|
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 10:54 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.
Like I said, one side has a large portion that really doesn't give a damn if the government shuts down, even if for no reason whatsoever. They feel they have some divine guidance to stop the creep of government, logic and reason be damned. That's some 30-50 members of the House, that probably couldn't be bought with pork, fundraisers, and/or committee assignments even if they were still available to bargain with.
So even if we did postpone everything to next year, you'd have the same exact lesson to be learned and mistakes to be made. Without real public backlash (which I'm sure some of the "divine" Congressmen will get), and severe consequences to the overall party, nothing would change with negotiations next year. Republicans would come to the table with an all-or-nothing proposal with the assumption that they're in control of the debate (with coalition government in the House), and the election rhetoric would be hot. We'd probably end up with even less chance of avoiding catastrophe.
For a case study on this, just look how the Sequestration ended up.
|
On October 03 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:09 oneofthem wrote: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:
[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. 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. 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. 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.
A compromise would be to bring certain (non-core) provisions to the table, like the employer mandate and tax on "Cadillac policies." Sadly, that's a non-starter. Maybe if Republicans led off with it along with some concessions of their own, it would get things rolling. However, at this point, you're asking the Democrats to come to the table with nothing but concessions while Republicans come with nothing but demands. It's not a feasible starting point.
|
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.
The ACA is a law, and as such needs to be funded. That's really all there is to it. To pretend that it's totally normal to use the threat of government shutdown to effectively try to repeal a law is not normal. Why the fuck are you pretending that this is business at usual?
And yes, the precedent is undoubtedly awful. Why the hell wouldn't they do something like this for every government shutdown and debt ceiling talk? It's a terrible way to run the largest economy in the world.
|
Also, to be clear, the ACA is funded upfront for a few years at the very least. Government shutdown doesn't do much, nor does "refusing to fund it." Congress literally has to strip the funds from it actively and deliberately.
|
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.
Take this situation. Say I'm driving a car, and I tell my friend "give me your wallet or I drive us off the nearest bridge". This negotiation is not a reasonable one because instead of trading something I want for something he wants, I'm just threatening to hurt us both unless I get what I want.
I didn't want to post this because I thought it risked oversimplifying the issue, but after thinking about it, this is basically exactly whats happening.
|
On October 03 2013 11:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:54 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. Like I said, one side has a large portion that really doesn't give a damn if the government shuts down, even if for no reason whatsoever. They feel they have some divine guidance to stop the creep of government, logic and reason be damned. That's some 30-50 members of the House, that probably couldn't be bought with pork, fundraisers, and/or committee assignments even if they were still available to bargain with. So even if we did postpone everything to next year, you'd have the same exact lesson to be learned and mistakes to be made. Without real public backlash (which I'm sure some of the "divine" Congressmen will get), and severe consequences to the overall party, nothing would change with negotiations next year. Republicans would come to the table with an all-or-nothing proposal with the assumption that they're in control of the debate (with coalition government in the House), and the election rhetoric would be hot. We'd probably end up with even less chance of avoiding catastrophe. For a case study on this, just look how the Sequestration ended up.
Are 30-50 members really enough to cause a shutdown on their own? I understand that there are fanatics in Congress, but why can't moderates be brought over? Congress has made deals in the past this year.
The sequestration ran into problems in part because Dems raised taxes by letting portions of the Bush tax cuts expire and then nothing stopped them from trying to raise taxes again during the sequestration negotiations. So I guess Reps can't negotiate with Dems because, hey, give them an inch and they'll take a mile? That's how some Reps are seeing this, which I think is just as nuts as the 'Reps are terrorists who can't be trusted' shpeal.
On October 03 2013 11:27 DoubleReed 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. The ACA is a law, and as such needs to be funded. That's really all there is to it. To pretend that it's totally normal to use the threat of government shutdown to effectively try to repeal a law is not normal. Why the fuck are you pretending that this is business at usual? And yes, the precedent is undoubtedly awful. Why the hell wouldn't they do something like this for every government shutdown and debt ceiling talk? It's a terrible way to run the largest economy in the world.
So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me.
Edit: On October 03 2013 11:36 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:54 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. Take this situation. Say I'm driving a car, and I tell my friend "give me your wallet or I drive us off the nearest bridge". This negotiation is not a reasonable one because instead of trading something I want for something he wants, I'm just threatening to hurt us both unless I get what I want. I didn't want to post this because I thought it risked oversimplifying the issue, but after thinking about it, this is basically exactly whats happening.
I don't think that's a fair analogy. The GOP isn't cranking the wheel aside, it's refusing to buy gas.
|
Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist had some choice words for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in an interview published Wednesday. The founder of Americans for Tax Reform criticized the junior senator from Texas for his anti-Obamacare tactics on the Senate floor last week, joining ranks of Republicans who were similarly angered by Cruz in the runup to the government shutdown Monday.
"He said if you don’t agree with my tactic and with the specific structure of my idea, you’re bad," he told the Washington Post. "He said if the House would simply pass the bill with defunding he would force the Senate to act. He would lead this grass-roots movement that would get Democrats to change their mind. So the House passed it, it went to the Senate, and Ted Cruz said, oh, we don’t have the votes over here."
"And I can’t find the e-mails or ads targeting Democrats to support it," Norquist added. "Cruz said he would deliver the votes and he didn’t deliver any Democratic votes. He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away."
Source
|
On October 03 2013 12:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:24 aksfjh wrote:On October 03 2013 10:54 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. Like I said, one side has a large portion that really doesn't give a damn if the government shuts down, even if for no reason whatsoever. They feel they have some divine guidance to stop the creep of government, logic and reason be damned. That's some 30-50 members of the House, that probably couldn't be bought with pork, fundraisers, and/or committee assignments even if they were still available to bargain with. So even if we did postpone everything to next year, you'd have the same exact lesson to be learned and mistakes to be made. Without real public backlash (which I'm sure some of the "divine" Congressmen will get), and severe consequences to the overall party, nothing would change with negotiations next year. Republicans would come to the table with an all-or-nothing proposal with the assumption that they're in control of the debate (with coalition government in the House), and the election rhetoric would be hot. We'd probably end up with even less chance of avoiding catastrophe. For a case study on this, just look how the Sequestration ended up. Are 30-50 members really enough to cause a shutdown on their own? I understand that there are fanatics in Congress, but why can't moderates be brought over? Congress has made deals in the past this year. The sequestration ran into problems in part because Dems raised taxes by letting portions of the Bush tax cuts expire and then nothing stopped them from trying to raise taxes again during the sequestration negotiations. So I guess Reps can't negotiate with Dems because, hey, give them an inch and they'll take a mile? That's how some Reps are seeing this, which I think is just as nuts as the 'Reps are terrorists who can't be trusted' shpeal. Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:27 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[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. 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. The ACA is a law, and as such needs to be funded. That's really all there is to it. To pretend that it's totally normal to use the threat of government shutdown to effectively try to repeal a law is not normal. Why the fuck are you pretending that this is business at usual? And yes, the precedent is undoubtedly awful. Why the hell wouldn't they do something like this for every government shutdown and debt ceiling talk? It's a terrible way to run the largest economy in the world. So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. Edit: Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:36 packrat386 wrote:On October 03 2013 10:54 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. Take this situation. Say I'm driving a car, and I tell my friend "give me your wallet or I drive us off the nearest bridge". This negotiation is not a reasonable one because instead of trading something I want for something he wants, I'm just threatening to hurt us both unless I get what I want. I didn't want to post this because I thought it risked oversimplifying the issue, but after thinking about it, this is basically exactly whats happening. I don't think that's a fair analogy. The GOP isn't cranking the wheel aside, it's refusing to buy gas.
30-50 members is enough when they will break against the party at the smallest sign of compromise/concession (and vote no). That's essentially the problem we have right now. There are arguably more than enough votes in the House to pass a clean CR, but Boehner won't bring it to the floor. At that point, moderates, who are all very much loyal to the party, are much less likely to break party solidarity, which stands against a clean CR as per Boehner's actions and comments.
|
On October 03 2013 11:01 Mercy13 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. 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.
Obama has dismally failed to get his message out. Does anybody remember when people used to call him "the great persuader" and talk about how his brilliant oratorical abilities would bridge the partisan divide? Me neither.
|
So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me.
What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House.
|
On October 03 2013 12:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist had some choice words for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in an interview published Wednesday. The founder of Americans for Tax Reform criticized the junior senator from Texas for his anti-Obamacare tactics on the Senate floor last week, joining ranks of Republicans who were similarly angered by Cruz in the runup to the government shutdown Monday.
"He said if you don’t agree with my tactic and with the specific structure of my idea, you’re bad," he told the Washington Post. "He said if the House would simply pass the bill with defunding he would force the Senate to act. He would lead this grass-roots movement that would get Democrats to change their mind. So the House passed it, it went to the Senate, and Ted Cruz said, oh, we don’t have the votes over here."
"And I can’t find the e-mails or ads targeting Democrats to support it," Norquist added. "Cruz said he would deliver the votes and he didn’t deliver any Democratic votes. He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away." Source
Shit dude, when grover norquist thinks you've gone a bit too far, you've gone a bit too far.
Also @johnny: Ok, lets take your scenario. I'm driving in a long journey with my friend, and at one point when we stop for gas I say "I'm not putting any gas into it until you give me that keychain you like". Perhaps the value of the keychain is less than it might be worth for my friend to keep going, but does that really seem like fair negotiation to you?
|
On October 03 2013 11:02 oneofthem wrote:
'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.
isn't it such a nice dialectical irony? the tactics of gerrymandering backfiring on the strategy!
|
On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House.
You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit.
Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link
On October 03 2013 12:34 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 12:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist had some choice words for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in an interview published Wednesday. The founder of Americans for Tax Reform criticized the junior senator from Texas for his anti-Obamacare tactics on the Senate floor last week, joining ranks of Republicans who were similarly angered by Cruz in the runup to the government shutdown Monday.
"He said if you don’t agree with my tactic and with the specific structure of my idea, you’re bad," he told the Washington Post. "He said if the House would simply pass the bill with defunding he would force the Senate to act. He would lead this grass-roots movement that would get Democrats to change their mind. So the House passed it, it went to the Senate, and Ted Cruz said, oh, we don’t have the votes over here."
"And I can’t find the e-mails or ads targeting Democrats to support it," Norquist added. "Cruz said he would deliver the votes and he didn’t deliver any Democratic votes. He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away." Source Shit dude, when grover norquist thinks you've gone a bit too far, you've gone a bit too far. Also @johnny: Ok, lets take your scenario. I'm driving in a long journey with my friend, and at one point when we stop for gas I say "I'm not putting any gas into it until you give me that keychain you like". Perhaps the value of the keychain is less than it might be worth for my friend to keep going, but does that really seem like fair negotiation to you?
OK, but don't forget that some of that gas is for a side trip that your friend doesn't want part of 
|
yeah well, that friend can go screw himself because I paid for a bunch of gas to go on a big detour to a sandy shithole and that kinda broke the bank. oh and speaking of banks
|
On October 03 2013 12:25 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:01 Mercy13 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. 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. Obama has dismally failed to get his message out. Does anybody remember when people used to call him "the great persuader" and talk about how his brilliant oratorical abilities would bridge the partisan divide? Me neither.
Persuasion requires a party that's willing to listen. I think Obama was expecting a Republican party more akin to the 70's, not a bunch of kids with fingers in their ears going "nanananananana, i can't hear you".
|
Any interesting Obamacare stories from people who have tried the exchanges?
|
On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link
I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA).
As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is).
|
On October 03 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:09 oneofthem wrote: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:
[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. 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.
The Democrats compromising on the ACA would resolve the shut-down but the Dems would have no guarantee that the Reps would make things smooth next time. And the Reps are not negotiating in the standard sense because they are not offering anything in return. That's why this is different to previous budget negotiation situations. (Keeping the Government running is not a compromise by the Reps).
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. 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.
But if the Republicans successfully defund or delay enough parts of Obamacare then it won't be effective and the Reps will say how bad the ACA is and that it should be repealed entirely. The ACA is not something that can be done in pieces. The system can be summed up as;
1) People should have access to a basic level of health-care (*)
2) Someone has to pay for that health-care
3) Nobody should become bankrupt from medical bills
4) Therefore healthy people need to help pay the medical bills of sick people
(*) what "a basic level of health-care" means is something to be negotiated on because there is the law of diminishing returns issue here, but this idea that not everything should be included in "a basic level of health-care" became "death panels" in the eyes of some right-wing people.
Without the individual mandate then it's possible that not enough healthy people sign up and then the system may have insufficient money to pay all the medical bills (leaving some people facing massive medical bills or some people going without basic health-care). The ACA needs some funds for the exchange and to inform people about the system and help people use the system.
The Reps have been unable to repeal the ACA so they are trying to make it fail so that people will dislike it and then it can be repealed. The Reps are trying to sabotage the ACA. Their goal is for the ACA to fail and then argue that it was a bad idea (instead of a good idea implemented badly). The Dems get not benefit here from compromising (unless the Reps offer something big in exchange, such as a gun registry and strict background checks for buying guns).
|
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like.
|
On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is).
On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like.
Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
