|
United States7483 Posts
On October 14 2013 15:44 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 15:01 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 08:06 KwarK wrote:
If parliament tried this kind of shit in my country we'd just call elections and get a new one that could govern. Gridlock is no good for anyone. You need a constitutional head of state with the power to dissolve the legislative and call elections. Part of the reason the US has 3 separate and often competing branches of government is precisely to create gridlock, and to avoid too much getting done. Yes but this isn't checks and balances at work. It's a tantrum being thrown by grown men willing to cause damage to our country because they can't win the elections required to go about their wishes.
Yeah, the founding fathers had intended for people to not elect corrupt politicians and assholes, shame there's nothing we can really do about that. Everyone hates congress, but they love their own guy.
|
On October 14 2013 15:44 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 15:01 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 08:06 KwarK wrote:
If parliament tried this kind of shit in my country we'd just call elections and get a new one that could govern. Gridlock is no good for anyone. You need a constitutional head of state with the power to dissolve the legislative and call elections. Part of the reason the US has 3 separate and often competing branches of government is precisely to create gridlock, and to avoid too much getting done. Yes but this isn't checks and balances at work. It's a tantrum being thrown by grown men willing to cause damage to our country because they can't win the elections required to go about their wishes.
I'm not sure if you intended this to apply to both Republicans and Democrats, but it does apply as much to one as the other.
|
On October 14 2013 15:17 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 15:12 packrat386 wrote:On October 14 2013 13:02 r.Evo wrote:
Why could the executive order go wrong horribly? It kinda seems the best option out of what you're mentioning. I don't know exactly what the exective order would say (I can't find context anywhere :/), but there are pretty solid limits on what the prez can actually do with executive orders. If it gets challenged and goes don, then obama loses a ton of legitimacy, and possibly gets impeached (GOP would love that shit). Impeachment is unlikely, as only the senate has that power, and it's under the control of the democrats right now. It might result in the democrats losing seats in the next election for refusing to impeach him though.
Actually, the House of Representatives is the body which impeaches. The Senate then follows up with a decision of whether to remove from office. Clinton was impeached by the House, but the Senate did not remove him from office.
|
On October 14 2013 15:01 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 08:06 KwarK wrote:
If parliament tried this kind of shit in my country we'd just call elections and get a new one that could govern. Gridlock is no good for anyone. You need a constitutional head of state with the power to dissolve the legislative and call elections. Part of the reason the US has 3 separate and often competing branches of government is precisely to create gridlock, and to avoid too much getting done.
I think you confused separation of powers and checks/balances with obstructionism they aren't the same.
|
Guys, what do you think about the President's back-pedalling on his own offer?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-budget-battle-imfs-christine-lagarde-tells-americas-lawmakers-they-risk-tipping-world-into-recession-8877239.html
Meanwhile, in Washington, as the world looks on nervously and as state governments attempt to get around the federal closure, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, was in negotiations with his Republican counterpart in the chamber, Mitch McConnell, as they tried to put together a deal to break the deadlock. However, there were no signs of progess on Sunday, with a mid-afternoon phone call between the two leaders described as “cordial but inconclusive” by a Democratic source who spoke to Politico.
The venue shifted after the President rejected an offer from the House Speaker, Mr Boehner, to raise the debt ceiling temporarily until late November. The proposal was contingent on the White House agreeing to more detailed talks on the national budget. Democrats, however, would like a longer-term solution to the debt ceiling issue.
That happened after President Obama apparently proposed this measure himself:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24499007
"If the Congress were to pass a clean debt ceiling of short duration to avoid default, the President would sign that," Mr Carney said, following rounds of talks among Mr Obama and Senate and House Republicans.
+ Show Spoiler +p.s. I am intentionally taking UK sources, since they may be perceived as less biased.
|
Probably because of this part:
The venue shifted after the President rejected an offer from the House Speaker, Mr Boehner, to raise the debt ceiling temporarily until late November. The proposal was contingent on the White House agreeing to more detailed talks on the national budget. Democrats, however, would like a longer-term solution to the debt ceiling issue.
Obama said that he would sign a pass with short duration, but that slightly different I think.
|
They have said that they rejected the offer because they didn't want it to have an affect on the markets during the kick off of holiday season shopping which begins late November also.
|
On October 14 2013 16:48 Arevall wrote:Probably because of this part: Show nested quote +The venue shifted after the President rejected an offer from the House Speaker, Mr Boehner, to raise the debt ceiling temporarily until late November. The proposal was contingent on the White House agreeing to more detailed talks on the national budget. Democrats, however, would like a longer-term solution to the debt ceiling issue. Obama said that he would sign a pass with short duration, but that slightly different I think.
Sorry, I don't see why the bolded part matters here. Could you please explain?
|
On October 14 2013 16:52 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
They have said that they rejected the offer because they didn't want it to have an affect on the markets during the kick off of holiday season shopping which begins late November also.
So why did they initially say that they would accept a short-term offer without specifying the duration? To me it seems that 6 weeks is a short term...
|
On October 14 2013 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 16:48 Arevall wrote:Probably because of this part: The venue shifted after the President rejected an offer from the House Speaker, Mr Boehner, to raise the debt ceiling temporarily until late November. The proposal was contingent on the White House agreeing to more detailed talks on the national budget. Democrats, however, would like a longer-term solution to the debt ceiling issue. Obama said that he would sign a pass with short duration, but that slightly different I think. Sorry, I don't see why the bolded part matters here. Could you please explain?
I'm not sure and I'm not very good at English.
I just thought that if Obama was handed the actual proposal he might sign it, but that he will not negotiate or promise any kind of negotiations for a temporal deb ceiling increase. Basically he probably wants to threaten with a chicken race of some sorts maybe.
|
A six week extension means we'll shortly have another default crisis breathing down our necks. According to the BBC article, the Democrats want a fifteen month extension. Fifteen months would expire shortly after the 2014-elected Congress takes over, which means the current Republican house could no longer threaten default as a political weapon. (Unless they're re-elected.)
|
On October 14 2013 16:39 Alex1Sun wrote:Guys, what do you think about the President's back-pedalling on his own offer? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-budget-battle-imfs-christine-lagarde-tells-americas-lawmakers-they-risk-tipping-world-into-recession-8877239.htmlShow nested quote +Meanwhile, in Washington, as the world looks on nervously and as state governments attempt to get around the federal closure, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, was in negotiations with his Republican counterpart in the chamber, Mitch McConnell, as they tried to put together a deal to break the deadlock. However, there were no signs of progess on Sunday, with a mid-afternoon phone call between the two leaders described as “cordial but inconclusive” by a Democratic source who spoke to Politico.
The venue shifted after the President rejected an offer from the House Speaker, Mr Boehner, to raise the debt ceiling temporarily until late November. The proposal was contingent on the White House agreeing to more detailed talks on the national budget. Democrats, however, would like a longer-term solution to the debt ceiling issue. That happened after President Obama apparently proposed this measure himself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24499007Show nested quote +"If the Congress were to pass a clean debt ceiling of short duration to avoid default, the President would sign that," Mr Carney said, following rounds of talks among Mr Obama and Senate and House Republicans. + Show Spoiler +p.s. I am intentionally taking UK sources, since they may be perceived as less biased.
So Obama says he is open to a clean short term debt-ceiling increase, then Boehner offers a short term extension if he agrees to include making changes to our healthcare laws and tax code in negotiations over the funding of the government/debt-ceiling.
You don't see the problem with your complaint?
|
On October 14 2013 17:19 Severedevil wrote:
A six week extension means we'll shortly have another default crisis breathing down our necks. According to the BBC article, the Democrats want a fifteen month extension. Fifteen months would expire shortly after the 2014-elected Congress takes over, which means the current Republican house could no longer threaten default as a political weapon. (Unless they're re-elected.)
A politically smart move would be for Democrats to push an extension up to 1-2 months before the midterms so that this issue pops up just before the midterms, and people are reminded of how crazy Republicans are, when they threaten to destroy the economy unless Obama implements their political agenda.
|
On October 14 2013 17:29 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 16:39 Alex1Sun wrote:Guys, what do you think about the President's back-pedalling on his own offer? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-budget-battle-imfs-christine-lagarde-tells-americas-lawmakers-they-risk-tipping-world-into-recession-8877239.htmlMeanwhile, in Washington, as the world looks on nervously and as state governments attempt to get around the federal closure, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, was in negotiations with his Republican counterpart in the chamber, Mitch McConnell, as they tried to put together a deal to break the deadlock. However, there were no signs of progess on Sunday, with a mid-afternoon phone call between the two leaders described as “cordial but inconclusive” by a Democratic source who spoke to Politico.
The venue shifted after the President rejected an offer from the House Speaker, Mr Boehner, to raise the debt ceiling temporarily until late November. The proposal was contingent on the White House agreeing to more detailed talks on the national budget. Democrats, however, would like a longer-term solution to the debt ceiling issue. That happened after President Obama apparently proposed this measure himself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24499007"If the Congress were to pass a clean debt ceiling of short duration to avoid default, the President would sign that," Mr Carney said, following rounds of talks among Mr Obama and Senate and House Republicans. + Show Spoiler +p.s. I am intentionally taking UK sources, since they may be perceived as less biased. So Obama says he is open to a clean short term debt-ceiling increase, then Boehner offers a short term extension if he agrees to include making changes to our healthcare laws and tax code in negotiations over the funding of the government/debt-ceiling. You don't see the problem with your complaint?
Sorry, not sure. Didn't Obama himself mention that he would be glad to negotiate the budget after a debt ceiling is lifted in addition to agreeing to a short-term lift of the debt ceiling?
Sure, Obama also said many times that he would not cancel ACA, but many republicans (including Ryan) are now open to alternative ways to change the budget, which leave ACA fully funded...
|
On October 14 2013 16:59 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 16:52 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
They have said that they rejected the offer because they didn't want it to have an affect on the markets during the kick off of holiday season shopping which begins late November also. So why did they initially say that they would accept a short-term offer without specifying the duration? To me it seems that 6 weeks is a short term...
I saw an article earlier in the week that said the deal would have set limits to what the treasury department was allowed to do in the case of a default. "The plan would prohibit the Treasury from using so-called “extraordinary measures” to avoid default"
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-push-six-week-debt-limit-hike-2013-10-10
|
On October 14 2013 17:40 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 17:19 Severedevil wrote:
A six week extension means we'll shortly have another default crisis breathing down our necks. According to the BBC article, the Democrats want a fifteen month extension. Fifteen months would expire shortly after the 2014-elected Congress takes over, which means the current Republican house could no longer threaten default as a political weapon. (Unless they're re-elected.) A politically smart move would be for Democrats to push an extension up to 1-2 months before the midterms so that this issue pops up just before the midterms, and people are reminded of how crazy Republicans are, when they threaten to destroy the economy unless Obama implements their political agenda.
Yes, but even 6 weeks is better then none. And Democrats have declared, that they would agree to a short term measure...
|
On October 14 2013 17:46 wherearemypills wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 16:59 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 14 2013 16:52 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
They have said that they rejected the offer because they didn't want it to have an affect on the markets during the kick off of holiday season shopping which begins late November also. So why did they initially say that they would accept a short-term offer without specifying the duration? To me it seems that 6 weeks is a short term... I saw an article earlier in the week that said the deal would have set limits to what the treasury department was allowed to do in the case of a default. "The plan would prohibit the Treasury from using so-called “extraordinary measures” to avoid default" http://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-push-six-week-debt-limit-hike-2013-10-10
Ah, ok, thanks. Apparently Republicans did not say that they would open the government, and the President still does not want to negotiate before that happens...
I apologize for my own confusion.
|
On October 14 2013 17:49 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 17:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2013 17:19 Severedevil wrote:
A six week extension means we'll shortly have another default crisis breathing down our necks. According to the BBC article, the Democrats want a fifteen month extension. Fifteen months would expire shortly after the 2014-elected Congress takes over, which means the current Republican house could no longer threaten default as a political weapon. (Unless they're re-elected.) A politically smart move would be for Democrats to push an extension up to 1-2 months before the midterms so that this issue pops up just before the midterms, and people are reminded of how crazy Republicans are, when they threaten to destroy the economy unless Obama implements their political agenda. Yes, but even 6 weeks is better then none. And Democrats have declared, that they would agree to a short term measure...
Afaik, this whole mess was in part triggered by the democrats unwillingness to negotiate the budget with the republicans when they held ACA "hostage". Why do you expect Obama to negotiate the budget when the debt ceiling is being held "hostage"??
Edit: Oh I see you figured it out on your own 
|
On October 14 2013 17:49 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 17:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2013 17:19 Severedevil wrote:
A six week extension means we'll shortly have another default crisis breathing down our necks. According to the BBC article, the Democrats want a fifteen month extension. Fifteen months would expire shortly after the 2014-elected Congress takes over, which means the current Republican house could no longer threaten default as a political weapon. (Unless they're re-elected.) A politically smart move would be for Democrats to push an extension up to 1-2 months before the midterms so that this issue pops up just before the midterms, and people are reminded of how crazy Republicans are, when they threaten to destroy the economy unless Obama implements their political agenda. Yes, but even 6 weeks is better then none. And Democrats have declared, that they would agree to a short term measure...
Obama will agree to a short term measure to raise the debt limit.
But that is NOT what the Republicans are offering. They are offering a short term measure if Obama agrees to negotiate to cut welfare spending. Obama will not be blackmailed now with these reckless threats to destroy the economy, so why on Earth would he agree to be blackmailed in 6 weeks time?
|
From NYT:
So you have this neighbor who has been making your life hell. First he tied you up with a spurious lawsuit; you’re both suffering from huge legal bills. Then he threatened bodily harm to your family. Now, however, he says he’s willing to compromise: He’ll call off the lawsuit, which is to his advantage as well as yours. But in return you must give him your car. Oh, and he’ll stop threatening your family — but only for a week, after which the threats will resume.
Not much of an offer, is it? But here’s the kicker: Your neighbor’s relatives, who have been egging him on, are furious that he didn’t also demand that you kill your dog.
And now you understand the current state of budget negotiations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
