Would the GOP types push the USA into default ?

[Antilogic]

Back to a more current topic and to borrow the Admin's metaphor, can someone show me an instance where hostage takers offered to let some of the hostages and that offer was refused by the authorities?

No metaphors are perfect.

 

[DinoDoc]

For the record PG: the rammed through accusation is usually based on the desperate maneuvering on the part of the Democrats to avoid the consequences of Scott Brown's election to the Senate.

 

[DinoDoc]

No metaphors are perfect.

It's the one they chose to explain the situation. I'm merely trying to follow the logic behind it given the fact that the GOP seems intent on letting "some of the hostages" go free by passing bills that fund various programs.

 

[peter grimes]

For the record, Dino: your claim that the ACA had no republican input or support is garbage. Drop it.

 

[Antilogic]

For the record PG: the rammed through accusation is usually based on the desperate maneuvering on the part of the Democrats to avoid the consequences of Scott Brown's election to the Senate.

Odd, considering the bill was voted on in March 2010 as I noted above, while Scotty B was seated at the start of February 2010. Something is wrong with that chronology.

It's the one they chose to explain the situation. I'm merely trying to follow the logic behind it given the fact that the GOP seems intent on letting "some of the hostages" go free by passing bills that fund various programs.

Isn't it obvious? At least for some discreet time period, the GOP's demand was fund everything except for Obamacare. If they pass enough CRs to fund everything but Obamacare, then what leverage to the Dems have in the negotiations to get it funded?

In the meantime, any CRs passed lessen the impact of the shutdown. For the Dems, it makes no tactical sense to accept a single CR besides the one the Senate already passed.



EDIT: Woah, Mike Enzi collaborated on Obombyacare? Somebody oughta primary that sucker.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's the one they chose to explain the situation.

Illustrate. You don't go after the analogy if you want to make a counter argument.

I'm merely trying to follow the logic behind it

If you are trying to follow the logic behind it, why are you not attacking the logic behind it?

given the fact that the GOP seems intent on letting "some of the hostages" go free by passing bills that fund various programs.

I have an apology to make to the GOP. Their strategy is not stupidity. It's a careful marketing analysis of their target audience. And since I gave that target audience more credit than is due, I misjudged their actions as stupidity.

I'm sorry GOP.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

By the way, I have a little game for you fellers to play. It's called pin the quote to the Donkey/Pachyderm

I’m a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to [] trying to get cooperation. I don’t give up just because I didn’t get cooperation on this issue; I’ll try the next issue. If the **** don’t agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they’ll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don’t agree with me on infrastructure, I’ll try to see if they agree with me on education....I don’t go into the next two years assuming that there’s just going to be gridlock. We’re going to keep on working to make sure that we can get as much done as possible because folks are hurting out there.

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles," **** said during an appearance on **** I love ****, but maybe he doesn't get it, we're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."

Bonus points for those who can tell me what "it" is in the 2nd quote.

 

[DinoDoc]

Odd, considering the bill was voted on in March 2010 as I noted above, while Scotty B was seated at the start of February 2010. Something is wrong with that chronology.

From Wiki:

With Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 24, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate's bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, instead. Various health policy experts encouraged the House to pass the Senate version of the bill. However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill. With that option off the table, as any bill that emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill. They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed via the reconciliation process. Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. However, the process is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill like the ACA in the first place; such a bill would have inherently non-budgetary regulations.

If the bill had been subjected to regular order, it would never have passed.

Isn't it obvious? At least for some discreet time period, the GOP's demand was fund everything except for Obamacare.

The obvious thing here is that the GOP lacked the ability to go after Obamacare's funding as it get's its money through statutory rather than budgetary means. The simple way to have ended this would have been to offer to scrap the unpopular medical device tax and accept the Vitter Amendment.

If they pass enough CRs to fund everything but Obamacare, then what leverage to the Dems have in the negotiations to get it funded?

The asinine thing here is there's nothing to negotiate here. It's just two groups of people who have simply decided to act like prissy little es at the expense of the public.

In the meantime, any CRs passed lessen the impact of the shutdown.

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

 

[Kaitzilla]

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/07/gop...usion_obama_didn’t_negotiate_health_care_law/



Here's a link to the finance committee's timeline:
http://www.finance.senate.gov/issue/?id=32be19bd-491e-4192-812f-f65215c1ba65

Originally Posted by Grassley & Baucus
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today released policy options for reducing costs and improving quality in the health care delivery system ahead of a Wednesday Finance Members meeting to consider the options. At that meeting, Baucus and Grassley will “walk through” the potential policy options and solicit feedback from Members that will inform the creation of the subsequent proposals the Committee will consider for a comprehensive proposal. The Finance Leaders said the draft being released today will be the first of three sets of potential option papers, each covering a different topic area that members will discuss before a bipartisan Chairman’s Mark on comprehensive health care reform is developed. Each paper is intended to offer potential options for discussion and to provide an opportunity for other options to be offered and discussed.

Three Democratic and three Republican Finance Committee Members hold the first of 31 bipartisan meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill. Over the course of the next three months, this group, Baucus, Grassley, Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), met for more than 60 hours and the bipartisan principles they discussed became the foundation of the health care reform law.

The Finance Committee votes to approve the America’s Healthy Future Act with a bipartisan vote of 14 to 9.

So, well, yeah this was legislation drafted by both Republicans and Democrats. That Republicans refused to vote in favor of it on the House & Senate floors speaks volumes.

I'm still not convinced it wasn't rammed through.

That 14 to 9 finance committee vote only had 1 Republican yes vote.
All the Democrats voted yes.
All the Republicans voted no, except Senator Snowe.

http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2009/10/14/baucus-bill-could-win-over-another-republican

WASHINGTON BUREAU -- Sen. Susan Collins says she might support the Senate Finance Committee health bill, if major changes are made.

If Collins, R-Maine, backed the bill, she would become only the second Republican to do so. Her state-mate, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, broke away from Republican colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and voted Tuesday to approve the chairman's mark of the America's Healthy Future Act bill.

The bill draft was reported out with a tally of 14-9, with all Democrats supporting it and all Republicans but Snowe opposing it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is now in the process of combining the bill with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee health bill and preparing to reconcile it with whatever health bill comes out of the House.

Snowe's explanation:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-d...republican-olympia-snowe-supporting-obamacare

SMITH: Why do you think you were the only Republican to vote for this yesterday?

SNOWE: Well, it’s hard to say. You know, there’s so many philosophical and political differences in how to approach issues, and particularly in the health care arena. Everybody, obviously, has an opinion, a viewpoint, we’re all effected by it one way or the other. This product, though, in the Senate Finance Committee, to the credit of Chairman Baucus, who convened a group of six members of the committee, three Democrats and three Republicans. And so this became a product of more than almost four months of bipartisan intensive discussions. So that we couldn’t culminate a result and agreement didn’t mean to say that there weren’t places where we could agree. And I felt it was important to move this process forward on a lot of the issues in which we do agree. And obviously the legislative journey will produce, I think, even more improvements, hopefully, in this legislation. We at least have to try given the urgency and the crisis that exists within health care today.

And when it came time to pass this bill in the Senate and the Democrats desperately needed one Republican vote to make it filibuster proof, guess who they courted the most?
Senator Snowe

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...zy_to_olympia_snowe_for_health_care_vote.html

Throughout the health reform debate, the President worked with me in good faith, and I believed he was doing so now. By this point, however, I realized that the legislation had essentially been pre-ordained. ... "Mr. President," I responded, "I sincerely appreciate your offer. But if I couldn't secure changes in the bill now, it's not going to happen when I'm the only Republican on that conference with all the Democratic leaders."

And she walked.

So Obamacare did get some Republican input sure.
But not enough that Republicans were comfortable voting for it.

It got 1 Republican vote to get out of committee, 0 Republican votes to pass the Senate, and 0 Republican votes to pass the House.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm still not convinced it wasn't rammed through

That much is obvious.

So Obamacare did get some Republican input sure.
But not enough that Republicans were comfortable voting for it.

No you see, that would have meant adopting all of the Republican's input. And even then it would have been doubtful. With the way they riled up their base, voting for anything Obama would have meant political suicide.

How do you explain this to voters?

"Yeah, we agreed on the Death Panel healthcare thingy, but the president did incorporate some of our suggestions in it".

"Sure he's more communist than Stalin, but remember we were allied to Stalin once"

Not good marketing strategy. Staging a photo-op and going: "See?!" is a lot easier and has proved much more successful.

 

[Kaitzilla]

By the way, I have a little game for you fellers to play. It's called pin the quote to the Donkey/Pachyderm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quote 1
I’m a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to [] trying to get cooperation. I don’t give up just because I didn’t get cooperation on this issue; I’ll try the next issue. If the **** don’t agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they’ll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don’t agree with me on infrastructure, I’ll try to see if they agree with me on education....I don’t go into the next two years assuming that there’s just going to be gridlock. We’re going to keep on working to make sure that we can get as much done as possible because folks are hurting out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quote 2
"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles," **** said during an appearance on **** I love ****, but maybe he doesn't get it, we're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."

Bonus points for those who can tell me what "it" is in the 2nd quote.

This game is pointless if I use Google, so I'll just have to guess.

Is it:

Obama

Cruz

Obamacare?


Also, if you enjoy game theory and can stand putting in a lot of willful suspension of disbelief, try reading some Liar's Game. Talking about Congress always puts it in my mind for some reason.

http://www.mangahere.com/manga/liar_game/v01/c001/

It's a Japanese Manga (comic book?). Be sure to read right to left!
1 Yen is like 1 Penny in America.
er, click on the page in the middle to go to the next page.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm totally lost on page 1 already.

edit: Oh, you scored 1.5

 

[Cutlass]

Back to a more current topic and to borrow the Admin's metaphor, can someone show me an instance where hostage takers offered to let some of the hostages and that offer was refused by the authorities?

They'll only release some of the hostages on the basis of being given a free pass to murder the other hostages.

 

[DinoDoc]

They'll only release some of the hostages on the basis of being given a free pass to murder the other hostages.

The hostage they wanted to kill isn't even in the building and was beyond the reach of these measures awhile ago. We seem to be stuck with the fact that both parties in this farce seem intent on acting like prissy little debutantes than in actually governing.

 

[Cutlass]

The hostage they wanted to kill isn't even in the building and was beyond the reach of these measures awhile ago. We seem to be stuck with the fact that both parties in this farce seem intent on acting like prissy little debutantes than in actually governing.

No, only the Republicans are doing that. The Democrats have done nothing wrong. The Teahadists are borderline treasonous.

 

[JollyRoger]

They are willing to release body parts of the one hostage.

 

[Rashiminos]

By the way, I have a little game for you fellers to play. It's called pin the quote to the Donkey/Pachyderm





Bonus points for those who can tell me what "it" is in the 2nd quote.

Bonus answer: The Second Coming.

Spoiler :

The second quote is Boehner

 

[peter grimes]

I'm still not convinced it wasn't rammed through.

So Obamacare did get some Republican input sure.
But not enough that Republicans were comfortable voting for it.

It got 1 Republican vote to get out of committee, 0 Republican votes to pass the Senate, and 0 Republican votes to pass the House.

Oh, I guess we're changing the definitions of "no republican input", and "rammed through". Very well...

 

[woody60707]

Down with socialism !

Hell yea! Rich people should tell poor people how to vote. And they should be grateful too!

 

[FriendlyFire]

MORGAN STANLEY ECONOMIST: If We Breach The Debt Ceiling, Jack Lew Must Decide Which Law To Break

What happens if we breach the debt ceiling?
According to Morgan Stanley top economist Vincent Reinhart, the question becomes straightforward: Which law must the Secretary of the Treasury the break?
In a column for DealBook, which is adapted from one of his notes to clients, he explains the choice facing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew:

If the Treasury is unwilling to stretch the definition of extraordinary measures, on the day that the Federal Reserve predicts that the Treasury will run out of cash in its account and the Treasury is bound by the debt ceiling, it suspends all payments and awaits instructions from the Treasury. As a result, the government’s principal economic officials will face the prospect of violating one of these three laws:
1. The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 that establishes the debt ceiling;
2. The Federal Reserve Act that prohibits the Fed from lending directly to the Treasury; or,
3. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution that holds that the debt of the United States government, lawfully issued, will not be questioned.

They have to break a law. At the end of the day, officials will avoid violating the Constitution by indicating that they have been given inconsistent instructions and are obeying the one with the most important precedent.

Basically in Reinhart’s formulation, Lew will opt to break the debt ceiling law, citing constitutional obligations to continue servicing the debt.

And then of course we enter into level neverneverland with respect to the budget.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/m...ck-lew-must-decide-which-law-to-break-2013-10

So under the constitution of the USA. The USA MUST service its debt first and without the ability to borrow to means that the US budget must be slashed. we are talking austerity ? hyperinflation ? bank run ? rioting ? several years of recession.

On the other hand the US could renegotiate it debt, cents for dollar and large part of the elderly Republican population would have died as a result.