|
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 03:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 03:04 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Yeah, it's already been altered.
It's already been compromised on.
So suddenly the GOP is no longer happy with the compromises and decides to shut down the government to get MORE concessions...
|
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.
You are missing the point. The question is "what forms of leverage are acceptable in a democracy". The question is not "what policies should we have in a negotiation".
Obama is refusing to negotiate because to do so would be to concede that government shutdowns are an acceptable point of leverage.
Obama likely would trade some Obamacare stuff or entitlement reform if the Republicans actually met in a budget conference without using the government shutdown as leverage.
|
On October 04 2013 03:15 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 03:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 03:04 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, it's already been altered. It's already been compromised on. So suddenly the GOP is no longer happy with the compromises and decides to shut down the government to get MORE concessions...
Suddenly? Reps have been pretty open about their dissatisfaction with the ACA. This has been brewing for a long time.
|
On October 04 2013 03:18 CannonsNCarriers 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. You are missing the point. The question is "what forms of leverage are acceptable in a democracy". The question is not "what policies should we have in a negotiation". Obama is refusing to negotiate because to do so would be to concede that government shutdowns are an acceptable point of leverage. Obama likely would trade some Obamacare stuff or entitlement reform if the Republicans actually met in a budget conference without using the government shutdown as leverage.
In an ideal world, sure. But Reps aren't going to give up their leverage any more than Dems. Reps won't pass a clean CR and negotiate after, nor will Dems pass a CR that fully defunds the ACA and negotiate after. One side just isn't going to give the other total power and hope for fair deal.
At least not right away. One side can always blink...
Edit: And right now it looks like Reps will blink first. So guess who isn't playing ball?
|
On October 04 2013 03:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 03:18 CannonsNCarriers wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You are missing the point. The question is "what forms of leverage are acceptable in a democracy". The question is not "what policies should we have in a negotiation". Obama is refusing to negotiate because to do so would be to concede that government shutdowns are an acceptable point of leverage. Obama likely would trade some Obamacare stuff or entitlement reform if the Republicans actually met in a budget conference without using the government shutdown as leverage. In an ideal world, sure. But Reps aren't going to give up their leverage any more than Dems. Reps won't pass a clean CR and negotiate after, nor will Dems pass a CR that fully defunds the ACA and negotiate after. One side just isn't going to give the other total power and hope for fair deal. At least not right away. One side can always blink... Edit: And right now it looks like Reps will blink first. So guess who isn't playing ball?
The Republicans are going to blink on this one. This was all just posturing to cover for the debt ceiling increase coming up in two weeks.
|
On October 04 2013 03:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 03:18 CannonsNCarriers wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You are missing the point. The question is "what forms of leverage are acceptable in a democracy". The question is not "what policies should we have in a negotiation". Obama is refusing to negotiate because to do so would be to concede that government shutdowns are an acceptable point of leverage. Obama likely would trade some Obamacare stuff or entitlement reform if the Republicans actually met in a budget conference without using the government shutdown as leverage. In an ideal world, sure. But Reps aren't going to give up their leverage any more than Dems. Reps won't pass a clean CR and negotiate after, nor will Dems pass a CR that fully defunds the ACA and negotiate after. One side just isn't going to give the other total power and hope for fair deal. At least not right away. One side can always blink... Edit: And right now it looks like Reps will blink first. So guess who isn't playing ball?
Ok, let's try something else. Say that the House finally passes a clean spending bill, and it quickly passes the Senate. When it gets to Obama's desk however, he vetoes the bill. He sends a note back to the House saying that he will refuse to allow the government to be funded unless the House passes an assault weapons ban. Would you consider this an acceptable negotiation tactic?
|
Gunfire reported at the Capitol Building
|
Republicans are going to have to blink because they have no leverage in the first place and have no strategy, no endgame. Cruz somehow believed that the public would rally around blocking Obamacare but the reality is that people blame republicans for the shutdown. All this is doing is alienating moderates and independents, making the republican party even less likely to win a national election again.
|
On October 04 2013 03:37 peawok wrote:
Gunfire reported at the Capitol Building
wtf just read that as well, the heck is going on there?
|
it's the apocalypse, panic!
|
A shooting in the nation's capitol?
Nope just another day in Washington D.C.
NY Times reporting that one shooter is in custody and the capitol building is no longer in lockdown. There are reports of someone trying to ram the white house, but having visited the white house several times I find it very unlikely that someone could even get near it.
|
On October 04 2013 03:34 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 03:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 03:18 CannonsNCarriers wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You are missing the point. The question is "what forms of leverage are acceptable in a democracy". The question is not "what policies should we have in a negotiation". Obama is refusing to negotiate because to do so would be to concede that government shutdowns are an acceptable point of leverage. Obama likely would trade some Obamacare stuff or entitlement reform if the Republicans actually met in a budget conference without using the government shutdown as leverage. In an ideal world, sure. But Reps aren't going to give up their leverage any more than Dems. Reps won't pass a clean CR and negotiate after, nor will Dems pass a CR that fully defunds the ACA and negotiate after. One side just isn't going to give the other total power and hope for fair deal. At least not right away. One side can always blink... Edit: And right now it looks like Reps will blink first. So guess who isn't playing ball? Ok, let's try something else. Say that the House finally passes a clean spending bill, and it quickly passes the Senate. When it gets to Obama's desk however, he vetoes the bill. He sends a note back to the House saying that he will refuse to allow the government to be funded unless the House passes an assault weapons ban. Would you consider this an acceptable negotiation tactic?
Well I think it would be a dick move to do that out of the blue after the government has already been shutdown for a while. But broadly sure, the Prez can use veto power or just the threat of it to push for something he wants. Congress can always override it if it's unreasonable.
|
You may be a lunatic but at least you're consistent
|
On October 04 2013 04:29 Mercy13 wrote:
You may be a lunatic but at least you're consistent
Perhaps I've been reading too much game of thrones 
|
United States41117 Posts
I think it's telling the woman tried to ram past the White House gates. Not even a Tank would have an easy time getting through into the grounds.
|
On October 04 2013 04:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I think it's telling the woman tried to ram past the White House gates. Not even a Tank would have an easy time getting through into the grounds.
Whole thing doesn't make much sense IMO
|
Bachmann finally lost her last bit of sanity and went postal... so tragic.
|
On October 04 2013 04:39 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I think it's telling the woman tried to ram past the White House gates. Not even a Tank would have an easy time getting through into the grounds. Whole thing doesn't make much sense IMO
Yeah. Apparently she had a child with her in the car? And the car was a black Infinity... which usually is not something you want to crash with since it's not that cheap.
|
United States41117 Posts
When pressed by Republican donors last month to explain why the party seemed willing to flirt with a government shutdown, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) reportedly said that the tea party left the GOP with no choice.
The Daily Beast's David Freedlander reported on the comments by Walden, who serves as chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which came during a lunch event in New York City.
From Freedlander's report:
Why, they asked, did the GOP seem so in the thrall of its most extremist wing? The donors, banker types who occupy the upper reaches of Wall Street’s towers, couldn’t understand why the Republican Party—their party—seemed close to threatening the nation with a government shutdown, never mind a default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised later this month.
“Listen,” Walden said, according to several people present. “We have to do this because of the Tea Party. If we don’t, these guys are going to get primaried and they are going to lose their primary.”
Walden then credited the tea party for its involvement in grassroots efforts.
Source
|
On October 04 2013 06:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +When pressed by Republican donors last month to explain why the party seemed willing to flirt with a government shutdown, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) reportedly said that the tea party left the GOP with no choice.
The Daily Beast's David Freedlander reported on the comments by Walden, who serves as chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which came during a lunch event in New York City.
From Freedlander's report:
Why, they asked, did the GOP seem so in the thrall of its most extremist wing? The donors, banker types who occupy the upper reaches of Wall Street’s towers, couldn’t understand why the Republican Party—their party—seemed close to threatening the nation with a government shutdown, never mind a default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised later this month.
“Listen,” Walden said, according to several people present. “We have to do this because of the Tea Party. If we don’t, these guys are going to get primaried and they are going to lose their primary.”
Walden then credited the tea party for its involvement in grassroots efforts. Source
I will never understand the Republicans who insist that the Teabaggers are not useful idiots for Wall Street. The elected Republicans all acknowledge it. Why do the Teabaggers (or Team Liquid independents) themselves pretend otherwise?
For example, lots of internet independents insist that Dodd-Frank is really welfare for the banks. But you had all the Republicans, who are getting funded by the guys mentioned above, voting against it. How on Earth does the claim that Teabaggers are anti-Wall Street make any sense? None of the characters are in line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
