|
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 22 2018 20:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 17:40 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 16:42 Kyadytim wrote:On January 22 2018 15:26 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 15:17 ritoky wrote:
I don't really know what the Republicans expected here. When they went full obstructionist under Obama, did they not expect the Democrats to do the same back to them? Of course they're threatening shut downs and essentially negotiating with a gun to your head; it's the same shit you were doing. And then they all act incredulous like they are surprised or like it is this brand new horrific tactic. Please.
The small shred of optimism in me hopes that this can be the end to obstructionist politics and that we stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of bill passages per year in Congress. Or that something like this can fracture the parties and allow for some form of moderation to exist in America again.
The realist in me knows none of that will happen. Expecting another CR by the end of the week. Woo Hoo. Did you miss the part where 5-10 posters argued that this was not the case? That this was very different than "the Democrats to do the same back to them?" It sounds like you missed it. Nah. Using game theory terminology, Republicans having been choosing "defect" for around twenty years at more or less every opportunity while Democrats have been been mostly choosing "cooperate." If Democrats have finally decided to start responding to defecting by defecting as well (aka tit for tat), that's entirely rational. Republicans kept CHIP unfunded so they'd have a defect opportunity available to them. It's about time Democrats stopped giving in to that sort of hostage taking, because giving in just rewards it and encourages more of it. Of course that results in both sides doing shitty things, because there is no way to punish defection except by also choosing to defect. Since Republicans took the House in the middle of Clinton's first term and Newt Gingrich became Speaker for the House, Republicans have restricted the scope of possible policy changes to what they want or nothing, even if shutting down the government is a requirement or consequence of making sure nothing happens rather than policy changes Democrats want. Democrats spent those twenty years continuing to act as if Republicans could be coaxed back into cooperating. You don't get to be pissed that Democrats are no longer just letting Republicans walk all over them while achieving nothing. To be clear, this argument is not "Democrats shut down the government, but it's okay because Republicans shut down the government a few years ago." Republicans grabbed CHIP four months ago, and are now holding a gun to its head and saying "We'll let CHIP go if you give us everything else we want," and instead of folding like a house of cards because they're choosing to cooperate in the face of Republicans defecting, Democrats chose to also defect. This shutdown only happened because both parties chose to defect. If it seems that its the Democrats fault, that's only because we're so used to Republicans choosing to defect that we take it for granted. Regarding using game theory terminology, the US political situation is fairly analogous to a prisoners' dilemma game. Both parties cooperating gets both of them more than both parties defecting, but if one party defects and the other cooperates, the defector benefits a lot at the cooperator's expense. For any specific set of policy issues, it's not really accurate, but for modeling the general behavior of the two parties over the last 25 years or so, it works out just fine. tl;dr is that Republicans have been choosing to be dicks for twenty years, and Democrats have finally concluded that as they can't gain anything as long as Republicans are choosing to be dicks and they lose less by also choosing to be dicks, so now both major parties are acting like dicks. In the immediate sense, Democrats are at fault for changing their position from "not dicks" to "dicks," but that assumes that Democrats have an obligation to continue bending over for Republicans for as long as Republicans choose to be dicks. In the broadest sense, Republicans are at fault for making politics about being dicks instead of not being dicks. In the general sense, if at least one party had chosen to not be dicks, there wouldn't have been a shutdown, so both parties are at fault because they both chose to be dicks. As an analysis, I wouldn't expect Democrats to blink any time soon, because they just committed to this strategy after years of trying to avoid it, so it's got a bit of inertia behind it. If Republicans also don't blink, government grinds to a halt, which was the inevitable result of Newt Gingrich's and Dennis Hastert's "Republican policy or no policy" approach to House politics. Republicans might avert this by doing away with the filibuster, which will improve the situation in the short term as government starts moving extremely smoothly, but it will make things much worse once we pass eight to ten years out as policy only changes when one party controls Congress and the White House and neither party has any reason to not go all-in on writing everything in their platform into law. Well, regardless of my disagreements with how you arrived at your conclusion, I'm happy to find another that agrees that it is tit for tat. I read about five pages of rationalization to why it was substantially different than what Obama did to House Republicans/Boehner did to Obama. I know it's a very small point of agreement, but it's the start of honest characterization to arrive at greater points. Finally, let's be clear that 4 weeks of funding to continue the debate on compromises is not "give us everything else we want." 4 weeks of funding is not equivalent to 6 years of CHIP. It just guarantees another fight on a short timetable, without CHIP funding at risk. I know it probably goes without saying, but if you think DACA negotiation is important enough to temporarily shut down 13% of the government, then go for it. CHIP would never have been an issue on the table if the Republicans didn't purposefully withhold funding 4 months ago.
They are also the ones that put it on the table for the short term funding resolution. Which only pissed off Senate Democrats, who wanted to work on the back in December.
|
On January 22 2018 20:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 17:40 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 16:42 Kyadytim wrote:On January 22 2018 15:26 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 15:17 ritoky wrote:
I don't really know what the Republicans expected here. When they went full obstructionist under Obama, did they not expect the Democrats to do the same back to them? Of course they're threatening shut downs and essentially negotiating with a gun to your head; it's the same shit you were doing. And then they all act incredulous like they are surprised or like it is this brand new horrific tactic. Please.
The small shred of optimism in me hopes that this can be the end to obstructionist politics and that we stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of bill passages per year in Congress. Or that something like this can fracture the parties and allow for some form of moderation to exist in America again.
The realist in me knows none of that will happen. Expecting another CR by the end of the week. Woo Hoo. Did you miss the part where 5-10 posters argued that this was not the case? That this was very different than "the Democrats to do the same back to them?" It sounds like you missed it. Nah. Using game theory terminology, Republicans having been choosing "defect" for around twenty years at more or less every opportunity while Democrats have been been mostly choosing "cooperate." If Democrats have finally decided to start responding to defecting by defecting as well (aka tit for tat), that's entirely rational. Republicans kept CHIP unfunded so they'd have a defect opportunity available to them. It's about time Democrats stopped giving in to that sort of hostage taking, because giving in just rewards it and encourages more of it. Of course that results in both sides doing shitty things, because there is no way to punish defection except by also choosing to defect. Since Republicans took the House in the middle of Clinton's first term and Newt Gingrich became Speaker for the House, Republicans have restricted the scope of possible policy changes to what they want or nothing, even if shutting down the government is a requirement or consequence of making sure nothing happens rather than policy changes Democrats want. Democrats spent those twenty years continuing to act as if Republicans could be coaxed back into cooperating. You don't get to be pissed that Democrats are no longer just letting Republicans walk all over them while achieving nothing. To be clear, this argument is not "Democrats shut down the government, but it's okay because Republicans shut down the government a few years ago." Republicans grabbed CHIP four months ago, and are now holding a gun to its head and saying "We'll let CHIP go if you give us everything else we want," and instead of folding like a house of cards because they're choosing to cooperate in the face of Republicans defecting, Democrats chose to also defect. This shutdown only happened because both parties chose to defect. If it seems that its the Democrats fault, that's only because we're so used to Republicans choosing to defect that we take it for granted. Regarding using game theory terminology, the US political situation is fairly analogous to a prisoners' dilemma game. Both parties cooperating gets both of them more than both parties defecting, but if one party defects and the other cooperates, the defector benefits a lot at the cooperator's expense. For any specific set of policy issues, it's not really accurate, but for modeling the general behavior of the two parties over the last 25 years or so, it works out just fine. tl;dr is that Republicans have been choosing to be dicks for twenty years, and Democrats have finally concluded that as they can't gain anything as long as Republicans are choosing to be dicks and they lose less by also choosing to be dicks, so now both major parties are acting like dicks. In the immediate sense, Democrats are at fault for changing their position from "not dicks" to "dicks," but that assumes that Democrats have an obligation to continue bending over for Republicans for as long as Republicans choose to be dicks. In the broadest sense, Republicans are at fault for making politics about being dicks instead of not being dicks. In the general sense, if at least one party had chosen to not be dicks, there wouldn't have been a shutdown, so both parties are at fault because they both chose to be dicks. As an analysis, I wouldn't expect Democrats to blink any time soon, because they just committed to this strategy after years of trying to avoid it, so it's got a bit of inertia behind it. If Republicans also don't blink, government grinds to a halt, which was the inevitable result of Newt Gingrich's and Dennis Hastert's "Republican policy or no policy" approach to House politics. Republicans might avert this by doing away with the filibuster, which will improve the situation in the short term as government starts moving extremely smoothly, but it will make things much worse once we pass eight to ten years out as policy only changes when one party controls Congress and the White House and neither party has any reason to not go all-in on writing everything in their platform into law. Well, regardless of my disagreements with how you arrived at your conclusion, I'm happy to find another that agrees that it is tit for tat. I read about five pages of rationalization to why it was substantially different than what Obama did to House Republicans/Boehner did to Obama. I know it's a very small point of agreement, but it's the start of honest characterization to arrive at greater points. Finally, let's be clear that 4 weeks of funding to continue the debate on compromises is not "give us everything else we want." 4 weeks of funding is not equivalent to 6 years of CHIP. It just guarantees another fight on a short timetable, without CHIP funding at risk. I know it probably goes without saying, but if you think DACA negotiation is important enough to temporarily shut down 13% of the government, then go for it. CHIP would never have been an issue on the table if the Republicans didn't purposefully withhold funding 4 months ago.
Just tell me you understood the point. Four weeks of funding is a bathroom break on negotiation. CHIP gets funded for six years. You can continue your silly "no cuts anywhere for any reason" CHIP propaganda line somewhere else. I already said what I think about that one.
|
On January 22 2018 22:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 20:12 Gorsameth wrote:On January 22 2018 17:40 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 16:42 Kyadytim wrote:On January 22 2018 15:26 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 15:17 ritoky wrote:
I don't really know what the Republicans expected here. When they went full obstructionist under Obama, did they not expect the Democrats to do the same back to them? Of course they're threatening shut downs and essentially negotiating with a gun to your head; it's the same shit you were doing. And then they all act incredulous like they are surprised or like it is this brand new horrific tactic. Please.
The small shred of optimism in me hopes that this can be the end to obstructionist politics and that we stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of bill passages per year in Congress. Or that something like this can fracture the parties and allow for some form of moderation to exist in America again.
The realist in me knows none of that will happen. Expecting another CR by the end of the week. Woo Hoo. Did you miss the part where 5-10 posters argued that this was not the case? That this was very different than "the Democrats to do the same back to them?" It sounds like you missed it. Nah. Using game theory terminology, Republicans having been choosing "defect" for around twenty years at more or less every opportunity while Democrats have been been mostly choosing "cooperate." If Democrats have finally decided to start responding to defecting by defecting as well (aka tit for tat), that's entirely rational. Republicans kept CHIP unfunded so they'd have a defect opportunity available to them. It's about time Democrats stopped giving in to that sort of hostage taking, because giving in just rewards it and encourages more of it. Of course that results in both sides doing shitty things, because there is no way to punish defection except by also choosing to defect. Since Republicans took the House in the middle of Clinton's first term and Newt Gingrich became Speaker for the House, Republicans have restricted the scope of possible policy changes to what they want or nothing, even if shutting down the government is a requirement or consequence of making sure nothing happens rather than policy changes Democrats want. Democrats spent those twenty years continuing to act as if Republicans could be coaxed back into cooperating. You don't get to be pissed that Democrats are no longer just letting Republicans walk all over them while achieving nothing. To be clear, this argument is not "Democrats shut down the government, but it's okay because Republicans shut down the government a few years ago." Republicans grabbed CHIP four months ago, and are now holding a gun to its head and saying "We'll let CHIP go if you give us everything else we want," and instead of folding like a house of cards because they're choosing to cooperate in the face of Republicans defecting, Democrats chose to also defect. This shutdown only happened because both parties chose to defect. If it seems that its the Democrats fault, that's only because we're so used to Republicans choosing to defect that we take it for granted. Regarding using game theory terminology, the US political situation is fairly analogous to a prisoners' dilemma game. Both parties cooperating gets both of them more than both parties defecting, but if one party defects and the other cooperates, the defector benefits a lot at the cooperator's expense. For any specific set of policy issues, it's not really accurate, but for modeling the general behavior of the two parties over the last 25 years or so, it works out just fine. tl;dr is that Republicans have been choosing to be dicks for twenty years, and Democrats have finally concluded that as they can't gain anything as long as Republicans are choosing to be dicks and they lose less by also choosing to be dicks, so now both major parties are acting like dicks. In the immediate sense, Democrats are at fault for changing their position from "not dicks" to "dicks," but that assumes that Democrats have an obligation to continue bending over for Republicans for as long as Republicans choose to be dicks. In the broadest sense, Republicans are at fault for making politics about being dicks instead of not being dicks. In the general sense, if at least one party had chosen to not be dicks, there wouldn't have been a shutdown, so both parties are at fault because they both chose to be dicks. As an analysis, I wouldn't expect Democrats to blink any time soon, because they just committed to this strategy after years of trying to avoid it, so it's got a bit of inertia behind it. If Republicans also don't blink, government grinds to a halt, which was the inevitable result of Newt Gingrich's and Dennis Hastert's "Republican policy or no policy" approach to House politics. Republicans might avert this by doing away with the filibuster, which will improve the situation in the short term as government starts moving extremely smoothly, but it will make things much worse once we pass eight to ten years out as policy only changes when one party controls Congress and the White House and neither party has any reason to not go all-in on writing everything in their platform into law. Well, regardless of my disagreements with how you arrived at your conclusion, I'm happy to find another that agrees that it is tit for tat. I read about five pages of rationalization to why it was substantially different than what Obama did to House Republicans/Boehner did to Obama. I know it's a very small point of agreement, but it's the start of honest characterization to arrive at greater points. Finally, let's be clear that 4 weeks of funding to continue the debate on compromises is not "give us everything else we want." 4 weeks of funding is not equivalent to 6 years of CHIP. It just guarantees another fight on a short timetable, without CHIP funding at risk. I know it probably goes without saying, but if you think DACA negotiation is important enough to temporarily shut down 13% of the government, then go for it. CHIP would never have been an issue on the table if the Republicans didn't purposefully withhold funding 4 months ago. Just tell me you understood the point. Four weeks of funding is a bathroom break on negotiation. CHIP gets funded for six years. You can continue your silly "no cuts anywhere for any reason" CHIP propaganda line somewhere else. I already said what I think about that one.
Someone should talk to their doctor if they need a bathroom break that long
|
On January 22 2018 22:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 20:12 Gorsameth wrote:On January 22 2018 17:40 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 16:42 Kyadytim wrote:On January 22 2018 15:26 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 15:17 ritoky wrote:
I don't really know what the Republicans expected here. When they went full obstructionist under Obama, did they not expect the Democrats to do the same back to them? Of course they're threatening shut downs and essentially negotiating with a gun to your head; it's the same shit you were doing. And then they all act incredulous like they are surprised or like it is this brand new horrific tactic. Please.
The small shred of optimism in me hopes that this can be the end to obstructionist politics and that we stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of bill passages per year in Congress. Or that something like this can fracture the parties and allow for some form of moderation to exist in America again.
The realist in me knows none of that will happen. Expecting another CR by the end of the week. Woo Hoo. Did you miss the part where 5-10 posters argued that this was not the case? That this was very different than "the Democrats to do the same back to them?" It sounds like you missed it. Nah. Using game theory terminology, Republicans having been choosing "defect" for around twenty years at more or less every opportunity while Democrats have been been mostly choosing "cooperate." If Democrats have finally decided to start responding to defecting by defecting as well (aka tit for tat), that's entirely rational. Republicans kept CHIP unfunded so they'd have a defect opportunity available to them. It's about time Democrats stopped giving in to that sort of hostage taking, because giving in just rewards it and encourages more of it. Of course that results in both sides doing shitty things, because there is no way to punish defection except by also choosing to defect. Since Republicans took the House in the middle of Clinton's first term and Newt Gingrich became Speaker for the House, Republicans have restricted the scope of possible policy changes to what they want or nothing, even if shutting down the government is a requirement or consequence of making sure nothing happens rather than policy changes Democrats want. Democrats spent those twenty years continuing to act as if Republicans could be coaxed back into cooperating. You don't get to be pissed that Democrats are no longer just letting Republicans walk all over them while achieving nothing. To be clear, this argument is not "Democrats shut down the government, but it's okay because Republicans shut down the government a few years ago." Republicans grabbed CHIP four months ago, and are now holding a gun to its head and saying "We'll let CHIP go if you give us everything else we want," and instead of folding like a house of cards because they're choosing to cooperate in the face of Republicans defecting, Democrats chose to also defect. This shutdown only happened because both parties chose to defect. If it seems that its the Democrats fault, that's only because we're so used to Republicans choosing to defect that we take it for granted. Regarding using game theory terminology, the US political situation is fairly analogous to a prisoners' dilemma game. Both parties cooperating gets both of them more than both parties defecting, but if one party defects and the other cooperates, the defector benefits a lot at the cooperator's expense. For any specific set of policy issues, it's not really accurate, but for modeling the general behavior of the two parties over the last 25 years or so, it works out just fine. tl;dr is that Republicans have been choosing to be dicks for twenty years, and Democrats have finally concluded that as they can't gain anything as long as Republicans are choosing to be dicks and they lose less by also choosing to be dicks, so now both major parties are acting like dicks. In the immediate sense, Democrats are at fault for changing their position from "not dicks" to "dicks," but that assumes that Democrats have an obligation to continue bending over for Republicans for as long as Republicans choose to be dicks. In the broadest sense, Republicans are at fault for making politics about being dicks instead of not being dicks. In the general sense, if at least one party had chosen to not be dicks, there wouldn't have been a shutdown, so both parties are at fault because they both chose to be dicks. As an analysis, I wouldn't expect Democrats to blink any time soon, because they just committed to this strategy after years of trying to avoid it, so it's got a bit of inertia behind it. If Republicans also don't blink, government grinds to a halt, which was the inevitable result of Newt Gingrich's and Dennis Hastert's "Republican policy or no policy" approach to House politics. Republicans might avert this by doing away with the filibuster, which will improve the situation in the short term as government starts moving extremely smoothly, but it will make things much worse once we pass eight to ten years out as policy only changes when one party controls Congress and the White House and neither party has any reason to not go all-in on writing everything in their platform into law. Well, regardless of my disagreements with how you arrived at your conclusion, I'm happy to find another that agrees that it is tit for tat. I read about five pages of rationalization to why it was substantially different than what Obama did to House Republicans/Boehner did to Obama. I know it's a very small point of agreement, but it's the start of honest characterization to arrive at greater points. Finally, let's be clear that 4 weeks of funding to continue the debate on compromises is not "give us everything else we want." 4 weeks of funding is not equivalent to 6 years of CHIP. It just guarantees another fight on a short timetable, without CHIP funding at risk. I know it probably goes without saying, but if you think DACA negotiation is important enough to temporarily shut down 13% of the government, then go for it. CHIP would never have been an issue on the table if the Republicans didn't purposefully withhold funding 4 months ago. Just tell me you understood the point. Four weeks of funding is a bathroom break on negotiation. CHIP gets funded for six years. You can continue your silly "no cuts anywhere for any reason" CHIP propaganda line somewhere else. I already said what I think about that one.
Yes I get your point, you think 6 years of CHIP is worth 4 weeks of funding, but you completely missed mine.
its not about 'no cuts anywhere'. Its about Republicans purposefully making CHIP into a negotiation piece by allowing it to laps 4 months ago. The argument 'but money' is utter horseshit in the face of the tax bill. They purposefully made healthcare for millions of somewhat* poor children into political leverage. And that is despicable no matter how you try to slice it.
*somewhat poor because its for those who's parents earn to much to receive Medicaid but don't earn enough to pay for it themselves.
|
Medicaid eligibility is a state-by-state rule, and with how most red states administer the program, you're entirely safe calling CHIP kids truly poor.
|
The "but money" argument is also kinda silly in that the main thing the Republicans tagged in the HR 125 CR was actually tax cuts for device companies, not anything to pay for CHIP. Unless I missed it.
|
On January 22 2018 22:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 22:01 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 20:12 Gorsameth wrote:On January 22 2018 17:40 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 16:42 Kyadytim wrote:On January 22 2018 15:26 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 15:17 ritoky wrote:
I don't really know what the Republicans expected here. When they went full obstructionist under Obama, did they not expect the Democrats to do the same back to them? Of course they're threatening shut downs and essentially negotiating with a gun to your head; it's the same shit you were doing. And then they all act incredulous like they are surprised or like it is this brand new horrific tactic. Please.
The small shred of optimism in me hopes that this can be the end to obstructionist politics and that we stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of bill passages per year in Congress. Or that something like this can fracture the parties and allow for some form of moderation to exist in America again.
The realist in me knows none of that will happen. Expecting another CR by the end of the week. Woo Hoo. Did you miss the part where 5-10 posters argued that this was not the case? That this was very different than "the Democrats to do the same back to them?" It sounds like you missed it. Nah. Using game theory terminology, Republicans having been choosing "defect" for around twenty years at more or less every opportunity while Democrats have been been mostly choosing "cooperate." If Democrats have finally decided to start responding to defecting by defecting as well (aka tit for tat), that's entirely rational. Republicans kept CHIP unfunded so they'd have a defect opportunity available to them. It's about time Democrats stopped giving in to that sort of hostage taking, because giving in just rewards it and encourages more of it. Of course that results in both sides doing shitty things, because there is no way to punish defection except by also choosing to defect. Since Republicans took the House in the middle of Clinton's first term and Newt Gingrich became Speaker for the House, Republicans have restricted the scope of possible policy changes to what they want or nothing, even if shutting down the government is a requirement or consequence of making sure nothing happens rather than policy changes Democrats want. Democrats spent those twenty years continuing to act as if Republicans could be coaxed back into cooperating. You don't get to be pissed that Democrats are no longer just letting Republicans walk all over them while achieving nothing. To be clear, this argument is not "Democrats shut down the government, but it's okay because Republicans shut down the government a few years ago." Republicans grabbed CHIP four months ago, and are now holding a gun to its head and saying "We'll let CHIP go if you give us everything else we want," and instead of folding like a house of cards because they're choosing to cooperate in the face of Republicans defecting, Democrats chose to also defect. This shutdown only happened because both parties chose to defect. If it seems that its the Democrats fault, that's only because we're so used to Republicans choosing to defect that we take it for granted. Regarding using game theory terminology, the US political situation is fairly analogous to a prisoners' dilemma game. Both parties cooperating gets both of them more than both parties defecting, but if one party defects and the other cooperates, the defector benefits a lot at the cooperator's expense. For any specific set of policy issues, it's not really accurate, but for modeling the general behavior of the two parties over the last 25 years or so, it works out just fine. tl;dr is that Republicans have been choosing to be dicks for twenty years, and Democrats have finally concluded that as they can't gain anything as long as Republicans are choosing to be dicks and they lose less by also choosing to be dicks, so now both major parties are acting like dicks. In the immediate sense, Democrats are at fault for changing their position from "not dicks" to "dicks," but that assumes that Democrats have an obligation to continue bending over for Republicans for as long as Republicans choose to be dicks. In the broadest sense, Republicans are at fault for making politics about being dicks instead of not being dicks. In the general sense, if at least one party had chosen to not be dicks, there wouldn't have been a shutdown, so both parties are at fault because they both chose to be dicks. As an analysis, I wouldn't expect Democrats to blink any time soon, because they just committed to this strategy after years of trying to avoid it, so it's got a bit of inertia behind it. If Republicans also don't blink, government grinds to a halt, which was the inevitable result of Newt Gingrich's and Dennis Hastert's "Republican policy or no policy" approach to House politics. Republicans might avert this by doing away with the filibuster, which will improve the situation in the short term as government starts moving extremely smoothly, but it will make things much worse once we pass eight to ten years out as policy only changes when one party controls Congress and the White House and neither party has any reason to not go all-in on writing everything in their platform into law. Well, regardless of my disagreements with how you arrived at your conclusion, I'm happy to find another that agrees that it is tit for tat. I read about five pages of rationalization to why it was substantially different than what Obama did to House Republicans/Boehner did to Obama. I know it's a very small point of agreement, but it's the start of honest characterization to arrive at greater points. Finally, let's be clear that 4 weeks of funding to continue the debate on compromises is not "give us everything else we want." 4 weeks of funding is not equivalent to 6 years of CHIP. It just guarantees another fight on a short timetable, without CHIP funding at risk. I know it probably goes without saying, but if you think DACA negotiation is important enough to temporarily shut down 13% of the government, then go for it. CHIP would never have been an issue on the table if the Republicans didn't purposefully withhold funding 4 months ago. Just tell me you understood the point. Four weeks of funding is a bathroom break on negotiation. CHIP gets funded for six years. You can continue your silly "no cuts anywhere for any reason" CHIP propaganda line somewhere else. I already said what I think about that one. Yes I get your point, you think 6 years of CHIP is worth 4 weeks of funding, but you completely missed mine. its not about 'no cuts anywhere'. Its about Republicans purposefully making CHIP into a negotiation piece by allowing it to laps 4 months ago. The argument 'but money' is utter horseshit in the face of the tax bill. They purposefully made healthcare for millions of somewhat* poor children into political leverage. And that is despicable no matter how you try to slice it. *somewhat poor because its for those who's parents earn to much to receive Medicaid but don't earn enough to pay for it themselves.
And by letting is laps for 4 month it forced states to do some very creative accounting to keep the kids insured. Letting things like CHIP and DACA fester, while claiming to want to pass them, does real harm. Though I am convinced that the Republicans don’t want to pass DACA, but also don’t want the bad PR to those people getting deported.
|
On January 22 2018 17:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2018 16:42 Kyadytim wrote:On January 22 2018 15:26 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2018 15:17 ritoky wrote:
I don't really know what the Republicans expected here. When they went full obstructionist under Obama, did they not expect the Democrats to do the same back to them? Of course they're threatening shut downs and essentially negotiating with a gun to your head; it's the same shit you were doing. And then they all act incredulous like they are surprised or like it is this brand new horrific tactic. Please.
The small shred of optimism in me hopes that this can be the end to obstructionist politics and that we stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of bill passages per year in Congress. Or that something like this can fracture the parties and allow for some form of moderation to exist in America again.
The realist in me knows none of that will happen. Expecting another CR by the end of the week. Woo Hoo. Did you miss the part where 5-10 posters argued that this was not the case? That this was very different than "the Democrats to do the same back to them?" It sounds like you missed it. Nah. Using game theory terminology, Republicans having been choosing "defect" for around twenty years at more or less every opportunity while Democrats have been been mostly choosing "cooperate." If Democrats have finally decided to start responding to defecting by defecting as well (aka tit for tat), that's entirely rational. Republicans kept CHIP unfunded so they'd have a defect opportunity available to them. It's about time Democrats stopped giving in to that sort of hostage taking, because giving in just rewards it and encourages more of it. Of course that results in both sides doing shitty things, because there is no way to punish defection except by also choosing to defect. Since Republicans took the House in the middle of Clinton's first term and Newt Gingrich became Speaker for the House, Republicans have restricted the scope of possible policy changes to what they want or nothing, even if shutting down the government is a requirement or consequence of making sure nothing happens rather than policy changes Democrats want. Democrats spent those twenty years continuing to act as if Republicans could be coaxed back into cooperating. You don't get to be pissed that Democrats are no longer just letting Republicans walk all over them while achieving nothing. To be clear, this argument is not "Democrats shut down the government, but it's okay because Republicans shut down the government a few years ago." Republicans grabbed CHIP four months ago, and are now holding a gun to its head and saying "We'll let CHIP go if you give us everything else we want," and instead of folding like a house of cards because they're choosing to cooperate in the face of Republicans defecting, Democrats chose to also defect. This shutdown only happened because both parties chose to defect. If it seems that its the Democrats fault, that's only because we're so used to Republicans choosing to defect that we take it for granted. Regarding using game theory terminology, the US political situation is fairly analogous to a prisoners' dilemma game. Both parties cooperating gets both of them more than both parties defecting, but if one party defects and the other cooperates, the defector benefits a lot at the cooperator's expense. For any specific set of policy issues, it's not really accurate, but for modeling the general behavior of the two parties over the last 25 years or so, it works out just fine. tl;dr is that Republicans have been choosing to be dicks for twenty years, and Democrats have finally concluded that as they can't gain anything as long as Republicans are choosing to be dicks and they lose less by also choosing to be dicks, so now both major parties are acting like dicks. In the immediate sense, Democrats are at fault for changing their position from "not dicks" to "dicks," but that assumes that Democrats have an obligation to continue bending over for Republicans for as long as Republicans choose to be dicks. In the broadest sense, Republicans are at fault for making politics about being dicks instead of not being dicks. In the general sense, if at least one party had chosen to not be dicks, there wouldn't have been a shutdown, so both parties are at fault because they both chose to be dicks. As an analysis, I wouldn't expect Democrats to blink any time soon, because they just committed to this strategy after years of trying to avoid it, so it's got a bit of inertia behind it. If Republicans also don't blink, government grinds to a halt, which was the inevitable result of Newt Gingrich's and Dennis Hastert's "Republican policy or no policy" approach to House politics. Republicans might avert this by doing away with the filibuster, which will improve the situation in the short term as government starts moving extremely smoothly, but it will make things much worse once we pass eight to ten years out as policy only changes when one party controls Congress and the White House and neither party has any reason to not go all-in on writing everything in their platform into law. Well, regardless of my disagreements with how you arrived at your conclusion, I'm happy to find another that agrees that it is tit for tat. I read about five pages of rationalization to why it was substantially different than what Obama did to House Republicans/Boehner did to Obama. I know it's a very small point of agreement, but it's the start of honest characterization to arrive at greater points. Finally, let's be clear that 4 weeks of funding to continue the debate on compromises is not "give us everything else we want." 4 weeks of funding is not equivalent to 6 years of CHIP. It just guarantees another fight on a short timetable, without CHIP funding at risk. I know it probably goes without saying, but if you think DACA negotiation is important enough to temporarily shut down 13% of the government, then go for it.
Surely this isn't a matter of "tit for tat" - after all, shutdown politics is a perfectly valid use of the power of the purse.
|
Its not the leadership is without options. They could just file to debate the Graham Durbin bill on the senate floor, rather than meet behind closed doors. Stop running the two chambers like dictatorships and try debating and voting on bills for a change.
|
The thing about just accept the 4 week CR I don't get... DACA starts to expire March 5th (as in people who's expiration was March 6th+ would start losing their work permits). If you kick it down 4 weeks later with this stopgap CR then in 4 weeks you're trying to get DACA passed with very little wiggle room.
It seems pretty terrible to wait on figuring this stuff out until people are only a couple of weeks (2-3) from losing their job and possibly being deported. If we were at that point now it'd be like having to decline a Superbowl party invitation and your office squares because you don't know if you'll have been kicked out of the country or not.
|
On January 23 2018 00:57 Logo wrote:
The thing about just accept the 4 week CR I don't get... DACA starts to expire March 5th (as in people who's expiration was March 6th+ would start losing their work permits). If you kick it down 4 weeks later with this stopgap CR then in 4 weeks you're trying to get DACA passed with very little wiggle room.
It seems pretty terrible to wait on figuring this stuff out until people are only a couple of weeks (2-3) from losing their job and possibly being deported. If we were at that point now it'd be like having to decline a Superbowl party invitation and your office squares because you don't know if you'll have been kicked out of the country or not.
You just have to remember that empathy isnt something a lot of people have. Then the timeline makes more sense
|
United States41995 Posts
In case you guys didn't know it actually takes considerably over a year to receive a renewed green card anyway. These guys are on 2 year conditional GCs if I understand correctly which means they get it, use it for 21 months, apply for a replacement, and then don't actually have a green card from month 24 to 40ish. You can get around that by going into your local USCIS office and asking for six month extensions to be stamped into your passport. You chain those until the next green card arrives.
That's the system we use at the moment. I'm on a passport stamp right now and I renewed over a year ago.
|
Sounds like they’re keeping him out of the adults’ business.
|
There are a bunch of rumors and reporter saying that chief of staff Kelly called Schumer to tell him the proposal was to “liberal”. When it comes to immigration, Trump isn’t in charge. It is house conservatives, Miller and Kelly.
|
It's probably for the best if Trump isn't going to get involved in the negotiations himself. The man has never been involved in making any deals in his entire life and this whole idea about him being a fantasic dealmaker is but a scam.
Either it works completly different in the world of business and what he's good at is bullying people into what you want from them because I can imagine that being a thing if you're powerful enough in the businessworld. Or the people around him knew about his ego and always faked negotioations only for the real thing to start after he leaves the room.
Idk what it is, but the guy has no idea what he's doing.
|
On January 23 2018 02:12 Toadesstern wrote:
It's probably for the best if Trump isn't going to get involved in the negotiations himself. The man has never been involved in making any deals in his entire life and this whole idea about him being a fantasic dealmaker is but a scam.
Either it works completly different in the world of business and what he's good at is bullying people into what you want from them because I can imagine that being a thing if you're powerful enough in the businessworld. Or the people around him knew about his ego and always faked negotioations only for the real thing to start after he leaves the room.
Idk what it is, but the guy has no idea what he's doing.
The problem is that the only other people left in teh white house are conservative, immigration hardliners who convinced Trump to end DACA. Their plan has always been to deport the Dreamers.
|
|
|
Looks like they reached a three week deal that promises a floor debate on DACA and a vote in that period. Now we get to see if McConnell can deliver.
|
Turtle boy made the commitment publicly and in a manner he hasn't previously, so maybe there's reason to hope.
|
So, who won the shutdown? Dems seem to have crushed it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
