So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[uke2se]

They are offering one position on the budget - and one that includes everything including ACA funding along with a delay and attempts to address perceived problems in ACA. It's up to the Senate to counter.

The senate counter is "you agreed to fund this. Now sit down and stop acting like children".

The Dems may eventually lose the entire ACA if they can't create a compromise.

It's equally probable this clown show is going to cost the GOP the House, not to speak about any prospects in 2016.

 

[Aepervius]

Say you want $15k for your used car and I offer you $14k if you buy new tires and get the engine checked. You can't say that's not a valid offer. You can't claim it's a "demand". You can't argue that my position didn't include anything for you. You are viewing the "Dems get everything they want" position as the center point for negotiation when that is blatantly unreasonable and unilateral. Look up "compromise" and consider than not everyone (maybe not a majority) wants this one-party bill.

The Dems may eventually lose the entire ACA if they can't create a compromise.

Incorrect analogy.

You buy tire and negotiate to 15.000 dollar. Then another day you come back and buy an engine and let it install. But then the seller won't let you pay for your engine UNLESS you rengeotiate the price of the already paid tire to a higher price.

That is the real situation.

 

[Upchurch]

They are offering one position on the budget - and one that includes everything including ACA funding along with a delay and attempts to address perceived problems in ACA.

The ACA was already funded. The GOP wasn't offering anything, unless you count the offer to take funding away from something that already had it.

The Dems may eventually lose the entire ACA if they can't create a compromise.

The ACA was the compromise.

 

[Dymanic]

The entire economy is not going to tank because of this shutdown.

No, probably not. And I'm quite clear on the distinction between the budget fight and the debt ceiling fight. The thing is, this is the same crazy crew that already cost us one downgrade in our national credit rating, and their willingness to go as far as a shutdown does not inspire a great deal of confidence in their ability to get something approximating a grip on reality before we once again encounter the more serious matter of the debt ceiling.

 

[DavidJames]

Incorrect analogy.

You buy tire and negotiate to 15.000 dollar. Then another day you come back and buy an engine and let it install. But then the seller won't let you pay for your engine UNLESS you rengeotiate the price of the already paid tire to a higher price.

That is the real situation.

The ACA was already funded. The GOP wasn't offering anything, unless you count the offer to take funding away from something that already had it.


The ACA was the compromise.

I've been saying this kind of thing over and over again and have yet to see someone from the loyal opposition address it.

Even worse is I'm not seeing this hammered home in the (damn liberal) media. All they want to do is play up the tit vs tat nature of problem.

 

[Aepervius]

It's equally probable this clown show is going to cost the GOP the House, not to speak about any prospects in 2016.

People have bought reps propaganda for decades and voted against their interrest for a long time. Call me a cynic but since tjis does not seem to open the eye of the public, and there is no massive protest in washington, i doubt it will influence the next election that much.

In fact most US media i watched put it as an inhability of both dems and reps to negotiate. JNews are distorting the picture utterly.

 

[stevea]

It's going to damage the economy. Point stands.

Will a several-week shutdown damage the economy more or less than the fraud associated with the ACA rollout w/o adequate security & eligibility checks for perhaps a year, and with a tax that inhibits med device innovation forever ? I'd wager that it can be a boon to the economy to revise/rework ACA.

Point fails.

 

[uke2se]

Will a several-week shutdown damage the economy more or less than the fraud associated with the ACA rollout w/o adequate security & eligibility checks for perhaps a year, and with a tax that inhibits med device innovation forever ? I'd wager that it can be a boon to the economy to revise/rework ACA.

Point fails.

Fraud? Seems you're drinking deep from the GOP propaganda kool-aid. Sorry, it's not going to fly here.

And yes, the shutdown will damage the economy more than the ACA, which will not damage the economy. And the Republicans aren't interested in reworking or revising the ACA. They have had three years to do so if they had cared to. They are only interested in repealing it, which they have tried over 40 times.

 

[A'isha]

Yes it is an offer. I'd classify it as an unreasonable offer, but an offer none the less.

No, and offer is "here's what I want to give you", not "here's what I want you to give me". The House CR contains only the latter, and none of the former.

Your link contains no discernible info on what "Dems and Reps want". Some blather that certain House members have certain agendas.

It says, quite clearly, that the Republicans, like the Democrats, do not want a shutdown. Therefore, avoiding a shutdown is not anything the Republicans are offering to the Democrats in return for something they want.

Wrong. The House originates spending & budget bills, and then they go to Senate for markup & modification, then usually to a reconciliation committee for a draft meant to pass both House&Senate. This is a legit OFFER, and can be revised in any way the Senate wants - if Harry Reid allows it. Reid's refusal ids intransigence.

A) It's not an offer, and B) the Senate has already sent back to the House the version they revised. Sane House Republicans tried to get the whole House to vote on that, but the crazy wing killed any chances of that, and insisted on making continued demands with no offers.

Go read the definition of "demand" vs "offer" and then read your HS civics text and then drop your hyperbolic language on the topic. OF COURSE the House offered terms to their advantage, and the Senate should respond with a compromise they find advantageous.

Why should the Senate pull the same dangerous crap that the House Republicans are doing? The Senate is wanting to pass, with no strings attached, the thing that both parties have explicitly said they want to avoid. It's the Republicans that are insisting on adding things to the bill that only they want, without offering anything to the Democrats in return.

The ACA is greatly disliked by a large segment of the population.

No, it's disliked by a small segment of the population, who are vastly outnumbered by the people who either like it or aren't sure.

And the Republicans, who campaigned in 2012 on dismantling the ACA, were soundly defeated.

If you imagine that an unread one-party ACA bill drafted in the middle of the night is perfect - then you are a fool. This is an opportunity for Dems to delay & revise and improve the ACA and make it workable. As it stands it's got serious fraud and security issues, and the device make tax seems ill-advised. The waivers and exemptions look illegal to me.

If the House Republicans want to do that, they can propose separate bills for that and let everyone vote, and not force the entire apparatus of government to shut down unless they get their way.

Reps are giving Dems a grand opening to revise an improve and to blame the Reps for the delay to boot.

They're doing no such thing. They're hoping that the Democrats will give in to their demands to implement an agenda they can't get passed legislatively, by holding the entire operation of the national government hostage.

Say you want $15k for your used car and I offer you $14k if you buy new tires and get the engine checked. You can't say that's not a valid offer. You can't claim it's a "demand". You can't argue that my position didn't include anything for you.

Here's a better analogy: say you and your roommate have to cosign on your rent check every month. Unless you both sign the check, you'll both get evicted. Neither you nor your roommate wants to get evicted.

However, your roommate refuses to co-sign the check for the rent, thus resulting in you both ending up homeless, unless you buy her a big-screen TV that she will get to keep in her room all the time.

Now, is she making an offer that you then have to come to some compromise on ("Okay, you don't have to buy me a big-screen TV. Just a new laptop. Or I won't co-sign the rent check")?

Or is she making a demand on you, taking something that you both want and wanting extra stuff that only she benefits from on top of that?

You are viewing the "Dems get everything they want" position as the center point for negotiation when that is blatantly unreasonable and unilateral. Look up "compromise" and consider than not everyone (maybe not a majority) wants this one-party bill.

Uh, the ACA has already passed, and made it through Constitutional scrutiny to boot. And it passed not by the Democrats demanding that it be made law or they'd force the government to shut down, but by a proper legislative vote.

If the Republicans want to repeal the ACA or modify it, they can damn well do the same, instead of refusing to co-sign America's rent check because they want a big-screen TV in their room.

 

[Mike!]

Your analogy is nonsense. ACA is the law. You already bought the car and now you are refusing to pay for it.

No, what he's saying is a great analogy in the context of an 'offer' and potential 'compromise'.
Here's how it is. We may own the car, but WE didn't buy it. It's really more along the lines of, Your Uncle has left you a car. Now, it's got some nice features, but, may or may not be able to run on it's own, and it may or may not have brakes. So, what you're saying is, since we already own it, why not go ahead and take it out for a spin, just to see how it works out.

 

[A'isha]

No, what he's saying is a great analogy in the context of 'offer' and 'compromise'.

And since what the GOP House is pulling has nothing to do with "offer" or "compromise", it's therefore an incredibly poor analogy.

As is yours, incidentally.

 

[uke2se]

No, what he's saying is a great analogy in the context of 'offer' and 'compromise'.
Here's how it is. We may own the car, but we didn't buy it. It's really more along the lines of, Your Uncle has left you a car. It's got some nice features, but, may or may not be able to run on it's own, and it may or may not have brakes. So, what you're saying is, since you already own it, why don't you go ahead and take it for a spin just see how it works out.

No, that's not a particularly good analogy for this situation.

 

[Dymanic]

No, that's not a particularly good analogy for this situation.

To put it kindly.

 

[DavidJames]

No, what he's saying is a great analogy in the context of 'offer' and 'compromise'.
Here's how it is. We may own the car, but we didn't buy it. It's really more along the lines of, Your Uncle has left you a car. It's got some nice features, but, may or may not be able to run on it's own, and it may or may not have brakes. So, what you're saying is, since you already own it, why don't you go ahead and take it for a spin just see how it works out.

I'll see your : and raise you a

 

[uke2se]

I'll see your : and raise you a

Well, I do understand what he's talking about. He's proposing the tired old argument that the ACA might destroy the economy, and we shouldn't go ahead with it because it might be bad. What his analogy misses completely is the fact that the ACA is already law. It has been passed by the legislative process, and has withstood scrutiny by the supreme court. The debate about whether to implement ACA or not is over.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Then later offered a 1yr rollout delay + removal of the device tax + denial of the Federal exemption.

LOL!!! What do you think would happen in a year?

 

[DavidJames]

Well, I do understand what he's talking about. He's proposing the tired old argument that the ACA might destroy the economy, and we shouldn't go ahead with it because it might be bad. What his analogy misses completely is the fact that the ACA is already law. It has been passed by the legislative process, and has withstood scrutiny by the supreme court. The debate about whether to implement ACA or not is over.

Thanks. I'm not so sure he misses the fact that ACA is law, however. I suspect like the others, it's an inconvenient fact that he chooses to ignore.

Oh, the "covered eyes" icon threw me as well. I wasn't sure if he may have been being sarcastic.

 

[Mike!]

Well, I do understand what he's talking about. He's proposing the tired old argument that the ACA might destroy the economy, and we shouldn't go ahead with it because it might be bad. What his analogy misses completely is the fact that the ACA is already law. It has been passed by the legislative process, and has withstood scrutiny by the supreme court. The debate about whether to implement ACA or not is over.

Thank you for getting where I was going. That it's the law was what I meant by, '...your Uncle left you...", you inherited it, you already own it. I'm piss poor in the old analogy department, and generally embarrass myself here when I try.
That said, my own personal belief on the topic is, that there's little that can be done to stop it for now, so let it go forward and see what happens. The flaws will either manifest themselves or they won't. If it works out, everyone should be happy. The people who thought it would blow up should go ahead, take their fingers out of their ears, and breath a sigh of relief.
And, if it turns out, as some fear, that Uncle Sam's car has no brakes and it crashes, I only hope the damage isn't so severe that it can't be repaired.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Personally, I'm in favor of Obamacare. On that level, yes, there's a problem. But we are discussing how the legislative branch of the government functions, and I have a problem with duly elected representatives being told they shouldn't use the legal mechanisms in place to try and reach their goals.

As far as I can tell, they are operating within the law and Constitution. If that's the case, then where is the problem?

So your sense of morality is defined by the law?

 

[12AX7]

Both sides are to blame. Both sides didn't want to work together. This should have been taken care of a LONG time ago. It's amazing, we're supposed to have this Obama Care, but we can't even pay the bills we have. It's time to figure out what needs to be done to get our budget under control. BOTH sides. House and Senate.

Nope. See below.

You're wasting your time.

It's become painfully clear who understands how the process works and who doesn't. When it's time to negotiate the content of laws and proposals and when after it's been decided, to pay for them.

I've tried to use analogies to our home lives. We determine what we will spend when we decide to make the purchase. After that point, it's our responsibility to pay for it. In this case the Republicans, and only the Republicans, have decided they don't want to pay for things they (within the process) have already agreed to.

Further, in one of the proposals they wanted to including paying for something (Keystone) that wasn't even agreed to yet.

But partisan ignorant ideologues don't get.

And:

Nonsense. 100% nonsense. The budget is under control and the deficits, built up by Bush, have been on a drastic decline. Try again. You're trying to blame both the victim and the perpetrator in an extortion scandal.

This. ^^^^

The easiest way to avoid having to think about this, in any level of detail, is to hand wave it away by saying everyone does it. I'm not sure why anyone would even take the time to say it. Unless they have an agenda and don't want ti known.

And this. ^^^^