what do the Republicans have to negotiate with?

[Bricker]

@LG Butts

Typically, at least IMHO, a negotiation should involve two parties coming to the table with a list of demands and a list of concessions they are willing to make. A good negotiator is one that maximizes the demands fulfilled while minimizing the concessions. A problem with current “negotiation” and what makes it look like extortion (to me), is that the Republicans don’t really have any concessions.

@Bricker

What concessions are the Democrats offering?

@Airbeck

No more concessions than the Republicans are offering, which is exactly zero. Except the Republicans are the ones holding the metaphorical gun to the financial health of the US, and the entire world.

Do you really think there is equivalence here? Do you think police should negotiate with hostage takers? Do you think that the US should negotiate when terrorists threaten us? You have to know that offering concessions to a hostage taker is a sure way to guarantee future hostage situations right? Is that what we want? Government by constant hostage situations? How many well-functioning democracies do things that way?

I was replying to the post that I have here quoted above – the one that said a negotiation should involve two parties coming to the table with a list of demands and a list of concessions they are willing to make. I asked what concessions the Democrats were willing to make. You answer “zero.” So as I understand the definition, neither side is negotiating.

Now, i don’t think police should negotiate with hostage takers, because hostage takers violate the law by taking hostages. This point was made in this thread repeatedly, in posts 10, 12, 17, 21, para 4 of 23, 24, by question answered in the negative in 26, 32, 33, grudgingly in 36, and in 68 pretty definitively.

But a union that threatens a strike if it doesn’t get its way is almost universally regarded (on the left, anyway) as a proper entity with whom to negotiate.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

I was replying to the post that I have here quoted above – the one that said a negotiation should involve two parties coming to the table with a list of demands and a list of concessions they are willing to make. I asked what concessions the Democrats were willing to make. You answer “zero.” So as I understand the definition, neither side is negotiating.

As post #171 showed, the Republicans on the House are already “negotiating” down.

Once again, when many Republicans already told you this was not a good idea one should realize than it is not just a partisan point to make that your attempts at making this the equal of a union striking is just reaching for a false equivalency point.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

But a union that threatens a strike if it doesn’t get its way is almost universally regarded (on the left, anyway) as a proper entity with whom to negotiate.

Do you consider that to be an analogous situation, with the union’s role taken by the Republicans?

[Ravenman]

@Terr

How is that relevant? I can point to the bills they passed to prevent the shutdown of the government.

You said that Republicans aren’t asking for the end of Obamacare. I challenged you to put your money where your mouth is. Now you’re changing the subject.

Can I assume that you’re backing off your statement that Republicans no longer want to get rid of Obamacare? The offer on the bet is still good.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Bricker

I was replying to the post that I have here quoted above – the one that said a negotiation should involve two parties coming to the table with a list of demands and a list of concessions they are willing to make. I asked what concessions the Democrats were willing to make. You answer “zero.” So as I understand the definition, neither side is negotiating.

Now, i don’t think police should negotiate with hostage takers, because hostage takers violate the law by taking hostages. This point was made in this thread repeatedly, in posts 10, 12, 17, 21, para 4 of 23, 24, by question answered in the negative in 26, 32, 33, grudgingly in 36, and in 68 pretty definitively.

But a union that threatens a strike if it doesn’t get its way is almost universally regarded (on the left, anyway) as a proper entity with whom to negotiate.

I don’t think it is true that the Democrats are not willing to make concessions, they are just not willing to make concessions on the ACA. To do so will conceivably lead to the complete dissolution of the law and could be as much political suicide as what Terr’s envisions for the Republicans if they don’t get anything out of this shutdown. If this analysis is correct, then the Republicans have decided to take a stand demanding that the Democrats self destruct or they won’t fund the government. Again, what have the Republicans brought to the table that incents the Democrats to negotiate?

[Terr]

@Ravenman

You said that Republicans aren’t asking for the end of Obamacare. I challenged you to put your money where your mouth is. Now you’re changing the subject.

I am not. The conversation is in the context of the government shutdown and House bills. Not in general context.

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

I am not. The conversation is in the context of the government shutdown and House bills. Not in general context.

There is no shortage of sitting members of Congress who refuse to vote for a continuing resolution that does not defund Obamacare.

[Leaper]

@L. G. Butts

Again, what have the Republicans brought to the table that incents the Democrats to negotiate?

The threat of destroying the national/world economy, apparently. That’s all I’ve seen offered by anyone in or out of DC, frankly.

Not that the Tea Party would mind if the government collapsed tomorrow, of course.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

There is no shortage of sitting members of Congress who refuse to vote for a continuing resolution that does not defund Obamacare.

Wrong. They already voted for CR that did not defund Obamacare. Keep up.

[ElvisL1ves]

You really think that was not a misleading representation, Terr? That nobody would actually bother to click on it? Really?

Sad.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Bricker

But a union that threatens a strike if it doesn’t get its way is almost universally regarded (on the left, anyway) as a proper entity with whom to negotiate.

Forgot to respond to this part.

So are you admitting that you think a striking union is a proper entity with whom to negotiate? Is this just a tu quoque fallacy? What is your point?

For the record, I don’t really like unions or strikes and if I were a business owner I can envision shutting down the business rather than giving in to unreasonable worker demands. That said, I also respect the right and need of workers to sometimes strike when worker conditions have reached an unacceptable state of affairs. It is an important, if distasteful, feedback mechanism in a capitalist economy. My opinion and YMMV.

All that said, I am not sure a union striking to force concessions is a valid analogy in this case. A strike primarily affects two parties: the business and the workers. In industries where a strike will negatively affect society (airlines, railroads, police, firefighters, etc…) the right of workers is proscribed to limit collateral damage. In the current shutdown, one of the two parties that control our government is holding the entire government hostage due to a bill that was legally passed, signed, and adjudicated. Collateral damage abounds. Whatever. I see the analogy, but I still don’t think it is a particularly good one.

[Lobohan]

@Terr

Wrong. They already voted for CR that did not defund Obamacare. Keep up.

That’s not a very reasonable way to frame that.

The individual mandate being removed will cost the insured quite a bit of money and certainly impact the ACA:

@http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/11/2283301/gop-obamacare-delays-premiums/

That’s why the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repealing the mandate entirely would raise premiums in the individual market by 15 to 20 percent and increase the number of uninsured Americans by 16 million. While a one-year delay wouldn’t have quite as big of an effect as a total repeal, it would still raise premiums during a critical stage of the law’s implementation — and potentially confound insurers by creating uncertainty over what rates they should be charging.

Now if the GOP is willing to hold the country hostage now, and people like you will wave pennants and cheer for them, why wouldn’t they do it again next year? And the year after that?

[magellan01]

@Revenant_Threshold

I think that’s thoroughly untrue. A President doesn’t, necessarily, have to have any interest in his own legacy. Likely enough they do, because that’s a matter of political perception, and if you’re a politican that doesn’t think about perception then you’re not going to be President. But there’s plenty of actual stuff that a President has the opportunity to do, and I can certainly see a President being more interested in that - especially since a legacy is subject, at least in part, to that anyway.

You start with disagreeing with me then arguing my point.

@Revenant_Threshold

On the other hand, it’s quite literally the job of political pundits to correctly comprehend a President’s legacy. That’s what they articulate; their jobs are reliant on explaining it. They’re paid to talk and argue about that legacy. If they write books about it, again, the level of interest in those books is going to be reflective of how well they’re able to comprehend (or, cynically, manipulate, but that requires knowledge, too) of that legacy.

I think we’re using two different definitions of legacy. Mine is the assessment of his presidency from some point in the future.

While we disagree often, I can usually follow you easily and understand you point completely. I admit to being more than a little lost this time.

[magellan01]

@Airbeck

Terr and magellan01, here’s a hint. If your view on those that disagree with you after a 4 page thread is that they ‘refuse to understand’, then maybe your arguments simply aren’t as convincing as you think. That’s significantly more likely than the other side of the argument are all mentally inferior to you.

Oh, please. First you use “those”, plural. Second, the chance of changing a partisan mind on this is nil. I have no expectation to. Especially with the hive mind of the Dope and all things Obama.

I am humored by the fact that you chose to be “the voice of reason” with the two of us rather than the one that was having the tantrum and being insulting. That is so very big of you. :rolleyes:

@Airbeck

By the way, I think its illuminating that after 4 pages of this, not one answer has been given to the question posed in the OP as to what the GOP is offering on their side of the ‘negotiation’. Besides of course just doing their job and not letting the country default. That’s the only thing anyone has come up with so far. A simple question, what are the republicans willing to put on the table, and so far nothing but ‘not purposely destroying the economy’, silence and some variation of ‘I know you are but what am I?’. Yes positively illuminating.

Incorrect. I did. Now you can go and look for it so you will better appreciate both its presence and your mistake.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Last time I checked he is still a senator, try again.

So, how’s the weather in Ultra Literal World. And of course I use “world” figuratively.

Yawn.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

So, how’s the weather in Ultra Literal World. And of course I use “world” figuratively.

Yawn.

Like if that denies the point, the reality is that even elected conservatives like McCain are telling you guys that this was a very bad plan.

A plan that the longer it goes is looking like it will drop even more demands and already it looks like the ones pushing for this already dropped a lot of what they told the rank and file it was the reason for the fight.

[PhillyGuy]

@Bricker

Now, i don’t think police should negotiate with hostage takers, because hostage takers violate the law by taking hostages.

I’m glad you are not a police chief (or frightened for the people of your town if you are). And that situation has nothing to do with this month’s constitutional crisis in the United States.

[elucidator]

Pretty sure he’s right about that. McCain still a Senator. Ran for President, but didn’t quit his day job. From New Mexzona. Something like that.

[Airbeck]

@magellan01

Incorrect. I did. Now you can go and look for it so you will better appreciate both its presence and your mistake.

Are you talking about this:

@magellan01

So, what the house republicans bring to the table, to a degree, is Obama’s legacy. That, and given that their view of Obamacare is legitimate (even if their assessments are incorrect) they are offering to dial down their resistance. So far, they’ve gone from defund to delay for a year to “don’t treat congresspersons like Dukes and Earls, treat them like everyone else”.

You’re saying that they won’t try to destroy his legacy anymore? Or at least for another couple of months anyway. That’s it? So all they can bring to the table is more threats, or promising not to follow through on a threat?

So its like ‘negotiating’ with the mafia protection racket then? Give the GOP what they want Obama and they won’t destroy your legacy and the economy? Yeah it sure would be a pity if anything should happen to this government of yours …

How is this supposed to support your case, by the way? I don’t see how this paints the republicans in a good light. In fact quite the opposite.

[elucidator]

@Airbeck

… I don’t see how this paints the republicans in a good light…

You wouldn’t really want a good light. Less the better, actually.