Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
Haven't visited the thread in a while...anyone know if House Republicans have dealt with this procedural change?
Why deal with it? That's just business as usual. Just like threatening to default the country to gain a better position in potential negotiations.
On October 16 2013 03:00 Gorsameth wrote: Obama has long since made plans for what to do when the default happens. The country will keep running, the debt will still be payed. Nothing is going to happen other then the Republicans looking even more stupid then they already do for not threatening but actually killing the hostage.
You are severely downplaying the effects of a default. There are many things both inside and outside the USA that depend on the US being able to always pay its bills on time. Destroying the 'full faith and credit" of the US is serious.
Not to mention how ridiculous it is to have the interest rates increased for no valid reason...
Alot of the worlds banking systems are tied up in US T-bills for the short and long term and even more so business that use government services to be compliant with the law need to file papers etc. The shut down hurts everyone helps no one.
Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
Haven't visited the thread in a while...anyone know if House Republicans have dealt with this procedural change?
Why deal with it? That's just business as usual. Just like threatening to default the country to gain a better position in potential negotiations.
Nothing to see here citizen, move along.
US politics shouldn't mirror CCCP cold war negotiation tactics
On October 16 2013 00:54 Sermokala wrote: [quote] In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then.
Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
Haven't visited the thread in a while...anyone know if House Republicans have dealt with this procedural change?
Why deal with it? That's just business as usual. Just like threatening to default the country to gain a better position in potential negotiations.
Nothing to see here citizen, move along.
US politics shouldn't mirror CCCP cold war negotiation tactics
On October 16 2013 01:22 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
On October 16 2013 01:22 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described?
Not necessarily germane to the current discussion but relevant to concerns about the ACA hurting small businesses:
from this week's new yorker
"...the overwhelming majority of American businesses--ninety-six per cent--have fewer than fifty employees. The employer mandate doesn't touch them. And more than ninety per cent of the companies above that threshold already offer health insurance. Only three per cent are in the zone (between forty and seventy five employees) where the threshold will be an issue. Even if these firms get more cautious about hiring--and there's little evidence that they will--the impact on the economy would be small.
The article goes on to show how small businesses benefit from the ACA. Would like to hear a conservative response to this.
On October 16 2013 06:47 DrCooper wrote: Okay so basically, if the US government can't come to an agreement by thursday there will be a worldwide economic breakdown?
yes it will be bad, no the world will not end. Its would be bad for the US as a country but I doubt its citizens will have any effect from it other then the already on going shutdown. And if you live somewhere else in the world nothing will happen at all.
Unless you have stocks or US bonds... then you might be a little bit screwed.
On October 16 2013 06:38 Parsistamon wrote: Not necessarily germane to the current discussion but relevant to concerns about the ACA hurting small businesses:
"...the overwhelming majority of American businesses--ninety-six per cent--have fewer than fifty employees. The employer mandate doesn't touch them. And more than ninety per cent of the companies above that threshold already offer health insurance. Only three per cent are in the zone (between forty and seventy five employees) where the threshold will be an issue. Even if these firms get more cautious about hiring--and there's little evidence that they will--the impact on the economy would be small.
The article goes on to show how small businesses benefit from the ACA. Would like to hear a conservative response to this.
You are giving these small companies an incentive to not expand, to not hire more people.
On October 16 2013 06:47 DrCooper wrote: Okay so basically, if the US government can't come to an agreement by thursday there will be a worldwide economic breakdown?
On October 16 2013 06:38 Parsistamon wrote: Not necessarily germane to the current discussion but relevant to concerns about the ACA hurting small businesses:
from this week's new yorker
"...the overwhelming majority of American businesses--ninety-six per cent--have fewer than fifty employees. The employer mandate doesn't touch them. And more than ninety per cent of the companies above that threshold already offer health insurance. Only three per cent are in the zone (between forty and seventy five employees) where the threshold will be an issue. Even if these firms get more cautious about hiring--and there's little evidence that they will--the impact on the economy would be small.
The article goes on to show how small businesses benefit from the ACA. Would like to hear a conservative response to this.
You are giving these small companies an incentive to not expand, to not hire more people.
On October 16 2013 06:47 DrCooper wrote: Okay so basically, if the US government can't come to an agreement by thursday there will be a worldwide economic breakdown?
On October 16 2013 06:47 DrCooper wrote: Okay so basically, if the US government can't come to an agreement by thursday there will be a worldwide economic breakdown?
Almost certainly not, because a default is highly unlikely. The Senate should be able to pass a bipartisan bill that the House leaders would pretty much have to bring to a vote in order to maintain their position that it is the Democrats that are unwilling to negotiate. There are enough moderate Republicans that such a bill should easily pass if they are allowed to vote on it.
Even if Congress is unable/unwilling to raise the debt ceiling, I expect Obama would unilaterally find a way to make sure the US doesn't default. There are a few ways he could do this that are arguably legal, and I don't see him allowing a global economic catastrophe when he has the power to prevent it.
On October 16 2013 06:47 DrCooper wrote: Okay so basically, if the US government can't come to an agreement by thursday there will be a worldwide economic breakdown?
yes it will be bad, no the world will not end. Its would be bad for the US as a country but I doubt its citizens will have any effect from it other then the already on going shutdown. And if you live somewhere else in the world nothing will happen at all.
Unless you have stocks or US bonds... then you might be a little bit screwed.
If the world's largest economy goes into meltdown, which seems likely to result from a default, US citizens won't be the only ones feeling the pain, especially since "unless you have stocks or US bonds" applies to several other countries with large economies.
On October 16 2013 06:47 DrCooper wrote: Okay so basically, if the US government can't come to an agreement by thursday there will be a worldwide economic breakdown?
yes it will be bad, no the world will not end. Its would be bad for the US as a country but I doubt its citizens will have any effect from it other then the already on going shutdown. And if you live somewhere else in the world nothing will happen at all.
Unless you have stocks or US bonds... then you might be a little bit screwed.
This seems unlikely. We are talking about 17 trillion dollars of assets going from the safest possible category to potentially risky. There would be consequences.
The alternative is to slash the federal expenses to the point where they don't need to borrow more money at all. It would mean not paying for contractors and/or stopping some social security payments. Terrible for the people or businesses directly affected but everyone else would be affected to some extent by the decreased demand.
On October 16 2013 01:22 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
No, that's not the only viewpoint that exists. But that's the only reasonable viewpoint, given the evidence that this was a premeditated crisis. You have to be seriously wearing blinders to reality if the numerous pieces of evidence that have emerged over the past few weeks does not convince you that this "hostage" was planned all along. The smoking gun is this "procedural rules change", this is basically throwing the bomb-defusal kit out of the window.
This "both sides are guilty", "fair and balanced" bullshit is essentially lazy thinking... or a deliberate smoke bomb to conceal the perpetrators of this crisis. Which is quite hard considering that said perpetrators are shouting their demands from the rooftops.
This also illustrates nicely why you don't give crazy people weapons and point them in the direction of your enemies. Because quite often, you end up dodging your own bullets fired in your direction. A lesson that the US of A has had to learn... and relearn... and never seem to learn, even in their own backyard,
On October 16 2013 01:39 Sermokala wrote: [quote] They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described?
The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown.
I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here.
Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown.
On October 16 2013 07:20 zezamer wrote: We will eventually have a economic breakdown because the western world is bankrupt and won't be able pay back their debts.
Even if US raises the debt ceiling, we will have this same crisis in couple years again.
Sovereigns never 'pay back their debts'. They outgrow them, refinance them or default on them (or the country suffers an insurrection/invasion/other huge change and the new rulers refuse to acknowledge the debts). Unless they're Ceausescu in 80s Romania, willing to starve their population so balance sheets can look good.
There's a reason no one really cares about the absolute numbers of debt but does care about debt as a % of gdp. It's the same reason why the continued existence of the debt ceiling is so bizarre (to be fair, it was largely ignored, as it should be, up until the crazy people - tea partiers - went bananas about it, but from what I undestand it's always been politically exploitable by whoever happened to not be the current government, Obama himself being a culprit during the Bush administration, but not to this ridiculous extent).
On October 16 2013 01:39 Sermokala wrote: [quote] They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
No, that's not the only viewpoint that exists. But that's the only reasonable viewpoint, given the evidence that this was a premeditated crisis. You have to be seriously wearing blinders to reality if the numerous pieces of evidence that have emerged over the past few weeks does not convince you that this "hostage" was planned all along. The smoking gun is this "procedural rules change", this is basically throwing the bomb-defusal kit out of the window.
This "both sides are guilty", "fair and balanced" bullshit is essentially lazy thinking... or a deliberate smoke bomb to conceal the perpetrators of this crisis. Which is quite hard considering that said perpetrators are shouting their demands from the rooftops.
This also illustrates nicely why you don't give crazy people weapons and point them in the direction of your enemies. Because quite often, you end up dodging your own bullets fired in your direction. A lesson that the US of A has had to learn... and relearn... and never seem to learn, even in their own backyard,
Is that any different than the Hasert Rule that's been used since the 90's?
On October 16 2013 01:58 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said [quote] So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
He's saying that the Republicans have yet to offer a clean CR, short or otherwise, which is a factual statement.
I think it might be useful to identify what people are actually disagreeing about with respect to who is to blame for the shut down, and who is failing to negotiate. I think it boils down to different people having different views on what negotiation tactics are legitimate.
For example, say that a guy pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet. I refuse, and he shoots me. I think everyone would rightly blame the robber for the shooting, even though I also had the ability to prevent the shooting because I could have given up my wallet. This is because people generally do not view the threat of force as a legitimate negotiating tactic, so they would not blame me for the shooting as a result of me not trying to negotiate/give in to the robber.
As a result, I think the reason people in this thread disagree about who to blame for the shut down is because some of us view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics, while others do not.
Supporters of the Democrats' position believe that this is an illegitimate negotiating tactic, in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that threatening to shoot someone is illegitimate. Therefore, they argue that Democrats are not to blame for the shutdown. Instead they view the Democrats as refusing to give way to illegitimate coercion.
On the other hand, supporters of the Republican position view causing a shutdown and threatening a default as legitimate negotiating tactics. As a result, they view the Republicans as employing a legitimate negotiating strategy and say that both sides are equally to blame because the Democrats are failing to negotiate in return. As a quick side note, I do not think one can be intellectually honest and argue that the Democrats are primarily to blame, because even if you think causing a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, both sides should share the blame equally because it was within the power of both to prevent the shut down.
If I am correct about this interpretation (specifically, that the primary difference between the two sides is over what constitutes a legitimate negotiating tactic) then people in this thread who are trying to convince others to adopt their point of view should focus on the legitimacy of the tactic employed by the Republicans, rather than blanket statements about how this side or that side has failed to negotiate.
Personally, I do not view the Republican strategy as being a legitimate means of negotiating. First, they are asking the Democrats to make policy concessions without offering any concessions in return. Allowing the government to function is not a concession to Democrats, it should be a priority of both parties. Second, if it works it could set a precedent that would cause significant harm to the political process. In the future, each time one of the parties is unable to obtain a goal through ordinary legislative action, it will simply shut down the government and demand concessions from the other party. Finally, I believe tactics that result in ~800K workers being furloughed and a fairly large hit to GDP should be avoided absent extreme circumstances, and I do not believe the ACA coming into effect qualifies as such.
If you happen to disagree about whether this negotiating tactic is legitimate, consider what you would think if Obama threatened to veto any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress added a provision to the bill banning private ownership of assault weapons (or some other provision that you find abhorrent). Obviously this would be a pretty silly thing for him to do, but try to consider whether it would also be a legitimate exercise of the President's veto power. If you think that it would not be, but have no problem with the House Republican's tactic, then I think you may be allowing your biases to cloud your thought process.
I think a better analogy is a big group dinner where a few people refuse to pay unless everyone agrees to forego the appetizer, even though it had previously been agreed upon. Additionally, some of the people at the table were not involved in the appetizer decision and if a decision is not reached soon the owner will throw everyone out of the restaurant.
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future.
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described?
The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown.
I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here.
Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown.
What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no?
EPT
