main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate The Future of the Republican Party

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Nov 6, 2008.

  1. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    I think this point cannot be emphasized enough as it encapsulates exactly what's wrong with this current round of policy battles vs. what has come before. But I'd also add to it that the reason why this current impasse is so much worse is because the GOP has spent years telling the rubes that the Democratic party is Satan, the Nazis, and Stalin all rolled into one and when you've demonized your opposition so much that they're the stuff of nightmares...well..you get a government shutdown and hostage taking. Soo...the fault here really does lie with the GOP and how it has handled itself since 2001 in saying that they're true Americans whereas anyone that disagrees with them is trying to steal their baby and eat it. Curious, for 44, do you think there's any fault with the Republicans and how they've handled themselves? Because at this point you just seem like a bootlicking spin doctor for why they're unpopular.
     
    Arawn_Fenn and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  2. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first part of your argument. The core of the problem on hand is the GOP won't pass the CR until they get concessions over Obamacare and Obama won't sign a law that hurts Obamacare.

    As for the budget vs. CR, yes, I think there should be a budget. Democrats formally requested a conference committee 19 times since April to hammer out the details of a budget after the House passed the Ryan budget and the Senate passed their budget. The GOP, led by Cruz/Lee/Rubio, refused. So we're now funding the government on a CR - at a level previously negotiated and approved by Boehner. That is about the same level that the Ryan budget would have us at and far less than what Democrats would be happy with.

    Not to mention the GOP is refusing to pass the CR because they want to defund/delay Obamacare - it has nothing to do with spending/revenue levels.

    You do realize their stance is "no negotiations" over using the debt ceiling and government as hostages, right? They're openly willing to negotiate over spending and revenues and have repeatedly said this.

    My position isn't that quixotic and insane: reopen the government, raise the debt ceiling, and pass a budget that both sides can agree on. The government and the economy should not be held as a hostage until the GOP can get their way. And, until both sides can agree on a budget, the government should be kept open - and the only way to do that, really, is through appropriating funds through a CR.
     
    Arawn_Fenn and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  3. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Shinjo, I'm not sure I can put it in any terms that are more simple. Which parts are you having trouble comprehending?

    Your entire point is that the GOP should just raise the debt ceiling and pass another temp. budget, and because they're not doing this, they're "holding government hostage." Ok, fine. And then what? Any budget passed now and any raising of the debt ceiling, would only be temporary. And like the other temp budgets before it (and the recent sequestration) would start all over again in 3-6 months. (whatever the time frame is) Again, how many ceiling raises and how many temp budgets would you be comfortable with? You haven't answered. Would you be comfortable with the US having 20 Trillion in debt? 30 Trillion? I don't know, only you know the answer. What you want isn't a solution to the problem. What the US needs is a long term budget that re-aligns spending along with revenues. It doesn't need an endless cycle of debt ceiling raises and temporary budgets that don't fix any of the actual problems.

    As for the other things, that's not how things work in the real world, and it's not how things work in any other area. You can easily say that "the democrats will gladly discuss things after they get what they want" because you see things in such one sides terms. Again, without changing anything, your exact same argument applies to the GOP side, as they can say "we'll concede once we get what we want" just as easily. Negotiation means that both sides have to give something up and meet at some point in the middle. It's the definition of the concept.
     
    Skywalker Thing likes this.
  4. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    The entire thing, really. It makes no sense. All I'm getting is that the GOP is allowed to use the government/economy as leverage until they can delay/defund Obamacare because we're funding the government on a CR and not a budget, correct? If so, then, yes, I can't comprehend that so we'll leave it at that.

    As many as are necessary. I'd be more careful with raising it than I would be of not raising and, you know, causing an economic catastrophe.

    My entire argument is that the GOP shouldn't be able to hold the government/economy hostage until Obama agrees to destroy Obamacare. Turning this into a debate around the level of debt and merits of a CR v. budget is completely irrelevant to my point.

    I fleshed out my answer above, but my solution is to keep the government open on CRs until a budget is agreed to. The Senate passed a budget, the House passed the Ryan budget. Reid asked 19 times this year for a conference committee to form a budget and... Republicans refused.

    My solution is: keep the government open on a CR until a budget can be agreed to - by both sides. And raise the debt ceiling as many times as necessary in order to avoid an economic disaster.

    As I've said before, a CR really isn't as devastating and controversial as you're making it out to be. Every president has used them until a budget was agreed upon - Bush passed 21 of them for one of his budgets until both sides agreed. And, as I've said before, the current CR is at spending levels that are almost the same as the Ryan budget and much, much less than Obama's original budget. And, as I've said before, it doesn't make a difference if the money funding the government is appropriated by a budget or a continuing resolution: the latter isn't justification for the GOP to refuse to continue to fund the government until Obama dismantles a law they dislike. We've never operated like that before.

    As for your new argument that this is about spending/revenue levels: yes, I think we need "grand bargain" that reforms our entire long-term budgetary process. I think revenues should be raised and spending cut (although both not enough in the short-term to hurt the recovery, as I don't believe austerity works). I think entitlements should be reformed and defense brought down. I've said this repeatedly. I think both sides should give something up.

    My entire argument isn't over spending/revenue compromise, it's over the GOP's use of a government shutdown/debt ceiling to dismantle over Obamacare.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  5. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    If you're saying "reopen the government, avoid a default, and then we can discuss a grand bargain" is not the real world but "shutdown the government and threaten a default until we can dismantle your healthcare law" is, then we're just not going to get anywhere.

    Your position would at least make logical sense (although still not be realistic) if the fight were over budget numbers and spending/revenue levels. But it's over their determination to dismantle Obamacare.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  6. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    44, I appreciate your determination to find some kind of rational for the shutdown that is directly related to the budgeting process, but you may remember that the GOP didn't shut down the government last week over the lack of a grand bargain on the budget with a demand that all parties sit down to discuss raising revenue and cutting defense and entitlements. I somehow missed the part where that ever happened and where that was the issue at stake here.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  7. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    That's not true. There are two issues at play here.

    1) The temp budget process. This is where the GOP didn't sign off on the latest budget extension until Obamacare was re-examined. Remember Cruz's "filibuster" for lack of a better term? This all came up during the budget process. The shutdown/slimdown was the result of not finalizing these financial allocations. But this latest budget is only 1 in a series of temp budgets. If anything, Obamacare is the new issue, not the other way around, because this is the first time the two have been tied together. But this isn't out of the ordinary, as all sorts of things come up during the budget process.

    2) The debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is related perhaps, but a completely different beast than the above. The debt ceiling limit is approaching, but not because of the shutdown and vice versa. The debt ceiling debate is directly related to revenue vs cost, and the GOP is treating it as such.

    The budget debate is already occurring. This is what you and Shinjo aren't acknowledging, as for whatever reason, you're acting as if the issue only started this week. Shinjo says that the "GOP is holding government hostage." But that perception only works if one ignores the preceding 10 months. This latest budget is only 1 in a series of temp budgets because a full budget hasn't been passed in years. The current ceiling was realized back in Dec, 2012. It's not a surprise. With any of these issues, if either side had come to an agreement, none of this would be happening now. It's an ongoing process and a continuation of the prior budget battles. You can't say that the GOP isn't focused on the budget because that's the overriding concern. The sequester, which the government is smack bad in the middle of is the direct result of the ongoing discussion over revenues vs expenditures. Since the two sides couldn't come to an agreement, a set formula, which cut a percentage from every budget took effect. If you legitimately don't remember, I suppose I could go dig up some links which review this. But this isn't the first shot fired across the bow you guys are treating it as. It's more accurate to say it's the last straw that broke the camel's back.

    See, I think the main difference between the two sides is that I don't think it should be easy to bypass the debt ceiling. Yes, it's true that both sides within Congress have treated the ceiling as a nuisance. "OH, NO, it's debt ceiling time again...Let's just raise the ceiling...!" But that's not why the ceiling was installed in the first place. Instead of simply raising the ceiling and continuing to spend money, Congress should use it as a guide to cut items to get the budget back below the ceiling. So if the ceiling is approaching, then Congress should look at which items are over budget. Maybe HUD is 20% overbudget. Maybe TSA is 20% overbudget. You then reduce those expenditures to get the budget back below the ceiling.
     
  8. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    So these bunch of fools have proposed extending the debt ceiling and passing a continuing resolution for 6 more weeks...oh and Jack Lew can't use any tactics to keep spending if the ceiling is breached. In other words: they want a tighter grip on their hostage and to do this again in 6 weeks. If Obama agrees to that then he's a bigger fool than he already seemed after that NSA scandal.
     
  9. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    If the House can manage any kind of a bill at all without policy riders relating to Obamacare, then it will be very hard for Senate not to pass it and the president not to sign it.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  10. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Agreed, but the teabaggers have Obamcare tourettes so they may not be able to resist.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  11. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    You're ignoring the fact that both sides were fine with the CR until Boehner caved to the Tea Party and included the defunding of Obamacare provision.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  12. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Their list of "demands" in order to raise the debt ceiling is roughly Romney's platform with a year-delay in Obamacare rather than it's repeal. When has our system ever operated on those terms?
     
    Jedi Merkurian and Arawn_Fenn like this.
  13. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    The Senate passed a budget earlier this year.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/senate-budget-passes_n_2938878.html


    And the White House proposes one every year.
     
    Vaderize03 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  14. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    I stand corrected.
     
  15. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    So what? Shinjo, going by your posts, I don't think you know how negotiations work. Or at the very least, you're feigning ignorance over the process for this specific situation. Government has always operated under those terms going back to when the colonies declared independence and had to come up with a new system of governance and came up with a federal-republic system.

    Let me offer you an aside. Let's say you have $10,000 to spend on a used car. You see one for sale for $12,000, but you like it anyway. So you go to the seller and knowing you only have 10 grand, you offer to buy the car for $8,000. The seller then counters with $10,000, which is what you have to spend. (and most likely the seller added extra to the price, so that's what he really wanted as well) That's the art of negotiation. See how it works?

    Now, apply that example above to the current political situation. Yeah, the GOP offered one plan, a plan which contained everything they wanted. Except instead of proposing a counter offer, debate is simply shut down with a reply of "no negotiation!" So the GOP has no reason to move from their offer, and stalemate is the result. Perhaps the administration is just stubborn. Certainly the administration knows that for the time being perception works against the GOP, so maybe Obama is playing hardball. I don't know. I get it, I really do. You don't like the republican party, and as a result disagree with whatever the politicians propose. That's fine. But it's utterly baffling to me how you can just sit there and ignore the fact that every single law ever created was the result of debate and compromise. What do you want the opposition party to do, keep throwing out proposals even as no counter offers are returned? That makes no sense. Yeah, it would be easy if one side just did whatever you agree with as well. But that's not how government works, or has ever worked.

    It will be very interesting the next time a republican president is elected, and something gets proposed that you disagree with. The opposition party-the democrats-better not disagree with whatever it is, and they certainly better not offer any kind of alternative, because apparently, that's not how government works.


    * Bonus points given out if that hypothetical President gets elected to a second term, because going by some of the posts here, the agendas of 2nd term Presidents are untouchable, and no one can debate any of their proposals, because why then did they get re-elected?
     
  16. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Honestly, 44, what the hell are you talking about? Since when have negotiations in government ever involved using the leverage of an economic disaster and shutting down the government to get their way? The GOP, in exchange for raising the debt limit - and not causing harm to the economy - is demanding (or were, I have no idea what they want anymore): a yearlong delay of Obamacare, Rep. Paul Ryan’s tax reform plan, the Keystone XL pipeline, more offshore oil drilling, more drilling on federally protected lands, rewriting of ash coal regulations, a suspension of the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to regulate carbon emissions, more power over the regulatory process in general, reform of the federal employee retirement program, an overhaul of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, more power over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s budget, repeal of the Social Services Block Grant, more means-testing in Medicare, repeal of the Public Health trust fund, and more.

    If this is how negotiations work, and I'm just ignorant, please give me one time when Speaker Pelosi threatened to not raise the debt limit unless Bush gave her a Christmas Tree of progressive ideas or the benevolent George W. Bush gave them concessions in "negotiations." Please?

    Again, the Administration has repeatedly said they'll negotiate. They negotiated over the last debt ceiling crisis the GOP caused, they negotiated over the "fiscal cliff." They're simply refusing to negotiate with a gun pointed at the head of the economy. I don't know how else to explain this point to you, because you keep ignoring it, but that's a fact. Obama has said since November 2012 that he is happy to negotiate a "grand bargain" but it must be independent of the debt ceiling as a hostage.

    Also, let's see what John McCain has to say .... "Let's have a little straight talk. [The administration] wouldn't have had the opportunity to handle it that way if we had not shut down the government on a fool's errand that we were not going to accomplish. The whole premise of shutting down the government was the repeal of Obamacare. I fought against Obamacare harder than any of the people who wanted to shut down the government."

    He also says that it is "unconscionable" to say that Obama has not negotiated with Republicans.
     
  17. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    No, I think they should negotiate under normal circumstances and stop using the debt ceiling and the funding of the government as leverage to inflate their bargaining chip. Obama is and has been willing to negotiate with them. They've had several rounds of negotiations before and he is repeatedly saying he's willing too again (you seem to be ignoring this). But he is, rightfully, refusing to negotiate over not causing an economic crisis.
     
  18. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Again, so what? Let me take your point a step further. If the year was 1861, I could ask you "when did negotiations in government ever involve the threat of civil war and using the country's troops against each other? Well, the answer is never. I could ask when negotiations in government ever involved a blockade of a former superpower and the threat of nuclear war over missiles in the Western Hemisphere? Well, that happened in 1962, and hasn't happened since. If you think such things happen over and over and over. Well, call up Sony Pictures, because I think you could star in Groundhog Day part 2. Each year, and each circumstance, was specific to the time. This situation is no different.

    You just keep repeating that none of this would happen if the opposition party-the GOP-just drops their demands and does whatever the administration says. That's weird. That's strange. And it's not how things are done. The problem is that right now, no "grand bargain" has happened. There isn't a back and forth dialog. The last budget debate resulted in the sequester precisely because no agreement could be reached. So again, you seem to be looking at this current situation from the perspective of that this is the GOP's first attempt at negotiation, and it's holding the administration over the barrel of a gun. It's not the first, it's the last, after an endless cycle of non-debate. Because there have been at least 4 previous calls for debate over various issues. The House has probably had half a dozen votes on Obamacare, and the reply has always been "It's not open for discussion."

    It looks like there might be some sort of deal reached in the next couple of days anyway. People just need to calm down. Between your exclaimations against the republicans, and V's prior cries of martial law and nationalization, it's no wonder perceptions are all out of wack. Just see what is proposed, and what comes of the discussions. How would your perception change if Boehner comes up with a compromise, and that's the one that the President and the Senate goes with? Or even vice versa?
     
  19. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    So the GOP's efforts to defund Obamacare are similar to the Civil War and the Cuban Missile Crisis? But V and I are the ones with our perceptions out of wack?

    Again, you completely ignore half of what I say. I'm not saying the GOP should drop their demands and do whatever Obama tells them to do. I'm saying they should stop using threat of the shutdown/debt ceiling to inflate their bargaining hand. Both sides should negotiate and give something up. And it shouldn't be done with the GOP using an economic crisis to increase their leverage.

    You seem to think it's perfectly acceptable if they use the shutdown/down ceiling threat as a tool to increase their hand. Now that's weird and strange.

    Also, is John McCain also wrong and delusional for saying it's the GOP's effort to defund Obamacare that caused the shutdown? And that it's "unconscionable" to say Obama hasn't negotiated?
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  20. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    This line of argument is -at best- obtuse, possibly disingenuous. Sure, the GOP offered a plan which contained everything they wanted, but it offered the Democrats nothing in return.

    To go with your car analogy, if someone offered to pay $10,000 for a $150,000 Mercedes, they would get laughed out of the dealership, not negotiated with. Actually, this is more like:

    -Give me a car for free, or I'll blockade the dealership.
    -No.
    -OK, 75% off.
    -No.
    -Half price?
    -No.
    -WHY WON'T YOU NEGOTIATE WITH ME?!?!?!?
     
  21. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    44-

    You're completely missing my point. Will all those things happen if we default? Maybe, maybe not. But they could, so why would we want to find out? Why is compromise such a dirty word nowadays? Why is it okay to employ these type of tactics to try and enact a platform that one side ran on and lost? Why is John Boehner so afraid to stand up to the 20% of the country that supports the Tea Party at the expense of the other 80? All the GOP's actions are telling the nation is that the only way the government can function is through one-party rule that utterly quashes the rights and even voices of the minority party. No matter what your beliefs, the end result of these fights will be a weakening of our fundamental institutions, and eventually, our domestic economy and foreign influence. It's already started, and won't just "go away" if one side suddenly get its way.

    But like I previously said, maybe the GOP needs to 'touch-the-stove'. There's nothing that produces a reset better than a wave election. 2014, which should easily have brought them the Senate and a larger margin in the House, is shaping up to be just the opposite. If we default, the Republican Party in its current form is going to die. It will then face a choice: return to the center, or be relegated to minority status for a generation. Doubling down will not bring them back to the White House.

    And something else: if there isn't immigration reform, they can pretty much kiss 2016 goodbye, no matter who runs.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  22. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    The best analogy I can come up with is the UN imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. The GOP has essentially imposed economic sanctions against the American people in order to get Obama to do what they want.
     
    Jedi Merkurian and Vaderize03 like this.
  23. Valairy Scot

    Valairy Scot Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 16, 2005
    ^:)^[face_dancing]

    And since this is the Senate:

    I think, Mr. 44 et al, you are missing the point that this was negotiated in a past congressional session (and I know you'll argue that the GOP had little to no input, but believe me, the Dems gave up on them after way too long a wait for them to negotiate away from there "my way or the highway" stance).

    It's now law.

    The minority faction of the GOP IS holding everyone else hostage. Its unconscionable the harm they're willing to inflict, politically, economically, and morally on those who disagree with them - they want to overturn the ACA, then they need to gain a majority. They're not even the majority in their own freakin' party!

    By the "but the Dems aren't willing to negotiate" proponents miss the point that the negotiating is over.

    They've tried - what, some 40 odd times now - to overturn the ACA and they keep losing!
     
    Jedi Merkurian and Vaderize03 like this.
  24. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Well ignoring the entrenchment in DC, the state governors are reaching agreements with DOI to reopen National Parks. All of Utah's national parks reopened today. AZ reopened the Grand Canyon also. Same with CO and it's NPs. Utah will call a special session to call for taxpayer funds to go towards keeping the parks open. CO already committed to using state funds to do so.
     
  25. Valairy Scot

    Valairy Scot Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Washington state, per our governor, does not have the funds to reopen to Mt. Rainier and Mt. St. Helens. Probably true, too, although I'd love to go check out the snowline at Rainier.