Worst case is this could mark the beginning of America losing its status as top of the pile of superpowers, as has happened to every superpower throughout history eventually.
Would have been nice if it happened because liberalization and less need to militarily interfere everywhere on the face of the planet.
and not because some chucklefucks don't like what the black guy did so everythings bad, forever, until a white guy can do it.
Hey dudes I'm pretty sure there is a real food thread.
Yeah but the real food thread is full of folks talking about ethical fish to eat, and super complicated and expensive recipes, and weird restaurants and shit.
Sometimes a dude just wants to complain about how horrible this spaghetti in a can is (so horrible) and what kind of cake is the most delicious (whatever cake has the most different kinds of chocolate).
Then just keep talking about it in that thread till they join you
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited October 2013
Jasc,
If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:
And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:
1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).
Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:
A) What is the danger? What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.
I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.
Enc on
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
Worst case is this could mark the beginning of America losing its status as top of the pile of superpowers, as has happened to every superpower throughout history eventually.
Would have been nice if it happened because liberalization and less need to militarily interfere everywhere on the face of the planet.
and not because some chucklefucks don't like what the black guy did so everythings bad, forever, until a white guy can do it.
Okay, I think this is going overboard. That's a pretty specific statement that would be really hard to prove.
Now, if you could come up with a situation in the same country where a white dude did pretty much the same exact same thing and it was fine, then you'd have a ca-
Oh wait, nevermind. Carry on!
El Skid on
0
Options
turtleantGunpla Dadis the best.Registered Userregular
Hey dudes I'm pretty sure there is a real food thread.
Yeah but the real food thread is full of folks talking about ethical fish to eat, and super complicated and expensive recipes, and weird restaurants and shit.
Sometimes a dude just wants to complain about how horrible this spaghetti in a can is (so horrible) and what kind of cake is the most delicious (whatever cake has the most different kinds of chocolate).
I'll tell you what cake isn't delicious.
Brussels Sprout cake.
Why is that a thing that exists?
+1
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Countdown to Fox claiming that the salmonella outbreak in chicken is a failure by Obama to support his key demo.
Hey dudes I'm pretty sure there is a real food thread.
Yeah but the real food thread is full of folks talking about ethical fish to eat, and super complicated and expensive recipes, and weird restaurants and shit.
Sometimes a dude just wants to complain about how horrible this spaghetti in a can is (so horrible) and what kind of cake is the most delicious (whatever cake has the most different kinds of chocolate).
Don't hold back, PotatoNinja, tell us how you really feel.
Actually, wait, don't. I'd like to be able to sleep tonight, and that's already in jeopardy.
I hope the inherent insanity of the situation makes it easier to ignore and keeps markets a little more stable.
I worry that the inherent insanity of the situation makes the U.S. less credible, which exacerbates the situation.
If its any comfort, I think the situation will probably resolve in a somewhat sane manner. How many destroyed political careers and ruined egos are required to get there is up in the air.
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
Big Red Tiebeautiful clydesdale style feettoo hot to trotRegistered Userregular
Know how one of the things conservatives don't like about liberals is smugness?
You mean fox hosts, right? Sit there for hours on end, straight up lying through their teeth and and insulting and berating anyone that is not them, and then, boo-hoo libs are so mean cause they don't suck our dicks
Those are the ones that claim things like liberal hate and smugness. And well, they deserve it. Those are horrible people who should not be on TV.
+3
Options
Snowbeati need somethingto kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered Userregular
we have to save every joke we can for the post-apocalyptic wasteland soon to come, where it's every stand-up for himself
the roaming bands of monstrous cannibals are vicious audiences
Know how one of the things conservatives don't like about liberals is smugness?
You mean fox hosts, right? Sit there for hours on end, straight up lying through their teeth and and insulting and berating anyone that is not them, and then, boo-hoo libs are so mean cause they don't suck our dicks
Those are the ones that claim things like liberal hate and smugness. And well, they deserve it. Those are horrible people who should not be on TV.
If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:
And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:
1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).
Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:
A) What is the danger? What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.
I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.
I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.
Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.
And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.
And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted
Hey dudes I'm pretty sure there is a real food thread.
Yeah but the real food thread is full of folks talking about ethical fish to eat, and super complicated and expensive recipes, and weird restaurants and shit.
Sometimes a dude just wants to complain about how horrible this spaghetti in a can is (so horrible) and what kind of cake is the most delicious (whatever cake has the most different kinds of chocolate).
Most of the time the food thread is about helping people on a budget learn to cook for themselves with cheap, easy recipes and then talking about delicious desserts. So, come hang.
It's also about Stale destroying our cholesterol levels with his potato salad recipe.
If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:
And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:
1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).
Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:
A) What is the danger? What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.
I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.
I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.
Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.
And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.
And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted
That's all well and good and an actual budget is a good goal but do you honestly think this was the best way to go about doing it? Letting the left say "they're shutting down WIC and Veterans' benefits just because they hate Obamacare" isn't exactly controlling the discussion and maybe if Boehner just said that he wanted a real budget for once things would calm down a little bit?
There's no way to have a good faith budget debate when "blow up the economy" is on the table.
It can't happen. Even if Republicans proposed changes that Democrats wanted (they won't), the Democrats cannot validate the debt limit as a lever for negotiations. No party interested in anything resembling a functional legislature can, really.
If Republicans can threaten to default in order to get a new budget, the Democrats can too. $20 minimum wage or we default. Since Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency, their threat would actually be much more credible as well.
"Credible" in the way that threatening to burn yourself alive is more credible if you have two canisters of gasoline instead of just one.
I wonder if the US political system and culture will be really affected by this if it doesn't go over the edge
Like, lets say that the debt ceiling gets raised (the most likely occurance), what will be the outcome of that? Will there be a lasting change as a result of the economic brinkmanship of the Republicans? Have they just destroyed themselves? Will we see a restructuring of the world's biggest economy? How will other countries react to the immediate knowledge that they are tied to the US government's economic choices?
I think these are the more important questions than "how fucked will we be if the US defaults." We'll be fucked to a greater or lesser extent around the world, but nobody really knows to what extent, the depth of it, the length of recovery, what the recovery will be etc. It's an impossible question to really answer. But assuming that things don't explode, we can guess as to the potential changes.
If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:
And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:
1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).
Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:
A) What is the danger? What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.
I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.
I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.
Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.
And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.
And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted
Are you aware that the senate did pass a budget this year and senate republicans blocked their requests to go to committee 19 times?
That's all well and good and an actual budget is a good goal but do you honestly think this was the best way to go about doing it? Letting the left say "they're shutting down WIC and Veterans' benefits just because they hate Obamacare" isn't exactly controlling the discussion and maybe if Boehner just said that he wanted a real budget for once things would calm down a little bit?
Boehner doesn't want a real budget.
Well, maybe Boehner does, but what Boehner does or does not want at this point is kind of moot.
The GOP wants to eliminate Obamacare. The Democrats will not budge on this issue.
A negotiation would be something like:
Republicans: "If you delay the mandate for two years, we'll agree to raise the minimum wage to $10 and give you an extra $200 billion in stimulus."
Democrats: "We'll delay the mandate for one year in exchange for $12 an hour and $300 in stimulus."
Republicans: "18 months, $11 an hour and we get to designate how $50 billion of the stimulus is spent."
That's two parties attempting to offer enticements to each other in an effort to reach an agreeable path forward.
"Eliminate Obamacare or we destroy the United States Government" is not a negotiation, its a threat.
Boehner can't make any budget offers because he's vulnerable and could lose his position as Speaker.
So even if Boehner would like to offer a higher minimum wage or more stimulus or whatever in exchange for things the Republican Party ostensibly wants, he can't.
If he ever made even a modest offer of compromise, he'd be out of power almost immediately.
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:
And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:
1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).
Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:
A) What is the danger? What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.
I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.
I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.
Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.
And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.
And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted
Are you aware that the senate did pass a budget this year and senate republicans blocked their requests to go to committee 19 times?
Of course he is, but that doesn't fit his talking points.
If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:
And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:
1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).
Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:
A) What is the danger? What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.
I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.
I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.
Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.
And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.
And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted
- Boehner's actual agenda is to stay Speaker for as long as possible. Maybe passing a sequester-level budget helps with that but he's got it locked up for the foreseeable future either way. So what he wants is kind of moot.
- The TPers are nobody's fall guy. Ted Cruz honestly, legitimately thinks he can be President, which is why he stood up for 21 hours "filibustering" nothing. They are safe in their districts and as such are acting pretty much however they want. They are certainly not beholden to anybody to the extent that they could be a fall guy.
- An actual budget would be fine, even at sequester levels, except as you say the House only passes insane budgets and the Republicans in the Senate have blocked 19 straight attempts to go to conference. It's often Mitch McConnell personally blocking it, so if you are looking for someone to get out of the way for a real budget you need to be staring at him. And his turkey neck.
- Meanwhile we are decimating consumer confidence to Lehman-failure levels in the name of fiscal austerity even though the deficit is being steadily reduced anyway. It's insane.
As a Non-Us-Citizen looking in on this thread for just trying to figure out how this is a thing that can even happen. ( Also for tips on pies and butts)
Am I missing something in that this is starting to feel like the angry kid at the playground ready to smash all his toys so no one else can play with them, no matter the cost to himself?
Posts
Would have been nice if it happened because liberalization and less need to militarily interfere everywhere on the face of the planet.
and not because some chucklefucks don't like what the black guy did so everythings bad, forever, until a white guy can do it.
Then just keep talking about it in that thread till they join you
If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:
I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.
Okay, I think this is going overboard. That's a pretty specific statement that would be really hard to prove.
Now, if you could come up with a situation in the same country where a white dude did pretty much the same exact same thing and it was fine, then you'd have a ca-
Oh wait, nevermind. Carry on!
Why is that a thing that exists?
Because there is no god.
countdown to a "black people love chicken" joke coming up on Fox and Friends.
Perhaps one with with a not totally toxic atmosphere of political discourse.
I hope the inherent insanity of the situation makes it easier to ignore and keeps markets a little more stable.
I worry that the inherent insanity of the situation makes the U.S. less credible, which exacerbates the situation.
If its any comfort, I think the situation will probably resolve in a somewhat sane manner. How many destroyed political careers and ruined egos are required to get there is up in the air.
Know how one of the things conservatives don't like about liberals is smugness?
Well, when you're right...
Oh god, it's catching.
post good jokes
in this economy??
You mean fox hosts, right? Sit there for hours on end, straight up lying through their teeth and and insulting and berating anyone that is not them, and then, boo-hoo libs are so mean cause they don't suck our dicks
Those are the ones that claim things like liberal hate and smugness. And well, they deserve it. Those are horrible people who should not be on TV.
the roaming bands of monstrous cannibals are vicious audiences
No, I mean normal people who vote republican
But you can straw man if you want I guess
I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.
Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.
And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.
And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted
Most of the time the food thread is about helping people on a budget learn to cook for themselves with cheap, easy recipes and then talking about delicious desserts. So, come hang.
It's also about Stale destroying our cholesterol levels with his potato salad recipe.
That's all well and good and an actual budget is a good goal but do you honestly think this was the best way to go about doing it? Letting the left say "they're shutting down WIC and Veterans' benefits just because they hate Obamacare" isn't exactly controlling the discussion and maybe if Boehner just said that he wanted a real budget for once things would calm down a little bit?
It can't happen. Even if Republicans proposed changes that Democrats wanted (they won't), the Democrats cannot validate the debt limit as a lever for negotiations. No party interested in anything resembling a functional legislature can, really.
If Republicans can threaten to default in order to get a new budget, the Democrats can too. $20 minimum wage or we default. Since Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency, their threat would actually be much more credible as well.
"Credible" in the way that threatening to burn yourself alive is more credible if you have two canisters of gasoline instead of just one.
Like, lets say that the debt ceiling gets raised (the most likely occurance), what will be the outcome of that? Will there be a lasting change as a result of the economic brinkmanship of the Republicans? Have they just destroyed themselves? Will we see a restructuring of the world's biggest economy? How will other countries react to the immediate knowledge that they are tied to the US government's economic choices?
I think these are the more important questions than "how fucked will we be if the US defaults." We'll be fucked to a greater or lesser extent around the world, but nobody really knows to what extent, the depth of it, the length of recovery, what the recovery will be etc. It's an impossible question to really answer. But assuming that things don't explode, we can guess as to the potential changes.
Are you aware that the senate did pass a budget this year and senate republicans blocked their requests to go to committee 19 times?
Boehner doesn't want a real budget.
Well, maybe Boehner does, but what Boehner does or does not want at this point is kind of moot.
The GOP wants to eliminate Obamacare. The Democrats will not budge on this issue.
A negotiation would be something like:
Republicans: "If you delay the mandate for two years, we'll agree to raise the minimum wage to $10 and give you an extra $200 billion in stimulus."
Democrats: "We'll delay the mandate for one year in exchange for $12 an hour and $300 in stimulus."
Republicans: "18 months, $11 an hour and we get to designate how $50 billion of the stimulus is spent."
That's two parties attempting to offer enticements to each other in an effort to reach an agreeable path forward.
"Eliminate Obamacare or we destroy the United States Government" is not a negotiation, its a threat.
So even if Boehner would like to offer a higher minimum wage or more stimulus or whatever in exchange for things the Republican Party ostensibly wants, he can't.
If he ever made even a modest offer of compromise, he'd be out of power almost immediately.
Of course he is, but that doesn't fit his talking points.
My personal favorite
See I was hoping it wouldn't go there, but really what was I thinking
BF3 Battlelog | Twitter | World of Warships | World of Tanks | Wishlist
- Boehner's actual agenda is to stay Speaker for as long as possible. Maybe passing a sequester-level budget helps with that but he's got it locked up for the foreseeable future either way. So what he wants is kind of moot.
- The TPers are nobody's fall guy. Ted Cruz honestly, legitimately thinks he can be President, which is why he stood up for 21 hours "filibustering" nothing. They are safe in their districts and as such are acting pretty much however they want. They are certainly not beholden to anybody to the extent that they could be a fall guy.
- An actual budget would be fine, even at sequester levels, except as you say the House only passes insane budgets and the Republicans in the Senate have blocked 19 straight attempts to go to conference. It's often Mitch McConnell personally blocking it, so if you are looking for someone to get out of the way for a real budget you need to be staring at him. And his turkey neck.
- Meanwhile we are decimating consumer confidence to Lehman-failure levels in the name of fiscal austerity even though the deficit is being steadily reduced anyway. It's insane.
Am I missing something in that this is starting to feel like the angry kid at the playground ready to smash all his toys so no one else can play with them, no matter the cost to himself?
i think i'm nearing that point: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&hp
steam | Dokkan: 868846562