Yeah–as much as I like the “dumb motherfucker” hats idea, maybe a better idea would be that a failure to pass a budget in a timely fashion would result in automatically “renewing” last year’s budget (plus funds allocated for any new programs), as well as automatically triggering new elections for all House seat within sixty days (and maybe Senate seats–I’m not sure, given the intentional rotation of elections in the Senate).
Sure, but the system of parliamentary coalitions create situations wherein small parties of fixated fanatics can control…oh. Wait. Yeah.
I’m only threatening them with jail if they accept bribes. They should also be jailed for murder and arson. I’m not getting what you see as so horrible here.
I didn’t read the thread but here’s the difference between negotiation and extortion, using two kids who want to spend the afternoon playing games with each other, only they want to play different games:
Negotiation
Kid #1: I want to play Monopoly.
Kid #2: I want to play Scrabble.
Kid #1: Okay, how about we play both!
Kid #2: Okay, but Scrabble takes less time so let’s play that first. Then we’ll play Monopoly.
Kid #1: Okay! Let’s play!
In this case, both sides make a concession but both sides also get something their way.
Now, let’s have one of the kids take a different tact:
Kid #1: I want to play Monopoly.
Kid #2: I want to play Scrabble.
Kid #1: (Picks up Scrabble game) I will throw every tile in this game into the toilet if you don’t play Monopoly with me.
Kid #2: Dude, relax! How about we play your game and we can play mine later.
Kid #1: I will never play Scrabble with you.
I think it’s plainly obvious what the difference is in this scenario.
It’s a negotiation. Because a negotiation isn’t just about how both sides will get something positive out of it. It can also mean that both sides will risk dealing with something negative out of it.
In your analogy, yes the threat will possibly cause inconvenience to the business owner. But it will also cause an inconvenience to the striking workers.
Those workers will not get paid while they are on strike. Those workers will potentially have their positions filled with non-union laborers. There is a shot that the striking workers will wind up returning to work without the primo deal that they hoped to get by striking or just threatening to strike.
There is no shortage of real-world situations where what you proposed exactly wound up not benefiting the union employees and barely impacting the owners at all.
Striking workers take a risk that they usually would rather not take but do so in order to hopefully get something good for them. And they have to be willing to take the risk that their strike will not succeed and hurt them more than it hurts ownership.
In the case of our government, Republicans are not saying “Concede or we go on strike.” They are saying “Concede or we make sure you don’t have a factory tomorrow.” And that’s not the same as a striking union because all a striking union can do is remove themselves from the labor force. There are laws against them damaging property. There are laws against them harassing non-union workers. There are even laws about where they can legally picket.
Which leads me to this:
If someone says “Give me something or I will throw you off this cliff,” it’s obviously extortion. However. if someone says “Give me something or I will hurl us *both *off this cliff,” that’s not a negotiation even though both parties will be damaged as a result. In that case, there are two outcomes: Either both parties are hurled off a cliff or one party gets what they want.
Because Republicans are doing that now. Which is why it’s not a negotiation.
Do you really think that merely NOT being thrown off a cliff is a win? Do you think that saying “I’ll throw us both off this cliff if I don’t get my way” is substantially different than “I’ll throw you off this cliff if I don’t get my way?”
If the Pubbies throw us both off the cliff, we will have to endure their commentary on the way down. “Hey, see, not so bad! So far, so good, actually!”…
They will undoubtedly blame the ensuing economic fallout on Obamacare and high taxes.
yes, they will.
OK, but we keep the hats!
Of course this shutdown is extortionate (maybe its not “extortion” but it it extortionate) and the power of the purse was given to congress to stop the executive from doing things that they did not want done.
Its a little odd for congress to do through strike what they cannot do through legislation and its not like we can break this particular strike by getting other congressmen to cross the picket line, but they can do it if they like. BUT they do have to bear the political consequences of their actions.
You can argue that congress has the power to hold the country hostage but you cannot argue that this makes them immune from criticism. They don’t belong in jail but their constituents will have to decide if they still belong in congress come next November.
The shoot the dog bit is 40 years old.
I think the attempt to obtain by “undue power” is extortion, whether or not it succeeds.
But who says it isn’t succeeding? Under the extraordinary measures it is forced to perform, is the Treasury, for example, selling government gold reserves that would otherwise not be for sale? It would seem an undue power to bring such a thing about.
Also, isn’t it “undue power” to intentionally do something in an attempt to undo settled law that will tank global financial markets ? Who has that right?
Therefore, extortion, no? And dereliction of duty? Surely intentionally sabotaging the nation is not the intent of the Constitution.
Of course, entirely based around the fact that the Republicans don’t want it. This process will not be viable forever though. It will either gain or lose ground.
If it gains enough ground, the law will get repealed. If it loses ground (and is continued) then this will start to cause Republicans seats
That is what I see at stake.
What makes you so sure it won’t last forever? We may be witnessing the newest way of doing business. Congress USED to pass budgets without the need for Continuing Resolutions. Congressmen USED to negotiate in good faith, even on laws they didn’t pass which the opposition had created. In the future, we may be saying, “Congress USED to fund the government.” As long as we have incumbent reelection rates of 90 percent coupled with 10 percent disapproval ratings of Congress as a whole, the popularity or unpopularity of a given Congressional action seems moot. Very, very moot.
I really think this is a special case. And the Dems brought this upon themselves. Never before has a bill of this size and scope been passed with zero votes to helps its passage from the other side. The Dems were able to shove it down the throats of the Reps and they did just that. Now that they don’t have one branch of government it shouldn’t be surprising that they’re now going to play hardball. The way the ACA was passed may have been within the bounds of the rules, but it stunk. And God forbid people had a chance to read the final version of the bill before it was voted on. (cut to video of Pelosi’s asinine “We have to pass it to see what’s in it.” :rolleyes:) Previously, parties in control were smart enough to know that large pieces of legislation need to have some bipartisan support. Obama/Reid/Pelosi didn’t think that was necessary, and this is what their actions wrought.
What happened to the party of personal responsibility? They have none for their own actions?
If the American people wanted what the republicans are doing in terms of the ACA, then Democrats would have lost the last election. The fact is that the Republicans lost, while campaigning to do just what you’ve described. They lost. America heard loud and clear what the Republicans were promising to do if they won, and it was rejected by America. America does not want what they are doing. Learn to accept the consequences of elections. You have no respect for the democratic will of the voters here. Accept the loss, accept responsibility for your preferred party pitching a hissy fit because the people of America don’t want them to have their way on this. Stop with the distractions and obfuscation and simply accept that your party lost on the ACA. Its over. You lost. You will have to come to terms with this someday. I just hope its not after the global economy has been reduced to a smoldering crater because some small subset of the minority are such horrible sore losers and simply cannot wrap their heads around the fact that they just aren’t going to get their way this time.
I really don’t think that this is a special case. Just think about how hard this will come back to haunt the GOP someday when the situation is reversed. The Dem’s have controlled congress for almost all of the past 100 years.
Fact Check - you don’t need bipartisan support to pass a bill. This is a democracy and you just need electoral authority to do so. The Dem’s had it at the time - the GOP needs to get over this. Next time don’t screw the economy so bad so that you can maintain enough electoral authority to block the bill.
But you know what the country would be cool with - if the GOP went out and obtained the electoral authority to repeal ACA and then did so. You know, the democratic way.
The Republicans made the decision, before all this, to oppose every major proposal Obama made, even if he used their ideas. That left the Democrats with only one way of doing things- without the Republicans.
So now the Republicans openly planned to do a shutdown, took actions to make a shutdown happen, executed the shutdown, and celebrated the shutdown… and some of them, laughably, are trying to shift blame for the shutdown.
And not only that, they changed the rules so that only they can end the shutdown.
Yet, somehow, this is all the democrats fault?
:rolleyes:
That remark isn’t nearly as asinine as the misrepresentation of what it means. Here’s an explanation.
Turns out that Pelosi was talking when there were multiple competing bills before the Senate, and people were attacking THE bill, and she was saying that until one bill was passed (and headed to reconciliation with the House), there was no way to defend against the insane charges, because there wasn’t ONE bill to point to. The Senate, she was saying, needed to pass A bill, and then what was in the bill they passed could be discussed. Until then, it was hard to discuss THE bill.
Glad to clear that misconception up for you.
Well, it’s almost as asinine as suggesting that it was ever even *possible *to include Republican interests and proposals in a health care bill, since those consisted entirely of “Go fuck yourselves.” But it’s nowhere near as asinine as wasting time with 40+ useless votes to repeal it.
We’re still waiting for the Replace part from them, btw.