|
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 January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out.
Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate.
|
United States42009 Posts
On January 20 2018 06:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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). This would be compromise on the funding. Like you hate these revenue-reducing measures (pro-growth, pro-wage), but hate worse spending-reducing measures. If this was some real fight with both sides not playing politics, you might actually have reason to say the government needs to function on less money, taken in and spent. I actually liked reading your deft maneuver on "changing funding streams" = "claiming there are no funds for CHIP" Can I call these "spending reduction measures" anti-public health measures? On January 20 2018 06:20 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
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. No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit. Get ready for what every single entitlement and public health program, even those already in place, will be called forever by the GOP, "growing the spending side of the deficit." Slowly hatcheted away. (meanwhile the government can't make continuing funding a state program conditional on changing its requirements) I mean it would be as honest as what Democrats are calling things to pass the blame around. All spending is sacrosanct, all revenue is sacrosanct, both must go up because we're Democrats (but make sure spending outpaces revenue).
Historically Democrats have reduced the deficit while Republicans have increased it. For a party of fiscal responsibility you're not doing very well at it.
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of talking points. Democrats just want to make spending increases outpace revenue increases, amirite? Don't let your lying eyes get in the way of what your heart tells you is true.
|
On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out.
I've yet to hear you, or anyone, provide a case on why funding chip (regardless of duration) is actually a concession in any way; rather than the bad faith ploy it appears to be.
|
On January 20 2018 06:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:22 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
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. If Democrats gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Republicans, they'd accept cuts in other programs to fund the program for the kids. As it turns out, they have other priorities, which are extremely controversial. If Republicans gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Democrats, they'd accept DACA funding and higher taxes to fund the program for the kids. As it turns out, they have other priorities, which are extremely controversial.
In a weird way, you're starting to understand what hostage-taking means. The quote chain kind of spells it out. I think both sides are playing politics and trying to win political points on their relevant issues.
|
On January 20 2018 06:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
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. No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit.
Passing that tax plan in December sort of blows this argument out of the water. If they cared about the deficit, that thing never would have been passed. As Kwark said, if you care about the deficit, vote Democrat.
|
On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate.
It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats went for it, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot.
|
On January 20 2018 06:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate. It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats agreed, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot.
I guess it mostly just brings another argument into the picture-partisan stuff aside, it's really, really poor governance to just keep passing these CRs. On par with the late-night handwritten crossings out on the tax bill or the "repeal and replace later." When do you put your foot down to try to stop that poor governance other than when there's actual important things on the line so that it isn't only the few people that care about that stuff with skin in the game?
|
On January 20 2018 06:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate. It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats went for it, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot.
That is because the conservatives think they can pin the shut down on the Democrats, which is why Cotton blew up the DACA deal. They think this is the time to push for immigration changes to merit based and assuring the end of the temporary status for 1 million people that just got stripped by the Trump administration.
|
On January 20 2018 06:25 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:59 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:44 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
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. My case, as already made, was that mohdoo literally never mentioned the border or weakening it. You said that his stance encouraged lawless behavior. Also, your habit of referring to quotes and posts as vaguely as possible while still technically referring to them makes this extremely tedious. I'm already seeing a disconnect in the argument, being obtuse isn't going to help this. You say this in reference to, what I assume, is your point about the weak border: Show nested quote +
The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border,
But mohdoo's post is still about the DACA children, the ones in the country (his example specifically cites someone who has already moved (past tense) to some location), that the state can do things about one way or another. So please, clearly, illustrate how mohdoo is encouraging more lawless behavior. Particularly, how he does so by advocating for keeping border protection weak. That right there is the strawman: nowhere did he advocate for keeping border protection weak, at least not in this discussion or anywhere near where you quoted him.
You're losing your track. I pointed out that I brought up "encouraging lawless behavior" to draw a contrast about something we can actually change for the better vs something that the child/teenager had no role in. I pointed out the exact sentence, not some "vaguely as possible." That's an invention and you're tiring my presumption that you want to argue it out. I point out something he can actually do something about, instead of repeatedly decrying regrettable situations occurring in it's wake. He's the one that chose to say "you advocate for punishing them" and all that jazz in the post. I brought up that his weak position on border security means he advocates for creating more. It's not some unilateral "this person is guilty for punishing the victim," if the other person is fine seeing more victims in the first place.
|
On January 20 2018 06:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:37 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate. It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats agreed, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot. I guess it mostly just brings another argument into the picture-partisan stuff aside, it's really, really poor governance to just keep passing these CRs. On par with the late-night handwritten crossings out on the tax bill. When do you put your foot down to try to stop that poor governance other than when there's actual important things on the line so that it isn't only the few people that care about that stuff with skin in the game?
I too would rather things were done properly, but that's not where we are right now. I'm not quite sure what you mean in that last bit but "good government" isn't an argument anyone on either side is having right now.
|
On January 20 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:20 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
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. No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit. Passing that tax plan in December sort of blows this argument out of the water. If they cared about the deficit, that thing never would have been passed. As Kwark said, if you care about the deficit, vote Democrat.
Deficit = Revenue - Spending. The tax cut was a revenue reduction. The sacred cow that Democrats want to sacrifice CHIP on is spending reductions. If you conflate the two sides of the deficit equation, you're probably a Democrat. Even modest cuts in current spending bring on these histrionics, revealing which side is the real problem for deficits.
|
On January 20 2018 06:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:37 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate. It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats went for it, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot. That is because the conservatives think they can pin the shut down on the Democrats, which is why Cotton blew up the DACA deal. They think this is the time to push for immigration changes to merit based and assuring the end of the temporary status for 1 million people that just got stripped by the Trump administration.
I've told you this before so I'm not going to dwell on it, but Cotton alone didn't blow up this deal. The fact that it was written by 6 amnesty lovers and was complete trash blew up the deal. It was selling your cow for some magic beans.
|
On January 20 2018 06:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:37 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate. It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats agreed, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot. I guess it mostly just brings another argument into the picture-partisan stuff aside, it's really, really poor governance to just keep passing these CRs. On par with the late-night handwritten crossings out on the tax bill. When do you put your foot down to try to stop that poor governance other than when there's actual important things on the line so that it isn't only the few people that care about that stuff with skin in the game? I too would rather things were done properly, but that's not where we are right now. I'm not quite sure what you mean in that last bit but "good government" isn't an argument anyone on either side is having right now.
That's where Flake and Graham are coming from. Just put a bill of some kind on the president's desk and don't kick the can down the road with CRs while reading tea leaves about what Trump wants.
Unless they're lying I guess.
|
United States42009 Posts
On January 20 2018 06:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 06:20 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
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. No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit. Passing that tax plan in December sort of blows this argument out of the water. If they cared about the deficit, that thing never would have been passed. As Kwark said, if you care about the deficit, vote Democrat. Deficit = Revenue - Spending. The tax cut was a revenue reduction. The sacred cow that Democrats want to sacrifice CHIP on is spending reductions. If you conflate the two sides of the deficit equation, you're probably a Democrat. Even modest cuts in current spending bring on these histrionics, revealing which side is the real problem for deficits.
You said the Democrats were responsible for making sure increases in spending outpaced increases in revenue. That's the deficit you're referring to. This is a forum where posts can be checked, not a verbal debate. You can't pretend you never talked about the relationship between the two, we can all see it.
Historically Republicans are responsible for spending increases that outpace revenue increases. Democrats are responsible for keeping spending in line with revenue. That's the reality of the matter. Republicans can't do fiscal responsibility, they never have been able to.
|
On January 20 2018 06:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 06:20 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
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. No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit. Passing that tax plan in December sort of blows this argument out of the water. If they cared about the deficit, that thing never would have been passed. As Kwark said, if you care about the deficit, vote Democrat. Deficit = Revenue - Spending. The tax cut was a revenue reduction. The sacred cow that Democrats want to sacrifice CHIP on is spending reductions. If you conflate the two sides of the deficit equation, you're probably a Democrat. Even modest cuts in current spending bring on these histrionics, revealing which side is the real problem for deficits.
Cutting future increases to be a lower increase than before causes wailing by itself. There is simply no room.
|
On January 20 2018 06:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:32 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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). This would be compromise on the funding. Like you hate these revenue-reducing measures (pro-growth, pro-wage), but hate worse spending-reducing measures. If this was some real fight with both sides not playing politics, you might actually have reason to say the government needs to function on less money, taken in and spent. I actually liked reading your deft maneuver on "changing funding streams" = "claiming there are no funds for CHIP" Can I call these "spending reduction measures" anti-public health measures? On January 20 2018 06:20 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
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. No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit. Get ready for what every single entitlement and public health program, even those already in place, will be called forever by the GOP, "growing the spending side of the deficit." Slowly hatcheted away. (meanwhile the government can't make continuing funding a state program conditional on changing its requirements) I mean it would be as honest as what Democrats are calling things to pass the blame around. All spending is sacrosanct, all revenue is sacrosanct, both must go up because we're Democrats (but make sure spending outpaces revenue). Historically Democrats have reduced the deficit while Republicans have increased it. For a party of fiscal responsibility you're not doing very well at it.
Which is a massive pain, btw. The logical divide is spending more for the people (left) / being fiscally responsible (right). It takes such a large unbalance to end up with being fiscally responsible (left) / removing most of the monies (right).
|
On January 20 2018 06:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:46 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:37 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate. It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats agreed, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot. I guess it mostly just brings another argument into the picture-partisan stuff aside, it's really, really poor governance to just keep passing these CRs. On par with the late-night handwritten crossings out on the tax bill. When do you put your foot down to try to stop that poor governance other than when there's actual important things on the line so that it isn't only the few people that care about that stuff with skin in the game? I too would rather things were done properly, but that's not where we are right now. I'm not quite sure what you mean in that last bit but "good government" isn't an argument anyone on either side is having right now. That's where Flake and Graham are coming from. Just put a bill of some kind on the president's desk and don't kick the can down the road with CRs while reading tea leaves about what Trump wants. Unless they're lying I guess.
For the CR to go through in that manner then it has to get their trash "compromise" through. Just putting a bill on his desk is meaningless. Only one side is demanding DACA changes or no deal. That's the long and short of it.
|
On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote: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. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase. So... does that apply to border security and the border wall? Isn't it estimated that deporting the Dreamers would hurt GDP and reduce tax revenue? Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-health
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues. An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it. EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting. You were LITERALLY ASKED to post the bill. You had your chance to post it with whatever spin of sources you could. I posted the best source I could find, which isn't necessarily my top choice but I had little to go on. How the hell can you make a snarky comment about posting the info now AFTER You declined to post said info in the first place.
Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP?
|
On January 20 2018 06:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:25 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 05:59 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:44 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: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:
[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. 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:
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. My case, as already made, was that mohdoo literally never mentioned the border or weakening it. You said that his stance encouraged lawless behavior. Also, your habit of referring to quotes and posts as vaguely as possible while still technically referring to them makes this extremely tedious. I'm already seeing a disconnect in the argument, being obtuse isn't going to help this. You say this in reference to, what I assume, is your point about the weak border:
The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border,
But mohdoo's post is still about the DACA children, the ones in the country (his example specifically cites someone who has already moved (past tense) to some location), that the state can do things about one way or another. So please, clearly, illustrate how mohdoo is encouraging more lawless behavior. Particularly, how he does so by advocating for keeping border protection weak. That right there is the strawman: nowhere did he advocate for keeping border protection weak, at least not in this discussion or anywhere near where you quoted him. You're losing your track. I pointed out that I brought up "encouraging lawless behavior" to draw a contrast about something we can actually change for the better vs something that the child/teenager had no role in. I pointed out the exact sentence, not some "vaguely as possible." That's an invention and you're tiring my presumption that you want to argue it out. I point out something he can actually do something about, instead of repeatedly decrying regrettable situations occurring in it's wake. He's the one that chose to say "you advocate for punishing them" and all that jazz in the post. I brought up that his weak position on border security means he advocates for creating more. It's not some unilateral "this person is guilty for punishing the victim," if the other person is fine seeing more victims in the first place.
You accused him of advocating lawless behavior, irrespective of why you did it.
You claim this on the basis of his weak position on border security. He didn't have any position on it.
You were the only one discussing the prevention of these situations, it wasn't at all relevant. Your offering solutions to avoid those victims has nothing to do with actual current DACA immigrants, the ones mohdoo said you advocate for punishing.
You literal argued a different discussion entirely, and fabricated a stance for mohdoo to do so. His mention of punishment was for those who have already immigrated. Making the discussion about border security and his stance on it (which never came up), and the prevention of victims in general, was a totally unilateral diversion on your part.
This was as much of a waste of time as it could possibly have been. It'd be great if mohdoo could come online and reiterate what he was arguing to clear this up 100%, but that's neither here nor there.
|
On January 20 2018 06:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:46 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:37 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate. It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats agreed, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot. I guess it mostly just brings another argument into the picture-partisan stuff aside, it's really, really poor governance to just keep passing these CRs. On par with the late-night handwritten crossings out on the tax bill. When do you put your foot down to try to stop that poor governance other than when there's actual important things on the line so that it isn't only the few people that care about that stuff with skin in the game? I too would rather things were done properly, but that's not where we are right now. I'm not quite sure what you mean in that last bit but "good government" isn't an argument anyone on either side is having right now. That's where Flake and Graham are coming from. Just put a bill of some kind on the president's desk and don't kick the can down the road with CRs while reading tea leaves about what Trump wants. Unless they're lying I guess. For the CR to go through in that manner then it has to get their trash "compromise" through. Just putting a bill on his desk is meaningless. Only one side is demanding DACA changes or no deal. That's the long and short of it.
I am not sure whether Flake and Graham would refuse to fund the government in a separate bill/even a CR if they got a formal Trump veto on the compromise and don't have the votes in the House and Senate to overrule him. Have they said as much? I think part of what aggravates them is that even if they had veto proof support, McConnell and Ryan are de facto killing the bill since Trump doesn't support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
