|
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. |
What is the compromise here? The Dems give everybody healthcare for children, which is something everyone wants, and in return the GOP gets exactly what they and no one else want. Is that really a compromise? Seems pretty one-sided to me. And if you can agree on that, you can agree that the GOP is using it to play games with the Democrats. And so far they're not taking it. I for one hope they never do. This is not behavior that should be rewarded in our representatives.
If the GOP didn't want to risk the loss, they shouldn't have played the game. Everyone wants CHIP funding. This is a non-partisan issue. There is no compromise here.
|
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS!
|
On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
I just sort of assumed that's why they put themselves in this situation. If they tried to fund chip before the tax bill it would be difficult to justify cuts to any other services to pay for it. But now they need that other cut because the deficit! So now they can gain something politically with CHIP rather than it being ludicrous not to just fund it and move on.
|
On January 20 2018 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:
Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying.
It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families."
"We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. But you posted the tweet citing that the Democrats were offered to fund CHIP last week and refuted that it was being held as a bargaining tool. Why post the tweet if you are not aware of the bill in question? Did you even check if the tweet was factual? Did that happen?
The mirror argument to "The Republicans are holding CHIP hostage over the CR without DACA" is "The Democrats are holding CHIP hostage to compromising on funding streams." They're both pretty much shit, but remember back to when I said both sides are playing politics.
|
Right now Republicans are trying to blame Democrats for not funding CHIP when it's tied to the CR. I'm guessing they'd accuse me of hating puppies when I refuse to pet one that's been rolling in rotten garbage the last few days.
|
On January 20 2018 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. Holy mother of strawmans. No. You wanne haggle over infrastructure spending? military equipment? sure. But you don't play Russian roulette with child healthcare.
You held it hostage over clean funding or no funding at all. If we can get that straight. (1) CHIP must continue to be funded (2) without compromising on how it is funded at all. Somehow, I don't think we ever get that straight.
|
On January 20 2018 05:50 ticklishmusic wrote:
Right now Republicans are trying to blame Democrats for not funding CHIP when it's tied to the CR. I'm guessing they'd accuse me of hating puppies when I refuse to pet one that's been rolling in rotten garbage the last few days.
Right now, Democrats are trying to hold the CR (and CHIP) hostage to DACA. They could fund both with one vote, but DACA in their mind is worth it. Honest posters say this is worth it ... so my advice is take the blame and say DACA is worth it.
|
On January 20 2018 05:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. Holy mother of strawmans. No. You wanne haggle over infrastructure spending? military equipment? sure. But you don't play Russian roulette with child healthcare. You held it hostage over clean funding or no funding at all. If we can get that straight. (1) CHIP must continue to be funded (2) without compromising on how it is funded at all. Somehow, I don't think we ever get that straight.
Saying "we're not letting you hold this hostage, give us a clean bill" is not also holding it hostage. That's like if you say that anti-racism is just as bad as the actual racism. Kinda not true. Really not true.
|
I tried googling for that bill and it took me some 15 minutes without getting any results simply because I don't even know what to google for or where to look for.
Took me a good 5 minute to get something from last 1-2 weeks simply because most stuff is either way older or very recent (the last 1-3 days). Granted, I could have probably specified a timeframe in google and saved me those 5 minutes but I'm not googlegenius.
And the couple things I did find on the bill that supposedly was up to fund it from R's that D's in the Senate could vote for only gave me the basics I could have gotten from the tweet as well. No link to the bill itself, no info on what was in it at all.
So perhaps that's on us (the guy who asked for this information is from the Netherlands iirc + me being from Germany) just not being too informed on where to look these kind of things up because while we might be interested in US politics to some degree it's still very much on a basic level.
|
You could fund CHIP for five years reinstituting the estate tax for one year at half the rate it used to be. Multimillionaires are more important than children's health to the GOP. That's what they're saying by saying they need to make CHIP revenue neutral.
Forget DACA, forget all this shit. Because poor children don't fund their campaigns, their handouts need to be paid for.
|
On January 20 2018 05:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. Holy mother of strawmans. No. You wanne haggle over infrastructure spending? military equipment? sure. But you don't play Russian roulette with child healthcare. You held it hostage over clean funding or no funding at all. If we can get that straight. (1) CHIP must continue to be funded (2) without compromising on how it is funded at all. Somehow, I don't think we ever get that straight.
Claiming there are no funds for CHIP and there needs to be compromise is horseshit when you pass a tax bill that will cause a massive deficit short term (long term neutral because you end the cuts for the poor/middle class and increase taxes instead while keeping the cut for the rich).
|
On January 20 2018 05:44 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:31 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:28 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 05:13 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:11 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass.
[quote]
If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law.
In your eyes, what decisions did these children make? How much input did you have where your family lives? You haven't shown what responsibility these DACA kids have. Describe the decisions they made. They're a victim of the choices their parents made. The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border, and the failed economic/judicial/social policies of their host countries. The argument is for compassion for the victim, not that DACA isn't immigration. It's literally the definition of immigration. Do newborns get to choose who they were born to and where they were born? You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria? Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property. A southern border wall, tech surveillance, and beefed-up border patrol would prevent more victims from entering our country. As it stands, you advocate for creating more and for encouraging lawless behavior. You don't even consider it immigration law. You don't get to choose where you're born, so let's deny birthright citizenship as well. Well, it wasn't your choice. Wait... so you don't think the children have agency, but letting them stay encourages lawless behavior... by the children that have no agency? Remember, we're discussing kicking out the children here, not adults who immigrated by choice. Being separated from your early teen child is hardly a favorable outcome that people are going to be encouraged by in attempting to cross the border, and if it honestly is then severity of the humanitarian concern vs the low number of Dreamers would probably be sufficient argument to anyone who isn't a flaming [redacted]. Besides, there comes a point where the diminishing returns of more border security become more expensive than simply having a small number of immigrants, who already have to meet some reasonably high bars for renewal of deferred action. In regards to the Dreamers, they really are a lot of the "best", to be a bit on the nose. And please, forced removal from a place in which you've begun to establish a life isn't even f***ing comparable to just not being granted citizenship to somewhere from both. That would be the weak border that encourages lawless behavior. That of their parents illegally crossing the border to bring their children over. The discussion was about immigrant children, the ones under DACA. You argued that Mohdoo's position was advocating for encouraging lawless behavior. How hard it is/should be for people to get in and what you actually do with illegal immigrant children are two completely different discussions, and the former was not the discussion being had. You were the only person who actually brought up the policy that the US should have with regards to preventing people from entering. It feels like you are mis-attributing things to Mohdoo and then arguing that. So to double check, you weren't saying that DACA, or similar policies for children, encourage lawless behavior? No, keeping border protections weak was encouraging lawless behavior. That was the text of the post that you can look up at your convenience. I'd really like a show of reading comprehension before we sidetrack into things I didn't say but questions you'd like answers on anyways. You were responding to this: Show nested quote +
You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria?
Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property.
At no single point since page 9730 has Mohdoo even mentioned security, nor have any of arguments had anything to do with, or to what degree the immigration itself should be prevented. Mohdoo was entirely discussing DACA, i.e., what do with children who have already been pulled across that border. You sidetracked, and then attack my reading comprehension for not respecting your strawman of what Mohdoo was arguing. Dear lord.
You must reread the first sentence of the response directly after, which informs the second sentence that you quoted and misapplied. If you're honest about finding out what I said was encouraging lawless behavior (I brought it up), then you should read that and not imply I brought it up to describe something entirely different. If you want to correct the record and then argue that I'm making some kind of strawman, make your case. I find it very helpful to contrast the situation in which the child has no choice (a bad outcome, remember when I said 'victim?'), with the situation where we do have the choice.
|
If Republicans gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Democrats, they'd put up a clean CHIP funding bill, which would pass with an overwhelming majority. It's fucking easy and non controversial. Then they could try to sort out DACA and funding the government, which are more controversial.
It's not that complicated.
|
On January 20 2018 05:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
"We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA"
I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. Holy mother of strawmans. No. You wanne haggle over infrastructure spending? military equipment? sure. But you don't play Russian roulette with child healthcare. You held it hostage over clean funding or no funding at all. If we can get that straight. (1) CHIP must continue to be funded (2) without compromising on how it is funded at all. Somehow, I don't think we ever get that straight. Saying "we're not letting you hold this hostage, give us a clean bill" is not also holding it hostage. That's like if you say that anti-racism is just as bad as the actual racism. Kinda not true. Really not true.
In fact, you're saying "we're not giving up our hostage, give up your hostage." Really not a good approach. Not conducive to compromise. Playing politics.
|
On January 20 2018 05:47 NewSunshine wrote:
What is the compromise here? The Dems give everybody healthcare for children, which is something everyone wants, and in return the GOP gets exactly what they and no one else want. Is that really a compromise? Seems pretty one-sided to me. And if you can agree on that, you can agree that the GOP is using it to play games with the Democrats. And so far they're not taking it. I for one hope they never do. This is not behavior that should be rewarded in our representatives.
If the GOP didn't want to risk the loss, they shouldn't have played the game. Everyone wants CHIP funding. This is a non-partisan issue. There is no compromise here.
The GOP wanted to fund it with some cuts elsewhere. The Democrats refused to compromise, and in the language you want to use, held it hostage to the original funding stream. Sorry if you can't compromise to get it funded. Obviously CHIP funding isn't important enough to draw compromises with Republicans.
|
On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS!
The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree.
|
I think we should clear up “change how it is funded” because it is a mischaracterization of what conservatives want. They want to cut healthcare funding for other programs to pay for CHIP. They want the 8 billion removed from healthcare funding, but agree that it shouldn’t come from children’s healthcare. But they know the only way to get that 8 billion removed is to use CHIP as leverage to get the other cuts. Conservatives want cuts, they see CHIP as a way to get those cuts.
So if holding the budget for things hostage is a way to get what you want, then the Democrats just playing the same game.
|
On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS! The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree.
They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich.
It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with.
I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre.
|
On January 20 2018 06:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:47 NewSunshine wrote:
What is the compromise here? The Dems give everybody healthcare for children, which is something everyone wants, and in return the GOP gets exactly what they and no one else want. Is that really a compromise? Seems pretty one-sided to me. And if you can agree on that, you can agree that the GOP is using it to play games with the Democrats. And so far they're not taking it. I for one hope they never do. This is not behavior that should be rewarded in our representatives.
If the GOP didn't want to risk the loss, they shouldn't have played the game. Everyone wants CHIP funding. This is a non-partisan issue. There is no compromise here. The GOP wanted to fund it with some cuts elsewhere. The Democrats refused to compromise, and in the language you want to use, held it hostage to the original funding stream. Sorry if you can't compromise to get it funded. Obviously CHIP funding isn't important enough to draw compromises with Republicans.
if those cuts were all things only Dems would have cared about it's not really a compromise.
Saying, "we get this thing we both want funded but you're the only one who has to give up things as we cut A, B, C and D, which WE don't care at all about while we know you guys do" isn't really a compromise. Hence people asking for the aforementioned bill (and me making a post about not finding it, perhaps because I don't know where to look at due to not being too comfortable with your politics)
|
On January 20 2018 05:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
You could fund CHIP for five years reinstituting the estate tax for one year at half the rate it used to be. Multimillionaires are more important than children's health to the GOP. That's what they're saying by saying they need to make CHIP revenue neutral.
Forget DACA, forget all this shit. Because poor children don't fund their campaigns, their handouts need to be paid for.
Poor people also didn't fund Democratic campaigns to reject compromise and #Resist, not one step back, the Trump administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
