The nominations for the SDMB Understatement of the Year 2013 are now officially closed.
So what does this mean as an answer to the question. Is what they are threatening a big deal, and therefore leverage, or is it not a big deal and therefore not leverage. If what they are threatening is not a big deal, then how do they think its worth extorting over? How do they expect to force their minority will on the rest of the country if they publicly admit that what they are threatening isn’t anything serious?
Take a position please. You are still trying to have it both ways.
If its not a big deal then they should drop the charade and get on with the nation’s business. Pass the clean CR, get the government working again, and admit that they have no leverage to force anyone to give them their way. Otherwise this whole ‘not a big deal to default’ position is 100% BS. Or the threats are 100% BS. They cannot both be true.
It is as much leverage as the Democrats think it is. Like any leverage.
You see, you put the nation’s credit worthiness in a box with a radioactive isotope, and some poison. If one particular atom of that isotope degrades, then the poison is released, and our credit dies.
The odds are exactly even that one particular atom will degrade, and the credit worthiness dies. Now, so long as you don’t open that box…
OK, that is just precious.
It’s almost an allegory of… something or other. The Koch brothers have manufactured an astroturf army of morons to carry out their political will and inflict their self-serving ideology upon all of the land. They’ve whipped that army into a frenzy with simplistic but vitriolic rhethoric. Now the plan is coming to fruition, the morons have gained enough political power to enact decisions of their own. But it turns out that, being morons, they haven’t exactly understood much of the ideology (such as it is) and the retarded slogans they cling to are, in fact, suicidally nuts and directly affects the Koch brothers’ wallets. Teeth are gnashed.
Much as I admire the poetry of it all, I sort of feel moved to say : the whirlwind, brahs. Reap dat shit.
Weimar Republicans. “Sure, this Hitler fellow is a bit rough around the edges, but he can be controlled…”
So are you admitting that the Republicans are full of shit on this then?
It sure sounds like it. There are two messages coming out of their mouths right now that are incompatible with each other, so at least one of them is an actual steaming pile of shit. Maybe both are.
At least we’re getting somewhere on this finally.
I concede that what the Republicans are doing is not illegal and thus does not meet the definition of extortion, but it is clear that they do not have any positive incentives to bring to the table. 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. They seem (again, to me) to demand that the ACA either be repealed, defunded, or delayed until they have more power to repeal or defund it or they will stop the operation of the entire government and maybe damage the US Dollar’s place as the world reserve currency. There are no other concessions. No positive incentives are on the table at all; in essence they are demanding they get their way or they will make the country pay and, potentially, pay dearly.
Even more; the “slim down” (really? :rolleyes: ) is arguably more damaging to the Republican party than the Democratic party if most current polling numbers are to be believed. Not really a good bargaining position for the Tea Party to my mind. If they take the same tack with the debt ceiling, it could be very damaging for both the US and world economy and it will still most likely damage the Republicans more than the Democrats. Why do they expect the Democrats to negotiate again? What is in it for them? The choice seems to be either the Democrats take one up the rear, or everybody take one up the rear with the Republicans taking the biggest one…
These guys are not all that great with negotiation strategy, are they? It’s like they are demanding to get their way by threatening to burn the house down by lighting their arm on fire and holding it near the drapes.
Finally, doesn’t anybody on the Republican side of the aisle realize that this sets a precedent that future Republican administrations may come to regret? This whole thing is poorly thought out in my not so humble opinion.
Nope.
Sure–I’m talking not about what they could have done, but what they still could do. I guarantee that if they put enough sweetener on the table, they could get some of the reforms to Obamacare that they claim to want.
If, for example, they said, “We need to pay for the increases in insurance premiums that will result from removing the individual mandate. We have a package of cuts to military programs and increases in corporate tax rates that we believe will cover that cost,” I guarantee some Democrats would sit down with them and go over it.
But the idea is ridiculous, because the idea of Republicans engaging in a real negotiation is ridiculous. They don’t think they should have to give up anything at all that they already have; they think it’s negotiation if they don’t get everything they want.
I’ve got students who have Pokemon cards that they trade, and they understand this. If you’ve got ten cards I want, it’s not a negotiation for me to demand that you only give me six of those cards, and since I’m “giving up” the four cards that I want but won’t get, we’re both compromising. It’s only a negotiation if I offer you something in exchange for the cards you give me.
Edit: Magellan, saying they’re putting Obama’s Legacy on the bargaining board is an insidious and terrible idea. The legacy, as you admit, is whether the country does well under Obama, so really they’re putting the country’s welfare on the table. If all they have to offer is the ability not to harm the nation, the obvious thing to do is to take that ability away from them next chance we get.
Not really. They are just denying the weight of it, not the fact of it.
“Well, we refuse to vote on the Bill Clinton Highway Post Office until our demands are met. But we are not demanding anything more because we are reasonable people.”
Extortion Lite.
So which side are you taking? That defaulting is not a big deal, and therefore the republicans have no actual leverage, so this whole threat is bullshit? Or that defaulting is a big deal, and this talk of it not being a serious problem is all just bullshit?
You cannot hold both of their current talking points to be true, they contradict each other. They are mutually exclusive. One or both are bullshit. They cannot both be true. Which one do you actually believe? Either of them?
Again, please take a position on this. You cannot have it both ways, as much as you may want to. Is it your position that defaulting would be bad for the economy, or not? Whichever you take, you must then admit that the opposite argument that they are currently making is bullshit. So what’s it going to be?
Can I burn down your house?
No!
C’mon, let me burn down your house…
No!
OK, how about just the second floor?
No!
Well, the garage then?
No!
Will you sit down and talk about what I can burn?
No!
YOU’RE NOT NEGOTIATING!!!
- stolen from some guy on the intertubes
No, union works just fine:
The Union is split into two factions during negotiations. One faction (D) agrees with “management” on what their health care benefits should look like in 2014, the other faction (R) doesn’t. The option gets put to a vote, the D’s win, “management” approves, and that health care option becomes the agreement for 2014.
Every few months since then, the R faction has been beating the drum about the "horrible’ health care benefits they’ll wind up with. They keep putting things to the vote, and keep losing, they keep wanting to re-open negotiations, and both the D’s and “management” tell them to fuck off.
Now, we’re staring down the barrel of 2014, and the R faction of the union decides to wildcat strike. Their demands… get rid of the new health care benefits. They offer nothing new to management, nothing to the D faction of the union, they’re just shutting down the factory and putting everyone’s job at risk.
My position: factually, in the short term, it is not a big deal and, again, factually, it will not be a “default”. Yet the markets sometimes are irrational and may react as if it is.
And we are compelled to take that risk because the Tea Party does not like ObamaCare? And you approve?
We are compelled to take that risk because the constitution permits it. Do you support amending it to preclude this option? How would you amend it?
I probably wouldn’t have started this. But once it has started, Republicans either have to win something or be finished politically. So I approve them holding out now.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives’ right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
^^This is a quote from an article by Thomas Sowell. This is Harry Reid’s fault, if you’re into blaming one person.
You just cannot admit that the GOP, factually, is lying about one or both parts of this can you. They are making two concurrent arguments that contradict each other, and you cannot bring yourself to admit that, factually, both arguments cannot be true at the same time. Just like the tea party can’t admit that they, factually, lost on Obamacare, over and over again, on every front. Cognitive dissonance in action I guess. Too bad the global economy and the reputation of America is going to suffer due to the willful blindness of a small minority of the country that just cannot come to terms with losing.