You’ve said this over and over. What I think you mean is that everyone will look at Republicans as someone that doesn’t deserve respect (you analogize this to “bitches,” presumably the first group that pops to mind when you’re thinking of who doesn’t deserve respect), and therefore think that Republicans, in an effort to maintain the respect of others, should continue acting like tantrum-throwing toddlers.
I’m reminded of Captain Mal. Republicans aren’t going to be viewed as weak-like-women because they gave up on their tantrum, except by a frankly contemptible minority of the country. Instead, they’ll be viewed as rational-like-adults for giving up on their tantrum.
Indeed. One hopes that the decent Republicans (hush, Der Trihs, just hush) will see the words of Terr etc., folks who can’t stand to see manly men acting all womanly or whatever the hair-rending is about, and be appalled enough to leave the party.
Well, no. They’ll be looked at as whiny babies for having the tantrum in the first place, with a dire need to re-earn their status as rational adults. This whole issue is just so fucking dumb.
Yeah, I don’t mean that it’ll be an instant process (but knowing our country, in three weeks this’ll be old news and nobody much will care). But passing a budget will be the first step toward looking like adults, and I guarandamntee you that they’ll pass around the talking points–which in three weeks Terr will repeat word-for-word–that as the ones who compromised, THEY should be seen as the saviors of the country from the intractable Democrats.
And at least 30% of the country will believe them.
This is rich. You offer up a ridiculous analogy. I point out the problem with it and you huff and roll your eyes. HA!
So, the elections that the Dems won are because those elections were in large part about Obamacare. But the one when the lost, well, a bunch of other stuff, as long as it’s not healthcare. Gotcha.
And I don’t give two shits that you don’t give two shits about it. Glad we were able to settle that. You want top thrown reasonable and unreasonable in the same box and view them the same, knock yourself out.
What you evidently miss is that some people think the bill is incredibly bad. And why not delay forcing people to do something until you see how it goes for a year. Obviously it will be underfunded, but we can still learn things. And if the funding is so critical, why offer so many exemptions to others?
The were using the leverage they had. Within the rules. It’s a dangerous game, as it’s who is going to blink first. And it looks like the Dems will be winning the showdown.
I find it completely possible that one could affect a couple hundred amendments could be made to legislation that applies to one sixth of the economy, written in over 2,000 pages, and still not feel the the overall legislation is a good idea.
Shall I get you your salts? American democracy is more resilient than you give it credit for. In the grand scheme of things these things are little hiccups. We’ve been through them before, you know. Things that are MUCH more apt to ruin America as we know it is having a hyper-partisan, divisive Redistributor-in-Chief in the Oval Office.
Here you go with the bad analogies again. Again, Reps were, admittedly, in a weak position to demand negotiations. They went all in. Which is really bad strategy if you intend to fold before the other guy. As they appear to be doing.
Speaking of sheer unmitigated stupidity, perhaps you should take more care in parsing meaning. Here is the statement. Pay attention to what preceded it and what the “That’s” is referring to:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
What they’re supposed to do is negotiate to the point that they do get some bipartisan support. That’s good governance. Not only is it good for the governing bodies for future legislation, but it means that the final bill is not just one side imposing its will on the other. When you have at least some support from the other side, both sides own it. That’s a good thing.
[/QUOTE]
So the part you quoted was referring to the general notion that two sides should be negotiating to the point where they receive some minority support. And you think that’s a bad idea? :rolleyes:
I assure you I do. Yet I maintain that one side imposing it’s will on the other and getting zero votes from the minority is NOT good governance. Maybe that’s why that there has NEVER been a piece of major legislation passed which the opposing party supported to some degree. NEVER! Do you really think that this was the only time their was vehement disagreement? Nope. It’s just that the officials—both Dems and Reps—felt that it wasn’t right to impose their will and shove legislation through with some support from the other side. And Obama/Reid/Pelosi had done that, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
I don’t think that’s right. For instance, they wanted to change the laws regarding buying insurance over state lines and and increase the amount of Medical Savings Accounts. True, those just address half the problem, about the costs associated with health care. But reducing the cost would, by definition, allow some people who cannot afford it to afford it. We’re then left with a smaller pool of people who we’d need to provide for. It would have made more sense to implement smaller changes and see the effects of them. Starting off with" let’s fundamentally alter one sixth of our economy and, and for the first time in the country’s history force people to buy a product" doesn’t seem prudent to me. And I say that as one who fully supports putting an end to recision and other disgusting tactics of the insurance companies.
:rolleyes: Funny that you don’t entertain the possibility that we simply disagree. So, feel free to start a pit thread and call me a liar, because this is a fact:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Granting the exemption for one year would have been reasonable, due to all the other exemptions Obama has handed out.
Because you completely missed the point and I’m past explaining it to you.
Yes. Actual policy analysis. The democrats ran on health care and won. The republicans ran on health care and won because democratic turnout was lousy.
You just don’t fucking get it, do you? You seriously don’t understand that the issue here is not “I don’t want Obamacare defunded or delayed”, but rather “I don’t want policy debates to happen where the threat of harm to the country gives one side a unilateral advantage”. In other words, a hostage situation is not acceptable for policy debates! And if you can’t understand that, then there’s no point in continuing, because you’re not willing to debate honestly or you can’t read.
Those people are incredibly misinformed. Mal-informed, actually.
You want to *keep *something from being done until we see how it works. Really now.
The rules involve having every chance to make your case in debate, and accepting the result. *Not *lying and pouting when We the People decide the other side’s case is better.
As the party representing the will of the people, as our democratic processes work, yes, as they should.
2008 called …
Are you ever going to get around to saying what Republican proposals were made and should have been considered? Or are you even capable of recognizing that they were never ever going to vote for anything with Obama’s name on it? All they ever did was offer amendments that weakened the bill, but never had any good-faith intention of ever voting for the final thing. Never. And I think you know that.
Without getting into whether or not someone else is being inconsistent: the ACA was a major issue, perhaps even the single biggest issue, in last year’s elections. Obama won. The shutdown happened because Republicans realized they could not get rid of it via the ballot box.
They lost the argument. They do not get to revive it at every conceivable opportunity by demanding crazy concessions in return for allowing the government to function.
Already explained…
Such as?
Offering exemptions to some people and businesses is not the same as making the entire program operate without funding for a year. Say it was delayed. Even if things worked well, do you think Republicans would say “we’ve been campaigning against Obamacare for four years and saying it’s the worst thing ever, but it’s time to let it go into effect.”
Whether it was “within the rules” or not - whatever that may mean to you - it was without precedent and craven and disgusting. This was a maneuver that had a real effect on people’s lives and the economy. It’s satisfying that they lost so miserably, but that doesn’t really make up for it.
Doesn’t that also apply to shutting down the government for several weeks and threatening the country’s credit? I’m pretty sure the Democrats didn’t vote in favor of that.
Budget Player Cadet, this is too far. You may disagree with the post, you may disagree with the argument, but you may not personalize your argument with another poster.
If in fact you are correct and there has NEVER before been a major piece of legislation passed entirely by one party (and I don’t know whether that’s true one way or the other), let’s use Occam’s razor:
(1) Obamacare is such a monumentally terrible piece of legislation that every single Republican, independently and in good faith, decided to vote against it. But Democrats are either stupid or evil and the vast majority of them came to the other conclusion. (And this despite the fact that Obamacare basically started out as the Republican response to Hilarycare).
(2) The 2010-era Republican congress, more than any similar group in the past, is incredibly disciplined and afraid to break ranks, so the fact that zero of them voted for it says more about them than it does about Obamacare
Which seems more likely to you? Particularly in light of the rest of the political atmosphere recently, etc?
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the objection has no relevance anyway. Even if what he’s saying is correct, it’s still a law on the books. It doesn’t magically lose legitimacy based on the circumstances of its passage. Pretend the law got a few votes from Republicans. Does it make any less sense, then, for the Republicans to make its repeal a central piece of their agenda for years and use increasingly crazy tactics to try to kill it?
I wonder what they would say if it is mostly simple payer, like Medicare? And what would they say if said socialistic single payer system, like Medicare, costs an amount roughly equal to the budget deficit?
Instead we have, in the Affordable Care Act,something that non-partisan raters say decreases the deficit.
Because of social security and medicare, a large portion of Americans no longer save for their retirement, and no longer have lots of children who could support them in their old age. Instead of each family taking care of its own, today’s oldsters often are wards of the state. This goes against an ethos of individualism to a vastly greater extent than Romneycare, excuse me, Obamacare.
I don’t miss that some people think the Affordable Care Act is incredibly bad. But given that the bigger government health care plan is all but ignored, it seems to me to be partisan blatter.
I don’t see how you can oppose the individual mandate and be OK with the medicare tax.
This is perhaps more extreme than what you will read here, but sums up the nonsense:
