Do they only want concessions to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling, or are the actually willing to consider revenue increases or increased education funding or something.
If the former, it’s not really a negotiation, right? I mean this is more like extortion, isn’t it?
The concessions they want differ. Tea Party Rs want to yank the rug from under the ACA entirely. Moderate Rs want to reduce the deficit and institute spending cuts wherever they can get them.
Most Rs signed on to that ridiculous “never, ever raise taxes (Ever)” statement, so additional revenue is usually out.
The traditional R platform is that the federal government shouldn’t be as big as it is and they want to trim what they consider “fat.” The newer Tea Party brigade is incredibly focused on easing all business expenses levied by the government and reducing the federal government down to incredibly low levels.
Its exactly extortion. If what they want is to negotiate, then what are they bringing to the table? If all they are willing to do is their basic job, and they won’t do their basic job unless they get their demands met, then how is that any kind of negotiation? They demand concessions from Obama, but what are they offering in exchange for these concessions? Nothing, except to not cause a disaster and damage the world economy and the reputation of the U.S.? Its gimme my way or the country gets it, simple as that. And these are the ones who claim to be the ‘real Americans’? The ones willing to burn the country to the ground out of spite because they can’t get what they want? One of the first rules of parenting is to not give in to temper tantrums. That’s what this is, a temper tantrum with the entire world economy at risk. Obama has to be the parent here, because the republicans are acting like spoiled children crying and screaming and pounding their fists on the floor of the supermarket because they can’t get the candy they want, except with much greater stakes involved.
You’re right, they have nothing they are willing to bargain with. All they have is their ability to shut down the government. So that’s what they’ve done. Sickening.
Probably not, but here’s an article arguing that the Dems should seize this opportunity to make some demands of their own.
What makes this extortion and not a negotiation, exactly? They want to kill Obamacare and if Obama agreed to that the government would open. You can change what they want to be something else for purposes of argument. Does that make them less of “terrorists” and more of “negotiators”?
extortion: The practice of obtaining something through force or threats.
What makes this not extortion? It doesn’t matter what they want - they are only willing to obtain not by bringing anything to the table except the threat of defunding the country.
What makes it extortion is they are threatening the entire world economy and the reputation of the United States, and the only way they won’t pull the trigger is if they get their demands met. They aren’t offering anything from their side of the table except to not pull the trigger and kill the hostage.
Negotiations require both sides offering up things that they don’t want as concessions to the other side. What concessions are the Republicans willing to offer?
The only way you can describe what’s happening as ‘negotiations’ is if you put the word ‘hostage’ in front. Then think about how the police handle those types of situations. That’s where we are. This is not business men sitting across a board room table and working out a deal, its one side saying ‘give us our demands or the entire global economy gets it!’. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I say to you, “Give my union a pay raise, or we’ll strike,” is that negotiation or extortion?
Where did you get that definition? Extortion needs also to be illegal, right? What congress is doing is a “threat”, but it’s not through force and it’s not illegal. So it fails two out of three of the criteria for extortion.
Is the employer allowed to fire the union workers and hire replacement workers?
Of course the answer is no. It’s just a threat. Also of course, this is analogous to what the GOP is saying to Obama.
For it to be extortion it would be more like this:
“Give my union a pay raise or I’ll break your kneecaps.” Threat. Illegal. Force.
It depends, do the Democrats or the Republicans currently control the country and pass the labor laws?
Not analogous. If you said “give my union a pay raise, or we’ll burn down the factory” that would be extortion, and would be a relevant analogy. The Republicans aren’t just refusing to work, they are threatening to burn everything down if they don’t get their way. Your example here is not even close to the same thing as what is currently happening. Striking union workers are not threatening to damage the entire global economy over a temper tantrum.
I googled it - took me almost a second. As you admit, congress is doing a threat to obtain something - they are therefore practitioners of extortion.
This would be a negotiation if the Republicans are offering something- but they’re not. I don’t consider “allowing the government to function” or “not defaulting on our debt” an offer or a concession- any more than a kidnapper offering to not kill the kidnappee.
There’s a huge difference between “we’ll burn down the factory” and “we refuse to pass a budget,” and it’s excatly what Debaser identified: burning down the factory is illegal. The law forbids the threatened action.
That’s precisely why I offered the strike analogy: it’s legal, but it has the effect of crippling the business.
If a union is permitted to say, “We will do something legal, and it will hurt your business badly, unless you give us these demands,” and that’s NOT extortion, then neither is Congress’ current action. Congress breaks no law by refusing to pass a budget. They just don’t want to agree to any budget that continues to fund Obamacare. That’s not a wise course of action, but it’s not extortion, unless you redefine the word, and if you do, then a union threatening a strike is also extortion.
Why does anyone care what “you consider?”
A kidnapper breaks the law merely by kidnapping, and again by threatening to kill his hostage. The Congress doesn’t break any law by refusing to pass a budget. The two are completely dissimilar for that reason.
Is it your view, by the way, that Congress MUST pass a budget even if it funds programs that are unpalatable to them?
Why do you imagine they have a choice, if their only ‘choice’ is to act?
If using a threat to obtain something is extortion than every negotiation is extortion. When I go to a car dealer they tell me to pay the price they want or I don’t get the car. I say lower the price or they don’t get my money. Both sides are threatening to walk away and that is negotiation not extortion.
Both the House and Senate want something the other does not want to give up. The Senate wants funding for Obamacare and can’t get it without the House approval. The House wants to defund Obamacare and can’t do that without Senate Approval. They both are saying give me what I want or no deal. If the House are extortionists so are the Senate. In fact neither are extortionists they are both negotiating and trying to get the best outcome for their side.
To extend the analogy of the car lot. If I don’t get the car I can’t go to work and if I can’t work my kids are starving. So is the dealer threatening to kill my kids if I don’t give in on the price?
One obvious difference is the unions by their inaction are hurting a company only through their own inaction (i.e. they don’t work).
Congress, through their inaction, is hurting the country by forcing others to be inactive or unpaid (i.e. others are forced not to work).