|
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. |
Some of the most painful impacts of the government shutdown:
- The Center for Disease Control halts its Flu vaccine program
- The FDA has halted food safety operations
- The tourist trade takes a hit as National Parks close
- The National Institute of Health has started turning away patients with life threatening illnesses, including children with cancer.
- NASA may have to delay the launch of it's MAVEN Mars atmosphere spacecraft
- The Bureau of Land Management has stopped issuing permits to businesses seeking to operate on Federal lands
- The Small Business Association is unable to grant new loans
- Nutrition programs for young mothers and pregnant women have funds for only "a week or so"
source source source source
|
On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:
[quote]
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. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. 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.
Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that (to simplify) successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but that loss is seen as less important to them than what they gained). In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government. Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline, and the cost of the negotiation failure is the destruction of the baseline (as in the entire functioning of the government). There is nothing "normal" about this.
|
|
|
That's is probably an official statement, but the news that she was doing it was leaked by the press a while back.
And, ultimately, it's Texas. It may become a battleground state in the near future, but right now I doubt she'll take the Governor's spot. Especially since her filibuster was strongly in favor of abortion, which I think most Texans are against.
And, unfortunately, it's not something that I, as someone who doesn't live in Texas, can help change.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
leverage operates within conventions of common interest and responsibility. the responsibility of congress as government is just thrown right out of the door here. if this is 'leverage' then yea sure, shooting up a mall is leverage too.
|
On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:
With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that (to simplify) successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but that loss is seen as less important to them than what they gained). In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government. Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline, and the cost of the negotiation failure is the destruction of the baseline (as in the entire functioning of the government). There is nothing "normal" about this.
Well put
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
We all knew coming into 2013 that the Republican party would have to do some soul searching. However, with all the in-fighting amongst Republicans, the mid-term elections are looking better and better for Democrats at this point. The nation has been mainly exposed to the doings and sayings of the Tea Party, and while it's possible the Tea Party may make gains within strongly conservative districts, I'd say any districts within a 60-40 margin are looking quite tasty right now for Democrats.
The biggest mistake Republicans made, politically, was bringing up the whole idea of shutting down the government due to the ACA in the first place. When you think about it, from the onset of the ordeal, there were only two scenarios available if we toss aside the highly improbable notion of Democrats actually conceding: 1) nothing happens to the ACA and the government gets funded, which is more of a loss for Republicans than it is a win for Dems, but a win nonetheless, or 2) shutdown occurs and Republicans attract the scorn of much of the country. Out of their own volition (and due to Cruz's politics), the Republican party put themselves between a rock and a hard place. This was an extremely foolish move politically, ideals aside.
The mid-term elections are going to be a lot closer than the Republicans first presumed. After this debacle is over with, the Republicans will be faced with one of two scenarios: 1) the undisputed dominance of the Tea Party, or 2) the counterattack of the leadership + moderates, attempting to retake the reigns of the party and causing a bigger rift between the two sides. While scenario 2 may be better for Republicans in terms of national elections, the damage dealt to their image may be too much to recover from with serious campaigning efforts just around the corner. Scenario 1 will, of course, be much better for Democrats in what seems to be many close, competitive races. But no matter which scenario they are faced with, there will no doubt be a bigger wedge between the Tea Party faction and what I'll call the "Others," which will weaken the party. Dems are most likely celebrating with glasses of champagne behind closed doors.
Unless something unexpected happens that pulls the attention of the entire country towards that specific issue, giving Republicans an opportunity for a new united front and providing the public with a distraction that overwhelms the government shutdown, Democrats can be optimistic about the mid-term elections.
God I hate politics.
|
On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich).
With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up.
|
On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up.
Ill say it once again..
"I wanted to shoot their baby and they refused to give me something in return to let me do it"
|
Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
|
On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich).
What I said applies to the tax changes at the start of 2013 as well. Obama wanted the tax cuts to be extended only for the poor and the middle class. What do you think the Republican position was? If you think it was to extend the tax cuts for everyone, then the baseline should have been extending the tax cuts for the poor and the middle class (since both parties wanted this), and then Republicans could have negotiated extending the tax cuts for the rich (or part of them) in exchange for something else the Democrats wanted. Instead, the Republicans decided to take the poor and the middle class hostage by refusing to have the tax cuts extended for them unless they got their way (or at least part of it) with regards to the tax cuts on the rich.
Of course, if you believe the Republicans only wanted to extend the tax cuts for the rich and not for the poor and the middle class, then there was no hostage taking, since the baseline would have been no tax cut extension for anyone. But I doubt you're going to tell me that's what you think the Republicans wanted ,-)
On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up.
You're forgetting something (I don't know if you saw the last two sentences I added to my original post to make it clearer): in a normal situation, failure to negotiate/to reach an agreement does not result in the destruction of the baseline (in this case, the functioning of the government) - it should be the maintaining of the said baseline, that both parties would want to depart from in some way. So for this to be a "normal" process of negotiation, the Republicans would fund the government normally and increase the debt ceiling, but they could for example offer a reduction in sequester cuts (which is what Democrats want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full sequester) in exchange for a delay in the implementation of the medical device tax, or its complete repeal (which is what Republicans want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full implementation of the ACA). Failure to reach agreement would result in the normal functioning of government and implementation of the ACA (which is already the law of the land), but it would mean both parties would not get something that they want (a reduction in sequester cuts for the Democrats, and the delay of some parts of the ACA for Republicans).
Again, the destruction of the baseline itself is NOT "normal" in a negotiation process.
|
On October 04 2013 08:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. Ill say it once again.. "I wanted to shoot their baby and they refused to give me something in return to let me do it"
Yeah, changing the status quo should always be likened to shooting a baby.
Think of all the babies that would be dead if we closed Guantanamo or ended the NSA mass surveillance program. The horror...
|
On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). Show nested quote +With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up.
That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand.
Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard.
On October 04 2013 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. Ill say it once again.. "I wanted to shoot their baby and they refused to give me something in return to let me do it" Yeah, changing the status quo should always be likened to shooting a baby. Think of all the babies that would be dead if we closed Guantanamo or ended the NSA mass surveillance program. The horror...
"Try not to think of it as getting laid off, think of it more like an unpaid vacation! Think of it as an opportunity to explore poverty and other employment solutions!"
~ Ted Cruz, 2013
Sorry, bullshit is bullshit. I mean even Fox News doesn't have enough perfume to cover the smell of this load of hogwash. The best they could come up with was "government 'slimdown'".
slim down
vb (adverb)
1. to make or become slim, esp intentionally
2. (Economics) to make (an organization) more efficient or (of an organization) to become more efficient, esp by cutting staff
n slimdown
(Economics) an instance of an organization slimming down
Source
Yeah, guys, they're not shutting anything down. They're just slimming, like Jared from subway. We're just about to waste 10 years of research and prep into mars exploration. It's not like we're losing something that has ever been relevant to the progress and development of our country. It's not as if some upstart little shits are fucking over our nation because they're about to start their campaign season.
|
On October 04 2013 08:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). What I said applies to the tax changes at the start of 2013 as well. Obama wanted the tax cuts to be extended only for the poor and the middle class. What do you think the Republican position was? If you think it was to extend the tax cuts for everyone, then the baseline should have been extending the tax cuts for the poor and the middle class (since both parties wanted this), and then Republicans could have negotiated extending the tax cuts for the rich (or part of them) in exchange for something else the Democrats wanted. Instead, the Republicans decided to take the poor and the middle class hostage by refusing to have the tax cuts extended for them unless they got their way (or at least part of it) with regards to the tax cuts on the rich. Of course, if you believe the Republicans only wanted to extend the tax cuts for the rich and not for the poor and the middle class, then there was no hostage taking, since the baseline would have been no tax cut extension for anyone. But I doubt you're going to tell me that's what you think the Republicans wanted ,-)
OK, then reps were holding the country hostage over a portion of the tax change (the rich). They were hostage taking because they didn't want to pass only what was agreed upon.
Now it's the opposite, dems are holding the country hostage over a portion of the CR (the ACA). They are hostage taking because they won't pass only what is agreed upon.
I'm not trying to be a dick with this, just trying to apply the same standard to both.
Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. You're forgetting something (I don't know if you saw the last two sentences I added to my original post to make it clearer): in a normal situation, failure to negotiate does not result in the destruction of the baseline (in this case, the functioning of the government) - it should be the maintaining of the said baseline, that both parties would want to depart from in some way. So for this to be a "normal" process of negotiation, the Republicans would fund the government normally and increase the debt ceiling, but they could for example offer a reduction in sequester cuts (which is what Democrats want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full sequester) in exchange for a delay in the implementation of the medical device tax, or its complete repeal (which is what Republicans want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full implementation of the ACA). Failure to reach agreement would result in the normal functioning of government and implementation of the ACA (which is already the law of the land), but it would mean both parties would not get something that they want (a reduction in sequester cuts for the Democrats, and the delay of some parts of the ACA for Republicans). Again, the destruction of the baseline itself is NOT "normal" in a negotiation process.
That would certainly be better than what's going on now. I find it hard to not be mad at both parties for not doing that instead.
|
On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard.
Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable.
|
On October 04 2013 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. Ill say it once again.. "I wanted to shoot their baby and they refused to give me something in return to let me do it" Yeah, changing the status quo should always be likened to shooting a baby. Think of all the babies that would be dead if we closed Guantanamo or ended the NSA mass surveillance program. The horror...
The ACA is the Dems baby yes. Its Obama's legacy. Like hell there going to let the Republicans destroy it.
|
On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable.
And what would be the point of delaying it a year...
I'll let you figure that one out on your own.
|
Obama did it for the employer mandate, delaying the Jan 1 2014 deadline to Jan 1 2015.
|
On October 04 2013 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:58 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). What I said applies to the tax changes at the start of 2013 as well. Obama wanted the tax cuts to be extended only for the poor and the middle class. What do you think the Republican position was? If you think it was to extend the tax cuts for everyone, then the baseline should have been extending the tax cuts for the poor and the middle class (since both parties wanted this), and then Republicans could have negotiated extending the tax cuts for the rich (or part of them) in exchange for something else the Democrats wanted. Instead, the Republicans decided to take the poor and the middle class hostage by refusing to have the tax cuts extended for them unless they got their way (or at least part of it) with regards to the tax cuts on the rich. Of course, if you believe the Republicans only wanted to extend the tax cuts for the rich and not for the poor and the middle class, then there was no hostage taking, since the baseline would have been no tax cut extension for anyone. But I doubt you're going to tell me that's what you think the Republicans wanted ,-) OK, then reps were holding the country hostage over a portion of the tax change (the rich). They were hostage taking because they didn't want to pass only what was agreed upon. Now it's the opposite, dems are holding the country hostage over a portion of the CR (the ACA). They are hostage taking because they won't pass only what is agreed upon. I'm not trying to be a dick with this, just trying to apply the same standard to both.
The two aren't the same because in the second case the ACA is already part of the baseline (btw, I find the second part of our discussion more interesting than debating the validity of analogies).
On October 04 2013 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:58 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. You're forgetting something (I don't know if you saw the last two sentences I added to my original post to make it clearer): in a normal situation, failure to negotiate/to reach an agreement does not result in the destruction of the baseline (in this case, the functioning of the government) - it should be the maintaining of the said baseline, that both parties would want to depart from in some way. So for this to be a "normal" process of negotiation, the Republicans would fund the government normally and increase the debt ceiling, but they could for example offer a reduction in sequester cuts (which is what Democrats want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full sequester) in exchange for a delay in the implementation of the medical device tax, or its complete repeal (which is what Republicans want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full implementation of the ACA). Failure to reach agreement would result in the normal functioning of government and implementation of the ACA (which is already the law of the land), but it would mean both parties would not get something that they want (a reduction in sequester cuts for the Democrats, and the delay of some parts of the ACA for Republicans). Again, the destruction of the baseline itself is NOT "normal" in a negotiation process. That would certainly be better than what's going on now. I find it hard to not be mad at both parties for not doing that instead.
Ok, so we agree that it would be better. Do you also agree that, like I said, the destruction of the baseline is not "normal" in a negotiation process?
Also, you are again blaming "both parties", while the party which is putting the baseline into the negotiation as "what the Democrats want" is the Republican party.
What's more, Senate Democrats were already asking for a conference to discuss and resolve budget issues six months ago and Republicans blocked it. The kind of negotiations that I mentioned, and that you just said would be better than what's going on now, could have taken place in the context of such a conference - in fact, such a conference is exactly what would permit such negotiations to happen.
Based on these two elements, are you now willing to admit the Republicans are more to blame for the current crisis than Democrats?
|
On October 04 2013 09:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable. And what would be the point of delaying it a year... I'll let you figure that one out on your own.
Well it wouldn't exist for a year. That would give the IRS more time to figure out how to administer / enforce it. It would also give individuals more time to figure out how they're going to get insurance. It would also mean less taxes on a weak economy for a year.
Or you can ignore all that and just consider it a bone to throw.
On October 04 2013 09:36 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:58 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). What I said applies to the tax changes at the start of 2013 as well. Obama wanted the tax cuts to be extended only for the poor and the middle class. What do you think the Republican position was? If you think it was to extend the tax cuts for everyone, then the baseline should have been extending the tax cuts for the poor and the middle class (since both parties wanted this), and then Republicans could have negotiated extending the tax cuts for the rich (or part of them) in exchange for something else the Democrats wanted. Instead, the Republicans decided to take the poor and the middle class hostage by refusing to have the tax cuts extended for them unless they got their way (or at least part of it) with regards to the tax cuts on the rich. Of course, if you believe the Republicans only wanted to extend the tax cuts for the rich and not for the poor and the middle class, then there was no hostage taking, since the baseline would have been no tax cut extension for anyone. But I doubt you're going to tell me that's what you think the Republicans wanted ,-) OK, then reps were holding the country hostage over a portion of the tax change (the rich). They were hostage taking because they didn't want to pass only what was agreed upon. Now it's the opposite, dems are holding the country hostage over a portion of the CR (the ACA). They are hostage taking because they won't pass only what is agreed upon. I'm not trying to be a dick with this, just trying to apply the same standard to both. The two aren't the same because in the second case the ACA is already part of the baseline (btw, I find the second part of our discussion more interesting than debating the validity of analogies).
What is / isn't already part of the baseline is a bit pedantic imo. I'm fine dropping this bit of discussion 
Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:58 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. You're forgetting something (I don't know if you saw the last two sentences I added to my original post to make it clearer): in a normal situation, failure to negotiate does not result in the destruction of the baseline (in this case, the functioning of the government) - it should be the maintaining of the said baseline, that both parties would want to depart from in some way. So for this to be a "normal" process of negotiation, the Republicans would fund the government normally and increase the debt ceiling, but they could for example offer a reduction in sequester cuts (which is what Democrats want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full sequester) in exchange for a delay in the implementation of the medical device tax, or its complete repeal (which is what Republicans want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full implementation of the ACA). Failure to reach agreement would result in the normal functioning of government and implementation of the ACA (which is already the law of the land), but it would mean both parties would not get something that they want (a reduction in sequester cuts for the Democrats, and the delay of some parts of the ACA for Republicans). Again, the destruction of the baseline itself is NOT "normal" in a negotiation process. That would certainly be better than what's going on now. I find it hard to not be mad at both parties for not doing that instead. Ok, so we agree that it would be better. Do you also agree that, like I said, the destruction of the baseline is not "normal" in a negotiation process? Also, you are again blaming "both parties", while the party which is putting the baseline into the negotiation as "what the Democrats want" is the Republican party. What's more, Senate Democrats were already asking for a conference to discuss and resolve budget issues six months ago and Republicans blocked it. Are you now willing to admit the Republicans are more to blame for the current crisis than Democrats?
The destruction of the baseline isn't normal, but it's been pretty common in the past few years to have 11th hour negotiations. The tax hikes went that way and the sequester talks went, and failed, at the 11th hour. This time the 11th hour negotiations went up against a government shutdown and failed again. This shit shouldn't be going to the 11th hour in the first place for sure.
As for who's more to blame for not negotiating, I'd need to look into that. Right now there's a lot of BS floating around about who is / isn't negotiating. I know Reps have made some crazy demands around the ACA, but as your link reminded me Dems have been pretty rough when it has come to taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
