|
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 10:29 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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.
I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 03 2013 09:42 Saryph wrote:
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'
when you already nuked hiroshima, what's one more gonna do, right? cya nagasaki
|
On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget.
Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real.
|
On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real.
OK, so next year we'll have to do some political negotiating. Isn't that normal politics? What seems abnormal to me is the unwillingness of both sides to engage in reasonable negotiations.
|
On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget.
I don't understand why you WOULD tie it to the budget. It's just random and dangerous.
If they want to make deals, there's no reason to threaten a government shutdown or hold the debt ceiling hostage. Pass the CR and make a deal afterward. You're being dishonest.
I don't understand what you don't get about this. You act like this is totally how arrangements are made. Putting parts of our economy at risk is not how deals are made.
|
On October 03 2013 10:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. OK, so next year we'll have to do some political negotiating. Isn't that normal politics? What seems abnormal to me is the unwillingness of both sides to engage in reasonable negotiations.
(It's because republicans can't get what they want because they scared off a bunch of voters in this last season)
|
On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget.
The reason it's a little confusing is the Republicans have been sneaky in making seem like they are negotiating when they actually aren't. Funding the government (or raising the debt ceiling, for that matter) is not a concession to the Democrats, because it isn't an exclusively Democratic priority - it should be a priority equally for both parties.
On the other hand, if the Republicans were instead saying "if you delay the ACA for a year we will seriously consider a single payer system" or "if you delay the ACA for a year we will work to reform the immigration system" or "if you delay the ACA for a year we will pass legislation mandating background checks for people who buy guns at gun shows," then it would be accurate to say that the GOP is trying to negotiate. Instead they are using coercion, and if the Dems allow themselves to be coerced they are basically begging the GOP to use the same tactic in the future.
After all, if the GOP can get significant concessions simply by refusing to fund the government, what could get for threatening to disrupt the entire world economy?
|
On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real.
Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular.
|
On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular.
If it was *that* unpopular, we would be looking at President Romney in the White House. Clearly, enough people believed it wasn't worth kicking President Obama out of office for. I agree that public perception, rather than actual effect, is one of the major problems here. I can't remember where I saw this, but some polled were more favorable of the "Affordable Care Act" than "Obamacare", and of course it's exactly the same thing.
|
On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular.
They're doing it because they know what happens when the public gets a taste for socialized services. They love it and forces the GOP to retereat and whitewash their past denouncements i.e. Social Security, Medicare.
|
On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular.
While "Obamacare" is unpopluar, the "Affordable Care Act" does much better in the polls strangely enough. Also, when people are asked about specific provisions of the ACA (no denial of care based on preexisting conditions, children can use their parents' coverage until age 26, subsidies for the poor to be able to afford insurance) they view them very favorably.
Edit: Some* of the individual provisions : ) The individual mandate is still quite unpopular, I believe.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
'public' pressure in this situation is not applied upon house members, but on the national republican leadership in terms of damaging their 2014 prospects and beyond. most of these radical congressperson come from rigged gerrymander districts and they only worry about the primary.
|
On October 03 2013 10:58 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. If it was *that* unpopular, we would be looking at President Romney in the White House. Clearly, enough people believed it wasn't worth kicking President Obama out of office for. I agree that public perception, rather than actual effect, is one of the major problems here. I can't remember where I saw this, but some polled were more favorable of the "Affordable Care Act" than "Obamacare", and of course it's exactly the same thing.
This is false. Romney was conservative in the primaries, and backed off. But after the general campaign began, Obamacare was a side issue, due to Romneycare. the Idiotic Republicans gave the same "only he can win!" BS that they did with McCain, so they picked the worst moderate who could NOT run against Obamcare. sure he said he would repeal it, but he never made it a big deal. it was always about jobs. it's always fascinating to see people claim that "Obama was elected, so the public must like Obamacare." Romney spent time on jobs, Obama spent time on contraceptives (and attacking Romney's wealth). Neither of them talked at length about Obamacare.
|
On October 03 2013 10:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. I don't understand why you WOULD tie it to the budget. It's just random and dangerous. If they want to make deals, there's no reason to threaten a government shutdown or hold the debt ceiling hostage. Pass the CR and make a deal afterward. You're being dishonest. I don't understand what you don't get about this. You act like this is totally how arrangements are made. Putting parts of our economy at risk is not how deals are made.
By budget I mean the annual appropriations bills that Congress is supposed to normally pass instead of a bunch of continuing resolutions. Spending, including ACA spending, should be tied to that.
The economy is only at risk because we didn't make a deal. The converse is also true - dems could agree to fund a CR w/o the ACA funded and then 'negotiate' over it. Obviously Dems won't do that because they're not going to give up their leverage any more than Reps are.
|
On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular.
It's the other way around. Republicans have been preaching this thing is going to be awful, selling the failure of Obamacare for years, while running a great game of interference on any outreach for proponents of the law. Obviously, they've had some success with it, and have even fooled many of its (now) leading members that the law is going to wreck the country.
In reality, it's likely to be popular, even with its flaws. The core of the Republican party knows that, and they see it as a blow to selling their ideology. In response, they developed a Hail Mary play to repeal it through last election, and it more or less failed with them losing the Presidential and Senate races. The "warriors" they recruited don't understand that and believe that it is a serious threat to the country. Meanwhile, people are finally understanding that the law does actually bring quite a bit of freedom to individuals through the exchanges, and people want to try it out. Obama doesn't have to convince anybody, just let the program speak for itself.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 03 2013 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. I don't understand why you WOULD tie it to the budget. It's just random and dangerous. If they want to make deals, there's no reason to threaten a government shutdown or hold the debt ceiling hostage. Pass the CR and make a deal afterward. You're being dishonest. I don't understand what you don't get about this. You act like this is totally how arrangements are made. Putting parts of our economy at risk is not how deals are made. By budget I mean the annual appropriations bills that Congress is supposed to normally pass instead of a bunch of continuing resolutions. Spending, including ACA spending, should be tied to that. The economy is only at risk because we didn't make a deal. The converse is also true - dems could agree to fund a CR w/o the ACA funded and then 'negotiate' over it. Obviously Dems won't do that because they're not going to give up their leverage any more than Reps are. well yea, when the other guy is throwing nukes at you, you are not going to do nothing. but the decision to bring the war onto this nuclear level was certainly from the republican side, and THAT is the problem
|
On October 03 2013 11:08 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. It's the other way around. Republicans have been preaching this thing is going to be awful, selling the failure of Obamacare for years, while running a great game of interference on any outreach for proponents of the law. Obviously, they've had some success with it, and have even fooled many of its (now) leading members that the law is going to wreck the country. In reality, it's likely to be popular, even with its flaws. The core of the Republican party knows that, and they see it as a blow to selling their ideology. In response, they developed a Hail Mary play to repeal it through last election, and it more or less failed with them losing the Presidential and Senate races. The "warriors" they recruited don't understand that and believe that it is a serious threat to the country. Meanwhile, people are finally understanding that the law does actually bring quite a bit of freedom to individuals through the exchanges, and people want to try it out. Obama doesn't have to convince anybody, just let the program speak for itself.
It will become, not so much popular, as necessary. Once they start driving the private insurers out and have tons of people on subsidies, it will be impossible to remove. I mean, look at the mess that SS and Medicare are in, yet they can't be touched because millions are dependent on them. It's the last chance to stop another massive, (eventually) broke program.
|
On October 03 2013 11:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:08 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 09:45 DoubleReed wrote:On October 03 2013 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 08:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. It's the other way around. Republicans have been preaching this thing is going to be awful, selling the failure of Obamacare for years, while running a great game of interference on any outreach for proponents of the law. Obviously, they've had some success with it, and have even fooled many of its (now) leading members that the law is going to wreck the country. In reality, it's likely to be popular, even with its flaws. The core of the Republican party knows that, and they see it as a blow to selling their ideology. In response, they developed a Hail Mary play to repeal it through last election, and it more or less failed with them losing the Presidential and Senate races. The "warriors" they recruited don't understand that and believe that it is a serious threat to the country. Meanwhile, people are finally understanding that the law does actually bring quite a bit of freedom to individuals through the exchanges, and people want to try it out. Obama doesn't have to convince anybody, just let the program speak for itself. It will become, not so much popular, as necessary. Once they start driving the private insurers out and have tons of people on subsidies, it will be impossible to remove. I mean, look at the mess that SS and Medicare are in, yet they can't be touched because millions are dependent on them. It's the last chance to stop another massive, (eventually) broke program.
Drive the private insurers out? The exchanges are full of private providers. Where's the government option in the exchanges?
|
On October 03 2013 11:13 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:12 Introvert wrote:On October 03 2013 11:08 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 09:45 DoubleReed wrote:On October 03 2013 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. It's the other way around. Republicans have been preaching this thing is going to be awful, selling the failure of Obamacare for years, while running a great game of interference on any outreach for proponents of the law. Obviously, they've had some success with it, and have even fooled many of its (now) leading members that the law is going to wreck the country. In reality, it's likely to be popular, even with its flaws. The core of the Republican party knows that, and they see it as a blow to selling their ideology. In response, they developed a Hail Mary play to repeal it through last election, and it more or less failed with them losing the Presidential and Senate races. The "warriors" they recruited don't understand that and believe that it is a serious threat to the country. Meanwhile, people are finally understanding that the law does actually bring quite a bit of freedom to individuals through the exchanges, and people want to try it out. Obama doesn't have to convince anybody, just let the program speak for itself. It will become, not so much popular, as necessary. Once they start driving the private insurers out and have tons of people on subsidies, it will be impossible to remove. I mean, look at the mess that SS and Medicare are in, yet they can't be touched because millions are dependent on them. It's the last chance to stop another massive, (eventually) broke program. Drive the private insurers out? The exchanges are full of private providers. Where's the government option in the exchanges?
when I'm done eating I'll try to find the article, but tons of large insurers are opting out of the exchange program in many different states, while (in some cases) upping premiums. The effect (even if not the intention, though I'll bet it is) of Obamacare is that more and more people will be more and more reliant on the government, until it's so messed up that everyone says "we need single payer!"
|
On October 03 2013 11:09 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. I don't understand why you WOULD tie it to the budget. It's just random and dangerous. If they want to make deals, there's no reason to threaten a government shutdown or hold the debt ceiling hostage. Pass the CR and make a deal afterward. You're being dishonest. I don't understand what you don't get about this. You act like this is totally how arrangements are made. Putting parts of our economy at risk is not how deals are made. By budget I mean the annual appropriations bills that Congress is supposed to normally pass instead of a bunch of continuing resolutions. Spending, including ACA spending, should be tied to that. The economy is only at risk because we didn't make a deal. The converse is also true - dems could agree to fund a CR w/o the ACA funded and then 'negotiate' over it. Obviously Dems won't do that because they're not going to give up their leverage any more than Reps are. well yea, when the other guy is throwing nukes at you, you are not going to do nothing. but the decision to bring the war onto this nuclear level was certainly from the republican side, and THAT is the problem
We can hang Reps in the next election for starting it. Right now someone needs to resolve it. I don't see how not negotiating is going to resolve anything.
On October 03 2013 11:08 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:56 ziggurat wrote:On October 03 2013 10:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 10:29 Adila wrote:On October 03 2013 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I don't see why we can't tie a deal to a 1 year budget. Because then we'd be back here in 366 days with the same nonsense. Maybe it wouldn't be over the ACA, but it would be over some other battle field policy. Frankly, as long as you have such strong representation of members of Congress that don't give a damn if the government shuts down, even without tagging something political onto it, a threat of a shutdown/default is going to be real. Perhaps with another year Obama can persuade the public that this bill is a good idea. Republicans are only pulling this because Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. It's the other way around. Republicans have been preaching this thing is going to be awful, selling the failure of Obamacare for years, while running a great game of interference on any outreach for proponents of the law. Obviously, they've had some success with it, and have even fooled many of its (now) leading members that the law is going to wreck the country. In reality, it's likely to be popular, even with its flaws. The core of the Republican party knows that, and they see it as a blow to selling their ideology. In response, they developed a Hail Mary play to repeal it through last election, and it more or less failed with them losing the Presidential and Senate races. The "warriors" they recruited don't understand that and believe that it is a serious threat to the country. Meanwhile, people are finally understanding that the law does actually bring quite a bit of freedom to individuals through the exchanges, and people want to try it out. Obama doesn't have to convince anybody, just let the program speak for itself.
Isn't that a good argument for accepting a compromise? In time everyone will see that Obamacare didn't cause the sky to fall and support for repeal / delay will fall.
And I agree with you that it'll become more popular once people are exposed to it (Romenycare is popular fwiw). As long as the core elements remain I don't think a few more delays will spoil that outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
