On October 07 2013 22:13 Scareb wrote: As I am from Germany and we only get the information by the liberal press her, like CNN New York Times or all the other sites in the internet I want to visit, oh also Fox, I don't understand why people are still fighting for the Reps. I do watch the Daily Show, Colbert Report and TYT on YT and when the Tea Party people talk, I just lose faith in the USA. That lunatics are killing your GOP from inside not the Democrats, and you guys are doing nothing about it. Like the WW2 memorial think! watch this and pls tell me what the fuck are this guy doing and why can the talk so much shit and lie without punishment. Thanks!
They get away with it because we are stuck with a two party system and people vote based on party instead of a person's character.
I have an honest question, as someone who isn't really a student of economics. Aside from speculations about the far-flung future, what is so bad about raising the debt ceiling? More generally, why is having a deficit anathema for some people? I have lived in periods during which the government was in deficit for several years and in periods during which the government had a surplus for several years. I can't really pin down any effects of this that I noticed. It just seemed like a number and a talking point to me. I understand that being in debt is (I suppose?) not great in principle, but what does it actually do that is so heinous it warrants knocking out the government?
On October 07 2013 22:13 Scareb wrote: As I am from Germany and we only get the information by the liberal press her, like CNN New York Times or all the other sites in the internet I want to visit, oh also Fox, I don't understand why people are still fighting for the Reps. I do watch the Daily Show, Colbert Report and TYT on YT and when the Tea Party people talk, I just lose faith in the USA. That lunatics are killing your GOP from inside not the Democrats, and you guys are doing nothing about it. Like the WW2 memorial think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJsczJa0XTI watch this and pls tell me what the fuck are this guy doing and why can the talk so much shit and lie without punishment. Thanks!
The Young Turks is an incredibly biased news source and uses progressive news websites to illustrate a factually inaccurate portrayal of Republicans and Democrats.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
I'm replying to you as an example, but the same goes for a lot of the previous page.
How about we cast the situation in another light, one that shines light on both sides.
First off, if the Republicans (I mean the number of votes in their side of the house, it's not a person) were interested in voting in the new budget despite the debt issues/Obamacare, they would have done so.
Likewise, if Obama/Pelosi were keen on a budget, he could have conceded on Obamacare. (Arguments regarding "Republicans already lost on Obamacare, it's no longer allowed to discuss it" are naturally demagoguery. If Congress can change Obamacare now, and it can not pass a budget, the topic remains on the table until it's dropped. To make it painfully obvious, we could have never abolished slavery if congress cannot redo legislation.)
From here we see that it's in the interest of both parties to stick to their guns, making the current situation the opening gambit for the congressional elections in under 2 years time.
Looking at this thread (and being quite unhappy about how uninformative the posts generally are, and how little facts are being presented), one sees that the past is not discussed rigorously. For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills).
So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
But what should happen is that the two sides plot a course which stops the US from going deeper into debt. Obamacare is just the strongest bargaining chip the Republicans have at the moment, but I don't think they or anyone else believes that substantial changes will be made to the ACA. The actual common ground on spending cuts and tax raises will be reached at the negotiating table, as it always has.
P.S. I've intentionally smoothed over a number of details in the narrative so I don't need to write until my fingers bleed. Before you start nitpicking, consider whether they make a difference to the overall story (hint, they don't).
This post completely misses the point of the specificity of using the threats of government shutdown and default as leverage in the context of a negotiation process. See my post just above to see why the Republicans are clearly to blame for doing just that as opposed to actually agreeing to negotiate the "normal" way. Please don't reply to me and to my points below without having read it.
Now, to address your more specific points:
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
I'm not sure where you're getting your "word on the streets" from, but it's completely off the mark. The reason why Obama is unwilling to "negotiate" (see my post above for the reason why I'm using quotation marks) with Republicans is twofold.
1. First, the ACA is Obama's signature achievement and the Republicans have not come close to putting on the table something even remotely close to a serious proposition with regards to sensible changes to the law and/or to offering pretty much anything the Democrats want in exchange for possible modifications to the ACA. Given how important an issue the ACA is to both Republicans and Democrats, it would be absolutely ridiculous for Obama to cede any ground on the matter unless he is offered something as significant. The Republicans have had years to come up with something, and they haven't.
2. Second, and this is more fundamental, Obama is "no longer negotiating" because, as I thoroughly explained in my previous post that Iinked to earlier, ceding ground to Republicans in the current context would validate their strategy of using the running of the government, and the raising of the debt limit, as leverage and as something they're "conceding" to Democrats in exchange for their demands being met (as opposed to actual things the Democrats want). In 2011, Obama was taken by surprise by this strategy, and he and Democrats now want to make clear that it is not an acceptable way to negotiate. You have to understand, however, that Obama and the Democrats are not saying that they cannot/don't want to negotiate with Republicans. They are very willing to negotiate with them, and in fact they have offered to negotiate with them repeatedly, including six months ago on the very issue of the budget and it is the Republicans who refused (18 times in total since then). Harry Reid also wrote to Boehner a few days ago that he committed to "name conferees to a budget conference" if Republicans agreed to reopen the government. Instead, what Obama and the Democrats are saying is that the strategy used by Republicans to get what they want is not acceptable - the normal negotiation process is. And they're perfectly right.
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
The Republicans were not caught unaware. Obama and the Democrats had made clear months ago that they would not accept the government shutdown and the raising of the debt limit as bargaining chips by Republicans. The Republicans were perfectly aware of this. That we still got where we are is notably due to Tea Party Republicans (and organizations beyond the representatives themselves) pushing their leadership into that corner. With regards to "why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue", I refer you again to my previous post explaining why Republicans are indeed to blame for the current situation.
On October 07 2013 22:41 Shiori wrote: I have an honest question, as someone who isn't really a student of economics. Aside from speculations about the far-flung future, what is so bad about raising the debt ceiling? More generally, why is having a deficit anathema for some people? I have lived in periods during which the government was in deficit for several years and in periods during which the government had a surplus for several years. I can't really pin down any effects of this that I noticed. It just seemed like a number and a talking point to me. I understand that being in debt is (I suppose?) not great in principle, but what does it actually do that is so heinous it warrants knocking out the government?
America has spent more than it has taken in for like 60 of the past 65 years.
Our debt is near 17 trillion with some 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that are in mandatory spending. Interest rates for Treasury Bills are at an all time low and are allowing us to service the debt for a smooth 300-400 billion a year. A rather small increase in interest rates in America could literally bankrupt us.
On October 07 2013 22:13 Scareb wrote: As I am from Germany and we only get the information by the liberal press her, like CNN New York Times or all the other sites in the internet I want to visit, oh also Fox, I don't understand why people are still fighting for the Reps. I do watch the Daily Show, Colbert Report and TYT on YT and when the Tea Party people talk, I just lose faith in the USA. That lunatics are killing your GOP from inside not the Democrats, and you guys are doing nothing about it. Like the WW2 memorial think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJsczJa0XTI watch this and pls tell me what the fuck are this guy doing and why can the talk so much shit and lie without punishment. Thanks!
They get away with it because we are stuck with a two party system and people vote based on party instead of a person's character.
That's not what's confusing looking at it from the outside. We are told that GOP are supposedly conservatives. When I hear "conservative", I think of this:
The text of the poster says "No experiments!" and the name of that particular chancellor in the second line.
Something like the government shutdown and possible US debt ceiling kicking in just sounds so terribly dangerous that it should make a conservative sick to the stomach. So looking at the current situation being caused by the conservative GOP seems super confusing.
On October 07 2013 19:44 sc2holar wrote: Americans who argue against free and equal healthcare for everybody amaze me. So cash flow should dictate life expectency, and poor people should die from diseases that could easily be cured.
amazing, you really have dont a good job at creating a society that benefits humanity as little as possible and instead does nothing but worship and bow before the dollar sign. your countrys knees must be killing themselves, maybe thats why your economy is falling over ?
When you stray too far on the right scale (liberalism/pseudo-regulated capitalism) or too far left (socialism) you eventually collapse. stay in the middle like germany or sweden etc, we are doing great.
Sweden, Germany or even worse France are a billion light years too far in the left for an american. Our vision of the "middle" is not their vision, not at all. For them it's not the middle but the far left babies eaters communist dictatorships (add cheese eater surrendering monkeys for my country).
They can't even imagine it, it's too far from standard american economical and social culture. We can't get this debate about obamacare and they can't get that we don't get it. It might be the deeper cultural difference (the only one? ) between us and our american friends.
Thanks for making such an ignorant post. Since your enormous blanket statement showed how little you know about American culture, politics, and values no one ever again has to suffer through reading your uninformed opinions.
You seems quite ignorant yourself, how about you start by giving some argument so that we could eventually understand what you are so nervous about Agathon's post.
On October 07 2013 22:13 Scareb wrote: As I am from Germany and we only get the information by the liberal press her, like CNN New York Times or all the other sites in the internet I want to visit, oh also Fox, I don't understand why people are still fighting for the Reps. I do watch the Daily Show, Colbert Report and TYT on YT and when the Tea Party people talk, I just lose faith in the USA. That lunatics are killing your GOP from inside not the Democrats, and you guys are doing nothing about it. Like the WW2 memorial think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJsczJa0XTI watch this and pls tell me what the fuck are this guy doing and why can the talk so much shit and lie without punishment. Thanks!
They get away with it because we are stuck with a two party system and people vote based on party instead of a person's character.
That's not what's confusing looking at it from the outside. We are told that GOP are supposedly conservatives. When I hear conservative, I think of this:
The text of the poster says "No experiments!" and the name of that particular chancellor in the second line.
Something like the government shutdown and possible US debt ceiling kicking in just sounds so terribly dangerous that it should make a conservative sick to the stomach. So looking at the current situation being caused by the conservative GOP seems super confusing.
Because the current situation isn't caused by "conservative republicans" it is caused by the Tea Party who have different views. The GOP Leadership in the weeks before the shutdown repeatedly said it did not want the shutdown and that it was a terrible idea and political suicide. Yet the Tea Party doesn't care for that. There interest is in re-election and because of the way voting districts work they don't need to worry about popular opinion or national accountability. They are accountable to the small subset of people who live in there district. Districts whose very lines they have drawn themselves to ensure there re-election is all but guaranteed.
On October 07 2013 22:13 Scareb wrote: As I am from Germany and we only get the information by the liberal press her, like CNN New York Times or all the other sites in the internet I want to visit, oh also Fox, I don't understand why people are still fighting for the Reps. I do watch the Daily Show, Colbert Report and TYT on YT and when the Tea Party people talk, I just lose faith in the USA. That lunatics are killing your GOP from inside not the Democrats, and you guys are doing nothing about it. Like the WW2 memorial think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJsczJa0XTI watch this and pls tell me what the fuck are this guy doing and why can the talk so much shit and lie without punishment. Thanks!
They get away with it because we are stuck with a two party system and people vote based on party instead of a person's character.
That's not what's confusing looking at it from the outside. We are told that GOP are supposedly conservatives. When I hear conservative, I think of this:
The text of the poster says "No experiments!" and the name of that particular chancellor in the second line.
Something like the government shutdown and possible US debt ceiling kicking in just sounds so terribly dangerous that it should make a conservative sick to the stomach. So looking at the current situation being caused by the conservative GOP seems super confusing.
Because the current situation isn't caused by "conservative republicans" it is caused by the Tea Party who have different views. The GOP Leadership in the weeks before the shutdown repeatedly said it did not want the shutdown and that it was a terrible idea and political suicide. Yet the Tea Party doesn't care for that. There interest is in re-election and because of the way voting districts work they don't need to worry about popular opinion or national accountability. They are accountable to the small subset of people who live in there district. Districts whose very lines they have drawn themselves to ensure there re-election is all but guaranteed.
Then the root of all evil lies in gerrymandering. Except what's the solution to that? There's no fair and "right" way to divide up political geographies.
On October 07 2013 19:44 sc2holar wrote: Americans who argue against free and equal healthcare for everybody amaze me. So cash flow should dictate life expectency, and poor people should die from diseases that could easily be cured.
amazing, you really have dont a good job at creating a society that benefits humanity as little as possible and instead does nothing but worship and bow before the dollar sign. your countrys knees must be killing themselves, maybe thats why your economy is falling over ?
When you stray too far on the right scale (liberalism/pseudo-regulated capitalism) or too far left (socialism) you eventually collapse. stay in the middle like germany or sweden etc, we are doing great.
Sweden, Germany or even worse France are a billion light years too far in the left for an american. Our vision of the "middle" is not their vision, not at all. For them it's not the middle but the far left babies eaters communist dictatorships (add cheese eater surrendering monkeys for my country).
They can't even imagine it, it's too far from standard american economical and social culture. We can't get this debate about obamacare and they can't get that we don't get it. It might be the deeper cultural difference (the only one? ) between us and our american friends.
Thanks for making such an ignorant post. Since your enormous blanket statement showed how little you know about American culture, politics, and values no one ever again has to suffer through reading your uninformed opinions.
You seems quite ignorant yourself, how about you start by giving some argument so that we could eventually understand what you are so nervous about Agathon's post.
There is nothing to argue. This guy made multiple blanket statements of a country with over 300 million people as if he has come to America and did a survey of every citizen. Get it through your heads. If you think you can lump Americans into any singular group you're a moron.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
I'm replying to you as an example, but the same goes for a lot of the previous page.
How about we cast the situation in another light, one that shines light on both sides.
First off, if the Republicans (I mean the number of votes in their side of the house, it's not a person) were interested in voting in the new budget despite the debt issues/Obamacare, they would have done so.
Likewise, if Obama/Pelosi were keen on a budget, he could have conceded on Obamacare. (Arguments regarding "Republicans already lost on Obamacare, it's no longer allowed to discuss it" are naturally demagoguery. If Congress can change Obamacare now, and it can not pass a budget, the topic remains on the table until it's dropped. To make it painfully obvious, we could have never abolished slavery if congress cannot redo legislation.)
From here we see that it's in the interest of both parties to stick to their guns, making the current situation the opening gambit for the congressional elections in under 2 years time.
Looking at this thread (and being quite unhappy about how uninformative the posts generally are, and how little facts are being presented), one sees that the past is not discussed rigorously. For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills).
So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
But what should happen is that the two sides plot a course which stops the US from going deeper into debt. Obamacare is just the strongest bargaining chip the Republicans have at the moment, but I don't think they or anyone else believes that substantial changes will be made to the ACA. The actual common ground on spending cuts and tax raises will be reached at the negotiating table, as it always has.
P.S. I've intentionally smoothed over a number of details in the narrative so I don't need to write until my fingers bleed. Before you start nitpicking, consider whether they make a difference to the overall story (hint, they don't).
This post completely misses the point of the specificity of using the threats of government shutdown and default as leverage in the context of a negotiation process. See my post just above to see why the Republicans are clearly to blame for doing just that as opposed to actually agreeing to negotiate the "normal" way. Please don't reply to me and to my points below without having read it.
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
I'm not sure where you're getting your "word on the streets" from, but it's completely off the mark. The reason why Obama is unwilling to "negotiate" (see my post above for the reason why I'm using quotation marks) with Republicans is twofold.
1. First, the ACA is Obama's signature achievement and the Republicans have not come close to putting on the table something even remotely close to a serious proposition with regards to sensible changes to the law and/or to offering pretty much anything the Democrats want in exchange for possible modifications to the ACA. Given how important an issue the ACA is to both Republicans and Democrats, it would be absolutely ridiculous for Obama to cede any ground on the matter unless he is offered something as significant. The Republicans have had years to come up with something, and they haven't.
2. Second, and this is more fundamental, Obama is "no longer negotiating" because, as I thoroughly explained in my previous post that Iinked to earlier, ceding ground to Republicans in the current context would validate their strategy of using the running of the government, and the raising of the debt limit, as leverage and as something they're "conceding" to Democrats in exchange for their demands being met (as opposed to actual things the Democrats want). In 2011, Obama was taken by surprise by this strategy, and he and Democrats now want to make clear that it is not an acceptable way to negotiate. You have to understand, however, that Obama and the Democrats are not saying that they cannot/don't want to negotiate with Republicans. They are very willing to negotiate with them, and in fact they have offered to negotiate with them repeatedly, including six months ago on the very issue of the budget and it is the Republicans who refused (18 times in total since then). Harry Reid also wrote to Boehner a few days ago that he committed to "name conferees to a budget conference" if Republicans agreed to reopen the government. Instead, what Obama and the Democrats are saying is that the strategy used by Republicans to get what they want is not acceptable - the normal negotiation process is. And they're perfectly right.
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
The Republicans were not caught unaware. Obama and the Democrats had made clear months ago that they would not accept the government shutdown and the raising of the debt limit as bargaining chips by Republicans. The Republicans were perfectly aware of this. That we still got where we are is notably due to Tea Party Republicans (and organizations beyond the representatives themselves) pushing their leadership into that corner. With regards to "why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue", I refer you again to my previous post explaining why Republicans are indeed to blame for the current situation.
Your post merely says that Obamacare is established, hence it cannot be renegotiated. Republican's are at fault because they attack Obamacare.
But that's clearly not a viable account of the present situation. Concerning the debt ceiling, EVERYTHING that has budgetary outlays is on the table for cutting. The standard is that the Republicans want more cutting and the Democrats want more tax raises. What Obama wants is for the negotiations to start with ACA off the table, which is prejudiced negotiating.
The rest of what you say, it a very prolix manner that I won't quote, is that Obamacare is something that Obama was voted in on (which doesn't mean that he doesn't have to jump all the usual hoops of checks and balances for it) and that Democrats don't want to allow the usual debt ceiling negotiations (because in 2011 it ended badly for them, and with Syria and the Fed rebellion behind them, it could go even worse).
In the end, though, as I wrote as the MAIN message of my narrative, both sides are interested in a hard line position. Republicans know that Obama cannot "not negotiate" forever (i.e., demand that the debt ceiling is raised without any negotiations, or even to prejudice ACA before the negotiations begin) because a new economic down-turn under Obama's watch would have a devastating effect on the rating of the Democratic party. (Talk about a hard line, right.)
It's in the interest of the Democrats to have a hard-line position on this issue because the Republicans are clearly losing the PR war on this, and this hurts Republican congressmen before the elections. (Interestingly, tea party is losing out the most, so this might also be a gambit by Boehner to clear ranks).
What you guys should be doing, instead of assigning blame on mostly ideological grounds, is analyzing the motives of both parties. My own prediction is that the debt ceiling will be raised at the last moment with spending cuts on non-ACA spending. And everyone will live happily ever after.
On October 07 2013 22:41 Shiori wrote: I have an honest question, as someone who isn't really a student of economics. Aside from speculations about the far-flung future, what is so bad about raising the debt ceiling? More generally, why is having a deficit anathema for some people? I have lived in periods during which the government was in deficit for several years and in periods during which the government had a surplus for several years. I can't really pin down any effects of this that I noticed. It just seemed like a number and a talking point to me. I understand that being in debt is (I suppose?) not great in principle, but what does it actually do that is so heinous it warrants knocking out the government?
It's a matter of politics much more than economics. The most extreme version of "fiscally conservative fear" is that no future government will be able to do the required corrections to government spending (aka fiscal ajustments so that the deficit doesn't exceed economic growth), therefore it must be done now despite the circumstances. Lesser "fiscal conservatives" will generally try to argue that the circumtances are good for fiscal adjustments, therefore the best time is now.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
I'm replying to you as an example, but the same goes for a lot of the previous page.
How about we cast the situation in another light, one that shines light on both sides.
First off, if the Republicans (I mean the number of votes in their side of the house, it's not a person) were interested in voting in the new budget despite the debt issues/Obamacare, they would have done so.
Likewise, if Obama/Pelosi were keen on a budget, he could have conceded on Obamacare. (Arguments regarding "Republicans already lost on Obamacare, it's no longer allowed to discuss it" are naturally demagoguery. If Congress can change Obamacare now, and it can not pass a budget, the topic remains on the table until it's dropped. To make it painfully obvious, we could have never abolished slavery if congress cannot redo legislation.)
From here we see that it's in the interest of both parties to stick to their guns, making the current situation the opening gambit for the congressional elections in under 2 years time.
Looking at this thread (and being quite unhappy about how uninformative the posts generally are, and how little facts are being presented), one sees that the past is not discussed rigorously. For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills).
So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
But what should happen is that the two sides plot a course which stops the US from going deeper into debt. Obamacare is just the strongest bargaining chip the Republicans have at the moment, but I don't think they or anyone else believes that substantial changes will be made to the ACA. The actual common ground on spending cuts and tax raises will be reached at the negotiating table, as it always has.
P.S. I've intentionally smoothed over a number of details in the narrative so I don't need to write until my fingers bleed. Before you start nitpicking, consider whether they make a difference to the overall story (hint, they don't).
This post completely misses the point of the specificity of using the threats of government shutdown and default as leverage in the context of a negotiation process. See my post just above to see why the Republicans are clearly to blame for doing just that as opposed to actually agreeing to negotiate the "normal" way. Please don't reply to me and to my points below without having read it.
Now, to address your more specific points:
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
I'm not sure where you're getting your "word on the streets" from, but it's completely off the mark. The reason why Obama is unwilling to "negotiate" (see my post above for the reason why I'm using quotation marks) with Republicans is twofold.
1. First, the ACA is Obama's signature achievement and the Republicans have not come close to putting on the table something even remotely close to a serious proposition with regards to sensible changes to the law and/or to offering pretty much anything the Democrats want in exchange for possible modifications to the ACA. Given how important an issue the ACA is to both Republicans and Democrats, it would be absolutely ridiculous for Obama to cede any ground on the matter unless he is offered something as significant. The Republicans have had years to come up with something, and they haven't.
2. Second, and this is more fundamental, Obama is "no longer negotiating" because, as I thoroughly explained in my previous post that Iinked to earlier, ceding ground to Republicans in the current context would validate their strategy of using the running of the government, and the raising of the debt limit, as leverage and as something they're "conceding" to Democrats in exchange for their demands being met (as opposed to actual things the Democrats want). In 2011, Obama was taken by surprise by this strategy, and he and Democrats now want to make clear that it is not an acceptable way to negotiate. You have to understand, however, that Obama and the Democrats are not saying that they cannot/don't want to negotiate with Republicans. They are very willing to negotiate with them, and in fact they have offered to negotiate with them repeatedly, including six months ago on the very issue of the budget and it is the Republicans who refused (18 times in total since then). Harry Reid also wrote to Boehner a few days ago that he committed to "name conferees to a budget conference" if Republicans agreed to reopen the government. Instead, what Obama and the Democrats are saying is that the strategy used by Republicans to get what they want is not acceptable - the normal negotiation process is. And they're perfectly right.
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
The Republicans were not caught unaware. Obama and the Democrats had made clear months ago that they would not accept the government shutdown and the raising of the debt limit as bargaining chips by Republicans. The Republicans were perfectly aware of this. That we still got where we are is notably due to Tea Party Republicans (and organizations beyond the representatives themselves) pushing their leadership into that corner. With regards to "why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue", I refer you again to my previous post explaining why Republicans are indeed to blame for the current situation.
Your post merely says that Obamacare is established, hence it cannot be renegotiated. Republican's are at fault because they attack Obamacare.
No, that's not what my post says at all. Where exactly am I supposed to have said that? Did you pay any attention to what I actually wrote?
On October 07 2013 23:26 Ghanburighan wrote: But that's clearly not a viable account of the present situation. Concerning the debt ceiling, EVERYTHING that has budgetary outlays is on the table for cutting. The standard is that the Republicans want more cutting and the Democrats want more tax raises. What Obama wants is for the negotiations to start with ACA off the table, which is prejudiced negotiating.
This is unrelated to what I wrote to you. My account of the present situation with regards to the type of "negotiating" process we have in front of our eyes can, again, be found here. What do you disagree with what I wrote in that post?
On October 07 2013 23:26 Ghanburighan wrote: The rest of what you say, it a very prolix manner that I won't quote, is that Obamacare is something that Obama was voted in on (which doesn't mean that he doesn't have to jump all the usual hoops of checks and balances for it) and that Democrats don't want to allow the usual debt ceiling negotiations (because in 2011 it ended badly for them, and with Syria and the Fed rebellion behind them, it could go even worse).
That's not "the rest of what I say". There is precisely no "usual" debt ceiling negotiations - what we're witnessing from the Republicans is very unusual, as I explained in my post. And Syria and the Fed nomination process have absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. You pulled the two issues out of your hat by referring to some "word on the streets" when they have zero relevance to the debate and to the behavior of the Democrats and Republicans in the current crisis.
On October 07 2013 23:26 Ghanburighan wrote: In the end, though, as I wrote as the MAIN message of my narrative, both sides are interested in a hard line position. Republicans know that Obama cannot "not negotiate" forever (i.e., demand that the debt ceiling is raised without any negotiations, or even to prejudice ACA before the negotiations begin) because a new economic down-turn under Obama's watch would have a devastating effect on the rating of the Democratic party. (Talk about a hard line, right.)
It's in the interest of the Democrats to have a hard-line position on this issue because the Republicans are clearly losing the PR war on this, and this hurts Republican congressmen before the elections. (Interestingly, tea party is losing out the most, so this might also be a gambit by Boehner to clear ranks).
There is nothing hard-line about the Democrats position on 1. how the negotiation process should proceed (see what I explained earlier) and 2. how implementation of the ACA should be approached in a negotiation.
On October 07 2013 23:26 Ghanburighan wrote: What you guys should be doing, instead of assigning blame on mostly ideological grounds, is analyzing the motives of both parties. My own prediction is that the debt ceiling will be raised at the last moment with spending cuts on non-ACA spending. And everyone will live happily ever after.
I am assigning blame for reasons that are exactly the opposite of "ideological grounds", since I am looking at the negotiation process itself and not the positions being defended. Seriously, pay attention to what you're replying to.
How about you write it up clearly, then. Clearly I'm unable to parse your "As I said elsewhere, supported by stuff I wrote elsewhere too" story. The post you linked was also responses to existing contextual text. Write it up clearly, and in brief.
Also, don't assume I'm only responding to you.
Edit: As this bothers you this much, my reference to "the word on the street" refers mostly to Ian Bremmer's tweets on the issue.
On October 07 2013 22:13 Scareb wrote: As I am from Germany and we only get the information by the liberal press her, like CNN New York Times or all the other sites in the internet I want to visit, oh also Fox, I don't understand why people are still fighting for the Reps. I do watch the Daily Show, Colbert Report and TYT on YT and when the Tea Party people talk, I just lose faith in the USA. That lunatics are killing your GOP from inside not the Democrats, and you guys are doing nothing about it. Like the WW2 memorial think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJsczJa0XTI watch this and pls tell me what the fuck are this guy doing and why can the talk so much shit and lie without punishment. Thanks!
They get away with it because we are stuck with a two party system and people vote based on party instead of a person's character.
That's not what's confusing looking at it from the outside. We are told that GOP are supposedly conservatives. When I hear conservative, I think of this:
The text of the poster says "No experiments!" and the name of that particular chancellor in the second line.
Something like the government shutdown and possible US debt ceiling kicking in just sounds so terribly dangerous that it should make a conservative sick to the stomach. So looking at the current situation being caused by the conservative GOP seems super confusing.
Because the current situation isn't caused by "conservative republicans" it is caused by the Tea Party who have different views. The GOP Leadership in the weeks before the shutdown repeatedly said it did not want the shutdown and that it was a terrible idea and political suicide. Yet the Tea Party doesn't care for that. There interest is in re-election and because of the way voting districts work they don't need to worry about popular opinion or national accountability. They are accountable to the small subset of people who live in there district. Districts whose very lines they have drawn themselves to ensure there re-election is all but guaranteed.
Then the root of all evil lies in gerrymandering. Except what's the solution to that? There's no fair and "right" way to divide up political geographies.
There absolutely is. Elections Canada is an independent organization responsible for drawing up electoral boundaries for Canadian elections. It is independent (i.e. not staffed by parties), and determines electoral boundaries with the goal of creating sensible geographic regions that, overall, have reasonably close population numbers. I say reasonably because there are some districts with higher per-capita densities than others, i.e. cities vs. rural areas, but they do the best they can. See:
"Federal electoral districts are readjusted after each decennial (10‑year) census to reflect changes and movements in Canada's population, in accordance with the Constitution and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act...
....The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act requires that the population of each electoral district be as close as is reasonably possible to the average population size of a district for that province (that is, the province's population divided by the number of electoral districts).
However, in addition to population equality, commissions must consider other human and geographic factors. They may choose to create electoral districts whose populations vary from the average, if they consider it necessary or desirable to do so in order to: •respect communities of interest or identity (for example, communities based around language or shared culture and history), •respect historical patterns of previous electoral boundaries, or •maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.
Commissions should make every effort to ensure that the population of a district is not more than 25 percent above or below the average district population. In extraordinary circumstances, however, commissions may create districts that vary from the average by more than 25 percent."
Honestly, the way Americans draw electoral districts is plain retarded. The obvious implication of allowing politicians to draw their own electoral boundaries is that they will be manipulated to suit partisan agendas.
I strongly suspect that they are the only developed country in the world that puts up with that shit.
Despite the horrible implications of a default, I have to admit it is an alluring prospect. If Boehner won't allow a budget that would pass the House to come to a vote, instead favoring budgets with no chance to pass, and we drive straight over the cliff, perhaps people will give their choice to vote slash and burn conservatives into office a second thought. Defaulting would be the ultimate wake up call in this regard. For the voters to have any power and see a congress that is even marginally functional in their lifetimes, careful consideration should be given to those seeking office (something we Americans are not well known for).
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
I'm replying to you as an example, but the same goes for a lot of the previous page.
How about we cast the situation in another light, one that shines light on both sides.
First off, if the Republicans (I mean the number of votes in their side of the house, it's not a person) were interested in voting in the new budget despite the debt issues/Obamacare, they would have done so.
Likewise, if Obama/Pelosi were keen on a budget, he could have conceded on Obamacare. (Arguments regarding "Republicans already lost on Obamacare, it's no longer allowed to discuss it" are naturally demagoguery. If Congress can change Obamacare now, and it can not pass a budget, the topic remains on the table until it's dropped. To make it painfully obvious, we could have never abolished slavery if congress cannot redo legislation.)
From here we see that it's in the interest of both parties to stick to their guns, making the current situation the opening gambit for the congressional elections in under 2 years time.
Looking at this thread (and being quite unhappy about how uninformative the posts generally are, and how little facts are being presented), one sees that the past is not discussed rigorously. For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills).
So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
But what should happen is that the two sides plot a course which stops the US from going deeper into debt. Obamacare is just the strongest bargaining chip the Republicans have at the moment, but I don't think they or anyone else believes that substantial changes will be made to the ACA. The actual common ground on spending cuts and tax raises will be reached at the negotiating table, as it always has.
P.S. I've intentionally smoothed over a number of details in the narrative so I don't need to write until my fingers bleed. Before you start nitpicking, consider whether they make a difference to the overall story (hint, they don't).
This post completely misses the point of the specificity of using the threats of government shutdown and default as leverage in the context of a negotiation process. See my post just above to see why the Republicans are clearly to blame for doing just that as opposed to actually agreeing to negotiate the "normal" way. Please don't reply to me and to my points below without having read it.
Now, to address your more specific points:
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
I'm not sure where you're getting your "word on the streets" from, but it's completely off the mark. The reason why Obama is unwilling to "negotiate" (see my post above for the reason why I'm using quotation marks) with Republicans is twofold.
1. First, the ACA is Obama's signature achievement and the Republicans have not come close to putting on the table something even remotely close to a serious proposition with regards to sensible changes to the law and/or to offering pretty much anything the Democrats want in exchange for possible modifications to the ACA. Given how important an issue the ACA is to both Republicans and Democrats, it would be absolutely ridiculous for Obama to cede any ground on the matter unless he is offered something as significant. The Republicans have had years to come up with something, and they haven't.
2. Second, and this is more fundamental, Obama is "no longer negotiating" because, as I thoroughly explained in my previous post that Iinked to earlier, ceding ground to Republicans in the current context would validate their strategy of using the running of the government, and the raising of the debt limit, as leverage and as something they're "conceding" to Democrats in exchange for their demands being met (as opposed to actual things the Democrats want). In 2011, Obama was taken by surprise by this strategy, and he and Democrats now want to make clear that it is not an acceptable way to negotiate. You have to understand, however, that Obama and the Democrats are not saying that they cannot/don't want to negotiate with Republicans. They are very willing to negotiate with them, and in fact they have offered to negotiate with them repeatedly, including six months ago on the very issue of the budget and it is the Republicans who refused (18 times in total since then). Harry Reid also wrote to Boehner a few days ago that he committed to "name conferees to a budget conference" if Republicans agreed to reopen the government. Instead, what Obama and the Democrats are saying is that the strategy used by Republicans to get what they want is not acceptable - the normal negotiation process is. And they're perfectly right.
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
The Republicans were not caught unaware. Obama and the Democrats had made clear months ago that they would not accept the government shutdown and the raising of the debt limit as bargaining chips by Republicans. The Republicans were perfectly aware of this. That we still got where we are is notably due to Tea Party Republicans (and organizations beyond the representatives themselves) pushing their leadership into that corner. With regards to "why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue", I refer you again to my previous post explaining why Republicans are indeed to blame for the current situation.
Your post merely says that Obamacare is established, hence it cannot be renegotiated. Republican's are at fault because they attack Obamacare.
But that's clearly not a viable account of the present situation. Concerning the debt ceiling, EVERYTHING that has budgetary outlays is on the table for cutting. The standard is that the Republicans want more cutting and the Democrats want more tax raises. What Obama wants is for the negotiations to start with ACA off the table, which is prejudiced negotiating.
The rest of what you say, it a very prolix manner that I won't quote, is that Obamacare is something that Obama was voted in on (which doesn't mean that he doesn't have to jump all the usual hoops of checks and balances for it) and that Democrats don't want to allow the usual debt ceiling negotiations (because in 2011 it ended badly for them, and with Syria and the Fed rebellion behind them, it could go even worse).
In the end, though, as I wrote as the MAIN message of my narrative, both sides are interested in a hard line position. Republicans know that Obama cannot "not negotiate" forever (i.e., demand that the debt ceiling is raised without any negotiations, or even to prejudice ACA before the negotiations begin) because a new economic down-turn under Obama's watch would have a devastating effect on the rating of the Democratic party. (Talk about a hard line, right.)
It's in the interest of the Democrats to have a hard-line position on this issue because the Republicans are clearly losing the PR war on this, and this hurts Republican congressmen before the elections. (Interestingly, tea party is losing out the most, so this might also be a gambit by Boehner to clear ranks).
What you guys should be doing, instead of assigning blame on mostly ideological grounds, is analyzing the motives of both parties. My own prediction is that the debt ceiling will be raised at the last moment with spending cuts on non-ACA spending. And everyone will live happily ever after.
Actually, his post isn't in anyway about how Obamacare shouldn't be renegotiated. I believe kwizach has said multiple times that the point isn't whether or not Obamacare should be changed, but that the specific tactic being used by the House Republicans is harmful to the political process and the country as a whole.
Since Congress hasn't been able to pass a budget, they have to periodically pass Continuing Resolution bills in order to keep the government open. These bills have to be passed with some regularity until a budget is passed; for example, the current CR bill would fund the government until mid-December. Because of this it would be political suicide for the Democrats to concede ANYTHING whatsoever in order to get the CR passed, because if they do, once mid-December rolls around, the House Republicans will just demand something else. This sets a terrible precedent, and in the future both parties will feel fully justified in threatening to shut down the government every couple months unless they get their way.
I have yet to see any supporters of the GOP's strategy address this argument - if the GOP can get concessions by not offering anything besides allowing the government to function, they will do this every time they get the chance (which will be often), and if their situations are ever reversed, the Democrats might feel fully justified in doing the same thing.
It is not business as usual when a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, the President, and a majority of the America people support the passage of a bill (a "clean" CR bill), but one man, Speaker John Boehner, is able to keep it from being voted on.
On October 07 2013 23:47 Ghanburighan wrote: How about you write it up clearly, then. Clearly I'm unable to parse your "As I said elsewhere, supported by stuff I wrote elsewhere too" story. The post you linked was also responses to existing contextual text. Write it up clearly, and in brief.
Also, don't assume I'm only responding to you.
Uh, you were clearly responding only to me in your previous post. The point is that in your response to me you were making general claims that were according to you applicable to other posters as well, but which in reality were not applicable to what I wrote to you.
What I said was written very clearly, thank you. The post I linked to in addition to my initial response to you can be read without looking at what I was replying to. I'll therefore copy/paste together here what you could already find in it:
With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that (to simplify) successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but that loss is seen as less important to them than what they gained). In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government. Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline, and the cost of the negotiation failure is the destruction of the baseline (as in the entire functioning of the government). There is nothing "normal" about this.
[Indeed,] in a normal situation, failure to negotiate/to reach an agreement does not result in the destruction of the baseline (in this case, the functioning of the government) - it should be the maintaining of the said baseline, that both parties would want to depart from in some way. So for this to be a "normal" process of negotiation, the Republicans would fund the government normally and increase the debt ceiling, but they could for example offer a reduction in sequester cuts (which is what Democrats want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full sequester) in exchange for a delay in the implementation of the medical device tax, or its complete repeal (which is what Republicans want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full implementation of the ACA). Failure to reach agreement would result in the normal functioning of government and implementation of the ACA (which is already the law of the land), but it would mean both parties would not get something that they want (a reduction in sequester cuts for the Democrats, and the delay of some parts of the ACA for Republicans).
Again, the destruction of the baseline itself is NOT "normal" in a negotiation process.
[This situation is therefore] not simply a matter of who's to blame for not negotiating. It's a matter of who's to blame for the current crisis situation. The answer to this is that the Republican party is to blame (I'm not going to go into the specific details of the influence of the Tea Party wing within it). The reasons are (at least) twofold:
1. It is the Republican party which adopted the strategy of making the destruction of the baseline (the government shutdown and, possibly, the failure to raise the debt limit and what comes with it) the result of negotiation failure. This, alone, means as I just explained that we are not in a normal negotiation process.Indeed, in the present case, Republicans want to gain something (the defunding of the ACA) while presenting the maintaining of the baseline (minus the ACA) as the Democrats' "gain", when it isn't an actual gain at all. An actual gain for Democrats would, for example, be the repeal of the sequester. Republicans are therefore clearly to blame here.
[L]et's also remark that by making this their general strategy, Republicans have in fact forced Democrats to refuse to accede to their demands, otherwise this would mean Republicans could simply use the same strategy over and over again without Democrats ever gaining anything from acceding to Republican demands[.]
2. It is the Republican party which has refused to engage in actual negotiations over the budget, and in fact even to enter a conference with Democrats to do just that six months ago [and 18 times total since then]. They have simply not shown themselves to be interested in letting the Democrats gain something in exchange for Republican gains.
For the more specific rebuttals of parts of your initial post that I presented, see my original response to you.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
I'm replying to you as an example, but the same goes for a lot of the previous page.
How about we cast the situation in another light, one that shines light on both sides.
First off, if the Republicans (I mean the number of votes in their side of the house, it's not a person) were interested in voting in the new budget despite the debt issues/Obamacare, they would have done so.
Likewise, if Obama/Pelosi were keen on a budget, he could have conceded on Obamacare. (Arguments regarding "Republicans already lost on Obamacare, it's no longer allowed to discuss it" are naturally demagoguery. If Congress can change Obamacare now, and it can not pass a budget, the topic remains on the table until it's dropped. To make it painfully obvious, we could have never abolished slavery if congress cannot redo legislation.)
From here we see that it's in the interest of both parties to stick to their guns, making the current situation the opening gambit for the congressional elections in under 2 years time.
Looking at this thread (and being quite unhappy about how uninformative the posts generally are, and how little facts are being presented), one sees that the past is not discussed rigorously. For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills).
So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
But what should happen is that the two sides plot a course which stops the US from going deeper into debt. Obamacare is just the strongest bargaining chip the Republicans have at the moment, but I don't think they or anyone else believes that substantial changes will be made to the ACA. The actual common ground on spending cuts and tax raises will be reached at the negotiating table, as it always has.
P.S. I've intentionally smoothed over a number of details in the narrative so I don't need to write until my fingers bleed. Before you start nitpicking, consider whether they make a difference to the overall story (hint, they don't).
This post completely misses the point of the specificity of using the threats of government shutdown and default as leverage in the context of a negotiation process. See my post just above to see why the Republicans are clearly to blame for doing just that as opposed to actually agreeing to negotiate the "normal" way. Please don't reply to me and to my points below without having read it.
Now, to address your more specific points:
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
I'm not sure where you're getting your "word on the streets" from, but it's completely off the mark. The reason why Obama is unwilling to "negotiate" (see my post above for the reason why I'm using quotation marks) with Republicans is twofold.
1. First, the ACA is Obama's signature achievement and the Republicans have not come close to putting on the table something even remotely close to a serious proposition with regards to sensible changes to the law and/or to offering pretty much anything the Democrats want in exchange for possible modifications to the ACA. Given how important an issue the ACA is to both Republicans and Democrats, it would be absolutely ridiculous for Obama to cede any ground on the matter unless he is offered something as significant. The Republicans have had years to come up with something, and they haven't.
2. Second, and this is more fundamental, Obama is "no longer negotiating" because, as I thoroughly explained in my previous post that Iinked to earlier, ceding ground to Republicans in the current context would validate their strategy of using the running of the government, and the raising of the debt limit, as leverage and as something they're "conceding" to Democrats in exchange for their demands being met (as opposed to actual things the Democrats want). In 2011, Obama was taken by surprise by this strategy, and he and Democrats now want to make clear that it is not an acceptable way to negotiate. You have to understand, however, that Obama and the Democrats are not saying that they cannot/don't want to negotiate with Republicans. They are very willing to negotiate with them, and in fact they have offered to negotiate with them repeatedly, including six months ago on the very issue of the budget and it is the Republicans who refused (18 times in total since then). Harry Reid also wrote to Boehner a few days ago that he committed to "name conferees to a budget conference" if Republicans agreed to reopen the government. Instead, what Obama and the Democrats are saying is that the strategy used by Republicans to get what they want is not acceptable - the normal negotiation process is. And they're perfectly right.
On October 07 2013 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote: So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
The Republicans were not caught unaware. Obama and the Democrats had made clear months ago that they would not accept the government shutdown and the raising of the debt limit as bargaining chips by Republicans. The Republicans were perfectly aware of this. That we still got where we are is notably due to Tea Party Republicans (and organizations beyond the representatives themselves) pushing their leadership into that corner. With regards to "why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue", I refer you again to my previous post explaining why Republicans are indeed to blame for the current situation.
Your post merely says that Obamacare is established, hence it cannot be renegotiated. Republican's are at fault because they attack Obamacare.
But that's clearly not a viable account of the present situation. Concerning the debt ceiling, EVERYTHING that has budgetary outlays is on the table for cutting. The standard is that the Republicans want more cutting and the Democrats want more tax raises. What Obama wants is for the negotiations to start with ACA off the table, which is prejudiced negotiating.
The rest of what you say, it a very prolix manner that I won't quote, is that Obamacare is something that Obama was voted in on (which doesn't mean that he doesn't have to jump all the usual hoops of checks and balances for it) and that Democrats don't want to allow the usual debt ceiling negotiations (because in 2011 it ended badly for them, and with Syria and the Fed rebellion behind them, it could go even worse).
In the end, though, as I wrote as the MAIN message of my narrative, both sides are interested in a hard line position. Republicans know that Obama cannot "not negotiate" forever (i.e., demand that the debt ceiling is raised without any negotiations, or even to prejudice ACA before the negotiations begin) because a new economic down-turn under Obama's watch would have a devastating effect on the rating of the Democratic party. (Talk about a hard line, right.)
It's in the interest of the Democrats to have a hard-line position on this issue because the Republicans are clearly losing the PR war on this, and this hurts Republican congressmen before the elections. (Interestingly, tea party is losing out the most, so this might also be a gambit by Boehner to clear ranks).
What you guys should be doing, instead of assigning blame on mostly ideological grounds, is analyzing the motives of both parties. My own prediction is that the debt ceiling will be raised at the last moment with spending cuts on non-ACA spending. And everyone will live happily ever after.
Actually, his post isn't in anyway about how Obamacare shouldn't be renegotiated. I believe kwizach has said multiple times that the point isn't whether or not Obamacare should be changed, but that the specific tactic being used by the House Republicans is harmful to the political process and the country as a whole.
On October 07 2013 19:44 sc2holar wrote: Americans who argue against free and equal healthcare for everybody amaze me. So cash flow should dictate life expectency, and poor people should die from diseases that could easily be cured.
amazing, you really have dont a good job at creating a society that benefits humanity as little as possible and instead does nothing but worship and bow before the dollar sign. your countrys knees must be killing themselves, maybe thats why your economy is falling over ?
When you stray too far on the right scale (liberalism/pseudo-regulated capitalism) or too far left (socialism) you eventually collapse. stay in the middle like germany or sweden etc, we are doing great.
Sweden, Germany or even worse France are a billion light years too far in the left for an american. Our vision of the "middle" is not their vision, not at all. For them it's not the middle but the far left babies eaters communist dictatorships (add cheese eater surrendering monkeys for my country).
They can't even imagine it, it's too far from standard american economical and social culture. We can't get this debate about obamacare and they can't get that we don't get it. It might be the deeper cultural difference (the only one? ) between us and our american friends.
Thanks for making such an ignorant post. Since your enormous blanket statement showed how little you know about American culture, politics, and values no one ever again has to suffer through reading your uninformed opinions.
You seems quite ignorant yourself, how about you start by giving some argument so that we could eventually understand what you are so nervous about Agathon's post.
There is nothing to argue. This guy made multiple blanket statements of a country with over 300 million people as if he has come to America and did a survey of every citizen. Get it through your heads. If you think you can lump Americans into any singular group you're a moron.
You're funny. It is obvious that the US culture is quite different from the european ones. I'd say just read Alesina & Glaser Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference : we - Americans, Canadians, French, German, etc. - as societies, have a completly different point of views on certain specific topics such as inequalities. Of course "Americans" have different point of views on certain topic, but still there are various values that are broadly accepted throughout the country.
The response to K's argument (that threatening not to pass the budget or raise the debt ceiling (let's link these for convenience, they are de facto linked already) will lead to negotiations each time) is very simple.
That's exactly what the budget vote and debt ceiling is meant to do. If it were automatic, it would not be needed. It IS intended as a check on government. When the legislature feels that the budget is unreasonable or the debt situation is out of control, the can refuse to vote on it.
So it's not some unfair tactic, it's one of the core mechanisms in any modern state. It's less common, though, to have the legislature controlled by the opposition. But that doesn't in any way change the principle.
Anything that comes after this (repeating the check on balances, not getting enough in return, etc) is merely negotiations before the negotiations.
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/CDU_Wahlkampfplakat_-_kaspl019.JPG/420px-CDU_Wahlkampfplakat_-_kaspl019.JPG)
?
