I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
It is the House's job to pass a fucking budget that funds the law
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Yeah, Jasc. That just doesn't really make sense. What you are saying is that when Democrats modify spending bills they do so via the expected and normal means allowed for them to do so (via negotiation of the actual budget itself) rather than using a loophole to cause a government shutdown if they don't get their demands. Part of the big problem with your argument is that the Democrats have already compromised on the budget to a ridiculous extent from previous spending:
They are below the original spending launched by the Republicans at the start of this thing, and still the right wanted to cut it more. The right already got what they wanted and they STILL brought us into a shutdown.
It's a false equivalence. Democrats haven't done a shutdown during their terms not because they are spineless or spending nuts (though they may also be those things at times), but because they don't want to damage the country over short term politics.
Just so you guys feel better about the state of the world
As we teeter on the brink, our top trending twitter topics are
#happybirthdaybrunomars
#carrie
#parishilton
You are welcome
why is paris hilton trending?
miley cyrus is the trainwreck of the month
Oh god my girlfriend and I watched the latest SNL yesterday and I swear every single fucking sketch was about how "sexy" Miley is and you could just smell the contract clause that she has to come off as a slut in every appearance because that's her new image now.
Also constant twerking and the tongue thing and I wouldn't be surprised at this point if she tried to copyright these things.
Also her outfit during her first song seemed pretty racist?
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
this is a horrific oversimplification of a process that starts with Congress first. and that process was ongoing since the beginning of the year. as in, there were attempts to bring the budget to conference between the House and Senate sides since April 2013, and it was the House Republicans who have balked the entire time.
to pin the blame on Obama for "OT" is quite bluntly an outright lie. the ultra-conservative wing of the current GOP has delayed and delayed and delayed to get us to this point. what kind of mental gymnastics requires envisioning Obama as having run out the clock here?
Oh, come on now. The world is always ending. If you dwell on that nonstop you won't be able to function at all without going crazy.
seems kind of beside the point
there's an actual crisis threatening to ruin a significant number of lives and set back important scientific research for decades. it's pretty far from business as usual
I think there's a middle ground between dwelling on it nonstop and people mostly talking about a pop star, a movie remake, and some other person
to me it goes to show a serious disconnect between the average person and shit that matters
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
Given that, I am interested to know what episode of The Daily Show this delusion covered in that the President has no responsibility to work with a branch of the government because they aren't controlled by his party so that I can DVR it
I am really interested
Jasconius on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The reason the hostage-taking analogy comes up so often is that the GOP has nothing to offer other than avoiding a disaster that they induced. Their only "compromises" are reducing "Destroy Obamacare because we said so, or else" to "Destroy some of Obamacare because we said so, or else" to "Delay implementing Obamacare because we said so, or else." The "or else" isn't any problematic result of Obamacare; it's just a bad thing that will happen unless they stop it from happening.
Hence, hostage-taking analogies. "Give me $1million or I'll shoot this random person." "Give me $500k or I'll shoot this random person." "Give me $250k or I'll shoot this person. Why are you making me shoot this person?"
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
The GOP doesn't care about spending in and of itself. Look what happened to our spending under Bush - between Medicare Part D and the wars we spent trillions unnecessarily. The fight is over WHAT to spend money on, and whether to get it through taxes or borrowing.
And it's not up to Obama to do the negotiating, it's up to Harry Reid. Obama doesn't come into it at all, except to throw around the right rhetoric, until something gets past the Senate. The Senate has already agreed to a CR which significantly reduces funding below Obama's or the Senate's initial offering - it's even below the original Ryan budget. And they tried to call a conference like 15 times this summer, blocked every time by McConnell/Cruz/etc. So don't pretend there has been no negotiation going on. The issue is that the Democrats won't negotiate over the very existence of their signature law, not that they won't negotiate at all. There have been tons of negotiations, but the Fox News line that you're parroting denies this fact.
edit - or what everyone else already said basically, I guess
Oh, come on now. The world is always ending. If you dwell on that nonstop you won't be able to function at all without going crazy.
seems kind of beside the point
there's an actual crisis threatening to ruin a significant number of lives and set back important scientific research for decades. it's pretty far from business as usual
I think there's a middle ground between dwelling on it nonstop and people mostly talking about a pop star, a movie remake, and some other person
to me it goes to show a serious disconnect between the average person and shit that matters
But what are they supposed to do
This is out of everyone's hands, what actual good does it do for people to sit around and go "well this is shitty" instead of try and be happy and wait for something to happen with this
0
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
Just so you guys feel better about the state of the world
As we teeter on the brink, our top trending twitter topics are
#happybirthdaybrunomars
#carrie
#parishilton
You are welcome
why is paris hilton trending?
miley cyrus is the trainwreck of the month
Oh god my girlfriend and I watched the latest SNL yesterday and I swear every single fucking sketch was about how "sexy" Miley is and you could just smell the contract clause that she has to come off as a slut in every appearance because that's her new image now.
Also constant twerking and the tongue thing and I wouldn't be surprised at this point if she tried to copyright these things.
Also her outfit during her first song seemed pretty racist?
wasn't she wearing like a midriff-baring houndstooth ensemble? If I am recollecting correctly, what was racist about that?
Oh, come on now. The world is always ending. If you dwell on that nonstop you won't be able to function at all without going crazy.
seems kind of beside the point
there's an actual crisis threatening to ruin a significant number of lives and set back important scientific research for decades. it's pretty far from business as usual
I think there's a middle ground between dwelling on it nonstop and people mostly talking about a pop star, a movie remake, and some other person
to me it goes to show a serious disconnect between the average person and shit that matters
But what are they supposed to do
This is out of everyone's hands, what actual good does it do for people to sit around and go "well this is shitty" instead of try and be happy and wait for something to happen with this
Yeah, Jasc. That just doesn't really make sense. What you are saying is that when Democrats modify spending bills they do so via the expected and normal means allowed for them to do so (via negotiation of the actual budget itself) rather than using a loophole to cause a government shutdown if they don't get their demands. Part of the big problem with your argument is that the Democrats have already compromised on the budget to a ridiculous extent from previous spending:
That 986 billion continuing resolution includes the sequester cuts with the Democrats absolutely do not want and would take any chance to repeal if they could
The reason they haven't repealed them is that you can't repeal them using a continuing resolution, since the word "continuing" is in it
But for the record, agreeing the sequester was admirable by the President, and as I stated a page or two ago, I expect a very similar result this time around
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
There is no "exchange." The GOP wants the one year delay "in exchange" for paying for a law that is already enacted. They are not offering anything that is theirs to offer.
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
There is no "exchange." The GOP wants the one year delay "in exchange" for paying for a law that is already enacted. They are not offering anything that is theirs to offer.
Apparently they are, since they get to make that kind of demand
if it wasn't theirs to offer, then they couldn't legally offer it
0
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Oh, come on now. The world is always ending. If you dwell on that nonstop you won't be able to function at all without going crazy.
seems kind of beside the point
there's an actual crisis threatening to ruin a significant number of lives and set back important scientific research for decades. it's pretty far from business as usual
I think there's a middle ground between dwelling on it nonstop and people mostly talking about a pop star, a movie remake, and some other person
to me it goes to show a serious disconnect between the average person and shit that matters
Business usual on twitter, a program dominated by teenagers and college kids to communicate in 140 character messages. If you are expecting serious political discourse to dominate social media that's a bit silly.
When CNN is doing so, that's a problem (and a valid one). But if you look back during the Cuban missile crisis the notes passed in class probably weren't about bomb shelters, and the penny-dreadfuls in 1776 weren't focusing on the American rebellion.
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
Just so you guys feel better about the state of the world
As we teeter on the brink, our top trending twitter topics are
#happybirthdaybrunomars
#carrie
#parishilton
You are welcome
why is paris hilton trending?
miley cyrus is the trainwreck of the month
Oh god my girlfriend and I watched the latest SNL yesterday and I swear every single fucking sketch was about how "sexy" Miley is and you could just smell the contract clause that she has to come off as a slut in every appearance because that's her new image now.
Also constant twerking and the tongue thing and I wouldn't be surprised at this point if she tried to copyright these things.
Also her outfit during her first song seemed pretty racist?
wasn't she wearing like a midriff-baring houndstooth ensemble? If I am recollecting correctly, what was racist about that?
She was wearing a transparent black sports jersey with a Poison logo on it and chains around her neck. And some kind of underwear underneath it so it obviously still looked slutty.
The jersey + chains kind of came off a little Kanye to me and she is not Kanye.
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
Given that, I am interested to know what episode of The Daily Show this delusion covered in that the President has no responsibility to work with a branch of the government because they aren't controlled by his party so that I can DVR it
I am really interested
Its not refusing to work with people because they aren't his party.
Its not working with them because they are stopping the entire country till their entire agenda is put through
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.[/quote]
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.[/quote]
No, the Republicans chose to when they refused for 6 months to hold a conference committee on the budget, only to be all, "Hey, why won't the Dems talk to us???" on the eve of a government shutdown.
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
Given that, I am interested to know what episode of The Daily Show this delusion covered in that the President has no responsibility to work with a branch of the government because they aren't controlled by his party so that I can DVR it
I am really interested
and you think that the one year mandate is going to be negotiated in good faith? when one year passes, the extremist wing of the GOP will simply pull this "tactic" all over again to try to stop the ACA from full implementation. what reason does the Executive have to give in to a transparent attempt to delay a law that was 1) approved by both the House and the Senate previously, 2) signed into law, 3) survived more than 40 attempts at repeal, 4) survived a Supreme Court Constitutional challenge, AND 5) is already funded and started?
in fact, what validates any "compromise" on Obama's part here, given the above? really? Obama has no responsibility to work with a bunch of idiots throwing a tantrum. they can't get what they want, so they're going to break their toys and not let anyone else have them. Obama should work with government for the welfare of the nation, but he has no obligation to work with spoiled, whiny brats.
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
Given that, I am interested to know what episode of The Daily Show this delusion covered in that the President has no responsibility to work with a branch of the government because they aren't controlled by his party so that I can DVR it
I am really interested
Jesus you're a piece of work
Actually, watching you place people into categories you already dislike so you can dismiss their opinion is making this whole thing make a lot more sense
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
Don't use big boy words if you don't know what they mean.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Jasc, explain to me how, in your worldview, it is valid to hold the entire world economy hostage over a bill you didn't have the ability to modify, change, or repeal during regular business given the votes you had in the house. Please use specific terms and follow up your claims with warrants.
Jasc, explain to me how, in your worldview, it is valid to hold the entire world economy hostage over a bill you didn't have the ability to modify, change, or repeal during regular business given the votes you had in the house. Please use specific terms and follow up your claims with warrants.
I don't think it's valid. Fortunately, that's not what the GOP is doing.
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
No it doesn't. Everyone still has to get insurance come January, which is the only way the insurers don't immediately go into a death spiral. You don't know what you're talking about.
Gee look at all that
If only the Democrats would try to negotiate.
i was actually trying to find that earlier. do you have the source?
if there's one thing i agree with Jasc on, it's that Obama was dumb to delay the mandate for businesses. he should have just had the mandate go into effect as planned for everyone.
Jasc, explain to me how, in your worldview, it is valid to hold the entire world economy hostage over a bill you didn't have the ability to modify, change, or repeal during regular business given the votes you had in the house. Please use specific terms and follow up your claims with warrants.
I don't think it's valid. Fortunately, that's not what the GOP is doing.
Thats.....
Thats exactly what they are doing
They even said that is exactly what they are doing
Like we have had a link every 5 pages to a news story where the Republicans talk about how this is exactly what they are doing
Bluedude152 on
+9
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
Delay of the corporate mandate gives businesses a bit more time to roll out their infrastructure changes and hiring restructuring, which is really needed as changing a 30k person employer from part time to full time schedules and re-budgeting that is not a quick or easy process. Companies are encouraged to (and many already are) implementing the mandate requirements before the future deadline.
Eliminating the individual mandate destroys the insurance industry's stake-hold in the law, breaks the entire purpose of the exchanges, and will lead to it being delayed ANOTHER year and so on infinitely until Republicans have enough support to repeal the bill in full.
The former is done to ensure timely compliance and to prevent mass-terminations of employment during corporate restructuring. The latter does nothing similar for the individual payer as they already can qualify for the credits (assuming financial issues are a concern), get insurance from their employer or private parties, or choose to have no insurance and pay the fine. Almost no one will pay the fine except on ideological principles as the need of insurance is critical in US society and the credits make it possible to pay far less and actually get some form of insurance.
+1
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
Just so you guys feel better about the state of the world
As we teeter on the brink, our top trending twitter topics are
#happybirthdaybrunomars
#carrie
#parishilton
You are welcome
why is paris hilton trending?
miley cyrus is the trainwreck of the month
Oh god my girlfriend and I watched the latest SNL yesterday and I swear every single fucking sketch was about how "sexy" Miley is and you could just smell the contract clause that she has to come off as a slut in every appearance because that's her new image now.
Also constant twerking and the tongue thing and I wouldn't be surprised at this point if she tried to copyright these things.
Also her outfit during her first song seemed pretty racist?
wasn't she wearing like a midriff-baring houndstooth ensemble? If I am recollecting correctly, what was racist about that?
She was wearing a transparent black sports jersey with a Poison logo on it and chains around her neck. And some kind of underwear underneath it so it obviously still looked slutty.
The jersey + chains kind of came off a little Kanye to me and she is not Kanye.
oh ok I mixed em up
eh, I wouldn't say racist. More of the cultural appropriation stuff that's been a part of the Miley discussion since the We Can't Stop video, though
Jasc, explain to me how, in your worldview, it is valid to hold the entire world economy hostage over a bill you didn't have the ability to modify, change, or repeal during regular business given the votes you had in the house. Please use specific terms and follow up your claims with warrants.
I don't think it's valid. Fortunately, that's not what the GOP is doing.
They have literally been quoted, on film with audio, saying this is exactly what they are doing! Holy hell, man how far will your brain go with this doublethink?
I'm all for supporting your political affiliations, my parents are about as right as they come and I respect them for that. But they see reality when it is in front of them and can identify when mistakes are being made. If ACA is something that needs to go away, the way to do it is via the next election cycle and to get the votes needed to repeal it. Not to grind your wheels and make both the budget and the debt ceiling potentially cause a worldwide panic.
Posts
She put out a collabo with lil wayne
Because lil wayne will collaborate with literally anyone
lil wayne ft justin beiber
lil wayne ft hillary clinton
lil wayne ft this snickers bar
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
It is the House's job to pass a fucking budget that funds the law
They are below the original spending launched by the Republicans at the start of this thing, and still the right wanted to cut it more. The right already got what they wanted and they STILL brought us into a shutdown.
It's a false equivalence. Democrats haven't done a shutdown during their terms not because they are spineless or spending nuts (though they may also be those things at times), but because they don't want to damage the country over short term politics.
Oh god my girlfriend and I watched the latest SNL yesterday and I swear every single fucking sketch was about how "sexy" Miley is and you could just smell the contract clause that she has to come off as a slut in every appearance because that's her new image now.
Also constant twerking and the tongue thing and I wouldn't be surprised at this point if she tried to copyright these things.
Also her outfit during her first song seemed pretty racist?
this is a horrific oversimplification of a process that starts with Congress first. and that process was ongoing since the beginning of the year. as in, there were attempts to bring the budget to conference between the House and Senate sides since April 2013, and it was the House Republicans who have balked the entire time.
to pin the blame on Obama for "OT" is quite bluntly an outright lie. the ultra-conservative wing of the current GOP has delayed and delayed and delayed to get us to this point. what kind of mental gymnastics requires envisioning Obama as having run out the clock here?
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
seems kind of beside the point
there's an actual crisis threatening to ruin a significant number of lives and set back important scientific research for decades. it's pretty far from business as usual
I think there's a middle ground between dwelling on it nonstop and people mostly talking about a pop star, a movie remake, and some other person
to me it goes to show a serious disconnect between the average person and shit that matters
doesn't help when personal effects are clearly already in play
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
Given that, I am interested to know what episode of The Daily Show this delusion covered in that the President has no responsibility to work with a branch of the government because they aren't controlled by his party so that I can DVR it
I am really interested
Hence, hostage-taking analogies. "Give me $1million or I'll shoot this random person." "Give me $500k or I'll shoot this random person." "Give me $250k or I'll shoot this person. Why are you making me shoot this person?"
The GOP doesn't care about spending in and of itself. Look what happened to our spending under Bush - between Medicare Part D and the wars we spent trillions unnecessarily. The fight is over WHAT to spend money on, and whether to get it through taxes or borrowing.
And it's not up to Obama to do the negotiating, it's up to Harry Reid. Obama doesn't come into it at all, except to throw around the right rhetoric, until something gets past the Senate. The Senate has already agreed to a CR which significantly reduces funding below Obama's or the Senate's initial offering - it's even below the original Ryan budget. And they tried to call a conference like 15 times this summer, blocked every time by McConnell/Cruz/etc. So don't pretend there has been no negotiation going on. The issue is that the Democrats won't negotiate over the very existence of their signature law, not that they won't negotiate at all. There have been tons of negotiations, but the Fox News line that you're parroting denies this fact.
edit - or what everyone else already said basically, I guess
But what are they supposed to do
This is out of everyone's hands, what actual good does it do for people to sit around and go "well this is shitty" instead of try and be happy and wait for something to happen with this
wasn't she wearing like a midriff-baring houndstooth ensemble? If I am recollecting correctly, what was racist about that?
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
some people can't help it
That 986 billion continuing resolution includes the sequester cuts with the Democrats absolutely do not want and would take any chance to repeal if they could
The reason they haven't repealed them is that you can't repeal them using a continuing resolution, since the word "continuing" is in it
But for the record, agreeing the sequester was admirable by the President, and as I stated a page or two ago, I expect a very similar result this time around
There is no "exchange." The GOP wants the one year delay "in exchange" for paying for a law that is already enacted. They are not offering anything that is theirs to offer.
Apparently they are, since they get to make that kind of demand
if it wasn't theirs to offer, then they couldn't legally offer it
Business usual on twitter, a program dominated by teenagers and college kids to communicate in 140 character messages. If you are expecting serious political discourse to dominate social media that's a bit silly.
When CNN is doing so, that's a problem (and a valid one). But if you look back during the Cuban missile crisis the notes passed in class probably weren't about bomb shelters, and the penny-dreadfuls in 1776 weren't focusing on the American rebellion.
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
She was wearing a transparent black sports jersey with a Poison logo on it and chains around her neck. And some kind of underwear underneath it so it obviously still looked slutty.
The jersey + chains kind of came off a little Kanye to me and she is not Kanye.
Its not refusing to work with people because they aren't his party.
Its not working with them because they are stopping the entire country till their entire agenda is put through
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.[/quote]
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.[/quote]
No, the Republicans chose to when they refused for 6 months to hold a conference committee on the budget, only to be all, "Hey, why won't the Dems talk to us???" on the eve of a government shutdown.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
and you think that the one year mandate is going to be negotiated in good faith? when one year passes, the extremist wing of the GOP will simply pull this "tactic" all over again to try to stop the ACA from full implementation. what reason does the Executive have to give in to a transparent attempt to delay a law that was 1) approved by both the House and the Senate previously, 2) signed into law, 3) survived more than 40 attempts at repeal, 4) survived a Supreme Court Constitutional challenge, AND 5) is already funded and started?
in fact, what validates any "compromise" on Obama's part here, given the above? really? Obama has no responsibility to work with a bunch of idiots throwing a tantrum. they can't get what they want, so they're going to break their toys and not let anyone else have them. Obama should work with government for the welfare of the nation, but he has no obligation to work with spoiled, whiny brats.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Jesus you're a piece of work
Actually, watching you place people into categories you already dislike so you can dismiss their opinion is making this whole thing make a lot more sense
Don't use big boy words if you don't know what they mean.
I don't think it's valid. Fortunately, that's not what the GOP is doing.
2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.
10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.
15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.
18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
Gee look at all that
If only the Democrats would try to negotiate.
No it doesn't. Everyone still has to get insurance come January, which is the only way the insurers don't immediately go into a death spiral. You don't know what you're talking about.
i was actually trying to find that earlier. do you have the source?
if there's one thing i agree with Jasc on, it's that Obama was dumb to delay the mandate for businesses. he should have just had the mandate go into effect as planned for everyone.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Thats.....
Thats exactly what they are doing
They even said that is exactly what they are doing
Like we have had a link every 5 pages to a news story where the Republicans talk about how this is exactly what they are doing
Delay of the corporate mandate gives businesses a bit more time to roll out their infrastructure changes and hiring restructuring, which is really needed as changing a 30k person employer from part time to full time schedules and re-budgeting that is not a quick or easy process. Companies are encouraged to (and many already are) implementing the mandate requirements before the future deadline.
Eliminating the individual mandate destroys the insurance industry's stake-hold in the law, breaks the entire purpose of the exchanges, and will lead to it being delayed ANOTHER year and so on infinitely until Republicans have enough support to repeal the bill in full.
The former is done to ensure timely compliance and to prevent mass-terminations of employment during corporate restructuring. The latter does nothing similar for the individual payer as they already can qualify for the credits (assuming financial issues are a concern), get insurance from their employer or private parties, or choose to have no insurance and pay the fine. Almost no one will pay the fine except on ideological principles as the need of insurance is critical in US society and the credits make it possible to pay far less and actually get some form of insurance.
oh ok I mixed em up
eh, I wouldn't say racist. More of the cultural appropriation stuff that's been a part of the Miley discussion since the We Can't Stop video, though
I mean if you are a genuine fan of her music then sure
but otherwise?
They have literally been quoted, on film with audio, saying this is exactly what they are doing! Holy hell, man how far will your brain go with this doublethink?
I'm all for supporting your political affiliations, my parents are about as right as they come and I respect them for that. But they see reality when it is in front of them and can identify when mistakes are being made. If ACA is something that needs to go away, the way to do it is via the next election cycle and to get the votes needed to repeal it. Not to grind your wheels and make both the budget and the debt ceiling potentially cause a worldwide panic.
Steam