I can't help but smile at the clever technique Republicans have been using in regard to negotiation. The technique is known as nibbling or the "baloney game". It goes this way. Two parties enter into negotiation. One party gives some concessions and the negotiations are supposedly accepted and closed. Then the second party, who has nibbled or taken the baloney slices, i.e., the concessions, wants to reopen the negotiations but with those as the new starting point. The proper defense, which the Democrats should do, is to remind everyone of those consessions and shift the negotiations to getting those back before continuing with the new items. The Democrats, gave in badly by allowing the budget to be reduced, and it was accepted. Now the Republicans are asking for more, major reductions. The Democrats gave in and allowed the original Affordable Health Care bill to be weakened by taking out a number of valuable provisions in order to get the Republicans to accept it. Now, the Republicans are back demanding further, major concessions. OccamI couldn't agree more. They're cowardly. They want to sit down and negotiate, fine. Put a capital gains increase on the table. Increase the cut-off limit on Social Security withholding. Increase the estate tax. Increase the minimum wage. Adjust the income tax brackets and increase the percentages. Put all that stuff on the table. Gun control! More liberal abortion laws. Greater environmental regulations. Put it all on the table. And if they don't want to deal..then blow it up!! Make it rain. Default on the debt. Shut everything down! We'll see how the GOP and the Business interests like that kind of environment. Stop taking all of this crap off of these Neanderthals. Call their bluff and make it rain.
Congress, pertaining to itself, sets its own rules. Is the minority running afoul of those rules somehow? When I said minority I did not mean the minority party, I meant the small minority within the House republican majority is obstructing their own leadership. This has resulted in the shutdown of the entire government. There is a bi-partisan majority available to vote on a CR, until the Republicanss have sorted out who is in charge of their own Caucus. If you did not like my first analogy, how about; Some of the teachers don't like the school principal and have closed down the entire school. If you want to call the stoppage of almost all social programs to millions of people and furlough some 800,000 service providers for an extended length of time a "partial shutdown", you are logically correct (as usual), but it is socially and morally unconscionable to those who are being negatively affected, IMO. Medicaid is a state program for the poor and elderly and heavily subsidized by federal dollars. So either the state has to borrow money and go deeper in debt, or they will have to shave their budgets as well. People are gonna die as a result of a political tantrum by less than 10% of the congress, mark my words. I wonder what will happen if we had another natural disaster and FEMA is not functional. Even in case of emergency funding, precious time will be wasted to "get things up and running" again. It is the People who will be paying the price for this disaster and instead of streamlining the Law and make it run smoothly for some 20,000,000 people who need health insurance in order to survive, the People are going to suffer unnecessarily. There is no pork attached to ACA, in fact it tries to restrict waste and duplication. In principle this is a good thing and once certain weaknesses have been identified there will be adjustments and refinements, not only peculiar to this specific law, but also to the entire Medicare system. And you state as a fact that it will cost a trillion dollars?Bryan, That wasn’t my main point, but yes, that’s part of Congress’ role. “Power of the purse," remember? American Gov’t 101.Yes, if by majority, not a small minority.
What Is the Net Budgetary Impact of the Coverage Provisions Taking Into Account the Supreme Court’s Decision? CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion. (Those figures do not include the budgetary impact of other provisions of the ACA, which in the aggregate reduce budget deficits.)http://cbo.gov/publication/43472 It is the Republican budget which the Republicans refuse to sign. The Democrats have given them everything they asked for, still they want more even though they don't even know what more they want. It is just obstruction, not to improve the function of the government, but to prevent the government from functioning in an orderly manner. Sedition!! Do you see these people arguing for lower pay and perks for Congress itself? Last words I heard was "I am working so why should I not get paid? And this is from a Republican standing behind a furloughed security guard, who is still required to serve for "security reasons". The shining light of "Governance by the People for the People" democracy is dimming fast
I couldn't agree more. They're cowardly. They want to sit down and negotiate, fine. Put a capital gains increase on the table. Increase the cut-off limit on Social Security withholding. Increase the estate tax. Increase the minimum wage. Adjust the income tax brackets and increase the percentages. Put all that stuff on the table. Gun control! More liberal abortion laws. Greater environmental regulations. Put it all on the table. And if they don't want to deal..then blow it up!! Make it rain. Default on the debt. Shut everything down! We'll see how the GOP and the Business interests like that kind of environment. Stop taking all of this crap off of these Neanderthals. Call their bluff and make it rain.They are not only cowardly, they are liars and hypocrites. My congress critter, John Carter (R-TX) has been sending emails all week blaming the Democrats for this stalemate. Another esteemed Texas representative, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) recently confronted a park service ranger and said the park service should be ashamed for closing the WWII Memorial. Video here]. Note that Rep. Neugebauer is one of the Republicans who voted against the budget proposal. Vyazma, I agree we need to raise our taxes. We should have universal health care and free tuition for college students. We also need to rebuild our infrastructure across the nation and provide more help for the poor. Sometimes I wish Jesus really was the Messiah and these were the End Time® so I could watch Jesus come riding out of the sky on his white horse and cast the right wing Republicans into Hell.
I admire the remarkable restraint and courtesy afforded this a…hole by the people whom this congressman insulted.
No, Mr Congressman, it is you who should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you blame a Park Ranger for not opening the park, which YOU voted to shut down.
I am sure Bryan, that you will agree on at least this point.
I can't help but smile at the clever technique Republicans have been using in regard to negotiation. The technique is known as nibbling or the "baloney game". It goes this way. Two parties enter into negotiation. One party gives some concessions and the negotiations are supposedly accepted and closed. Then the second party, who has nibbled or taken the baloney slices, i.e., the concessions, wants to reopen the negotiations but with those as the new starting point.Why, that's exactly the technique the Democrats used on the Republicans. They said they'd cut the budget if Republicans would agree to tax hikes. Democrats got their tax hikes with the deal struck near the new year. And then went back to the exact same rhetoric they used before they got the concessions. http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/obamas-jedi-mind-meld-on-the-sequestration/
The proper defense, which the Democrats should do, is to remind everyone of those consessions and shift the negotiations to getting those back before continuing with the new items.Is that how you recommend the Republicans respond to the Democrats' use of the technique?
The Democrats, gave in badly by allowing the budget to be reduced, and it was accepted.The Democrats said they wanted the budget reduced. Was that a lie?
Now the Republicans are asking for more, major reductions. The Democrats gave in and allowed the original Affordable Health Care bill to be weakened by taking out a number of valuable provisions in order to get the Republicans to accept it.I'd like some specifics, here. No Republican voted for the ACA. It was a straight party-line vote in the Senate (with Sanders and Lieberman joining the Democrats). The House approved the Senate version with 34 Democrats joining all the Republicans in opposition. The PPACA was "weakened" by compromises within the Democratic Caucus. The apparent goal of health care reform was to pass a bill that was as liberal as the Democrats in Congress could pass. Getting the approval of Republicans would only become a factor is Democrats couldn't pass the bill without Republican help. Thanks to reconciliation, no Republican votes were ever needed to pass the bill.
Now, the Republicans are back demanding further, major concessions.The nerve of those guys. I'm serious: What concession did the Republicans get from the Democrats? Don't the Democrats want to trim the budget as they've said they want to do? Or are they lying?
When I said minority I did not mean the minority party, I meant the small minority within the House republican majority is obstructing their own leadership.I realized that. The question still stands.
If you want to call the stoppage of almost all social programs to millions of people and furlough some 800,000 service providers for an extended length of time a "partial shutdown", you are logically correct (as usual), but it is socially and morally unconscionable to those who are being negatively affected, IMO.Opinion noted, but I don't trust your facts. The states have a huge role in providing social programs, and it's hard to see how those are crippled by pausing the federal role for a time.
Medicaid is a state program for the poor and elderly and heavily subsidized by federal dollars. So either the state has to borrow money and go deeper in debt, or they will have to shave their budgets as well. People are gonna die as a result of a political tantrum by less than 10% of the congress, mark my words.Your words are marked. You're invited to list the dead caused by the government shutdown (hopefully accompanied by the evidence justifying your conclusion).
I wonder what will happen if we had another natural disaster and FEMA is not functional.Well, the House sent a bill to the Senate to fund FEMA but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is apparently heeding VYAZMA's advice and refusing to allow a vote on the bill. So it'll clearly be all the Republicans' fault if people die for lack of assistance from FEMA. Or something.
Even in case of emergency funding, precious time will be wasted to "get things up and running" again. It is the People who will be paying the price for this disaster and instead of streamlining the Law and make it run smoothly for some 20,000,000 people who need health insurance in order to survive, the People are going to suffer unnecessarily.The CBO has warned that the government should not drag its feet in reforming the entitlement programs that threaten to swamp the budget in the not-too-distant future. They're such kidders, the CBO. Suffering's going to be necessary to cut the budget. Cut it sooner and smarter and the total pain is less. That's assuming Reid has no secret plan to raid rainbow endpoints, confiscating Leprechaun gold to pay for U.S. debt.
There is no pork attached to ACA, in fact it tries to restrict waste and duplication. In principle this is a good thing and once certain weaknesses have been identified there will be adjustments and refinements, not only peculiar to this specific law, but also to the entire Medicare system.That sounds wonderful! You actually believe it?
And you state as a fact that it will cost a trillion dollars?Yes, I do.
A thousand billion is a trillion last time I checked. I was clear in describing it as the gross cost, not the net cost after figuring in the offsetting revenues from taxation. Your link supports what I wrote, albeit I could have said it will cost $1.2 trillion instead of $1 trillion. And what's a mere $200 billion in terms of the federal budget? Peanuts!What Is the Net Budgetary Impact of the Coverage Provisions Taking Into Account the Supreme Court’s Decision? CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion. (Those figures do not include the budgetary impact of other provisions of the ACA, which in the aggregate reduce budget deficits.)http://cbo.gov/publication/43472
It is the Republican budget which the Republicans refuse to sign.There's no budget. It's a continuing budget resolution. The Democrats haven't passed a budget since FY2010.
The Democrats have given them everything they asked for, still they want more even though they don't even know what more they want.Are you operating under the assumption that the Democrats don't want to cut the budget? Because that conflicts with the party's public rhetoric.
It is just obstruction, not to improve the function of the government, but to prevent the government from functioning in an orderly manner. Sedition!!Who's going to reform the entitlement programs (as the CBO urges) and when? The train is approaching a financial rockslide. How long do we ignore the brake handle?
Do you see these people arguing for lower pay and perks for Congress itself? Last words I heard was "I am working so why should I not get paid? And this is from a Republican standing behind a furloughed security guard, who is still required to serve for "security reasons".Your quotation's not coming up in a phrase-specific search. Many in Congress (from both parties) are either forgoing their pay or donating it to charity during the budget standoff.
The shining light of "Governance by the People for the People" democracy is dimming fastAgain, the ACA is an unpopular law. Why not delay the individual mandate for a year after the president has already delayed the employer mandate for a year? Wait! Maybe the president is guilty of ... sedition! How dare he delay that duly passed law!
When I said minority I did not mean the minority party, I meant the small minority within the House republican majority is obstructing their own leadership.I realized that. The question still stands.
The shining light of "Governance by the People for the People" democracy is dimming fastAgain, the ACA is an unpopular law. Why not delay the individual mandate for a year after the president has already delayed the employer mandate for a year? Wait! Maybe the president is guilty of ... sedition! How dare he delay that duly passed law! I see, by wanting to pass ACA, with slight modification is sedition. But NOT wanting to pass ACA at all is good governance? Tortured logic!
They are not only cowardly, they are liars and hypocrites. My congress critter, John Carter (R-TX) has been sending emails all week blaming the Democrats for this stalemate. Another esteemed Texas representative, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) recently confronted a park service ranger and said the park service should be ashamed for closing the WWII Memorial. Video here]. Note that Rep. Neugebauer is one of the Republicans who voted against the budget proposal. Vyazma, I agree we need to raise our taxes. We should have universal health care and free tuition for college students. We also need to rebuild our infrastructure across the nation and provide more help for the poor. Sometimes I wish Jesus really was the Messiah and these were the End Time® so I could watch Jesus come riding out of the sky on his white horse and cast the right wing Republicans into Hell.Oh yeah! I'm sure that bolt of lightning would cast more than a few Democrats into the fiery inferno. We're getting there man. This is the death throes of a bygone political system. These are the spasmodic last days of the Republican party as we knew it. And by last days I mean years. They won't go away overnight. But they are finished. I actually meant the Dems were cowardly in my statement above. I realized it didn't convey that specifically after I sent it. I figured what difference does it make? They are all cowards. Most of them anyways. We are not being afforded democratic representation.
Well, the House sent a bill to the Senate to fund FEMA but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is apparently heeding VYAZMA's advice and refusing to allow a vote on the bill. So it'll clearly be all the Republicans' fault if people die for lack of assistance from FEMA. Or something.Oh you mean the GOP wants to pass parts of a funding measure that would make them look better to their constituents? No No NO! In for a penny in for a pound!!! I just hope they keep it shutdown!! Then default! Please! I'm gonna see these rats come begging on their hands and knees! Arghhh! Man! I hope they don't cave! I'm praying to the tree in my front yard that they don't cave! And by the way Bryan, your goofy rhetoric seems so god damned hollow in context of all of this! You don't even realize it. You're using the kind of dopey talking points that only a slackjawed Fox watcher could relate to.
Again, the ACA is an unpopular law. Why not delay the individual mandate for a year after the president has already delayed the employer mandate for a year? Wait! Maybe the president is guilty of ... sedition! How dare he delay that duly passed law!No Obamacare is a misunderstood law that will rapidly evolve into a well respected and understood law once more and more and more people start taking advantage of it. Millions already have been taking advantage of Obamacare laws. I guess you can continue to try and convince people Obamacare is bad though and unpopular. You've got a few more futile months of that. Then you'll just sound tired and haggard.
No Obamacare is a misunderstood law that will rapidly evolve into a well respected and understood law once more and more and more people start taking advantage of it. Millions already have been taking advantage of Obamacare laws.Bingo. The Republicans want to delay Obamacare until after the 2014 elections so they can continue spreading FUD and get themselves reelected. If people actually start using Obamacare and realize its benefits they may open their eyes and realize the Republicans have been hurting them all this time.
I guess you can continue to try and convince people Obamacare is bad though and unpopular. You've got a few more futile months of that. Then you'll just sound tired and haggard.Bryan has sound tired and haggard for a long time.
Bryan-So it’ll clearly be all the Republicans’ fault if people die for lack of assistance from FEMA. Or something.These are the same GOP hijackers who voted No on hurricane relief for the East Coast a couple of years ago. These are the same guys who want the government shutdown. They got it. Some of them have openly said they want a default too. Let's go there! Not all voters are moronic middle-American FOX/Limbaugh zombies Bryan. Many are business people and politicians and professionals. Yeah, they are already seeing this for what it is. Oh, the damage hasn't even begun to be realized yet. Anybody with two eyes and a brain have already seen that Obama and Reid have plainly offered to fund the govt and raise the debt ceiling!
When I said minority I did not mean the minority party, I meant the small minority within the House republican majority is obstructing their own leadership.I realized that. The question still stands.
The shining light of "Governance by the People for the People" democracy is dimming fastAgain, the ACA is an unpopular law. Why not delay the individual mandate for a year after the president has already delayed the employer mandate for a year? Wait! Maybe the president is guilty of ... sedition! How dare he delay that duly passed law! I see, by wanting to pass ACA, with slight modification is sedition. But NOT wanting to pass ACA at all is good governance? Tortured logic! The tortured logic is your straw man. It's a delay imperially instituted by the president (employer mandate) against a similar delay for the individual mandate. You've done a pretty shameless job of avoiding the question.
If the poll results won't refute me, then just go for the personal attack! Woohoo! :-) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html You don't have anything to refute my argument that the health care law increases costs nationally, either. What a great way to get the economy back on track. We'll spend more on health care and raise taxes. Great prescription.I guess you can continue to try and convince people Obamacare is bad though and unpopular. You've got a few more futile months of that. Then you'll just sound tired and haggard.Bryan has sound tired and haggard for a long time.
If the poll results won't refute me, then just go for the personal attack! Woohoo! :-)You should learn to interpret poll results. That poll shows that some Americans are still confused about Obamacare after being bombarded with anti-ACA propaganda for 3-4 years. So go ahead and pat yourself on the back. The poll shows that y'alls BS has worked. Hopefully the success of the ACA will reverse those trends. And really, how could it not?
You don't have anything to refute my argument that the health care law increases costs nationally, either.Can't speak for Darron, but yes it's just an argument. It isn't fact, and can't be looked at for a few years. So you're just making predictions that are slanted in an anti-ACA fashion.
What a great way to get the economy back on track. We'll spend more on health care and raise taxes. Great prescription.Sean Hannity? Is that you? For many people who will need the ACA the economy is never going to be "on track". The economy has never been "on track" for most people. I'm curious, what's your definition of on track? And what is your prescription for getting the economy "on track"?
First, I’ve been going going along with the title of this thread until a few seconds ago when it occurred to me that about a decade ago Neut Gingrich was Speaker of the House. 
Second, the problem is how the polls are reported. When Faux News/Bryan say only a minority are positive for the health care bill, they are correct, but they carefully ignore the more complete results. They are as follows
Positive to Negative to
Obama Care Act 40% 60%
Affordable health care Act 60% 40%
What this really demonstrates is that people have been brainwashed against "Obama"care but like the idea of more available health care.
But, don’t worry. After it’s been successful for about four years, no Republican will be arguing to eliminate it. Rather, they’ll all be bragging about how it was really their idea and that they are the ones who instituted it. :lol:
Occam
Second, the problem is how the polls are reported. When Faux News/Bryan say only a minority are positive for the health care bill, they are correct, but they carefully ignore the more complete results. They are as follows Positive to Negative to Obama Care Act 40% 60% Affordable health care Act 60% 40% What this really demonstrates is that people have been brainwashed against "Obama"care but like the idea of more available health care.Source? The aggregated poll results I linked had a comprehensive list, not just Fox News polling. Only a couple of the polls showed approval. The clear majority show disapproval, including the most recent one from CBS (Conservatives' Broadcasting Service?): "Q8. From what you've heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the health care law that was enacted in 2010?" Biased question? Really? Disapproval: 51 percent with 6 percent offering no opinion.
But, don't worry. After it's been successful for about four years, no Republican will be arguing to eliminate it. Rather, they'll all be bragging about how it was really their idea and that they are the ones who instituted it. :lol:I really don't see how you can say that with a straight emoticon. Sure, Heritage Foundation cooked up an idea similar to the individual mandate included in the ACA, but it never had wide support even as an alternative to HillaryCare. The ACA has numerous features that conservatives will object to in principle now and in the future. Our objections stem from economic principles.
Second, the problem is how the polls are reported. When Faux News/Bryan say only a minority are positive for the health care bill, they are correct, but they carefully ignore the more complete results. They are as follows Positive to Negative to Obama Care Act 40% 60% Affordable health care Act 60% 40% What this really demonstrates is that people have been brainwashed against "Obama"care but like the idea of more available health care.Source? The aggregated poll results I linked had a comprehensive list, not just Fox News polling. Only a couple of the polls showed approval. The clear majority show disapproval, including the most recent one from CBS (Conservatives' Broadcasting Service?): "Q8. From what you've heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the health care law that was enacted in 2010?" Biased question? Really? Disapproval: 51 percent with 6 percent offering no opinion.
But, don't worry. After it's been successful for about four years, no Republican will be arguing to eliminate it. Rather, they'll all be bragging about how it was really their idea and that they are the ones who instituted it. :lol:I really don't see how you can say that with a straight emoticon. Sure, Heritage Foundation cooked up an idea similar to the individual mandate included in the ACA, but it never had wide support even as an alternative to HillaryCare. The ACA has numerous features that conservatives will object to in principle now and in the future. Our objections stem from economic principles. Yes, let's discuss the Economic principles for children's education, healthcare, and a stable economy on which to can found their dreams. Obama has consistently reduced spending. His first act in office was a tax reduction and during his term there are 750,000 fewer Federal employees than when he took office. But it just ain't good enough, not because he has done some positive things, but in spite of them. You keep ignoring the a priori Declaration of "bringing down this president" when he took office. The rest of history can readily be found in the record. Deficit has been cut by 3.5 Trillion dollars. But no matter, Obamacare is gonna place electronic chips in your body and Obama death panels will decide who gets to live or die.
Yes, let's discuss the Economic principles for children's education, healthcare, and a stable economy on which to can found their dreams.What do you think will be left of our dreams when the national debt exceeds, say, 150 percent of GDP? Keep right on borrowing and look forward to a brighter tomorrow?
Obama has consistently reduced spending.That's just not true. The truth is Obama probably added more spending during his first year in office than any president in our history (perhaps combined). FactCheck.org estimates FY 2009 spending (ordinarily counted to Bush) actually done by Obama at $200 million. Most of that's from the first stage of the ARRA (stimulus bill). (I should add) The deficit's coming down now, temporarily, but that's mostly because of the cessation of stimulus programs. Obama has not taken any concrete steps to reform the main drivers of the deficit, with the sole exception of the soft cap on Medicare spending that passed as part of the PPACA. Obama makes it look like he's cutting spending by frontloading his spending. And it's not as if Obama deserves full credit for spending cuts that occur as a result of the sequester, is it? Do you really want to give Obama credit for that?
His first act in office was a tax reductionPartly true. The ARRA included some tax cuts. Even the Democrats agree that tax cuts can help stimulate the economy. Unfortunately it didn't take long for Democrats to lose focus on that truth. But the ARRA also included a great deal of targeted spending. Democrats used it as an excuse to fund projects that we'd ordinarily call "pork," which were suddenly justified as a way to save the economy.
and during his term there are 750,000 fewer Federal employees than when he took office. But it just ain't good enough, not because he has done some positive things, but in spite of them.Where do you get this stuff? The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you're nuts. Seasonally adjusted (not counting the Post Office): Jan 2009: 2060 (thousands) Aug 2013: 2148.9 Not Seasonally Adjusted (not counting the Post Office): Jan 2009: 2035.4 (thousands) Aug 2013: 2162.1 Explain yourself.
You keep ignoring the a priori Declaration of "bringing down this president" when he took office. The rest of history can readily be found in the record.President Obama's record is dismal if you don't count his aggressive pursuit of greater government control of health care. Unemployment's high, (real) wages are dropping. The economy is riding on the oil and gas sector right now and Obama's fighting it. Unemployment when Obama took office: 7.8 percent Unemployment now: 7.3 percent (all-time low under Obama) Average unemployment under Bush: 5.3 percent If you want to make the case for the great job Obama has done, point to a statistic that isn't made up.
If the poll results won't refute me, then just go for the personal attack! Woohoo! :-) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html You don't have anything to refute my argument that the health care law increases costs nationally, either. What a great way to get the economy back on track. We'll spend more on health care and raise taxes. Great prescription. You ignore those 15% of people who are opposed to ACA because it does NOT go far enough. That leaves opposition to Obamacare on economic grounds in the minority. Moreover, another 20 % of those opposed do not know what is actually in ACA, except that Fox has told them it is bad law.I guess you can continue to try and convince people Obamacare is bad though and unpopular. You've got a few more futile months of that. Then you'll just sound tired and haggard.Bryan has sound tired and haggard for a long time.
[Bryan]Average unemployment under Bush: 5.3 percent.
Yes, the average over 8 years after inheriting a healthy economy with low unemployment from Clinton. What was unemployment when Bush left office and the few months following his exit? Your averages don’t mean anything.
That’s like saying, Bush drove the bus 10,000 miles before he ran it into the ditch and left it there for Obama to pull it out and get it repaired before it was able to go on the road to recovery.