|
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 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it.
And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not.
I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return.
|
On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:[quote] I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return.
And you have never said what they should trade because the republicans don't have anything of equal value to give. For the republicans to offer something of equal value they would be taking the .38 special away from their foot and putting a remington 870 in their mouth.
|
On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:[quote] I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return.
Basic governance and the faith in public debt are not bargaining chips. Pass the clean CR. Then negotiate.
|
On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:[quote] I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return.
My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return.
If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it.
|
On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it.
My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane.
The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it.
|
On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all.
With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it.
Have you forgotten that people have told you over a thousand times that the Republicans have forced the Democrats into a position they cannot negotiate from.
|
On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:[quote] I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return.
So how are they suppose to do that? What are they offering? Because I have seen anything resembling a middle ground.
|
On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis?
I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error.
It's Boehner who refuses to put a clean CR to vote in the House. Boehner is the one holding the gun. He's doing this because of pressure from his party. The Democrats did not stop a vote on the non-ACA CR in the Senate (I don't know if they even could if they wanted to). Boehner can refuse to allow a vote on any CR he does not like. It is possible to force a vote with a majority of representatives but it would be very brave of a Republican to go against the GOP to such an extent.
This is what makes the Republicans' strategy unacceptable. This is why the Democrats have a gun against their head. Boehner is essentially killing the ACA by saying the Democrats must give it up. A negotiation would be the Republicans offering something in return for repealing the ACA (since the ACA is already law) but the Democrats would be within their rights to refuse any offer the Republicans could make. The Republicans though are saying the Democrats must gut the ACA and that they will not negotiate over that. When the Republicans talk about negotiating all they are talking about is what the Democrats would accept in return for gutting the ACA. The gun is against the Democrats' heads because they cannot say "We don't want to negotiate about the ACA. We value it so highly that there is nothing of equal value that you can offer us."
|
On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all.
With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it.
They did negotiate and then Boehner and his fellows in the House reneged.
|
On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all.
With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it.
No you won't. You will simply claim that the democrats' deal wasn't reasonable enough.
You are incapable of blaming one side no matter the evidence. Don't pretend otherwise. Not sure if this is dishonesty or self delusion.
|
On October 10 2013 05:22 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. So how are they suppose to do that? What are they offering? Because I have seen anything resembling a middle ground.
They are offering to negotiate and have reduced their demands. They also want Dems to state what they want. I don't expect them to follow the Dem's failed strategy of incorporating random concessions into a package that no one on the other side buys into.
On October 10 2013 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it. Have you forgotten that people have told you over a thousand times that the Republicans have forced the Democrats into a position they cannot negotiate from.
Yes, people keep making that claim. I still don't buy it. Reps have at least as much to lose from a government shutdown / debt crisis. If they keep going to that well they can say goodbye to business sector support. If Republicans really want to be politically suicidal either negotiating or not negotiating here and now won't change that.
|
You're still not coming to grips with the fact that the Republicans are crazy and don't understand what they have to lose. Its about purity of ideology for them.
They've already lost business sector support. The government is still shutdown.
|
They are offering to negotiate and have reduced their demands. They also want Dems to state what they want. I don't expect them to follow the Dem's failed strategy of incorporating random concessions into a package that no one on the other side buys into.
The Republicans have given no indication that they are interested in negotiating. If they were, they wouldn't have shut down the government.
|
On October 10 2013 05:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it. No you won't. You will simply claim that the democrats' deal wasn't reasonable enough. You are incapable of blaming one side no matter the evidence. Don't pretend otherwise. Not sure if this is dishonesty or self delusion.
How am I incapable of blaming one side when I blame both sides?
On October 10 2013 05:25 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it. They did negotiate and then Boehner and his fellows in the House reneged.
Yeah, I know they were negotiating in the past and Republicans were demanding too much. I want them to keep negotiating now.
|
On October 10 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:22 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all.
With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. So how are they suppose to do that? What are they offering? Because I have seen anything resembling a middle ground. They are offering to negotiate and have reduced their demands. They also want Dems to state what they want. I don't expect them to follow the Dem's failed strategy of incorporating random concessions into a package that no one on the other side buys into. Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:[quote] The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. [quote] No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. [quote] You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. [quote] I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it. Have you forgotten that people have told you over a thousand times that the Republicans have forced the Democrats into a position they cannot negotiate from. Yes, people keep making that claim. I still don't buy it. Reps have at least as much to lose from a government shutdown / debt crisis. If they keep going to that well they can say goodbye to business sector support. If Republicans really want to be politically suicidal either negotiating or not negotiating here and now won't change that.
Negotiate with what again? You keep saying reduce their demands but again why is the group with the legally passed law be the first to make concessions? If anything the Republicans should be making them first, but instead they shut it down.
|
On October 10 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yes, people keep making that claim. I still don't buy it. Reps have at least as much to lose from a government shutdown / debt crisis. If they keep going to that well they can say goodbye to business sector support. If Republicans really want to be politically suicidal either negotiating or not negotiating here and now won't change that.
The Republican party do not want this. They have said many times before the shutdown that they did not want it. They told there own party to please not do this because it is political suicide. They know this.
So who is the cause? The Tea Party are forcing this through with whatever pressure they have. And yes i will say they care nothing for business or the general good of the country
|
On October 10 2013 05:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yes, people keep making that claim. I still don't buy it. Reps have at least as much to lose from a government shutdown / debt crisis. If they keep going to that well they can say goodbye to business sector support. If Republicans really want to be politically suicidal either negotiating or not negotiating here and now won't change that. The Republican party do not want this. They have said many times before the shutdown that they did not want it. They told there own party to please not do this because it is political suicide. They know this. So who is the cause? The Tea Party are forcing this through with whatever pressure they have. And yes i will say they care nothing for business or the general good of the country
This is an interesting perspective on what fuels the Tea Party's ideological purity. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/06/tea_party_radicalism_is_misunderstood_meet_the_newest_right/
|
On October 10 2013 05:56 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 05:22 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. So how are they suppose to do that? What are they offering? Because I have seen anything resembling a middle ground. They are offering to negotiate and have reduced their demands. They also want Dems to state what they want. I don't expect them to follow the Dem's failed strategy of incorporating random concessions into a package that no one on the other side buys into. On October 10 2013 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it. Have you forgotten that people have told you over a thousand times that the Republicans have forced the Democrats into a position they cannot negotiate from. Yes, people keep making that claim. I still don't buy it. Reps have at least as much to lose from a government shutdown / debt crisis. If they keep going to that well they can say goodbye to business sector support. If Republicans really want to be politically suicidal either negotiating or not negotiating here and now won't change that. Negotiate with what again? You keep saying reduce their demands but again why is the group with the legally passed law be the first to make concessions? If anything the Republicans should be making them first, but instead they shut it down.
Yes, exactly. It's completely ass-backwards. Tea Party members were elected to oppose Obama and the ACA. Instead they've been given a gift - a free concession. Why?
It's either the worst negotiating tactic in a generation or Obama has a masterful grasp of the current political meta game.
... When Mr Obama stops speaking as a partisan advocate of ambitious liberal goals, adopts his mature school-principal voice, and demands simply that political players adhere to reasonable norms of democratic governance, Republicans are left with nothing to oppose except the reasonable norms of democratic governance. At the moment, Republicans need to be reminded that Democrats do not want the government to reopen and the interest on our debt to be paid. They want the government to reopen, double its infrastructure spending and guarantee pre-school from age three to poor Americans; they want to pay the interest on our debt, then borrow more to run larger deficits right now and for the next couple of years, and lock in higher taxes five to ten years down the road to handle the long-term deficit problem. ...
Link
|
On October 10 2013 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:56 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 05:22 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:[quote] The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. [quote] No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. [quote] You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. [quote] I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. So how are they suppose to do that? What are they offering? Because I have seen anything resembling a middle ground. They are offering to negotiate and have reduced their demands. They also want Dems to state what they want. I don't expect them to follow the Dem's failed strategy of incorporating random concessions into a package that no one on the other side buys into. On October 10 2013 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:
[quote]
Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head.
I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it. Have you forgotten that people have told you over a thousand times that the Republicans have forced the Democrats into a position they cannot negotiate from. Yes, people keep making that claim. I still don't buy it. Reps have at least as much to lose from a government shutdown / debt crisis. If they keep going to that well they can say goodbye to business sector support. If Republicans really want to be politically suicidal either negotiating or not negotiating here and now won't change that. Negotiate with what again? You keep saying reduce their demands but again why is the group with the legally passed law be the first to make concessions? If anything the Republicans should be making them first, but instead they shut it down. Yes, exactly. It's completely ass-backwards. Tea Party members were elected to oppose Obama and the ACA. Instead they've been given a gift - a free concession. Why? It's either the worst negotiating tactic in a generation or Obama has a masterful grasp of the current political meta game. Show nested quote +... When Mr Obama stops speaking as a partisan advocate of ambitious liberal goals, adopts his mature school-principal voice, and demands simply that political players adhere to reasonable norms of democratic governance, Republicans are left with nothing to oppose except the reasonable norms of democratic governance. At the moment, Republicans need to be reminded that Democrats do not want the government to reopen and the interest on our debt to be paid. They want the government to reopen, double its infrastructure spending and guarantee pre-school from age three to poor Americans; they want to pay the interest on our debt, then borrow more to run larger deficits right now and for the next couple of years, and lock in higher taxes five to ten years down the road to handle the long-term deficit problem. ... Link
Yes, because it's better political negotiating strategy to give them what they want when they're strangling themselves (albeit screwing everyone else along as well), knowing full well they'll be doing this every time from here on. They don't need to repeat anything if they can take this apart little by little while delaying it year by year.
|
On October 10 2013 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all.
With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error. You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not. I've never said that ending the shutdown would be a concession to Democrats. I've expressly stated that Democrats should be negotiating and that the negotiation should involve Democrats asking for and getting something in return. My apologies, I do remember you saying that. However, it takes two to negotiate and the Republicans have shown no sign that they are interested in doing it. Their entire strategy is to use a shut down to extract concessions from the Democrats without giving anything in return. That's why they've repeatedly refused to negotiate over the budget for several months - negotiating would require them to give something up. Instead they just want the ACA repealed/defunded/delayed/whatever without giving anything in return. If they actually want to negotiate they should allow the CR to pass so the government can operate (still under the drastically reduced level required by the sequester) and then get to it. My problem with Dems is that they won't negotiate right now. If Dems ask for something that's reasonable and Reps refuse, I'll agree that Reps are being insane. The situation obviously isn't ideal, but it is what it is. I expect both sides to do the right thing - get the government to reopen and the debt ceiling raised. As long as doing that doesn't require selling the farm - I'm fine with it.
The Republicans want a negotiation, but it's not going to be much of a negotiation. They have a line drawn on what they want and the democrats aren't willing to do that. In other words, it's not going to be much of a negotiation. The democrats want to negotiate after the CR is passed because if that happens, the republicans will have a lot less leverage in their demands and then the democrats can perhaps negotiate something with the republicans that may be more inline to what the democrats are willing to give.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
