|
On October 16 2013 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 07:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 03:07 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 02:20 Sermokala wrote: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. SourceIf 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?
The Hasert Rule isn't official, It is something most speakers have followed but it has always been the speakers job to bring a bill to vote unless several other criteria are met. This new rule, some, people are in arms about is actually official.
|
On October 16 2013 08:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 07:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 03:07 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 02:20 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
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. SourceIf 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? The Hasert Rule isn't official, It is something most speakers have followed but it has always been the speakers job to bring a bill to vote unless several other criteria are met. This new rule, some, people are in arms about is actually official.
Sorry to be a wise guy but it's called the "Hastert Rule".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule
//edit: @Jhonny from Wikipedia
However, the Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; he/she may break it at their discretion. Speakers have at times broken the Hastert Rule and allowed votes to be scheduled on legislation that lacked majority support within the Speakers own party.
|
Less than 2 days till the debt ceiling, how long are they going to wait till the last minute? to agree on a fucking decision yet?
|
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 Show nested quote + "...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.
Once caveat to that would be that not all small businesses are the same. Small businesses that stay small indefinitely offer limited value to the economy (limited job growth coupled with lower pay for workers). Small businesses that grow into big or medium size businesses (which requires breaking the 50 employee barrier at some point) are much more important both in terms of job growth and pay. Source
|
On October 16 2013 08:11 MooMooMugi wrote:
Less than 2 days till the debt ceiling, how long are they going to wait till the last minute? to agree on a fucking decision yet?
Didnt they wait until like 11:59 the night before 2 years ago?
|
On October 16 2013 08:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 07:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 03:07 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 02:20 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
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. SourceIf 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? The Hasert Rule isn't official, It is something most speakers have followed but it has always been the speakers job to bring a bill to vote unless several other criteria are met. This new rule, some, people are in arms about is actually official.
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry my poor spelling influenced you 
On October 16 2013 08:11 MooMooMugi wrote:
Less than 2 days till the debt ceiling, how long are they going to wait till the last minute? to agree on a fucking decision yet?
It's possible we'll go over. Treasury has some cash on hand if we go over and we seem to like decisions that come at the very, very last minute these days.
|
On October 16 2013 06:53 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Wasn't the quote I posted disputing the relevancy of precisely that claim? What the New Yorker is saying is that the negative impact of the ACA on the average small businesses most likely not negative. So let me ask again--would anyone like to explain why this is not true.
|
On October 16 2013 08:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 06:15 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 03:07 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 02:20 Sermokala wrote: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. SourceIf 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.
The shutdown hasn't stopped the rollout of the healthcare exchanges, though. Historically this is more like the liberum veto in Poland, or the veto power of the Roman Tribunate of the Plebs--based, it should be noted, on a collective oath sworn by the plebians to rise up and kill anyone who should violate a Tribunate's sacrosanctity, even a Consul himself. So by that standard it might be considered reasonable.
|
On October 16 2013 08:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2013 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 07:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 03:07 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
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. SourceIf 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? The Hasert Rule isn't official, It is something most speakers have followed but it has always been the speakers job to bring a bill to vote unless several other criteria are met. This new rule, some, people are in arms about is actually official. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry my poor spelling influenced you Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:11 MooMooMugi wrote:
Less than 2 days till the debt ceiling, how long are they going to wait till the last minute? to agree on a fucking decision yet? It's possible we'll go over. Treasury has some cash on hand if we go over and we seem to like decisions that come at the very, very last minute these days.
I thought they already used the cash on hand? They have been using the extraordinary measures since like May after all... true it last a couple of days longer, but surely their estimates can't be that far off.
|
Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected 
|
On October 16 2013 08:25 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 08:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2013 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 07:27 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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. SourceIf 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? The Hasert Rule isn't official, It is something most speakers have followed but it has always been the speakers job to bring a bill to vote unless several other criteria are met. This new rule, some, people are in arms about is actually official. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry my poor spelling influenced you On October 16 2013 08:11 MooMooMugi wrote:
Less than 2 days till the debt ceiling, how long are they going to wait till the last minute? to agree on a fucking decision yet? It's possible we'll go over. Treasury has some cash on hand if we go over and we seem to like decisions that come at the very, very last minute these days. I thought they already used the cash on hand? They have been using the extraordinary measures since like May after all... true it last a couple of days longer, but surely their estimates can't be that far off.
My understanding is that we hit the debt ceiling back in May, we'll exhaust extraordinary measures on Thursday and we'll exhaust cash on hand shortly (days? weeks?) after:
Separately on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Treasury would exhaust all its extraordinary measures and run out of free cash between Oct. 22 and Nov. 1.
Link
|
On October 16 2013 08:08 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 06:15 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 03:07 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 02:20 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
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. SourceIf 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?
On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote:Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected
Sorry, you slipped under the radar.
Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation.
Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely.
|
On October 16 2013 08:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:08 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 06:15 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 03:07 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
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. SourceIf 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? Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote:Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected Sorry, you slipped under the radar. Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation. Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely.
I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied?
|
On October 16 2013 00:52 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all. This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit. The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80. Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive. If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die. I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward. It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically. Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money. Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph: ![[image loading]](http://ipatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cost12.png) Something is very wrong with US healthcare. You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics. The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy. The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care. Mystery solved.
Well, life expectancy in US is only slightly bellow the median value on this graph. I am mostly concerned about the horizontal axis here. Many countries in this figure have a lot of very wealthy people and GDP per-capita very close to that of US, yet healthcare in US costs several times more then that in those countries.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 16 2013 06:30 Unentschieden wrote:
Well maybe Jonny wants to say that the Republicans strategy is legimitate. It apparently is legal.
Which brings me to the question: Should it be? Shouldn´t there be reforms to the system that prevent a "fake" default?
There already is one: the 14th amendment. It's being ignored.
|
United States24686 Posts
I think I can point out what part of the problem with healthcare is. When I go into my doctor's office there are 1-2 doctors working, 2 nurses working, and 9 non-medical staff working. Most of them are taking care of paperwork and other bullshit because of how bloated the healthcare system has become.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 16 2013 09:06 micronesia wrote:
I think I can point out what part of the problem with healthcare is. When I go into my doctor's office there are 1-2 doctors working, 2 nurses working, and 9 non-medical staff working. Most of them are taking care of paperwork and other bullshit because of how bloated the healthcare system has become.
Yeah, they have to spend a lot of time, money and effort doing things like checking to see if you have insurance, figuring out which insurance you have and where to bill it, recording the billing and making sure the payment goes through, or following up on billing you if you don't have insurance and then fighting to collect if you can't pay it.
A single payer system avoids all of this: They record the cost of procedures and bill congress, the individual pays nothing at time of treatment and there's no insurance involved. Government tax collection becomes no more complicated (I can think of a few ways to fix that problem too, but that's a separate issue).
|
On October 16 2013 08:21 Parsistamon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 06:53 Nick Drake wrote: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. Wasn't the quote I posted disputing the relevancy of precisely that claim? What the New Yorker is saying is that the negative impact of the ACA on the average small businesses most likely not negative. So let me ask again--would anyone like to explain why this is not true. Does that even count as an argument at this point defaulting would hurt small business far worse then ACA ever could.
|
On October 16 2013 08:53 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 08:08 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 06:15 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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. SourceIf 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? On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote:Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected Sorry, you slipped under the radar. Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation. Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely. I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied?
Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand.
Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates.
|
I got my benefits plans for 2014 through my company today and it looks like I'll be paying twice as much for the same health coverage with a lower deductible and I'm only paying for coverage for myself (thankfully I have no family I need to cover, those plans were even more ridiculous) Also no longer can I refuse coverage! woohoo.
I feel sorry for the millions of middle class Americans who don't even realize exactly what's coming to them yet, especially families with just a single working parent. Going to be interesting as time goes on and people start to really realize how much they are affected by something that they can't even refuse as they are forced to sign up and get their packages from their employers.
Republicans are crying out against this and they're just being told to shut up by the media and liberals...Middle class America is basically getting raped silly by this new wonderful "law of the land." and half the people defending it don't even realize what's coming to them.
MURICA! Land of the free and the home of the brave.
The House passed a clean bill today with two provisions to Obamacare which apparently were completely unreasonable and shot down immediately by the president.
1. Drop the exemption to the President and Congress on Obamacare (If the law is good enough for the public why isn't it good enough for the people passing it?)
2. 2 year delay on medical device tax. (Obamacare will fail unless the government can start taxing private healthcare providers apparently?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
