|
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 03 2013 05:35 sam!zdat wrote:
good thing we have the democratic party to stand upfor the bankers
ftfy
+ Show Spoiler +both parties stand for bankers.
|
On October 03 2013 08:08 sam!zdat wrote:
1) if you change the electoral system you change the role of a politician, these are not separate things. that's my point. politicians are not legislators, they are electioneers.
Which is something I disagree with, but have at thee. Switching from a First Past the Post system in local districts to state/countrywide Jeffersonian or Proportional methods of representation would have a significant effect as is, without fundamentally changing the nature of the position, in addition to numerous changes to available perks, pensions, and electoral structures (switching over, for instance, to public financing only).
2) i'm aware of factions within capital this changes nothing. it's not necessary to treat industry as a monolithic entity for my claim to be the case, this is just one of those gotcha arguments you've picked up from too much internet. My claim is really that industry interests are hegemonic, not that they are in direct control of all governmental functions. the existence of "myriad competing interests" is compatible with the hegemony of one of them. and corporate lobby is hegemonic, despite the fact that there are factions within it. all this is irrelevant
Again, it's nonsense. While lobbies are influential, politicians are still ultimately beholden to the interests of their local constituencies, and proper grassroots organizing can have a significant impact. Public opinion is still a tremendous factor in the political calculus that goes on in Washington.
The issue of course involves the problems of an apathetic and uninvolved public, but what have you.
edit: AARP is basically the medical-industrial complex
No, the medical-industrial complex (aka Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, insurance agencies, and medical professional organizations) is the medical-industrial complex. AARP is just old people (whom have significant political clout).
|
the public opinion is about sexy manufactured non-issues like gay marriage. there's no public opinion about things lobbyists care about, they just distract people with stupidsimulacral issues and rule from the shadows.
if you think elections are decided on actual issues of public policy i don't know where you've been. it's just a reality show
the "political calculus" is just about how they can prevent people from understanding or caring about what is actually going on
the AARP is "just old people" who are extremely invested in a wasteful medical-industrial complex. that's what old people care about.
|
Congressional leaders reported no progress after meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House for nearly an hour and a half Wednesday night on the topics of re-opening the federal government and lifting the debt ceiling, which must be raised Oct. 17 before the U.S. defaults on its obligations.
"The president reiterated one more time tonight that he will not negotiate," House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters outside the White House, describing his conversation with the president as "nice" and "polite."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was equally unmoved, saying all Republicans had to do was pass a resolution funding the entire government.
"We have the debt ceiling staring us in the face, and he wants to go to conference over a short-term continuing resolution?" he said. "My friend John Boehner cannot take 'yes' for an answer."
The House passed Wednesday two partial spending bills, less than 24 hours after piecemeal measures failed to clear the chamber, funding the National Park Service and the National Institutues of Health. Senate Democratic leaders have already said the bills won't clear that chamber, and the White House has threatened to veto them.
Source
|
On October 03 2013 08:19 sam!zdat wrote:
the public opinion is about sexy manufactured non-issues like gay marriage. there's no public opinion about things lobbyists care about, they just distract people with stupidsimulacral issues and rule from the shadows.
if you think elections are decided on actual issues of public policy i don't know where you've been. it's just a reality show
What? Social issues are important, but that's due to their nature as wedge issues. When the issues affect you, they are no longer "non-issues". I for instance would very much like to see gay marriage legalized, if only out of personal self-interest. Please though, define what you consider "non-issues" or "actual" issues, because these will ultimately vary from person to person, and in reality, the most complex public policies (for instance, monetary decisions made by the Fed, the signing of NAFTA, etc.) are largely opaque due to irreducible complexity. It's rather hard to discuss price-factor equalization and various labor models of unemployment and migration as a result of free trade and the impact it will have on migration between the US, Canada, and Mexico when something simpler and more persuasive will suffice (and more effectively convey the arguments), and there is in general a large degree of harmonization in public policy objectives politically in a broad sense.
As for elections, I never said they were, merely that ultimately, Congress is still beholden to public opinion and their local constituencies, and grassroots mobilization campaigns can and are still effective. The opposition to SOPA/PIPA for instance, was largely grassroots, and had an indelible mark in killing the bills. While, I suppose you could spin an argument saying that it was all a result of the tech industry/lobby, but at this point, we're getting into 9/11 conspiracy territory here with Illuminati-esque shadow cabals of lobbyists.
|
On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling.
Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands.
Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station?
|
On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station?
Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting.
The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans.
|
gay marriage is only an issue because of the media machine that is our electoral system. it's a manufactured issue that is created by our political dysfunction. if we had a functional political system it wouldn't be an issue, because demagogues wouldn't be able to stir up their bases with it. the gay marriage fight is not actually about gay marriage, in the same way that nazism is not actually about antisemitism. it just fulfills a structural function. if it weren't for the dysfunction of our political system we would have solved it already, because everybody, including politicians who oppose it, know that the legalization of gay marriage is inevitable. it's just a useful tool for demagogues.
SOPA was a fight between two factions of capital. the newer faction, tech companies, were able to mobilize an emerging demographic to take victory over the older faction, traditional media. but again, this is a sexy issue which is uncomplicated enough for voters to understand, so it's possible to use it to mobilize voters. the problem has to do with very important issues, like environmental regulation or finance, that are too complicated to turn into demagogic fads. these are left to the revolving door to (de)regulate as they see fit. our political system is constitutively incapable of handling such things, and let me assure you, finance and ecology are far, far, far more important than gay marriage, which in the grand scheme of our society's problems, is basically irrelevant. not being able to get married is not really a big deal (and this is largely a cause of affluent white gays - poor non-white gays have bigger problems).
[insert usual disclaimer about how i'm not a conspiracy theorist]
|
On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans.
Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern?
|
On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern?
I think it might be better worded "give them an inch and then they'll do the exact same thing to get another inch after traveling the inch you gave them." Which would, to be fair, be the logical thing to do if the Democrats give in. After all, if shutting down the government is a strategy that works you can do it over and over again.
|
On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern?
Because of the position the Republicans have forced the Democrats in. If they compromise on anything atm the Republicans get a free pass to holding the country hostage whenever they please.
That is why this tactic is so stupid. They forced the Democrats into a position where they cannot realistically comprise even if they wanted to. Not that they were very keen on compromising in the first place but thats besides the point.
|
On October 03 2013 08:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? I think it might be better worded "give them an inch and then they'll do the exact same thing to get another inch after traveling the inch you gave them." Which would, to be fair, be the logical thing to do if the Democrats give in. After all, if shutting down the government is a strategy that works you can do it over and over again.
On October 03 2013 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? Because of the position the Republicans have forced the Democrats in. If they compromise on anything atm the Republicans get a free pass to holding the country hostage whenever they please. That is why this tactic is so stupid. They forced the Democrats into a position where they cannot realistically comprise even if they wanted to. Not that they were very keen on compromising in the first place but thats besides the point.
I think those are fair concerns, but I'm doubtful that they can't be accounted for in negotiations. I mean we should be able to at least negotiate a full year of sanity.
|
As he left the White House, I asked @SpeakerBoehner if there will be a default -- no answer.
http://huff.to/1fK6hub
|
Is the debt ceiling crisis really going to happen every year from now until the republicans are no longer in control of the House?
(i'm talking about two weeks from now, not the budget problem we have right now.)
edit: err instead of 'from now on' I guess I should have said 'from last year'
|
On October 03 2013 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? I think it might be better worded "give them an inch and then they'll do the exact same thing to get another inch after traveling the inch you gave them." Which would, to be fair, be the logical thing to do if the Democrats give in. After all, if shutting down the government is a strategy that works you can do it over and over again. Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? Because of the position the Republicans have forced the Democrats in. If they compromise on anything atm the Republicans get a free pass to holding the country hostage whenever they please. That is why this tactic is so stupid. They forced the Democrats into a position where they cannot realistically comprise even if they wanted to. Not that they were very keen on compromising in the first place but thats besides the point. I think those are fair concerns, but I'm doubtful that they can't be accounted for in negotiations. I mean we should be able to at least negotiate a full year of sanity.
I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't 'delay' it for another year the next year. Honestly, they'd be stupid not to. Negotiating with terrorists is never "sane."
Please think about what's on the table:
Republican side: Weaken Obamacare.
Democrat side: Fund the government.
I'm sorry, but do you not see the issue with this? "Fund the government" is supposed to be on both sides. This is not a compromise. A compromise would have something equivalent on the Democrat side besides just doing their jobs. This is hostage-taking, not negotiating.
|
Let's also not forget that this government funding level is already below where many Democrats (and some Republicans) want it to be funded. Even a CR is a compromise for Democrats at this point.
|
On October 03 2013 09:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? I think it might be better worded "give them an inch and then they'll do the exact same thing to get another inch after traveling the inch you gave them." Which would, to be fair, be the logical thing to do if the Democrats give in. After all, if shutting down the government is a strategy that works you can do it over and over again. On October 03 2013 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? Because of the position the Republicans have forced the Democrats in. If they compromise on anything atm the Republicans get a free pass to holding the country hostage whenever they please. That is why this tactic is so stupid. They forced the Democrats into a position where they cannot realistically comprise even if they wanted to. Not that they were very keen on compromising in the first place but thats besides the point. I think those are fair concerns, but I'm doubtful that they can't be accounted for in negotiations. I mean we should be able to at least negotiate a full year of sanity. I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't 'delay' it for another year the next year. Honestly, they'd be stupid not to. Negotiating with terrorists is never "sane." Please think about what's on the table: Republican side: Weaken Obamacare. Democrat side: Fund the government. I'm sorry, but do you not see the issue with this? "Fund the government" is supposed to be on both sides. This is not a compromise. A compromise would have something equivalent on the Democrat side besides just doing their jobs. This is hostage-taking, not negotiating.
Fund government IS on both sides. The dispute is over the ACA. What's to stop Dems from trying to expand the ACA down the road or raise taxes? Or anything else they want? Nothing! When did trying to get something you want in a democracy become terrorism?
I understand being pissed if Reps are asking for something crazy like repealing all of the ACA, but delaying a portion?
@aksfjh - yes, why the hell aren't Dems trying to expand the budget and use that as a negotiating point? Or try to exchange a delay for one of Obama's stimulus measures?
|
On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:45 DoubleReed wrote:On October 03 2013 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? I think it might be better worded "give them an inch and then they'll do the exact same thing to get another inch after traveling the inch you gave them." Which would, to be fair, be the logical thing to do if the Democrats give in. After all, if shutting down the government is a strategy that works you can do it over and over again. On October 03 2013 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? Because of the position the Republicans have forced the Democrats in. If they compromise on anything atm the Republicans get a free pass to holding the country hostage whenever they please. That is why this tactic is so stupid. They forced the Democrats into a position where they cannot realistically comprise even if they wanted to. Not that they were very keen on compromising in the first place but thats besides the point. I think those are fair concerns, but I'm doubtful that they can't be accounted for in negotiations. I mean we should be able to at least negotiate a full year of sanity. I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't 'delay' it for another year the next year. Honestly, they'd be stupid not to. Negotiating with terrorists is never "sane." Please think about what's on the table: Republican side: Weaken Obamacare. Democrat side: Fund the government. I'm sorry, but do you not see the issue with this? "Fund the government" is supposed to be on both sides. This is not a compromise. A compromise would have something equivalent on the Democrat side besides just doing their jobs. This is hostage-taking, not negotiating. Fund government IS on both sides. The dispute is over the ACA. What's to stop Dems from trying to expand the ACA down the road or raise taxes? Or anything else they want? Nothing! When did trying to get something you want in a democracy become terrorism? I understand being pissed if Reps are asking for something crazy like repealing all of the ACA, but delaying a portion? @aksfjh - yes, why the hell aren't Dems trying to expand the budget and use that as a negotiating point? Or try to exchange a delay for one of Obama's stimulus measures?
If the Reps also guaranteed that they would never hold the debt crisis and CR hostage over the ACA again, then it might be possible for some Dems to accept that.
Otherwise, you know damn well this will be another repeat a few months from now.
I doubt that will happen though.
|
On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:45 DoubleReed wrote:On October 03 2013 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? I think it might be better worded "give them an inch and then they'll do the exact same thing to get another inch after traveling the inch you gave them." Which would, to be fair, be the logical thing to do if the Democrats give in. After all, if shutting down the government is a strategy that works you can do it over and over again. On October 03 2013 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? Because of the position the Republicans have forced the Democrats in. If they compromise on anything atm the Republicans get a free pass to holding the country hostage whenever they please. That is why this tactic is so stupid. They forced the Democrats into a position where they cannot realistically comprise even if they wanted to. Not that they were very keen on compromising in the first place but thats besides the point. I think those are fair concerns, but I'm doubtful that they can't be accounted for in negotiations. I mean we should be able to at least negotiate a full year of sanity. I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't 'delay' it for another year the next year. Honestly, they'd be stupid not to. Negotiating with terrorists is never "sane." Please think about what's on the table: Republican side: Weaken Obamacare. Democrat side: Fund the government. I'm sorry, but do you not see the issue with this? "Fund the government" is supposed to be on both sides. This is not a compromise. A compromise would have something equivalent on the Democrat side besides just doing their jobs. This is hostage-taking, not negotiating. Fund government IS on both sides. The dispute is over the ACA. What's to stop Dems from trying to expand the ACA down the road or raise taxes? Or anything else they want? Nothing! When did trying to get something you want in a democracy become terrorism? I understand being pissed if Reps are asking for something crazy like repealing all of the ACA, but delaying a portion? @aksfjh - yes, why the hell aren't Dems trying to expand the budget and use that as a negotiating point? Or try to exchange a delay for one of Obama's stimulus measures?
What is there to stop the dems from expanding ACA? Our government, working as intended. You know that whole system of checks and balances? Yeah. That leader who can veto bills? Yeah. That court that can strike down laws? Yeah.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO AGAINST THE TYRANNICAL POWER OF THE DEMOCRATS.
It becomes terrorism when you hold people and services hostage if you don't get what you want. They are causing direct harm to government employees and programs and the people who use them. There is absolutely no upside to this. They are fucking their own constituents for political points.
|
On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:45 DoubleReed wrote:On October 03 2013 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? I think it might be better worded "give them an inch and then they'll do the exact same thing to get another inch after traveling the inch you gave them." Which would, to be fair, be the logical thing to do if the Democrats give in. After all, if shutting down the government is a strategy that works you can do it over and over again. On October 03 2013 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2013 08:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
GOP is still demanding that the ACA be defunded or delayed and now they are making demands regarding the debt ceiling. Do you have a source on that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see where the negotiating (if there is any) stands. Last I had heard that the GOP put up a bill to just delay the individual mandate. I guess that train left the station? Delaying any part of the ACA will just shove this crisis infront to the next budget meeting. The train hasnt just left the station. It caught on fire, was trashed and has by now been recycled into food cans. Why can't any bit of the ACA be delayed? Is it a 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' kind of concern? Because of the position the Republicans have forced the Democrats in. If they compromise on anything atm the Republicans get a free pass to holding the country hostage whenever they please. That is why this tactic is so stupid. They forced the Democrats into a position where they cannot realistically comprise even if they wanted to. Not that they were very keen on compromising in the first place but thats besides the point. I think those are fair concerns, but I'm doubtful that they can't be accounted for in negotiations. I mean we should be able to at least negotiate a full year of sanity. I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't 'delay' it for another year the next year. Honestly, they'd be stupid not to. Negotiating with terrorists is never "sane." Please think about what's on the table: Republican side: Weaken Obamacare. Democrat side: Fund the government. I'm sorry, but do you not see the issue with this? "Fund the government" is supposed to be on both sides. This is not a compromise. A compromise would have something equivalent on the Democrat side besides just doing their jobs. This is hostage-taking, not negotiating. Fund government IS on both sides. The dispute is over the ACA. What's to stop Dems from trying to expand the ACA down the road or raise taxes? Or anything else they want? Nothing! When did trying to get something you want in a democracy become terrorism? I understand being pissed if Reps are asking for something crazy like repealing all of the ACA, but delaying a portion? @aksfjh - yes, why the hell aren't Dems trying to expand the budget and use that as a negotiating point? Or try to exchange a delay for one of Obama's stimulus measures?
Because they're not crazy enough to bring it up over continuing government functions and payments. They're playing the passive game on this and letting Republicans take all the heat with their demands. Certainly, you have the "serious" crowd that cries out that "this is BOTH parties fault!" (usually right before they try to get you to watch libertarian youtube videos or justify why they don't vote). However, this is great fodder for them, and by just asking for a CR for now, they'll have more political capital later to ask for sequestration overrides, stimulus, tax increases, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
