The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

Also, this is a tu quoque. Again, the Republicans are taking heat for something being done right now. Whatever was wrong with the way the ACA came to life, it doesn't excuse the current Republican tactic.

Right now the Democrats are taking the position there will be no negotiations. No excuse for that either. Neither side has high moral ground in this.

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad that TPW made the comparison to slavery. It's a good analogy. in that the Tea Party believes Obamacare to be evil- just like the abolitionists. They believe Obama to be a tyrant, just like the reverend who burned a copy of the Constitution believed of the slave-owners.

My point- the Tea Party does not want to negotiate. That's why they made their demands so high in the first place. It was not, as Stat and Jon and others claim, a tactic to wring concessions from Obama: the Republican establishment may desire that, but the TP does not. They do not wish to compromise. Their goal is to delegitimize Obama and destroy his presidency.

 

[jon_mx]

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

It's not the positions, it's the tactic: purposefully failing to call an annual apropriations bill to vote is not a legitimate means to open a negotiation. This is not how business is done.

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

Having closed door sessions with only one party in attendance to craft a bill is a pretty standard way for business to be done.

Yes....but Obama ran on open debates and inviting everyone to the table for health care legislation. So there was that.

 

[Doug B]

Right now the Democrats are taking the position there will be no negotiations. No excuse for that either. Neither side has high moral ground in this.

No, no .... they must take this stance. The Republicans' current tactic cannot be legitimized as a usuful tactic going forward by either party. Really, it should me made illegal (but as I mentioned earlier, this would require a Constitutional amendment).

 

[cstu]

I hate the debt and the deficit, and I agree with the Tea Party/GOP that we desperately need to cut spending, but the GOP is being stupid here by making this about Obamacare.

IMO Republicans are looking to make a symbolic stand rather than actual make positive change to spending. They know they will never succeed repealing ACA this way but they can go back to their constituency and tell them they tried their best to reduce the debt but those damn Democrats refuse to negotiate. Fighting a losing battle against ACA is easier than proposing debt reduction strategies that might negatively affect Republican voters.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm glad that TPW made the comparison to slavery. It's a good analogy. in that the Tea Party believes Obamacare to be evil- just like the abolitionists. They believe Obama to be a tyrant, just like the reverend who burned a copy of the Constitution believed of the slave-owners.

My point- the Tea Party does not want to negotiate. That's why they made their demands so high in the first place. It was not, as Stat and Jon and others claim, a tactic to wring concessions from Obama: the Republican establishment may desire that, but the TP does not. They do not wish to compromise. Their goal is to delegitimize Obama and destroy his presidency.

Would you please, please, please stop your obsession with the tea party, slavery and hitler...TIA.

 

[randall146]

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions.

You guys should examine these assumptions about how negotiations are "supposed" to happen. I find a better method is to take reasonable, justifiable positions.

 

[Doug B]

Yes....but Obama ran on open debates and inviting everyone to the table for health care legislation. So there was that.

ACA went to the House floor. It got voted on. Legit process. Republicans didn't have the votes.

Withholding the appropriations vote is not comparable. And, once again, two wrongs don't make a right anyway.

 

[humpback]

Of course it has to do with your point- spin influences public opinion. I agree with some of what Court Jester said, but he also pretty much made my point- the left still blames Bush for most of their problems, they'll find a way to spin this on them as well.

We generally disagree with the state of Washington (it least that's how it seems), but we do agree that the spin machine is front and center for both parties and they use it to their full advantage. This is probably THE biggest weapon either party has and it's been encouraged by the way our "media" does business in covering the issues. With all that said, it's hard to disagree that the GOP didn't whiff on this big time by not letting it play out and expending any credibility they have left. Yeah, when ACA fails to meet expectations the Dems are going to be firing up their spin machine and they're going to have WAY more credibility than the GOP does. Not because they are better or right but because the GOP used all their political capital in a VERY poor manner. Simply put, the Dems are playing the game way better than the GOP is. Unfortunately, that's the gauge most voters go by and a pretty significant part of why we're in the situation we are.

We actually agree on most of the state of Washington, but other things seem to get in the way of that.

I'm not saying the GOP has handled this well by any stretch, I was just countering the "if they just let the ACA fail they'd have overwhelming public support" line of thinking. Sure, some people would back them, but most already have their mind made up before the game is even played.

I really hope it isn't most. The data will tell us what we need to know. I hope folks don't continue to get sucked into the spin zones.

Do you think the majority of voters are objective and keep an open mind about things? I certainly don't.

 

[timschochet]

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

Also, this is a tu quoque. Again, the Republicans are taking heat for something being done right now. Whatever was wrong with the way the ACA came to life, it doesn't excuse the current Republican tactic.

Right now the Democrats are taking the position there will be no negotiations. No excuse for that either. Neither side has high moral ground in this.

As I've pointed out before, when liberals argue that conservatives are to blame, and conservatives argue that both sides are to blame, that's a pretty clear indicator that conservatives are to blame. It works the othe way as well. When the Wisconsin Democrats fled their state creating a huge mess, conservatives blamed liberals for the mess, while liberals blamed both sides for the mess. It was clear that liberals were to blame.

 

[The Commish]

Let's get this down to the bones. Whether or not you lefty nuts want to admit it, there are consequences to the senate ignoring the budget process. That consequence is negotiating with congress over the CR. in this negotiation, the Republicans have something they're willing to give, which is sign off on the CR. What are the Democrats offering? I haven't heard ANY offers from Democrats, let alone any reasonable ones.

I think that the Democrats are missing out on an opportunity to look magnanimous here. Offer a couple of nuggets. The medical equipment tax is extremely low hanging fruit, since even some Democrats want that gone. Then throw up your hands in disgust.

But to take the stance that the Congress is the only one that has to give something in the negotiation means that you need to get a better understanding of what the word negotiation means.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

Think of it in FF terms. You need a RB to put you on top and I have AP. My first offer is going to ask for a significant amount. In the end I may settle for some friendly contracts for some high upside guys, but I may as we'll ask for the moon when I have something you desperately need (due to your ignoring the budget process I mean RB position in the draft)

Yeah...you ignored what I posted just a couple posts above....I believe the Dems caved on the budget number. They wanted 1.2T and the GOP wanted 989 (or something close). So...the GOP asked for the moon (Obamacare even though it's law and this isn't the way to go about it) and the Dems came back and gave them their budget number then the GOP rejected that very budget number. So, now what?Perhaps you should be schooling the GOP on how to negotiate. They seem to be the ones having problems understanding the concept at the moment, not the folks in the FFA....well, except for a few.

your thesis is incorrect

Not really. It's not "negotiating" to say "this is the only thing we'll accept". The dems made it clear that ACA was not up for negotiation via these means. If there is to be change on the front it's to be done via bill and negotiate within that framework just like they do with every other law. As a concession, they gave in on the budget number and the GOP refused THEIR OWN NUMBER and came back with the same "offer". Indeed, I'm correct in suggesting the GOP needs some schooling in how to negotiate. What has the GOP given as a concession from their initial position of "repeal Obamacare"? Is "delay Obamacare" really a concession of any consequence?

 

[The Ref]

I'm glad that TPW made the comparison to slavery. It's a good analogy. in that the Tea Party believes Obamacare to be evil- just like the abolitionists. They believe Obama to be a tyrant, just like the reverend who burned a copy of the Constitution believed of the slave-owners.

My point- the Tea Party does not want to negotiate. That's why they made their demands so high in the first place. It was not, as Stat and Jon and others claim, a tactic to wring concessions from Obama: the Republican establishment may desire that, but the TP does not. They do not wish to compromise. Their goal is to delegitimize Obama and destroy his presidency.

What I can't for the life of me figure out is why everyone is mad at the "tea party". They were voted in for one reason and they are voting according to what they ran on. If the people don't like it they will be voted out next time around. But for the time being the democrats can't ignore the fact that they there and will not help them in any way. So with that in mind if they really want to get something done why don't they go hat in hand to the "sane" republicans in the house and work out something they both can live with.

Right now we are witnessing first hand why two party politics don't work. If we had 4 or more parties the right leaning and left leaning parties would shut out the uber right and uber left and make a deal.

 

[The Commish]

Do you people understand the difference between a demand and an offer?

Well, I'm only a lawyer. Try to explain it slowly.

I went to LSU, I'm familiar with the concept

of having things explained slowly??

 

[The Ref]

Right now the Democrats are taking the position there will be no negotiations. No excuse for that either. Neither side has high moral ground in this.

You don't negotiate with terrorists.

How about members of the house of representatives?

 

[jonessed]

Let's get this down to the bones. Whether or not you lefty nuts want to admit it, there are consequences to the senate ignoring the budget process. That consequence is negotiating with congress over the CR. in this negotiation, the Republicans have something they're willing to give, which is sign off on the CR. What are the Democrats offering? I haven't heard ANY offers from Democrats, let alone any reasonable ones.

I think that the Democrats are missing out on an opportunity to look magnanimous here. Offer a couple of nuggets. The medical equipment tax is extremely low hanging fruit, since even some Democrats want that gone. Then throw up your hands in disgust.

But to take the stance that the Congress is the only one that has to give something in the negotiation means that you need to get a better understanding of what the word negotiation means.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

Think of it in FF terms. You need a RB to put you on top and I have AP. My first offer is going to ask for a significant amount. In the end I may settle for some friendly contracts for some high upside guys, but I may as we'll ask for the moon when I have something you desperately need (due to your ignoring the budget process I mean RB position in the draft)

Yeah...you ignored what I posted just a couple posts above....I believe the Dems caved on the budget number. They wanted 1.2T and the GOP wanted 989 (or something close). So...the GOP asked for the moon (Obamacare even though it's law and this isn't the way to go about it) and the Dems came back and gave them their budget number then the GOP rejected that very budget number. So, now what?Perhaps you should be schooling the GOP on how to negotiate. They seem to be the ones having problems understanding the concept at the moment, not the folks in the FFA....well, except for a few.

your thesis is incorrect

Not really. It's not "negotiating" to say "this is the only thing we'll accept". The dems made it clear that ACA was not up for negotiation via these means. If there is to be change on the front it's to be done via bill and negotiate within that framework just like they do with every other law. As a concession, they gave in on the budget number and the GOP refused THEIR OWN NUMBER and came back with the same "offer". Indeed, I'm correct in suggesting the GOP needs some schooling in how to negotiate. What has the GOP given as a concession from their initial position of "repeal Obamacare"? Is "delay Obamacare" really a concession of any consequence?

Seems like maybe a discussion should take place to see if the Republicans are willing to back off that position.

 

[jon_mx]

Right now the Democrats are taking the position there will be no negotiations. No excuse for that either. Neither side has high moral ground in this.

You don't negotiate with terrorists.

Yes, but what choice do the Republicans have?

 

[Statorama]

If you're the only one in the house with a job, you still discuss big decisions with your spouse.

When a house has a supermajority, is the lesser party really an equal player?

A better argument might be that the Democrats should have reached across the aisle more with the ACA because eventually they wouldn't have the supermajority. They may have midjudged the extent of how much the Republican Party was marginalized in 2008-09, which in reality wasn't mear enough to forestall a Republican majority in 2010.

Be that as it may, the ACA was properly brought to a vote on the House floor and passed. End of story. Not relevant that the vote was along strict party lines.

EDIT: to boil this down, the way the Democrats passed the ACA may have been a screw-up in realpolitik terms ... but since it went to the House floor for a vote in the end, it was tactically legitimate.

This ignores the shenanigans in the Senate though. Have we forgotten Scott Brown 41 already?

 

[jonessed]

Right now the Democrats are taking the position there will be no negotiations. No excuse for that either. Neither side has high moral ground in this.

You don't negotiate with terrorists.

How about members of the house of representatives?

This is the problem. The Democrats are playing the same game. It takes two to play chicken.

The only solution at this point is to stop and have a discussion.

 

[Statorama]

I can't seem to find a link associated with the democrats caving to republican budget demands. Can someone post that please?

I have a link that states the starting point for budget negotiations is Paul Ryan's budget, but I can't find a parallel link saying the democrats agreed to it.

 

[The Commish]

Of course it has to do with your point- spin influences public opinion. I agree with some of what Court Jester said, but he also pretty much made my point- the left still blames Bush for most of their problems, they'll find a way to spin this on them as well.

We generally disagree with the state of Washington (it least that's how it seems), but we do agree that the spin machine is front and center for both parties and they use it to their full advantage. This is probably THE biggest weapon either party has and it's been encouraged by the way our "media" does business in covering the issues. With all that said, it's hard to disagree that the GOP didn't whiff on this big time by not letting it play out and expending any credibility they have left. Yeah, when ACA fails to meet expectations the Dems are going to be firing up their spin machine and they're going to have WAY more credibility than the GOP does. Not because they are better or right but because the GOP used all their political capital in a VERY poor manner. Simply put, the Dems are playing the game way better than the GOP is. Unfortunately, that's the gauge most voters go by and a pretty significant part of why we're in the situation we are.

We actually agree on most of the state of Washington, but other things seem to get in the way of that.

I'm not saying the GOP has handled this well by any stretch, I was just countering the "if they just let the ACA fail they'd have overwhelming public support" line of thinking. Sure, some people would back them, but most already have their mind made up before the game is even played.

I really hope it isn't most. The data will tell us what we need to know. I hope folks don't continue to get sucked into the spin zones.

Do you think the majority of voters are objective and keep an open mind about things? I certainly don't.

Hope is a pretty important word here. I'm confident that the politicians don't. That hope is all I have left. Problem is, now we see voters parroting the same things their politicians are and the politicians are saying "see, this is what my base wants". Certainly not looking good.

 

[Slapdash]

I have a link that states the starting point for budget negotiations is Paul Ryan's budget, but I can't find a parallel link saying the democrats agreed to it.

What a joke

 

[The Commish]

I can't seem to find a link associated with the democrats caving to republican budget demands. Can someone post that please?

I have a link that states the starting point for budget negotiations is Paul Ryan's budget, but I can't find a parallel link saying the democrats agreed to it.

It was all over the news the night of the 90 minute meeting with Johnny B, Reid, Pelosi and the President. That was last week I believe. Start there.

 

[The Commish]

Let's get this down to the bones. Whether or not you lefty nuts want to admit it, there are consequences to the senate ignoring the budget process. That consequence is negotiating with congress over the CR. in this negotiation, the Republicans have something they're willing to give, which is sign off on the CR. What are the Democrats offering? I haven't heard ANY offers from Democrats, let alone any reasonable ones.

I think that the Democrats are missing out on an opportunity to look magnanimous here. Offer a couple of nuggets. The medical equipment tax is extremely low hanging fruit, since even some Democrats want that gone. Then throw up your hands in disgust.

But to take the stance that the Congress is the only one that has to give something in the negotiation means that you need to get a better understanding of what the word negotiation means.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

Think of it in FF terms. You need a RB to put you on top and I have AP. My first offer is going to ask for a significant amount. In the end I may settle for some friendly contracts for some high upside guys, but I may as we'll ask for the moon when I have something you desperately need (due to your ignoring the budget process I mean RB position in the draft)

Yeah...you ignored what I posted just a couple posts above....I believe the Dems caved on the budget number. They wanted 1.2T and the GOP wanted 989 (or something close). So...the GOP asked for the moon (Obamacare even though it's law and this isn't the way to go about it) and the Dems came back and gave them their budget number then the GOP rejected that very budget number. So, now what?Perhaps you should be schooling the GOP on how to negotiate. They seem to be the ones having problems understanding the concept at the moment, not the folks in the FFA....well, except for a few.

your thesis is incorrect

Not really. It's not "negotiating" to say "this is the only thing we'll accept". The dems made it clear that ACA was not up for negotiation via these means. If there is to be change on the front it's to be done via bill and negotiate within that framework just like they do with every other law. As a concession, they gave in on the budget number and the GOP refused THEIR OWN NUMBER and came back with the same "offer". Indeed, I'm correct in suggesting the GOP needs some schooling in how to negotiate. What has the GOP given as a concession from their initial position of "repeal Obamacare"? Is "delay Obamacare" really a concession of any consequence?

Seems like maybe a discussion should take place to see if the Republicans are willing to back off that position.

Agreed. I feel like we're at the point where the GOP has "offered" $1 for a $90,000 car, the Dems say we'll give it to you for $85,000 and the GOP response is "we'll give you $1". While I agree that negotiations are about shooting for the stars, there has to be a little realism involved. I don't know how many lowball offers we simply didn't entertain in selling our house. Offers need to have a shred of credibility to them IMO.

 

[Statorama]

I can't seem to find a link associated with the democrats caving to republican budget demands. Can someone post that please?

I have a link that states the starting point for budget negotiations is Paul Ryan's budget, but I can't find a parallel link saying the democrats agreed to it.

It was all over the news the night of the 90 minute meeting with Johnny B, Reid, Pelosi and the President. That was last week I believe. Start there.

If they signed off on Paul Ryan's budget and the R's didn't agree to that, then they really are insane

 

[jonessed]

I can't seem to find a link associated with the democrats caving to republican budget demands. Can someone post that please?

I have a link that states the starting point for budget negotiations is Paul Ryan's budget, but I can't find a parallel link saying the democrats agreed to it.

This has largely come from Reid. The proposed CR is simply the current budget. No significant cuts and no significant additions. The idea that anyone caved to get to status quo is a fallacy.

 

[Statorama]

The win win for America would be to tie the keystone pipeline to these negotiations. Big economic and employment benefit for the country and everyone saves face

 

[The Commish]

I can't seem to find a link associated with the democrats caving to republican budget demands. Can someone post that please?

I have a link that states the starting point for budget negotiations is Paul Ryan's budget, but I can't find a parallel link saying the democrats agreed to it.

It was all over the news the night of the 90 minute meeting with Johnny B, Reid, Pelosi and the President. That was last week I believe. Start there.

If they signed off on Paul Ryan's budget and the R's didn't agree to that, then they really are insane

They signed off on the number.....the specifics to be defined with that number as the cap. The line items to be hammered out. You'd have to be mindless to accept that budget on it's face (if we're talking about the one he proposed during the campaign).

 

[jonessed]

Let's get this down to the bones. Whether or not you lefty nuts want to admit it, there are consequences to the senate ignoring the budget process. That consequence is negotiating with congress over the CR. in this negotiation, the Republicans have something they're willing to give, which is sign off on the CR. What are the Democrats offering? I haven't heard ANY offers from Democrats, let alone any reasonable ones.

I think that the Democrats are missing out on an opportunity to look magnanimous here. Offer a couple of nuggets. The medical equipment tax is extremely low hanging fruit, since even some Democrats want that gone. Then throw up your hands in disgust.

But to take the stance that the Congress is the only one that has to give something in the negotiation means that you need to get a better understanding of what the word negotiation means.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

Think of it in FF terms. You need a RB to put you on top and I have AP. My first offer is going to ask for a significant amount. In the end I may settle for some friendly contracts for some high upside guys, but I may as we'll ask for the moon when I have something you desperately need (due to your ignoring the budget process I mean RB position in the draft)

Yeah...you ignored what I posted just a couple posts above....I believe the Dems caved on the budget number. They wanted 1.2T and the GOP wanted 989 (or something close). So...the GOP asked for the moon (Obamacare even though it's law and this isn't the way to go about it) and the Dems came back and gave them their budget number then the GOP rejected that very budget number. So, now what?Perhaps you should be schooling the GOP on how to negotiate. They seem to be the ones having problems understanding the concept at the moment, not the folks in the FFA....well, except for a few.

your thesis is incorrect

Not really. It's not "negotiating" to say "this is the only thing we'll accept". The dems made it clear that ACA was not up for negotiation via these means. If there is to be change on the front it's to be done via bill and negotiate within that framework just like they do with every other law. As a concession, they gave in on the budget number and the GOP refused THEIR OWN NUMBER and came back with the same "offer". Indeed, I'm correct in suggesting the GOP needs some schooling in how to negotiate. What has the GOP given as a concession from their initial position of "repeal Obamacare"? Is "delay Obamacare" really a concession of any consequence?

Seems like maybe a discussion should take place to see if the Republicans are willing to back off that position.

Agreed. I feel like we're at the point where the GOP has "offered" $1 for a $90,000 car, the Dems say we'll give it to you for $85,000 and the GOP response is "we'll give you $1". While I agree that negotiations are about shooting for the stars, there has to be a little realism involved. I don't know how many lowball offers we simply didn't entertain in selling our house. Offers need to have a shred of credibility to them IMO.

None of us really know what is or isn't feasible since the public positions are set in stone at this point.

The only certainty is that without discussions we will hit the ceiling. That seems like a significantly worse option than sitting down and talking.

 

[Statorama]

What I found was Reid's pledge to begin broad negotiations on 2014 spending AFTER the CR was signed off. Nobody is falling for that one, commish

 

[culdeus]

The win win for America would be to tie the keystone pipeline to these negotiations. Big economic and employment benefit for the country and everyone saves face

lol

 

[The Commish]

What I found was Reid's pledge to begin broad negotiations on 2014 spending AFTER the CR was signed off. Nobody is falling for that one, commish

You're probably not going to find it on foxnews.com.....just a hunch

 

[TheIronSheik]

I feel like this shutdown is really starting to get in our way of bombing Syria.

 

[Statorama]

What I found was Reid's pledge to begin broad negotiations on 2014 spending AFTER the CR was signed off. Nobody is falling for that one, commish

You're probably not going to find it on foxnews.com.....just a hunch

Yahoo.com

 

[ffldrew]

The win win for America would be to tie the keystone pipeline to these negotiations. Big economic and employment benefit for the country and everyone saves face

Until they start shipping the oil to China - tax free

 

[humpback]

Of course it has to do with your point- spin influences public opinion. I agree with some of what Court Jester said, but he also pretty much made my point- the left still blames Bush for most of their problems, they'll find a way to spin this on them as well.

We generally disagree with the state of Washington (it least that's how it seems), but we do agree that the spin machine is front and center for both parties and they use it to their full advantage. This is probably THE biggest weapon either party has and it's been encouraged by the way our "media" does business in covering the issues. With all that said, it's hard to disagree that the GOP didn't whiff on this big time by not letting it play out and expending any credibility they have left. Yeah, when ACA fails to meet expectations the Dems are going to be firing up their spin machine and they're going to have WAY more credibility than the GOP does. Not because they are better or right but because the GOP used all their political capital in a VERY poor manner. Simply put, the Dems are playing the game way better than the GOP is. Unfortunately, that's the gauge most voters go by and a pretty significant part of why we're in the situation we are.

We actually agree on most of the state of Washington, but other things seem to get in the way of that.

I'm not saying the GOP has handled this well by any stretch, I was just countering the "if they just let the ACA fail they'd have overwhelming public support" line of thinking. Sure, some people would back them, but most already have their mind made up before the game is even played.

I really hope it isn't most. The data will tell us what we need to know. I hope folks don't continue to get sucked into the spin zones.

Do you think the majority of voters are objective and keep an open mind about things? I certainly don't.

Hope is a pretty important word here. I'm confident that the politicians don't. That hope is all I have left. Problem is, now we see voters parroting the same things their politicians are and the politicians are saying "see, this is what my base wants". Certainly not looking good.

I suppose I "hope" it happens as well, but I think I have a better chance of hitting the lottery (and I don't play).

It's hard to hold out any hope when you read this board, see the results of polls, etc. The most important factor certainly seems to be the letter next to the name.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Revealed: The House GOP’s Debt-Ceiling Plan

By Jonathan Strong
September 25, 2013 6:54 PM

Below is an outline of the GOP’s debt-ceiling bill obtained by National Review Online. The document originated from staff to a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and is dated yesterday. A GOP-leadership aide says there are some differences between this and their latest summary, so take that for what it’s worth. As always with the House Republicans, it is subject to discussion from members, many of whom are quite vocal in providing their input on such plans.

House leadership is planning to pass the bill as early as Saturday. The bill itself is expected to be released imminently. The outline is not a huge surprise — most of the provisions have been floated or leaked, but it’s interesting to see the breadth of the demands laid out on paper.

Voting to increase the debt ceiling is always a brutal vote for lawmakers, because it’s very unpopular with their constituents back home. House conservatives also worry about undermining the Senate process and particularly Senator Ted Cruz’s fight in that chamber. For example, there have been efforts to keep the House’s plans under the radar until after the final cloture vote in order not to hinder Cruz’s push for the GOP to filibuster.
...

Formatting won't survive, but here is a handy list.

ETA: My attempt at formatting

Our Debt Limit Bill on Friday

 One Year Debt Limit Increase
o Not a dollar amount increase, but suspending the debt limit until the end of December 2014.
 Similar to what we did earlier this year.
o Want the year long to align with the year delay of Obamacare.

 One Year Obamacare delay

 Tax Reform Instructions
o Similar to a bill we passed last fall, laying out broad from Ryan Budget principles for what tax
reform should look like.
o Gives fast track authority for tax reform legislation

 Energy and regulatory reforms to promote economic growth
o Includes pretty much every jobs bill we have passed this year and last Congress
o All of these policies have important positive economic effects.
o Energy provisions
 Keystone Pipeline
 Coal Ash regulations
 Offshore drilling
 Energy production on federal lands
 EPA Carbon regulations
o Regulatory reform
 REINS Act
 Regulatory process reform
 Consent decree reform
 Blocking Net Neutrality

 Mandatory Spending Reforms
o Mostly from the sequester replacement bills we passed last year
o Federal Employee retirement reform
o Ending the Dodd Frank bailout fund
o Transitioning CFPB funding to Appropriations
o Child Tax Credit Reform to prevent fraud
o Repealing the Social Services Block grant

 Health Spending Reforms
o Means testing Medicare
o Repealing a Medicaid Provider tax gimmick
o Tort reform
o Altering Disproportion Share Hospitals
o Repealing the Public Health trust Fund

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think it's been posted before, but the Senate has already made it clear what will happen if they send that bill.

 

[humpback]

You know what I think would really help? More speeches!!!

 

[Statorama]

You know what I think would really help? More speeches!!!

And more of our posts!

 

[Lutherman2112]

The most curious thing about GOP debt limit demands: they start by ignoring the debt limit until the end of 2014.

 

[timschochet]

Listening to President Obama on the radio just now. He says he will NOT invoke the 14th Amendment. He does not believe he has the legal right to do so. He also points out that by the time it came to that anyhow, he fears the market will have collapsed.

 

[Johnny Bing]

I'm not the most political man on the block, but if the votes are there in the house to re-open the government The Speaker has to be getting some heat right now, isn't he?

 

[Slapdash]

Listening to President Obama on the radio just now. He says he will NOT invoke the 14th Amendment. He does not believe he has the legal right to do so. He also points out that by the time it came to that anyhow, he fears the market will have collapsed.

What an idiot.

 

[timschochet]

Listening to President Obama on the radio just now. He says he will NOT invoke the 14th Amendment. He does not believe he has the legal right to do so. He also points out that by the time it came to that anyhow, he fears the market will have collapsed.

What an idiot.

Who, me? Or Barack?

 

[TheIronSheik]

My message to the world is the United States has always paid its bills and it will do so again.

China begs to differ.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Listening to President Obama on the radio just now. He says he will NOT invoke the 14th Amendment. He does not believe he has the legal right to do so. He also points out that by the time it came to that anyhow, he fears the market will have collapsed.

What an idiot.

Who, me? Or Barack?

:softball:

 

[Slapdash]

Listening to President Obama on the radio just now. He says he will NOT invoke the 14th Amendment. He does not believe he has the legal right to do so. He also points out that by the time it came to that anyhow, he fears the market will have collapsed.

What an idiot.

Who, me? Or Barack?

Not you.....this time

 

[Lutherman2112]

My message to the world is the United States has always paid its bills and it will do so again.

China begs to differ.

How so? (serious question)

 

[TheIronSheik]

My message to the world is the United States has always paid its bills and it will do so again.

China begs to differ.

How so? (serious question)

I was making a joke. We are trillions of dollars in debt. I'm guessing we're not paying all of our bills.

 

[timschochet]

Listening to President Obama on the radio just now. He says he will NOT invoke the 14th Amendment. He does not believe he has the legal right to do so. He also points out that by the time it came to that anyhow, he fears the market will have collapsed.

What an idiot.

Who, me? Or Barack?

Not you.....this time

well then- please explain. I know Lawrence Tribe (Obama's professor in college) also believes that Obama cannot use the 14th Amendment in such a way, though I haven't read his specific argument. I also happen to agree with Obama that any failure by Congress to raise the debt ceiling would lead to an economic crisis whatever he decides to do. So how is he an idiot then?