|
A negotiation is "We both want to get something done. If we disagree on how it should get done, then we'll each give up something on how it should be implemented so that it gets through in the end".
Both sides have said they want the government to remain open. It's not something either side has to give up anything to get done. But the Republicans are saying "We're not going to let the government open unless you give us a concession on a separate issue. And we not give up anything in return". That's not a negotiation. That's closer to extortion.
And caving to that extortion would set a horrible precedent of using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. No matter who is in power, neither party should be using the debt ceiling as a political weapon.
|
On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? ![[image loading]](http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1472943.1380653441!/img/httpImage/image.jpg-large_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/cantor.jpg-large)
Can't help but notice the diversity (or complete lack there of) of those negotiators. Like the diversity of the tea party.
I think it shows Republicans real problem, that they really only appeal to people that look and think like the people in that room. People in that room represent a shrinking group.
They are the ones who would say federal recognition of gay marriage was a "loss" like Superfan here. Or say "Somehow we survived a couple hundred prosperous years before this became the 'norm' we are forced to live with." and in the same breath claim they are being enslaved....(Oblivious to how billions of man hours of slaves were foundational to building this country, and they were thanked with whips and chains [actual slavery]).
The Tea Party and Republicans have made it clear what they want, maybe on the debt ceiling Republicans will ask to repeal some pieces of the Civil Rights Act like Rand Paul wants...
People like this are never going to win a Presidential election again. There just aren't enough bigots trapped in such a degenerative mindset left in the country to win (although still plenty to be a pain in the ass).
|
You don't demand policy concessions when negotiating budget proposals. End of story.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
On October 04 2013 07:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You don't demand policy concessions when negotiating budget proposals. End of story.
Yeah, it's kind of like demanding a raise in salary while you don't do your job at literally any other position in the world in any business.
Most people would find themselves out of that building so fast they thought they teleported.
|
On October 04 2013 07:02 dabom88 wrote:
A negotiation is "We both want to get something done. If we disagree on how it should get done, then we'll each give up something on how it should be implemented so that it gets through in the end".
Both sides have said they want the government to remain open. It's not something either side has to give up anything to get done. But the Republicans are saying "We're not going to let the government open unless you give us a concession on a separate issue". That's not a negotiation. That's closer to extortion.
And caving to that extortion would set a horrible precedent of using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. No matter who is in power, neither party should be using the debt ceiling as a political weapon.
Other than money, yes.
On October 04 2013 07:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
You don't demand policy concessions when negotiating budget proposals. End of story.
So what can you negotiate on?
|
On October 04 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:02 dabom88 wrote:
A negotiation is "We both want to get something done. If we disagree on how it should get done, then we'll each give up something on how it should be implemented so that it gets through in the end".
Both sides have said they want the government to remain open. It's not something either side has to give up anything to get done. But the Republicans are saying "We're not going to let the government open unless you give us a concession on a separate issue". That's not a negotiation. That's closer to extortion.
And caving to that extortion would set a horrible precedent of using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. No matter who is in power, neither party should be using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. Other than money, yes.
So you're saying that the Republicans are giving up more money to raise the debt ceiling? So how much more money is the Republican Party paying than the Democrats if they raise the debt ceiling?
|
United States24768 Posts
The scene from fiction I think of that I can use to draw parallels to this week's events is this (youtube video).
It is the last scene of the West Wing season 1 episode 1. The way President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) makes his entrance is something that President Obama could be modeling his recent actions after (not quite as fun, perhaps).
These leaders of religious special interest groups are trying to get something they want, such as pornography reform, prayer in schools, etc. They feel they have a very strong bargaining chip, even though it has nothing to do with the proposed concessions they want from the current administration of democrats. At first the staff is having some difficulty dealing with these threats.
Then, Martin Sheen walks in and hands them their hats.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
If only Obama was President Bartlett...
|
On October 04 2013 07:16 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 07:02 dabom88 wrote:
A negotiation is "We both want to get something done. If we disagree on how it should get done, then we'll each give up something on how it should be implemented so that it gets through in the end".
Both sides have said they want the government to remain open. It's not something either side has to give up anything to get done. But the Republicans are saying "We're not going to let the government open unless you give us a concession on a separate issue". That's not a negotiation. That's closer to extortion.
And caving to that extortion would set a horrible precedent of using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. No matter who is in power, neither party should be using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. Other than money, yes. So you're saying that the Republicans are giving up more money to let the government open? So how much more money is the Republican Party paying than the Democrats if they open the government?
No, that's not what I meant. If a clean CR goes through Reps will have to pay their share on the ACA which they don't want to do.
|
On October 04 2013 06:40 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Everybody understands Republican position. "We have the power to sabotage the country and we don't like the bill you were elected to pass so if you don't negotiate (and demolish the said bill), we shutdown the whole government". Answer: Go fuck yourself Reaction: whine whine whine, they don't want to negotiate!! 1. Don't say "go fuck yourself". Let's keep this debate civil. 2. Obamacare is opposed by the majority of Americans and has always been. They were not elected to pass Obamacare. 3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. 4. The whole government is not shut down. 2) You keep saying this, and yet somehow - Obama is president, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the approval rating for the GOP is dropping the longer they try this shutdown bs. 3) If Obama bends AT ALL to this pressure, the office of president and his authority as the democratically elected leader of this country is suspect for the rest of eternity. Minorities of a majority of half of congress can then just bs around and hold the government hostage to get whatever they want, even though they lost in all actual democratic functions of countermanding what they didn't like. 4) Oh boy, only 800,000 people are out of work, just a minor issue.
This is the second time I've posted this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
Obamacare has NEVER had the support of the American people. The elections were not just about Obamacare, and if they had been, Romney would have won by a landslide. The elections were about a myriad of issues, Obamacare being only one of them. Romney's personal feelings towards dogs received more coverage during the election than Obamacare did.
The House has always been the most powerful branch of the government, the Presidency has always been less powerful. The House is directly elected by the citizens every 2 years and is the most representative of the American people. The system was designed so that the House can put up roadblocks and checks against every other branch, and if need be, cut all funding. If you don't like the system, say so. Don't pretend that this is somehow working against the design of the system when it is exactly how the system was designed to function.
No one said it was a minor issue. However, since it is not a minor issue by any stretch of the imagination, there should be no need to use hyperbole. It is serious enough on it's own without needing to blow it up into something entirely different.
|
On October 04 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:16 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 07:02 dabom88 wrote:
A negotiation is "We both want to get something done. If we disagree on how it should get done, then we'll each give up something on how it should be implemented so that it gets through in the end".
Both sides have said they want the government to remain open. It's not something either side has to give up anything to get done. But the Republicans are saying "We're not going to let the government open unless you give us a concession on a separate issue". That's not a negotiation. That's closer to extortion.
And caving to that extortion would set a horrible precedent of using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. No matter who is in power, neither party should be using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. Other than money, yes. So you're saying that the Republicans are giving up more money to let the government open? So how much more money is the Republican Party paying than the Democrats if they open the government? No, that's not what I meant. If a clean CR goes through Reps will have to pay their share on the ACA which they don't want to do.
The shutdown has nothing to do with ACA funds. They're already allocated for the next two years.
On October 04 2013 07:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 06:40 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 04 2013 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Everybody understands Republican position. "We have the power to sabotage the country and we don't like the bill you were elected to pass so if you don't negotiate (and demolish the said bill), we shutdown the whole government". Answer: Go fuck yourself Reaction: whine whine whine, they don't want to negotiate!! 1. Don't say "go fuck yourself". Let's keep this debate civil. 2. Obamacare is opposed by the majority of Americans and has always been. They were not elected to pass Obamacare. 3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. 4. The whole government is not shut down. 2) You keep saying this, and yet somehow - Obama is president, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the approval rating for the GOP is dropping the longer they try this shutdown bs. 3) If Obama bends AT ALL to this pressure, the office of president and his authority as the democratically elected leader of this country is suspect for the rest of eternity. Minorities of a majority of half of congress can then just bs around and hold the government hostage to get whatever they want, even though they lost in all actual democratic functions of countermanding what they didn't like. 4) Oh boy, only 800,000 people are out of work, just a minor issue. This is the second time I've posted this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlObamacare has NEVER had the support of the American people. The elections were not just about Obamacare, and if they had been, Romney would have won by a landslide. The elections were about a myriad of issues, Obamacare being only one of them. Romney's personal feelings towards dogs received more coverage during the election than Obamacare did. The House has always been the most powerful branch of the government, the Presidency has always been less powerful. The House is directly elected by the citizens every 2 years and is the most representative of the American people. The system was designed so that the House can put up roadblocks and checks against every other branch, and if need be, cut all funding. If you don't like the system, say so. Don't pretend that this is somehow working against the design of the system when it is exactly how the system was designed to function. No one said it was a minor issue. However, since it is not a minor issue by any stretch of the imagination, there should be no need to use hyperbole. It is serious enough on it's own without needing to blow it up into something entirely different.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/
The republican position obviously does not have public support at this point.
|
On October 04 2013 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Can't help but notice the diversity (or complete lack there of) of those negotiators. Like the diversity of the tea party. I think it shows Republicans real problem, that they really only appeal to people that look and think like the people in that room. People in that room represent a shrinking group. They are the ones who would say federal recognition of gay marriage was a "loss" like Superfan here. Or say "Somehow we survived a couple hundred prosperous years before this became the 'norm' we are forced to live with." and in the same breath claim they are being enslaved....(Oblivious to how billions of man hours of slaves were foundational to building this country, and they were thanked with whips and chains [actual slavery]). The Tea Party and Republicans have made it clear what they want, maybe on the debt ceiling Republicans will ask to repeal some pieces of the Civil Rights Act like Rand Paul wants... People like this are never going to win a Presidential election again. There just aren't enough bigots trapped in such a degenerative mindset left in the country to win (although still plenty to be a pain in the ass).
This is racism/sexism on your part, and I think it needs to be pointed out and condemned.
The rest of the post is pretty off-topic and is more of a smear than an actual argument. But to address a few things:
1) When did Rand Paul say that we should tie the debt-cieling to repeals on parts of the Civil Rights Act?
1A) What Civil Rights Act specifically? There are/were many.
1B) What parts of the Civil Rights act?
2) We have made it abundantly clear what we want. We want what the American people want: negotiation and compromise.
3) Perhaps you are right about future Presidential elections... but I doubt it. In fact, the smearing of everyone who is your political opponent as a bigot (a bigoted act in of itself) will do more to help us continue to win elections than anything else.
|
On October 04 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:16 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 07:02 dabom88 wrote:
A negotiation is "We both want to get something done. If we disagree on how it should get done, then we'll each give up something on how it should be implemented so that it gets through in the end".
Both sides have said they want the government to remain open. It's not something either side has to give up anything to get done. But the Republicans are saying "We're not going to let the government open unless you give us a concession on a separate issue". That's not a negotiation. That's closer to extortion.
And caving to that extortion would set a horrible precedent of using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. No matter who is in power, neither party should be using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. Other than money, yes. So you're saying that the Republicans are giving up more money to let the government open? So how much more money is the Republican Party paying than the Democrats if they open the government? No, that's not what I meant. If a clean CR goes through Reps will have to pay their share on the ACA which they don't want to do.
Both sides are gonna have to pay their share of the ACA even if they let the government stay shut down. As Derez has said, it's already funded up to a certain point. That's not a concession because it's something that's already going to happen whether they raise the debt ceiling or not. So they're not "giving up" any more money than they already are by raising the debt ceiling.
|
Weirdly enough, even i in the EU remember Romney massively rooting against ACA in his campaign. Somehow you guys and the rest of the world (including more than half of your country) have a bit of a different view on that.
Oh and just as a sidenote, if a system is designed to fail (that's what it's doing right now), it's misdesigned. If a minority can bring the nation to a complete standstill by saying "we don't like what your party does, even though you got the votes for it" - it's not democracy. It's actually the opposite. It's a bunch of old ivy-league farts trying to get their will, against what people are actually voted for.
And it's not up to you to interprete what they voted on, it's obvious what they voted on. They knew the programs. If they didn't and they voted "just because" - tough shit. Makes your system even less practical. Doesn't change the fact that some farts you call politicians (not that other countries including mine were better, but we have failsaves in place, including complete dismantling and immediate reelections) try to bully their will through, which is not what a democratic system is intended to do. It's childish at best, even though it looks more like a dick comparison to me. Tough shit that the president is black.
|
On October 04 2013 07:27 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:40 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 04 2013 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Everybody understands Republican position. "We have the power to sabotage the country and we don't like the bill you were elected to pass so if you don't negotiate (and demolish the said bill), we shutdown the whole government". Answer: Go fuck yourself Reaction: whine whine whine, they don't want to negotiate!! 1. Don't say "go fuck yourself". Let's keep this debate civil. 2. Obamacare is opposed by the majority of Americans and has always been. They were not elected to pass Obamacare. 3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. 4. The whole government is not shut down. 2) You keep saying this, and yet somehow - Obama is president, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the approval rating for the GOP is dropping the longer they try this shutdown bs. 3) If Obama bends AT ALL to this pressure, the office of president and his authority as the democratically elected leader of this country is suspect for the rest of eternity. Minorities of a majority of half of congress can then just bs around and hold the government hostage to get whatever they want, even though they lost in all actual democratic functions of countermanding what they didn't like. 4) Oh boy, only 800,000 people are out of work, just a minor issue. This is the second time I've posted this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlObamacare has NEVER had the support of the American people. The elections were not just about Obamacare, and if they had been, Romney would have won by a landslide. The elections were about a myriad of issues, Obamacare being only one of them. Romney's personal feelings towards dogs received more coverage during the election than Obamacare did. The House has always been the most powerful branch of the government, the Presidency has always been less powerful. The House is directly elected by the citizens every 2 years and is the most representative of the American people. The system was designed so that the House can put up roadblocks and checks against every other branch, and if need be, cut all funding. If you don't like the system, say so. Don't pretend that this is somehow working against the design of the system when it is exactly how the system was designed to function. No one said it was a minor issue. However, since it is not a minor issue by any stretch of the imagination, there should be no need to use hyperbole. It is serious enough on it's own without needing to blow it up into something entirely different. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/The republican position obviously does not have public support at this point.
Well, that is only one poll. I'll take it at face value for the sake of the argument though:
Only 1/4th of the people think that Obamacare should be allowed to go into effect. 1/3 support delaying/defunding/repealing. Almost 1/3 think that changes should be made (something Democrats are not allowing). Apparently the Republican position on the law has some support.
|
On October 04 2013 07:27 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 07:16 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 07:02 dabom88 wrote:
A negotiation is "We both want to get something done. If we disagree on how it should get done, then we'll each give up something on how it should be implemented so that it gets through in the end".
Both sides have said they want the government to remain open. It's not something either side has to give up anything to get done. But the Republicans are saying "We're not going to let the government open unless you give us a concession on a separate issue". That's not a negotiation. That's closer to extortion.
And caving to that extortion would set a horrible precedent of using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. No matter who is in power, neither party should be using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. Other than money, yes. So you're saying that the Republicans are giving up more money to let the government open? So how much more money is the Republican Party paying than the Democrats if they open the government? No, that's not what I meant. If a clean CR goes through Reps will have to pay their share on the ACA which they don't want to do. The shutdown has nothing to do with ACA funds. They're already allocated for the next two years.
It has everything to do with the ACA funds. Reps want to remove the funds.
|
On October 04 2013 07:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 06:40 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 04 2013 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Everybody understands Republican position. "We have the power to sabotage the country and we don't like the bill you were elected to pass so if you don't negotiate (and demolish the said bill), we shutdown the whole government". Answer: Go fuck yourself Reaction: whine whine whine, they don't want to negotiate!! 1. Don't say "go fuck yourself". Let's keep this debate civil. 2. Obamacare is opposed by the majority of Americans and has always been. They were not elected to pass Obamacare. 3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. 4. The whole government is not shut down. 2) You keep saying this, and yet somehow - Obama is president, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the approval rating for the GOP is dropping the longer they try this shutdown bs. 3) If Obama bends AT ALL to this pressure, the office of president and his authority as the democratically elected leader of this country is suspect for the rest of eternity. Minorities of a majority of half of congress can then just bs around and hold the government hostage to get whatever they want, even though they lost in all actual democratic functions of countermanding what they didn't like. 4) Oh boy, only 800,000 people are out of work, just a minor issue. This is the second time I've posted this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlObamacare has NEVER had the support of the American people. The elections were not just about Obamacare, and if they had been, Romney would have won by a landslide. The elections were about a myriad of issues, Obamacare being only one of them. Romney's personal feelings towards dogs received more coverage during the election than Obamacare did. The House has always been the most powerful branch of the government, the Presidency has always been less powerful. The House is directly elected by the citizens every 2 years and is the most representative of the American people. The system was designed so that the House can put up roadblocks and checks against every other branch, and if need be, cut all funding. If you don't like the system, say so. Don't pretend that this is somehow working against the design of the system when it is exactly how the system was designed to function. No one said it was a minor issue. However, since it is not a minor issue by any stretch of the imagination, there should be no need to use hyperbole. It is serious enough on it's own without needing to blow it up into something entirely different.
The ACA may not have been the only issue the election was about, but it was certainly one of the most important ones, and it received a tremendous amount of coverage. Americans knew where Obama stood on the ACA and they knew where Romney stood on the ACA. They convincingly voted for Obama knowing where he stood on the ACA. If it was that important to them for ACA to be repealed, they would not have voted the way they did. Period.
Also, you are trying to use numbers that do not reflect what many Americans actually know about the ACA. As has been repeatedly pointed out, once you get into the details of the bill, most people do support it.
I love your use of the word "directly" in your sentence "the House is directly elected". Individual representatives are directly elected in their respective circonscriptions. There isn't a single member of the House which represents "the American people". The House represents the American citizens only through circonscriptions. If anything, the President represents the American people more directly, based on (1) him getting elected as an individual by the entirety of the US (2) the circonscriptions being larger than those for the House. The current president also received a majority of the popular vote, as opposed to Republicans in the House. He also received more votes total than the Republicans in the House did.
If you and Republicans were so sure that the American people were overwhelmingly against the ACA, and would not like it, you would be very happy about it getting implemented so that you would win in the 2014 elections based on people not liking it. The problem is that people do and will like it.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 04 2013 07:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:27 Derez wrote:On October 04 2013 07:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:40 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 04 2013 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Everybody understands Republican position. "We have the power to sabotage the country and we don't like the bill you were elected to pass so if you don't negotiate (and demolish the said bill), we shutdown the whole government". Answer: Go fuck yourself Reaction: whine whine whine, they don't want to negotiate!! 1. Don't say "go fuck yourself". Let's keep this debate civil. 2. Obamacare is opposed by the majority of Americans and has always been. They were not elected to pass Obamacare. 3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. 4. The whole government is not shut down. 2) You keep saying this, and yet somehow - Obama is president, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the approval rating for the GOP is dropping the longer they try this shutdown bs. 3) If Obama bends AT ALL to this pressure, the office of president and his authority as the democratically elected leader of this country is suspect for the rest of eternity. Minorities of a majority of half of congress can then just bs around and hold the government hostage to get whatever they want, even though they lost in all actual democratic functions of countermanding what they didn't like. 4) Oh boy, only 800,000 people are out of work, just a minor issue. This is the second time I've posted this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlObamacare has NEVER had the support of the American people. The elections were not just about Obamacare, and if they had been, Romney would have won by a landslide. The elections were about a myriad of issues, Obamacare being only one of them. Romney's personal feelings towards dogs received more coverage during the election than Obamacare did. The House has always been the most powerful branch of the government, the Presidency has always been less powerful. The House is directly elected by the citizens every 2 years and is the most representative of the American people. The system was designed so that the House can put up roadblocks and checks against every other branch, and if need be, cut all funding. If you don't like the system, say so. Don't pretend that this is somehow working against the design of the system when it is exactly how the system was designed to function. No one said it was a minor issue. However, since it is not a minor issue by any stretch of the imagination, there should be no need to use hyperbole. It is serious enough on it's own without needing to blow it up into something entirely different. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/The republican position obviously does not have public support at this point. Well, that is only one poll. I'll take it at face value for the sake of the argument though: Only 1/4th of the people think that Obamacare should be allowed to go into effect. 1/3 support delaying/defunding/repealing. Almost 1/3 think that changes should be made (something Democrats are not allowing). Apparently the Republican position on the law has some support.
Gun control advocates have even more support - should D.C. shutdown the government because they couldn't get any gun control laws passed? How about immigration reform? Should the Democrats cause a hissy fit and punish the country because they can't get anything done on the immigration reform end?
There is no policy debate that is worth shutting down the government for at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
