|
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 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power.
[quote]
This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization.
House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote:
It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA?
Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that.
|
On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening.
It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote:
It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that.
"Its really wierd. I wanted to kill there child and they didnt offer up anything in return for letting me"
|
On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening.
It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote:
It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that.
So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country?
|
On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote.
The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar.
[quote]
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country?
I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want.
|
On October 04 2013 02:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote.
The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar.
[quote]
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. "Its really wierd. I wanted to kill there child and they didnt offer up anything in return for letting me"
If you aren't willing to negotiate you shouldn't be in politics.
|
|
|
On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll.
My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Good. Explain the differences.
Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want.
Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement.
|
what's the point of delaying it
|
* sigh* I'll try one more time and then I'm done discussing this with you.
The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less.
Obama getting "what he wanted just watered down a bit" means that Obama got less than his ideal position. The GOP getting to keep certain sections of the tax cuts means that they got less than their ideal position. Each side made concessions to the other in order to get some (but not all) of what they wanted.
And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA.
Let's say a crazy person walks into a crowded hotel lobby, and reveals that he has a bomb strapped to his chest. He asks to speak to the President, and because this is a silly hypothetical situation we'll pretend he is able to get through. The crazy person says "I don't want to blow myself up, but I will if you don't make it illegal to look at funny pictures of cats on the internet." The President says "I'm sorry, but we don't negotiate with terrorists" and he hangs up the phone. The crazy person detonates his bomb.
It seems to me that you would say that the President and the crazy person were equally at fault for the bomb going off, because the President could have prevented it by giving in to the crazy person's demands.
|
On October 04 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric.
Edit: [quote]
See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want. Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement.
What reasonable request? The ACA does not work without the individual mandate. Its a fundamental part of the law.
But honestly, if we're talking reasonable things, then we don't need a government shutdown hanging over our heads to do it.
|
On October 04 2013 02:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:17 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll.
My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Good. Explain the differences.
Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. "Its really wierd. I wanted to kill there child and they didnt offer up anything in return for letting me" If you aren't willing to negotiate you shouldn't be in politics.
How many times does it have to be said that this isn't negotiating...
|
On October 04 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric.
Edit: [quote]
See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want. Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement.
Demanding to delay the signature law of Obama's first term, a law that has passed both houses of congress, was the central theme of a presidential election and survived the supreme court is not 'a reasonable demand' in any way. There was a political process, republicans lost. At this point they're nothing more than bad losers.
The republican argument is insane anyway: if Obamacare is truly such a bad policy, surely voters will realize it and repeal becomes easier in the future than it is now.
|
On October 04 2013 02:25 sam!zdat wrote:
what's the point of delaying it
If you delay it once.. you can delay it infinitely... or at least that's the way I see it.
On October 04 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric.
Edit: [quote]
See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want. Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement.
Mind you, I am against delaying the individual mandate. I think the individual mandate is needed to make the ACA start to work - otherwise it ends up getting more convoluted and broken apart, and thus fulfilling the Republican forecast of a failed ACA.
|
On October 04 2013 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations.
The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want. Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement. What reasonable request? The ACA does not work without the individual mandate. Its a fundamental part of the law. But honestly, if we're talking reasonable things, then we don't need a government shutdown hanging over our heads to do it.
It can work with a 1 year delay. The individual mandate is far too week (particularly in year 1) to fully prevent the free rider problem. Hence we'll still have tens of millions who choose to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance.
Without the mandate you'll still have subsidies for the poor, coverage for pre-existing conditions and a whole host of regulatory changes.
But if you insist that the individual mandate is key, offer up something else.
|
On October 04 2013 02:26 Mercy13 wrote:* sigh* I'll try one more time and then I'm done discussing this with you. Show nested quote +The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. Obama getting "what he wanted just watered down a bit" means that Obama got less than his ideal position. The GOP getting to keep certain sections of the tax cuts means that they got less than their ideal position. Each side made concessions to the other in order to get some (but not all) of what they wanted.
Reps want the ACA totally gone. Dems want the ACA totally preserved. Shouldn't each side make concessions to get some (but not all) of what they want?
Show nested quote +And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. Let's say a crazy person walks into a crowded hotel lobby, and reveals that he has a bomb strapped to his chest. He asks to speak to the President, and because this is a silly hypothetical situation we'll pretend he is able to get through. The crazy person says "I don't want to blow myself up, but I will if you don't make it illegal to look at funny pictures of cats on the internet." The President says "I'm sorry, but we don't negotiate with terrorists" and he hangs up the phone. The crazy person detonates his bomb. It seems to me that you would say that the President and the crazy person were equally at fault for the bomb going off, because the President could have prevented it by giving in to the crazy person's demands.
Yes, everyone who has an opinion that is different from yours is a bomb wielding terrorist. We've already defunded bits of the ACA in past CRs. Now suddenly doing so is terrorism.
|
On October 04 2013 02:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less.
And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want. Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement. What reasonable request? The ACA does not work without the individual mandate. Its a fundamental part of the law. But honestly, if we're talking reasonable things, then we don't need a government shutdown hanging over our heads to do it. It can work with a 1 year delay. The individual mandate is far too week (particularly in year 1) to fully prevent the free rider problem. Hence we'll still have tens of millions who choose to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance. Without the mandate you'll still have subsidies for the poor, coverage for pre-existing conditions and a whole host of regulatory changes. But if you insist that the individual mandate is key, offer up something else.
What the bloody else am I supposed to offer? Single payer? Public option? We passed the individual mandate.
Once again, this is a line item veto you're suggesting here. It is fundamentally undermining our democracy.
|
Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology. He is not saying they are terrorists because they disagree. It refers to the tactics they are using.
|
On October 04 2013 02:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:
[quote]
The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation.
That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want. Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement. What reasonable request? The ACA does not work without the individual mandate. Its a fundamental part of the law. But honestly, if we're talking reasonable things, then we don't need a government shutdown hanging over our heads to do it. It can work with a 1 year delay. The individual mandate is far too week (particularly in year 1) to fully prevent the free rider problem. Hence we'll still have tens of millions who choose to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance. Without the mandate you'll still have subsidies for the poor, coverage for pre-existing conditions and a whole host of regulatory changes. But if you insist that the individual mandate is key, offer up something else. What the bloody else am I supposed to offer? Single payer? Public option? We passed the individual mandate. Once again, this is a line item veto you're suggesting here. It is fundamentally undermining our democracy.
Offer the employer mandate, Obama already delayed it because it's problematic. Offer the medical device tax, many Dems have voiced disfavor of it. Offer something.
Congress arguing over line items is our Democracy.
|
On October 04 2013 02:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:49 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 02:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA. So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA? Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want. Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement. What reasonable request? The ACA does not work without the individual mandate. Its a fundamental part of the law. But honestly, if we're talking reasonable things, then we don't need a government shutdown hanging over our heads to do it. It can work with a 1 year delay. The individual mandate is far too week (particularly in year 1) to fully prevent the free rider problem. Hence we'll still have tens of millions who choose to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance. Without the mandate you'll still have subsidies for the poor, coverage for pre-existing conditions and a whole host of regulatory changes. But if you insist that the individual mandate is key, offer up something else. What the bloody else am I supposed to offer? Single payer? Public option? We passed the individual mandate. Once again, this is a line item veto you're suggesting here. It is fundamentally undermining our democracy. Offer the employer mandate, Obama already delayed it because it's problematic. Offer the medical device tax, many Dems have voiced disfavor of it. Offer something. Congress arguing over line items is our Democracy.
How many times do we have to say it before you get it.
If you negotiate a 1 year delay they will do this exact same shit again in 1 year!!!!
|
On October 04 2013 03:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:49 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 02:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 02:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On October 04 2013 02:19 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 02:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 02:11 Adila wrote:
[quote]
So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA?
Everything they've asked for. In other words, nothing. They're fantastic at negotiating like that. So.... basically you're saying the Dems should bend over and take it from the Republicans again to spare the country? I think he is saying the Dems should provide a counter-offer. If you want to defund the ACA, give us something. I.e. gun control, or whatever else the Dems would want. Yes! As long as Reps are making a reasonable demand, like delaying only a portion of the ACA, Dems should make a reasonable request as well, like some of the bills that Reps have blocked. Then both sides should come to an agreement. What reasonable request? The ACA does not work without the individual mandate. Its a fundamental part of the law. But honestly, if we're talking reasonable things, then we don't need a government shutdown hanging over our heads to do it. It can work with a 1 year delay. The individual mandate is far too week (particularly in year 1) to fully prevent the free rider problem. Hence we'll still have tens of millions who choose to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance. Without the mandate you'll still have subsidies for the poor, coverage for pre-existing conditions and a whole host of regulatory changes. But if you insist that the individual mandate is key, offer up something else. What the bloody else am I supposed to offer? Single payer? Public option? We passed the individual mandate. Once again, this is a line item veto you're suggesting here. It is fundamentally undermining our democracy. Offer the employer mandate, Obama already delayed it because it's problematic. Offer the medical device tax, many Dems have voiced disfavor of it. Offer something. Congress arguing over line items is our Democracy. How many times do we have to say it before you get it. If you negotiate a 1 year delay they will do this exact same shit again in 1 year!!!!
Every year Congress has to negotiate over controversial issues. Every year. This is normal. If your expectation is that the ACA is sacred ground that will never be altered - newsflash - it's already been altered by both Reps and Dems. Get used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
