Right now, I’m having a hard time seeing how this deal gets resolved. Which side will blink?
Not seeing how Obama can agree to any restrictions on ACA. I see more possibility for the House Repubs to waver - simply because they are a more numerous and diverse group. But I hate to bet on those in power adopting a position that they do not consider to their immediate and future advantage.
And what will the resolution look like? Will we have yet another “crisis” looming in a matter of weeks/months? And what will be the implications on the next pending “crisis” already on the calendar?
The Republicans will blink after a week or two, I believe. The polls are showing that they are taking the majority of the blame, and the Democrats have too much to lose by risking this brinksmanship for every single issue to give in.
At some point Boehner will just give in and put forward a clean vote (or perhaps with some tiny but relatively meaningless change to Obamacare to claim a symbolic victory), and it will pass with mostly Democratic votes. And then, hopefully, because he’ll realize that he can’t piss off the Tea Party nuts any more, he’ll put forward a clean debt limit increase to. And then he’ll announce his retirement.
Full cave by Republicans. They wanted to pass a clean CR until Cruz riled up the teahadists and forced them into this dog and pony show. The majority of them don’t want this, they are just scared of the crazy wing.
When it starts to affect Wall Street, the powers that be will jerk on Boehner’s chain and he’ll suddenly allow a vote on a clean CR, which will pass with just enough Republicans.
Huh? Diverse? I think it’s more like 80% right wing, 10% far right wing, and 10% batshit insane.
My guess: CR and a debt ceiling increase in exchange for some token ACA modification (probably a removal of the exemption for Congress).
Here’s my theory as to why some Republicans are hard-nosed on the mandate: the Democrats are making it a point to say, “The Supreme Court upheld it” - except that the mandate was found to violate the Commerce Clause if it is not considered a tax, so some of them feel that the mandate violates their “No New Taxes” pledge.
CR with a repeal or modification of the medical devices tax. Clean debt ceiling increase (obviously Boehner and co. decided government shutdown was a better hostage to execute, politically, than the debt ceiling - probably correct).
I’m still shaking my head. I watched the CNN live blog as this unfolded yesterday. It reminded me of spoiled kids fighting for more sand in their corner of the sand box. Both sides piling sand under their asses refusing to give any to the other.
In the end, we’ll have Obamacare, the Devise tax, etc. Congress will have gotten paid, and as usual, the little guy gets tromped on in the form of no paychecks, closed offices, etc.
As long as the spoiled kids in the sandbox are all the various wings of the Republican party. This is not one of those crises in which we can say “both sides are to blame”… no, in this case, one side is to blame.
What are you talking about? The House of Representatives controls the “purse.” That’s how the Framers intended it to be–spending bills must originate there. This is a spending bill. The elected House is doing their job; passing a spending bill that has certain budgetary provisions in accord with what their constituents want. They passed the bill. That the Senate and President are throwing a tantrum and deciding that they don’t and won’t consider the spending bill that the house put forward means that they’re the ones who are responsible for the shutdown, not the House Republicans that merely did their Constitutional Duty to set spending priorities.
Or to return to the sandbox analogy, the Republicans are holding the Democrat’s little sister behind the school, beyond the reach or sight of the teacher. Under threat of brutally raping her, they’re trying to extract a promise from the Democrats. If the Democrats don’t commit, whatever happens to their sister is their fault.
I am confused- your second paragraph seems to be in direct conflict with the first. My opinion is that the Democrats cannot even negotiate with the Republican when they threaten government shutdown and debt default, because it will encourage them to use the tactic again. By your second paragraph, you seem to agree with me, but your first disagrees.
Only for a very narrow definition of “constituents”, hmm? The *law *that faction opposes passed both houses after lengthy debate (in which they had to resort to simply lying), was signed by the President, even found constitutional by the Supreme Court, is now in effect, and, more to the point, is supported by a solid majority of the country, a large proportion of whom want it to go even further. In addition, their party holds a majority in the House only by way of heavy gerrymandering - they actually represent only a minority of the people, and the controlling faction is only a minority of them.
They lost. It’s over. They tried every persuasion method they had and the people found the other side more persuasive. The people’s will is against them. So who again do you say the House is representing by attempting sabotage instead? :dubious:
I am always willing to give Andy a listen, as he sometimes makes cogent points. But I don’t really see any racist dimension to this ideological shit-fit.
Well, the conduct of the right is making no sense. I suppose he’s looking for any explanation that can explain this. If you read the entire post, it’s less focused on race than the part I quoted.
His problem is finding an original insight into a situation that doesn’t allow for any. This stuff is pretty cut and dried, the facts are obvious, so one side can only present those facts and the other side is forced into elaborate evasions. Doesn’t allow for much in the way of startling insight.
This is what I was going to say. In the end, the GOP knows that the only concession possible is something to do with that tax that they claim will send thousands of jobs overseas. They can claim that as a small face saving victory.
Maybe not. I’m thinking that the people who are so strongly against the medical device tax aren’t taking into account how many more of those devices will be sold once more people have the insurance to pay for them. Of course, they would be even better off if more people can afford them and they don’t have to pay the tax.
Further, its very hard to know whether or not this is simply another ploy to cripple the tax resources for the ACA. My Senators from MN are aligned with rescinding the tax, and they are a couple of pretty smart cookies, so I’m willing to listen.
They stand for every tax bill being revenue-neutral, right? Make 'em stick with that. If the medical devices tax is repealed, they get to select some other tax to replace it.