges. With the added benefit of a friendly leadership.
|
United States41985 Posts
On October 01 2013 08:13 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:57 Sub40APM wrote:On October 01 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up. Oh come on. If you come to a negotiation demanding the moon i just shut the door in your face. Ofc you dont open with your bottom line but the kitchen sink sure shouldnt be included. There is such a thing as unrealistic beyond consideration. obviously xdaunt was right. What the Democrats should have done in 2009 is come in and said 100% confiscatory taxes and fema death camps for anyone who opposes it. Then bargained 'down' to Mitt Romney's healthcare plan. By trying to be reasonable they made Mitt Romney's healthcare plan the base line -- and everyone knows their baseline is outright communism-marxisim -- 'compromise' can only happen with a shift to the right. And the fact that the 2012 elections, where Democrats got the majority of votes in all 3 federal offices -- and were denied majority in the house of reps thanks to gerrymandering in 2010 -- is meaningless because superfan said so. To be honest, both parties gerrymande. I recently heard there was only 35 districs that are in contention that isn't a land slide... Would any of the 2 parties do electoral reform in the US? If not, I think you guys are basically stuck with that form of districs until the population either votes 3rd party, or gets a powerful champion for electoral reform on the federal level or if not on the state level. Since it's the states that make up the districs for the House (and maybe Senate).
Landslide constituencies are the opposite of gerrymandering. If you have 50% of the voters supporting you what you wanna do if you're gerrymandering is have 99% of the constituencies contain 51% your supporters, 49% theirs and the remaining constituencies have 100% their supporters. The point of gerrymandering is that every vote over that needed to win is a wasted vote so you want to waste as many of their votes as possible and as few of your own.
|
On October 01 2013 08:13 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:57 Sub40APM wrote:On October 01 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up. Oh come on. If you come to a negotiation demanding the moon i just shut the door in your face. Ofc you dont open with your bottom line but the kitchen sink sure shouldnt be included. There is such a thing as unrealistic beyond consideration. obviously xdaunt was right. What the Democrats should have done in 2009 is come in and said 100% confiscatory taxes and fema death camps for anyone who opposes it. Then bargained 'down' to Mitt Romney's healthcare plan. By trying to be reasonable they made Mitt Romney's healthcare plan the base line -- and everyone knows their baseline is outright communism-marxisim -- 'compromise' can only happen with a shift to the right. And the fact that the 2012 elections, where Democrats got the majority of votes in all 3 federal offices -- and were denied majority in the house of reps thanks to gerrymandering in 2010 -- is meaningless because superfan said so. To be honest, both parties gerrymande. I recently heard there was only 35 districs that are in contention that isn't a land slide... Would any of the 2 parties do electoral reform in the US? If not, I think you guys are basically stuck with that form of districs until the population either votes 3rd party, or gets a powerful champion for electoral reform on the federal level or if not on the state level. Since it's the states that make up the districs for the House (and maybe Senate).
Senate is a statewide vote. There is no gerrymandering there.
Also, there's articles, like this, that point out the asymmetry of gerrymandering.
|
On October 01 2013 08:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 08:13 NPF wrote:On October 01 2013 07:57 Sub40APM wrote:On October 01 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up. Oh come on. If you come to a negotiation demanding the moon i just shut the door in your face. Ofc you dont open with your bottom line but the kitchen sink sure shouldnt be included. There is such a thing as unrealistic beyond consideration. obviously xdaunt was right. What the Democrats should have done in 2009 is come in and said 100% confiscatory taxes and fema death camps for anyone who opposes it. Then bargained 'down' to Mitt Romney's healthcare plan. By trying to be reasonable they made Mitt Romney's healthcare plan the base line -- and everyone knows their baseline is outright communism-marxisim -- 'compromise' can only happen with a shift to the right. And the fact that the 2012 elections, where Democrats got the majority of votes in all 3 federal offices -- and were denied majority in the house of reps thanks to gerrymandering in 2010 -- is meaningless because superfan said so. To be honest, both parties gerrymande. I recently heard there was only 35 districs that are in contention that isn't a land slide... Would any of the 2 parties do electoral reform in the US? If not, I think you guys are basically stuck with that form of districs until the population either votes 3rd party, or gets a powerful champion for electoral reform on the federal level or if not on the state level. Since it's the states that make up the districs for the House (and maybe Senate). Landslide constituencies are the opposite of gerrymandering. If you have 50% of the voters supporting you what you wanna do if you're gerrymandering is have 99% of the constituencies contain 51% your supporters, 49% theirs and the remaining constituencies have 100% their supporters. The point of gerrymandering is that every vote over that needed to win is a wasted vote so you want to waste as many of their votes as possible and as few of your own.
51/49 works in theory, but in reality you want a buffer so that no matter what you do, you can still keep your seat. Most districts are closer to 60/40 for the party that draws them I think and they try to make 80%+ districts for the opposition. With cities being typical 80%+ democratic areas, its not really hard to do this either.
|
On October 01 2013 08:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 08:13 NPF wrote:On October 01 2013 07:57 Sub40APM wrote:On October 01 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up. Oh come on. If you come to a negotiation demanding the moon i just shut the door in your face. Ofc you dont open with your bottom line but the kitchen sink sure shouldnt be included. There is such a thing as unrealistic beyond consideration. obviously xdaunt was right. What the Democrats should have done in 2009 is come in and said 100% confiscatory taxes and fema death camps for anyone who opposes it. Then bargained 'down' to Mitt Romney's healthcare plan. By trying to be reasonable they made Mitt Romney's healthcare plan the base line -- and everyone knows their baseline is outright communism-marxisim -- 'compromise' can only happen with a shift to the right. And the fact that the 2012 elections, where Democrats got the majority of votes in all 3 federal offices -- and were denied majority in the house of reps thanks to gerrymandering in 2010 -- is meaningless because superfan said so. To be honest, both parties gerrymande. I recently heard there was only 35 districs that are in contention that isn't a land slide... Would any of the 2 parties do electoral reform in the US? If not, I think you guys are basically stuck with that form of districs until the population either votes 3rd party, or gets a powerful champion for electoral reform on the federal level or if not on the state level. Since it's the states that make up the districs for the House (and maybe Senate). Landslide constituencies are the opposite of gerrymandering. If you have 50% of the voters supporting you what you wanna do if you're gerrymandering is have 99% of the constituencies contain 51% your supporters, 49% theirs and the remaining constituencies have 100% their supporters. The point of gerrymandering is that every vote over that needed to win is a wasted vote so you want to waste as many of their votes as possible and as few of your own.
Sorry by landslide I meant 60/40 ratio and giving the other guy 99% area when you can.
On October 01 2013 08:24 aksfjh wrote:Senate is a statewide vote. There is no gerrymandering there. Also, there's articles, like this, that point out the asymmetry of gerrymandering.
Thank you
|
On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away" I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up.
It helps if your opening demand is at least somewhat reasonable. Otherwise the other party will think you're nuts and tell you to go to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
