Shutdown?

[Salty]

hey are shutting it down. Now, how long for the GOP to cave in? Does anyone think Obama will cave?

Is it caving in or standing on your principal

Exactaly what has each side comperised on?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Exactaly what has each side comperised on?

Democrats: Nothing. Republicans: Several things. That's obvious to anyone who can observe objectively.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=89040

 

[InTheLight]

Is it caving in or standing on your principal?

I think both sides stood on their principles. The Dems said they would not allow the Republicans to use a possible government shutdown to reverse legislation and the Republicans said they would attempt to defund ObamaCare.

Exactaly what has each side comperised on?

The Dems have not compromised anything. The Republicans started out talking about repealing ObamaCare, then defunding it, then defunding portions of it, then delaying implementation of it. Their negotiating position continued to deteriorate as time played out.

Consider a person attempting to buy a used car. Let's say the buyer is a Republican and the seller is the Democrat.

R: How much do you want for the car?

D: $10,900.

R: Will you take $8,000?

D: No, it's $10,900. I've got to get $10,900.

R: How about $8,500?

D: I've got to get $10,900.

R: Would you take $8,800?

D: The number is $10,900.

R: How about $9,000?

D: Look I told you, it's got to be $10,900.

R: $9,200?

etc. etc.


I predict the Republicans will cave in. They didn't win a thing in their continual posturing leading up to the shutdown. They've just been beaten and they have no leverage. Fools.

What they should have done is start passing clean continuing resolutions for each segment of the government. Example: Pass a budget for the Veteran's Admin and send it to the Senate with no mention of Obamacare. Senate would have to approve it, right? Then send a budget without an ObamaCare amendment for the Dept. of Energy. Continue doing this until you have a couple of liberal favorites remaining, say Dept. of Education and the EPA. Then attach your ObamaCare defunding amendment and make the Dems in the Senate squirm and look like the obstructionists.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The Dems have not compromised anything.

And you think that's a good thing? Newsflash, ITL. Compromise is how government happens.

The Republicans started out talking about repealing ObamaCare, then defunding it, then defunding portions of it, then delaying implementation of it. Their negotiating position continued to deteriorate as time played out.

Another newsflash: That's called "compromise" and the democrats are feigning unfamiliarity with it. The Great Pretender told NPR this morning that "negotiation" on this and the debt ceiling is "unprecedented." What a load of crap! Clinton negotiated -- he compromised -- to end the 21-day shutdown 17 years ago. This arrogant empty headed Empty Suit is completely unfamiliar with how to govern, and the more gullible among us formed a majority and elected him to the highest office in the land despite his completely unqualified profile. He needs to shut up, sit in the corner, and let the big boys run things, as he hasn't a clue. Sure he knows campaigning, he knows hardball politics. But that's not governance. That's cut-throat backroom politics Chicago style, and the American people will not stand for it.

Consider a person attempting to buy a used car. Let's say the buyer is a Republican and the seller is the Democrat.

You forgot the main option, after the second or third offer and the seller refuses to budge. That's when the potential buyer says, "Sorry, it isn't worth that much. 'Bye."

 

[InTheLight]

And you think that's a good thing? Newsflash, ITL. Compromise is how government happens.

I didn't render judgment on it one way or the other, merely stated fact.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I didn't render judgment on it one way or the other, merely stated fact.

And yet you managed to lay out the refusal of the socialists to budge in a positive light by following that up with a labeling of the GOP compromise efforts as "a deterioration of their position" which is completely disingenuous.

 

[InTheLight]

And yet you managed to lay out the refusal of the socialists to budge in a positive light by following that up with a labeling of the GOP compromise efforts as "a deterioration of their position" which is completely disingenuous.

Progressively lowering your demands in a negotiation is a deterioration of the negotiating position. How can you see it any other way? :BangHead:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Progressively lowering your demands in a negotiation is a deterioration of the negotiating position. How can you see it any other way? :BangHead:

Unless you have asked for more than you expect to get from the start, in which case you negotiate downward to what you can accept. That's what a compromise is, in case you didn't realize it. You start with higher demands than you have expectations, and work down to your expectations. But then, being a Democrat, you apparently are as unaware of the concept of compromise as is your party leadership. I'm guessing you agree with your party's "no negotiation" tactic, which is no tactic at all. In the end, just as your earlier scenario with the car seller and buyer, you are seen as intractable, stubborn, and childish. And the other side walks away, leaving you with the problems inherent in the car -- or the healthcare plan -- unresolved. Which of course means the rollout goes on as you intended, and fails, as you did not intend.

 

[InTheLight]

Newsflash, ITL. Compromise is how government happens.

From late October 2010, in anticipation of gaining a R majority in the House:

“This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles,” Boehner said.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/78740/boehner-no-compromise



“There will be no compromise on stopping runaway spending, deficits and debt. There will be no compromise on repealing Obamacare, lock, stock, and barrel."” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) in an interview last week on conservative Hugh Hewitt’s radio show.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/28/130895390/house-republicans-vow-no-compromise

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44311.html#ixzz2gTppqkLo



After the 2010 election:

STAHL: But governing means compromising.

BOEHNER: It means working together.

STAHL: It also means compromising.

BOEHNER: It means finding common ground.

STAHL: Okay, is that compromising?

BOEHNER: I made it clear I am not going to compromise on my principles, nor am I going to compromise the will of the American people.

STAHL: What are you saying? You’re saying, “I want common ground, but I’m not gonna compromise.” I don’t understand that. I really don’t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RBYSltbiu8U

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

From late October 2010, in anticipation of gaining a R majority in the House:

“This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles,” Boehner said.

Note the word "principles." No, you never negotiate principles. You're trying to compare apples to oranges, and that won't work any better than the ACA does.

After the 2010 election:

STAHL: But governing means compromising.

BOEHNER: It means working together.

STAHL: It also means compromising.

BOEHNER: It means finding common ground.

STAHL: Okay, is that compromising?

BOEHNER: I made it clear I am not going to compromise on my principles, nor am I going to compromise the will of the American people.

STAHL: What are you saying? You’re saying, “I want common ground, but I’m not gonna compromise.” I don’t understand that. I really don’t.

Yeah, it's not really surprising Stahl -- like most liberal/socialist types -- doesn't understand "principles."

 

[InTheLight]

<snip>

But then, being a Democrat, you apparently are as unaware of the concept of compromise as is your party leadership. I'm guessing you agree with your party's "no negotiation" tactic, which is no tactic at all.

Amazing. Simply amazing. This is the problem with the political board on BB. Unless you agree with the right-wing, (mostly) Tea Party ideology around here, you are branded a liberal, a Democrat, a socialist, etc. I am NOT a Democrat. I have not voted for a Democrat since 1990 and that was for governor of Minnesota (the Dem was pro-life).

I DO NOT agree with the Dems no compromise stance on this issue, but neither do I agree that the Reps should hold the entire country hostage when the Dems clearly told them they were not going to bend on the issue and had the votes necessary to hold their ground. I posted a solution around the problem earlier in this thread--pass a clean continuing resolution for spending department by department--that would be a palatable compromise that wouldn't have shut down most of the government. Apparently you didn't see that or it didn't give you an opportunity to lash out at me so you ignored it.

When your side holds to their principles and doesn't cave, that's called leadership. When the other side holds to their principles and doesn't cave, that's called being intractable and obstructionist.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The shutdown is crazy and the GOP will end as responsible in the majority of voters eyes. The shutdown is about government funding, not Obamacare.

Here's the crazy thing about the current shutdown. A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS OPPOSES THE SHUT DOWN.

[The shutdown] is an avoidable crisis caused solely by Republicans in the U.S. House. Here’s why.

A majority of Congress actually opposes the shutdown

The federal government shut down for one reason: House Republicans did not pass a six-week funding bill.

That doesn’t mean a majority of the House opposed the bill, however. In fact, the House never got to vote on it.

Speaker John Boehner refused to hold a vote on funding alone–a “clean” bill–instead only allowing votes on funding plans that undermined Obamacare. The Senate rejected those bills, and Boehner never brought a clean bill to the floor before the deadline for funding the government.

https://plus.google.com/116987987149730551614/posts/HP2oReS9FYs

 

[poncho]

I think Americans will see this latest bit of political theater for what it is Crabby. An attempt by democrats to terrorize the public into accepting another ill conceived piece of legislation that only benefits corporate special interests.

It's no different than the time Paulson and the Bush administration tried to terrorize the public into accepting the banker bailouts that have continued under Obama. What kind of government do we have when it feels compelled to terrorize the public into accepting "laws" that only benefit the corporate elite?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I DO NOT agree with the Dems no compromise stance on this issue, but neither do I agree that the Reps should hold the entire country hostage when the Dems clearly told them they were not going to bend on the issue and had the votes necessary to hold their ground.

Coulda fooled me. Supporting the obvious inflexibility of the socialists in Washington by excusing them from blame while claiming the Republicans are "holding the entire country hostage" is spin of monumental purportions, and it's a liberal/socialist/democrat spin I wouldn't expect any conservative to buy into, regardless of how ham-fisted the conservative strategy has been executed the last week.

You are buying the media lies, that the Republicans are to blame. How can anyone who sent three reasonable proposals to an intractable, childish, arrogant opponent be seen as "responsible" for this? That's the most ludicrous conclusion anyone can reach. It is obvious it is the chutpah of the liberal cadre, spawned by nominating the first black man to be president, has convinced them they are the elite ruling party with the force of "right" and "good" on their side, when the reality is, it is "we're right because we say we are" and "what we say is good" is the actual ruler of the day for these imbeciles.

I posted a solution around the problem earlier in this thread--pass a clean continuing resolution for spending department by department--that would be a palatable compromise that wouldn't have shut down most of the government.

That is essentially what the Republicans did, funding everything but the idiotic ACA, and the Democrats refused to accept it. Why would they accept a more detailed department-by-department funding bill that doesn't fund their "precious" -- the ACA, a proven unworkable, unstable, untenable piece of crap?

When the other side holds to their principles and doesn't cave, that's called being intractable and obstructionist.

Which is precisely how you have characterized the Republicans, which makes it difficult to accept you are actually on the side you claim to be on.

 

[poncho]

Coulda fooled me. Supporting the obvious inflexibility of the socialists in Washington by excusing them from blame while claiming the Republicans are "holding the entire country hostage" is spin of monumental purportions, and it's a liberal/socialist/democrat spin I wouldn't expect any conservative to buy into, regardless of how ham-fisted the conservative strategy has been executed the last week.

You are buying the media lies, that the Republicans are to blame. How can anyone who sent three reasonable proposals to an intractable, childish, arrogant opponent be seen as "responsible" for this? That's the most ludicrous conclusion anyone can reach. It is obvious it is the chutpah of the liberal cadre, spawned by nominating the first black man to be president, has convinced them they are the elite ruling party with the force of "right" and "good" on their side, when the reality is, it is "we're right because we say we are" and "what we say is good" is the actual ruler of the day for these imbeciles.

That is essentially what the Republicans did, funding everything but the idiotic ACA, and the Democrats refused to accept it. Why would they accept a more detailed department-by-department funding bill that doesn't fund their "precious" -- the ACA, a proven unworkable, unstable, untenable piece of crap?

Which is precisely how you have characterized the Republicans, which makes it difficult to accept you are actually on the side you claim to be on.

That's quite a statement coming from someone that has sided with the corporatist democrats on supporting Islamic mercenaries used for regime change and nation building experiments and their efforts to undermine and/or usurp the constitution.

I remember what being conservative meant before the neocon coup. You fit the later but not the former. ITL is closer to being a true conservative than you. You've only been here a few weeks but in that short amount of time you have made it clear that you view anyone critical
of the neocons whether they be in the democrat or republican party as commies and liberals.

I believe you'll find more people here that want what's best for the country rather than the neocon usurpers and warmongers in both parties.

 

[InTheLight]

You are buying the media lies, that the Republicans are to blame. How can anyone who sent three reasonable proposals to an intractable, childish, arrogant opponent be seen as "responsible" for this?

When your opponent has been saying for at least 2 weeks that any proposal with an amendment in it to defund ObamaCare is dead on arrival, and repeats it over and over and over again, that is the opponent planting a stake in the ground. Then Ted Cruz has his marathon speech and the opponent repeats their statement that any bill with ObamaCare in it is DOA. Plus they have the votes in the Senate to defend their position. And Presidential veto power.

It doesn't matter if you think they are reasonable, they contained elements of ObamaCare in them and the opponent had told you they would be DOA. So instead of finding a way around it they plow ahead knowing the consequences would be a shutdown. Thus, the Republicans are to blame. If any one is buying into spin it is you with your belief that the Dems are blameworthy.

 

[Gina B]

"Let it shut down."

Okay, wonderful! It doesn't affect you, right?

Except my family will no longer have a decent of our income if it continues, since a portion of that income is military related disability pay.

And since hubby's job hours were cut thanks to employers wanting everyone to be part time now, and we save a lot of money shopping on a military base for groceries, which is clearing out perishable foods and shutting down now since they are government run, we can no longer save money on groceries.

Thousands around us are civilians employed on base.

I'm thinking you have no clue of how damaging this really is to regular, everyday people. This isn't fat cats sitting there going without. THEY still get their pay. It isn't a few parks and some national zoos being affected. We're real people with real bills so while you sit there saying "yay, shut it down," you're talking about thousands losing income immediately, more looking at it, spending more on normal stuff like food, having already been through furloughs this summer, snowballing into debt, and you think this is GOOD?
Explain that. How is this good in your little corner of the world?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

When your opponent has been saying for at least 2 weeks that any proposal with an amendment in it to defund ObamaCare is dead on arrival, and repeats it over and over and over again, that is the opponent planting a stake in the ground.

Oh, so when someone says "I will not be moved," then we just roll over and play dead? We say, "Oh, well if you won't compromise, then I guess we'll just give up"

Crap!

Then Ted Cruz has his marathon speech and the opponent repeats their statement that any bill with ObamaCare in it is DOA. Plus they have the votes in the Senate to defend their position. And Presidential veto power.

And again, just because they think they cannot be moved to compromise, we do nothing? Again, CRAP!

It doesn't matter if you think they are reasonable, they contained elements of ObamaCare in them and the opponent had told you they would be DOA. So instead of finding a way around it they plow ahead knowing the consequences would be a shutdown.

In two weeks we will face a debt ceiling debate, and the largest contributor to its being maxed out in record time this go-'round will be the implementation of the ACA. And we should just lie down and accept it, huh? I'd repeat the word a third time, but you get my drift.

Thus, the Republicans are to blame.

Utterly, completely ridiculous. Just let a majority ruin the country because they are the majority. That's your response. Great googly-moogly!! What crap!

 

[InTheLight]

"Let it shut down."

Okay, wonderful! It doesn't affect you, right?

Gina, I'm not supporting the shutdown. I feel for your family and hope this thing doesn't last into Wednesday. It's shameful that politics are being played with people's lives.

 

[poncho]

They all tried to make us believe the world would end today. Well here we are the sun is shining and the country is still open for business as usual.

So they all lied to us again. Does it really matter which group of crooks and liars are "to blame" when the whole bunch have proven themselves to be crooks and liars?