Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Obama made it pretty clear in his pressed today:

It's HIS bill with HIS signature on it. He and Harry Reid want to push it through regardless. Forget fiscal responsibility. They're spending like Lil John at a strip club.

 d-usa wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
House: We won't give the federal government a single penny unless you get rid of Obamacare.
Senate: Nope.
House: We won't give the federal government a single penny unless you get rid of Obamacare for at least a year!
Senate: *crickets chirping*
House: Those Democrats are unreasonable, they won't negotiate with us!

If the GOP somehow manages to come out of this mess without looking like a bunch of toddlers fighting over the finger paint it will be a miracle. Of course right now there is no "Grand Old Party", there are just a bunch of sub-factions screaming over each other.

Truly, the Tea Party has been a miracle for the Democrats.

Takes two to tango D.

But, I can play that game too!
House: "Pass the budget with a CR defunding the Affordable Care Act".
Reid: "No."
House: "Um... alright... will you change the senate rules that require you to get a few more votes to strike the defunding langange?"
Reid: "Nope."
House: "Fine. We worked all weekend to come up with a solution-will you at least delay the ACA for a year for individual like you did for big business":
Reid and Obama: "No."

Now who's the "Party of NO" now?

Me: Let's paint the entire house pepto-pink!
Wife: No.
Me: Let's paint the entire house pepto-pink or I will burn it down!
Wife: No
Me: Let's paint the entire house pepto-pink for a year, or I will burn it down!
Wife: No.

Clearly, my wife is the unreasonable person here.

Damn straight! What's wrong with Pepto-pink??!?!?!?!!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Obama made it pretty clear in his pressed today:

It's HIS bill with HIS signature on it. He and Harry Reid want to push it through regardless. Forget fiscal responsibility. They're spending like Lil John at a strip club.

Eh... to be honest... the Republican establishment don't mind spending money...

But yeah, that press briefing was a crock.

 cincydooley wrote:
That doesn't recuse them of any responsibility Manchu, especially in regards to a new program that's going to cost Billions of dollars that a considerable number of Americans don't agree with.

There's no need for "recusal." The Democrat members of Congress are representatives of the people, just as the Republicans are. The ACA was passed four years ago. The Republicans have made it clear that they will do anything, including shutting down the government, to undo that. What the Republicans are doing now is no surprise -- except they finally understand that shutting down the government does not play well with voters so they are trying to pin that on Democrats.

 cincydooley wrote:
That doesn't recuse them of any responsibility Manchu, especially in regards to a new program that's going to cost Billions of dollars that a considerable number of Americans don't agree with.

I stick with my prediction that ObamaCare will not do a fraction of what the GOP has been pretending it does, that is why they are fighting tooth and nail and throwing a Hail Mary to try to keep it from going into effect.

In the end they will be blamed for shutting down the government to try to stop a law that doesn't even do the damage they pretended it would.

And sure, it takes two to tango.

But when one person holds a gun to a hostage and says "do as I say or she dies", and then the gunman kills the hostage because nobody would negotiate, people are still going to blame the guy with the gun.

 d-usa wrote:

And sure, it takes two to tango.

But when one person holds a gun to a hostage and says "do as I say or she dies", and then the gunman kills the hostage because nobody would negotiate, people are still going to blame the guy with the gun.

You and I have different views as who's the hostage.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

And sure, it takes two to tango.

But when one person holds a gun to a hostage and says "do as I say or she dies", and then the gunman kills the hostage because nobody would negotiate, people are still going to blame the guy with the gun.

You and I have different views as who's the hostage.

Don't worry, the majority of Americans know who the hostage is and who the party with the gun is.

PS: It's the party that likes guns...

 whembly wrote:

So... you're saying that the Republican branch needs to just rubber stamp everything?

Absolutely not.

If they want to shut the government down to get their way, that's certainly a thing they can do.

What I object to is that some people are stupid enough to believe them when they say "the Democrats made us do it."

No, this is the Republican strategy. It's a terrible strategy and so they would like more than anything if voters thought of it as the Democratic strategy instead. But they can't come up with a better strategy so they enact it and then point at the Democrats.

The Republican "compromise" is meaningless. If it works this time, then why not next time? And why not every year such that the ACA is never implemented? Any honest Republican will tell you that they would go for that as long it works. It's not a compromise, it's a strategy. But it requires a threat, and it's the same one again and again -- do what we want or we'll break everything.

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
That doesn't recuse them of any responsibility Manchu, especially in regards to a new program that's going to cost Billions of dollars that a considerable number of Americans don't agree with.

There's no need for "recusal." The Democrat members of Congress are representatives of the people, just as the Republicans are. The ACA was passed four years ago. The Republicans have made it clear that they will do anything, including shutting down the government, to undo that. What the Republicans are doing now is no surprise -- except they finally understand that shutting down the government does not play well with voters so they are trying to pin that on Democrats.

How soon we forget that ACA was passed without a single republican vote. Look at all those represented people.

 cincydooley wrote:
How soon we forget that ACA was passed without a single republican vote. Look at all those represented people.

I think you need to re-read the Wiki article on representative democracy.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... you're saying that the Republican branch needs to just rubber stamp everything?

Absolutely not.

If they want to shut the government down to get their way, that's certainly a thing they can do.

What I object to is that some people are stupid enough to believe them when they say "the Democrats made us do it."

No, this is the Republican strategy. It's a terrible strategy and so they would like more than anything if voters thought of it as the Democratic strategy instead. But they can't come up with a better strategy so they enact it and then point at the Democrats.

The Republican "compromise" is meaningless. If it works this time, then why not next time? And why not every year such that the ACA is never implemented? Any honest Republican will tell you that they would go for that as long it works. It's not a compromise, it's a strategy. But it requires a threat, and it's the same one again and again -- do what we want or we'll break everything.

So do you think power of the purse should never be used. Ever. Because it really amounts to what you say is "breaking everything"?

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... you're saying that the Republican branch needs to just rubber stamp everything?

Absolutely not.

Okay... I was confused where you were coming from.

If they want to shut the government down to get their way, that's certainly a thing they can do.

What... it's the SENATE (and likely the President) that is shutting down the government.

What I object to is that some people are stupid enough to believe them when they say "the Democrats made us do it."

The folks in the HOUSE were duly elected as well. They passed various CRs... and Reid/Senate Democrats are the ones absolutely refusing to negotiate.

No, this is the Republican strategy. It's a terrible strategy and so they would like more than anything if voters thought of it as the Democrat strategy instead. But they can't come up with a better strategy so they enact it and the point at the Democrats.

The Republican "compromise" is meaningless. If it works this time, then why not next time? And why not every year such that the ACA is never implemented? Any honest Republican will tell you that they would go for that as long it works. It's not a compromise, it's a strategy. But it requires a threat, and it's the same one again and again -- do what we want or we'll break everything.

Here's where I actually agree with you.

If the R's want to get rid of it... let it ride now. In fact, why not just pass a CR that funds the government, removes ALL exemptions (including the Congress-critters) AND raise the Debt ceiling. Then we'll see where the chips will fall.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So do you think power of the purse should never be used. Ever. Because it really amounts to what you say is "breaking everything"?

This isn't a just a refusal to fund. If they had the votes, they'd do it. This is a threat -- they need the Democrats to agree to shut down the ACA. So it's a stick up. Either the Democrats do what they want, or they shut down the government.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing where the Democrats have compromised with the Republicans. Sorry.

No need to apologize -- many Americans have memories even shorter than yours. Take a moment, however, and recall this fight has been going on for four years. There have been all kinds of challenges. Remember when the Republicans claimed the ACA would infringe on religious liberty, for example? Or how about this exact same government shut down threat every X months?

I'll restate my question. When did they compromise on the ACA? No Republican voted for it.

Frazz, you can spin like a dachshund with bacon grease on his tail and you still can't make this look like Democrats want to shut down the government to anyone with more than a single braincell.

Strangely I never said they did. But now that you mention it, they do.
Now they can pin it on the Republicans.

Of course the Republicans get around that by just passing the CR. Maybe with a a nice rider that all Congress and White House personnel are nw subject to the ACA, then go home. But everything has to be a big damn deal doesn't it...

By the way the Democrats seemed to have missed that the sequester is still there.


On the positive I was just called a commie on another board....

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So do you think power of the purse should never be used. Ever. Because it really amounts to what you say is "breaking everything"?

This isn't a just a refusal to fund. If they had the votes, they'd do it. This is a threat -- they need the Democrats to agree to shut down the ACA. So it's a stick up. Either the Democrats do what they want, or they shut down the government.

Well... the latest CR right now will fund the government AND explicitly remove the special exemption from ObamaCare the Obama Administration gave to members of Congress and their staffs.

We'll see what happens then, eh?

Finally a smart tactic by the HOUSE... The Senate is likely to reject this latest CR, as Harry Reid himself said that he would NOT to compromise on any language to keep the government open.

Shutting down the government to preserve their special treatment is a reason why Senate Democrats may accrue more blame over the shutdown.

 Manchu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
How soon we forget that ACA was passed without a single republican vote. Look at all those represented people.

I think you need to re-read the Wiki article on representative democracy.

No, I get it. But to pretend that the vote is representative of everyone is absurd. It only represents people represented by a single party. That's the system we have, but quite frankly, that system is broken. Requiring merely a 50% + 1 vote is what leads to ridiculous legislature that doesn't compromise at all. It doesn't have to.

IMO, that's hardly good for America.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... you're saying that the Republican branch needs to just rubber stamp everything?

Absolutely not.

If they want to shut the government down to get their way, that's certainly a thing they can do.

What I object to is that some people are stupid enough to believe them when they say "the Democrats made us do it."

No, this is the Republican strategy. It's a terrible strategy and so they would like more than anything if voters thought of it as the Democratic strategy instead. But they can't come up with a better strategy so they enact it and then point at the Democrats.

The Republican "compromise" is meaningless. If it works this time, then why not next time? And why not every year such that the ACA is never implemented? Any honest Republican will tell you that they would go for that as long it works. It's not a compromise, it's a strategy. But it requires a threat, and it's the same one again and again -- do what we want or we'll break everything.

And it's not like the Republicans are offering anything in exchange for the repeal of Obamacare. Which is, you know, how compromise works.

Let's say you owe me money from a few years back, with the understanding that it'd be due at midnight tonight. Now, on an unrelated note, you and I are talking about me buying your chaos Demons army. Compromise would be offering something you know I want, like your near mint Realms of Chaos books, tossed into the lot, to cancel the debt. Or maybe you offer me some Juan Diaz daemomettes to get another year before you have to pay me.

What the GOP have done is tie something they want (repealing Obamacare) to a completely different negotiation (which is fine), without sweeting the pot. So, it'd be like you saying that if I don't cancel your debt, you'll not sell me the army at all. So, when I walk away from negotiations, it's because your offering a terrible deal.

The problem here is that Obamacare is a landmark legislative achievement, good or bad. the White house isn't going to horse trade with it, and the GOP knows it.

But the GOP is no more "compromising" than a child is when he asks for a candy bar after being denied McDonalds.

It really just seems like negotiation 101.

I want X. If you don't give me X I will withhold/do Y.

If you don't scrap Obamacare I will withhold money. Its really a simple negotiation.

Landmark bill doesn't mandate a landmark compromise.

 whembly wrote:
What... it's the SENATE (and likely the President) that is shutting down the government.

Flatly incorrect.

House Republicans attached legislation defunding the ACA to the continuing resolution needed to keep the government working. The Senate rejected it. The House does not need keep that anti-ACA baggage on the CR. The government does not rely on defunding the ACA to avoid a shut down -- UNLESS the Republicans demand it.

 Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... you're saying that the Republican branch needs to just rubber stamp everything?

Absolutely not.

If they want to shut the government down to get their way, that's certainly a thing they can do.

What I object to is that some people are stupid enough to believe them when they say "the Democrats made us do it."

No, this is the Republican strategy. It's a terrible strategy and so they would like more than anything if voters thought of it as the Democratic strategy instead. But they can't come up with a better strategy so they enact it and then point at the Democrats.

The Republican "compromise" is meaningless. If it works this time, then why not next time? And why not every year such that the ACA is never implemented? Any honest Republican will tell you that they would go for that as long it works. It's not a compromise, it's a strategy. But it requires a threat, and it's the same one again and again -- do what we want or we'll break everything.

And it's not like the Republicans are offering anything in exchange for the repeal of Obamacare. Which is, you know, how compromise works.

Let's say you owe me money from a few years back, with the understanding that it'd be due at midnight tonight. Now, on an unrelated note, you and I are talking about me buying your chaos Demons army. Compromise would be offering something you know I want, like your near mint Realms of Chaos books, tossed into the lot, to cancel the debt. Or maybe you offer me some Juan Diaz daemomettes to get another year before you have to pay me.

What the GOP have done is tie something they want (repealing Obamacare) to a completely different negotiation (which is fine), without sweeting the pot. So, it'd be like you saying that if I don't cancel your debt, you'll not sell me the army at all. So, when I walk away from negotiations, it's because your offering a terrible deal.

The problem here is that Obamacare is a landmark legislative achievement, good or bad. the White house isn't going to horse trade with it, and the GOP knows it.

But the GOP is no more "compromising" than a child is when he asks for a candy bar after being denied McDonalds.

I think the political calculus is that once the ACA is repealed (if ever)... a new plan would be needed. That's a given.

Here's the latest: Recent porposal

Well technically the House passed a spending bill that the Senate(Democrats) rejected. So yeah, theyare responsible for defending the government by refusing to pass the bill, because their pet project is on the chopping block.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really just seems like negotiation 101.

I want X. If you don't give me X I will withhold/do Y.

Yes, it's exactly that simple. If the GOP doesn't get it's way, it will shut down the government. While the effect of delaying or defunding the ACA is debatable, shutting down the federal government will without a doubt have a negative effect on the American economy.

So once again, the GOP is holding America hostage.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really just seems like negotiation 101.

I want X. If you don't give me X I will withhold/do Y.

If you don't scrap Obamacare I will withhold money. Its really a simple negotiation.

Landmark bill doesn't mandate a landmark compromise.

It's a strategy, and possibly a winning one. We'll see.

It ended very poorly for House Republicans in 1995. This is being spun, accurately I think, as "Republicans are shutting down government in order to stop Obamacare."

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really just seems like negotiation 101.

I want X. If you don't give me X I will withhold/do Y.

If you don't scrap Obamacare I will withhold money. Its really a simple negotiation.

Landmark bill doesn't mandate a landmark compromise.

It's a strategy, and possibly a winning one. We'll see.

It ended very poorly for House Republicans in 1995. This is being spun, accurately I think, as "Republicans are shutting down government in order to stop Obamacare."

Uh... no... they gained Senate seats and had balanced budgets following that shutdown.

I for one can't wait until it shuts down. Keep the regulators out of my gak for a while won't leave me arguing.

Plus it's always fun to see that the government doesn't even consider itself integral.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really just seems like negotiation 101.

I want X. If you don't give me X I will withhold/do Y.

Yes, it's exactly that simple. If the GOP doesn't get it's way, it will shut down the government. While the effect of delaying or defunding the ACA is debatable, shutting down the federal government will without a doubt have a negative effect on the American economy.

So once again, the GOP is holding America hostage.

Let's get technical here...

The GOP House PASSED several CR... what branch/party is NOT agreeing to terms again?

 whembly wrote:

Uh... no... they gained Senate seats and had balanced budgets following that shutdown.

Oh posh. Keep your silly facts to yourself.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really just seems like negotiation 101.

I want X. If you don't give me X I will withhold/do Y.

If you don't scrap Obamacare I will withhold money. Its really a simple negotiation.

Landmark bill doesn't mandate a landmark compromise.

It's a strategy, and possibly a winning one. We'll see.

It ended very poorly for House Republicans in 1995. This is being spun, accurately I think, as "Republicans are shutting down government in order to stop Obamacare."

Uh... no... they gained Senate seats and had balanced budgets following that shutdown.

they also lost seats in the house and helped Clinton hold the White House, which was by no means assured in 1995.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really just seems like negotiation 101.

I want X. If you don't give me X I will withhold/do Y.

If you don't scrap Obamacare I will withhold money. Its really a simple negotiation.

Landmark bill doesn't mandate a landmark compromise.

Your scenario is dumb and doesn't work.

Who is the party that started the negotiation with "I don't want to pay any bills"?

In this case both R and D started the negotiation with "I think we should pay our bills and fund the government".

Both R and D want X.

Then R says: We want to get rid of Y.
D comes back and says: What do we get for that?
R replies: You get X!
D: You want X yourself, how is that a compromise?
R: I know we want X, but you can't have X if we don't also get Y!
D: That doesn't make any sense...
R: Fine, we will get rid of the X we both want unless you give us Y. You suck at negotiating!
D: What the hell was that?

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really just seems like negotiation 101.

I want X. If you don't give me X I will withhold/do Y.

If you don't scrap Obamacare I will withhold money. Its really a simple negotiation.

Landmark bill doesn't mandate a landmark compromise.

It's a strategy, and possibly a winning one. We'll see.

It ended very poorly for House Republicans in 1995. This is being spun, accurately I think, as "Republicans are shutting down government in order to stop Obamacare."

Uh... no... they gained Senate seats and had balanced budgets following that shutdown.

they also lost seats in the house and helped Clinton hold the White House, which was by no means assured in 1995.

Eh... that's debatable. Clinton wasn't going to lose... ever. *shrugs*

But pointing out that Republican lost oh so much because of the '95 shutdown (which, Clinton eventually relented) is a bit disingenuous. That's all I'm saying. At the very worst, it was a "push".

 whembly wrote:

Let's get technical here...

The GOP House PASSED several CR... what branch/party is NOT agreeing to terms again?

Are we really going to make that argument?

Neither side has to rubber stamp the other. But, in this case, one side is tying something vaguly important (funding the government) to something pretty much unrelated (obamacare).