I think it is more along the lines of "We don't do deals with terrorists"
USA Federal government: CLOSED
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, it was (White House Senior Advisor) Dan Pfeiffer who said that, and he wasn't invoking metaphor.
This isn't a compromise. This is the democrats saying the same thing they've said all along - they will not negotiate.
Both sides are being obstinate. To portray the replicons as being worse then the duplicrats is disingenuous.
Okay, that's scary. They're saying similar stuff to what a lot of people around here in the DC area have been saying.
Considering they've been planning on being Obstructionist asshats from day one of the Obama presidency, and how much they conducted 'negotiations' in good faith during the last debt ceiling crisis, yeah, I think you could say one side has been more Snidely Whiplash than the other.
GasBandit
Staff member
Obstructionist wasn't a dirty word until democrats came to power. Previous to that, it was considered a near synonym for patriotism.
GasBandit
Staff member
That list is 2 weeks old (pre-shutdown) and probably meant as a "sticker price." It's their wishlist, so they have stuff to give up in negotiations.
But let's have some fun and go down the list:
- A one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act
- Instructions for tax reform, under Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget
- Keystone XL Pipeline construction
- An overhaul of Dodd-Frank regulations
- More offshore oil drilling
- Means testing Medicare
- Suspending the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to regulate carbon emissions
- Repeal of the Public Health Trust Fund
So, all in all, I don't see how this is aimed mostly at the very rich. If anything, it's a pretty good start on jumpstarting the job market back to health.
Citation on the favorite friend waivers?
And no it's not a fair middle ground. The business mandate was pushed back a year because the infrastructure for the business mandate wasn't ready. Give me one reason why the individual mandate should also be pushed back despite the fact that the infrastructure for it is already in place and chugging along.
Yeah lord knows that the way I always balance my budget is to quit my job. Paul Ryan's budget's have always been on shaky ground requiring multiple years of growth at a pace that far exceeds growth during the clinton administration.
If it gets sold to China it's still lowering the price of oil the exact same amount. Oil is a fungible good. Only difference is that we would be putting our aquifer at risk by pumping that junk into our country.
Come on do you seriously oppose banking regulation? Unregulated banks nearly destroyed the entire economy and you want to take away the only legislation that even tries to reign them in?
Yeah no it hasn't.
Honestly I would love to see where exactly they draw the lines with means testing medicare before I say it's a bad idea.
All of those ideas are atrocious for the job market. Probably why the Republicans have proposed them.
So? Does that mean he can't compromise? Or change his mind? Why does that have to be a negative thing?
GasBandit
Staff member
Because it'd make him look weak and foolish, which he apparently hates more than anything. It's what he should do, but like the "red line" comment, he painted himself into a corner. Plus, I can't really blame him for thinking the Republicans would flinch before the Democrats. Frankly I'm surprised they've stuck to their guns this long.
Here, and GE gets waivers from both TACA and the EPA.
Well, obviously the infrastructure for everything still needs work. But part of the act's purported balancing act was "if you have coverage you like, you can keep it," meaning employer provided coverage, obviously. But with the business mandate to provide coverage moved back, many are finding it even more enticing simply to drop coverage and save the money. But the individual mandate still requires individuals to purchase insurance of some sort, so really it becomes a cattleprod to herd more people through the exchanges.
That's a disingenuous characterization of the Ryan budget.
Poppycock. The pipeline isn't IN the aquifer, and you'd prefer the risk of putting the oil in tankers? Because that doesn't seem any safer. China is on a mad expansion boom, they're buying all the resources (and in some cases, production facilities outright) they can get their hands on. If you think that bodes well for the US economy... you're mistaken.
Dodd-Frank was ostensibly meant to address the whole "too big to fail" issue which led to the supposed requirement to hurriedly fork over the bailout cash. Instead, it enshrines it into perpetuity, via the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and authorizes the government to de facto seize any institution it deems critical. Meanwhile it also does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Pardon me, OFFSHORE production has, especially after the Deepwater Horizon incident gave an excuse to curtail it, in the name of environmentalism. Pity that hasn't stopped other nations from stepping up their drilling in the gulf to fill the void.
Yes, because if there's one thing Republicans hate, it's businesses and jobs. Why, look at the unemployment rate during the Bush years, at a staggering 5% and change!
This is the attitude that bothers me the most about our current political situation. Working with the other side and trying to find a middle ground through compromise isn't looking foolish or weak. It's being an adult.
Yes, but that is not what movies and television tell us. They say that crises are solved by SPARKING YOUR TESTICLES TOGETHER TO IGNITE THE FLAMES OF REBELLION.
--Patrick
Last edited:
In hindsight, it may be clever, but it's not the presidential image I really wanted in my head.
--Patrick
And of course if they hadn't granted those waivers (none of which makes it so that a company is immune) you would of course be hemming and hawing over how Obamacare hurt those same groups. The waivers were given out to smooth over the edges of the healthcare law and make the implementation better.
It is unfortunate that companies decided to betray their personal like they have. But that is unfortunately unavoidable.
But the fact remains that the infrastructure is there for the individual mandate but not for the business mandate and I see no reason why a delay in one that isn't ready should delay the one that is ready to go.
I do have to admit that I haven't paid attention to the Ryan budget since he refused to defend it in anyway during the 2012 campaign and resorted to outright lying about it.
If I had my way that junk would stay in the fucking ground till we could pump it up safely without it spilling everywhere. As it is I'll have to content myself with keeping it out of my backyard. If Canada insists on selling it to China and putting it all on tankers that's their call to make.
Pretty sure the government always had the power to seize any institution it deemed critical. I remember hearing and NPR story about a federal siezure and winding down of a bank.
Going to need a citation on that claim cause all I could find is the WSJ saying that offshore oil drilling is experiencing a boom right now.
Today, three years after Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling is booming in the Gulf of Mexico, driven by the continued high price of oil, a series of massive new fields discovered with the help of improved exploration technology, and the growing difficulty of finding major new oil fields abroad.
Yeah he holds no responsibility for the unemployment rate shooting the month after he left office.
of course that's if I even conceed that this republican party is the same republican party of the Bush years. Those guys loved their deficits and actually tried to appear like people with real empathy.
Wow, amazing how it still works when you reverse it.
Perhaps you need a break...
Dave
Staff member
It's not the democrats in this case. The senate and house worked out something a month ago and then the republicans in the house changed their minds and closed down the government, which was their plan all along. The democrats have if anything, capitulated too much with the ideologues in the house and given too much away for no good reason other than to placate the children throwing the tantrums.[DOUBLEPOST=1381504723,1381504617][/DOUBLEPOST]
Nah, I'm just sick of the fight and the fact that there are still people who think this is the democrat's fault when it's patently obvious that it's always been this obstructionist house, specifically the tea party morons who care more about themselves than the country.
Pretty much all the metaphors for this situation are worthless. The bottom line is that if you think both sides are to blame for this, you're either not paying attention or being paid handsomely by the Koch Brothers.
Bolded for emphasis.
Dave
Staff member
Now THAT I'll give you. But since this is the case the thread and conversation is about...
Dave
Staff member
Closed minded? It's not open minded to ignore the facts of the situation to more closely align with your political beliefs (which is what I'm saying you are doing). It's a fact that a deal had been reached and that republicans are doing everything they can to obstruct Obama at every turn. They've, in fact, stated this on multiple occasions. I'm sorry to see that you are allowing yourself to believe such blatant and obvious falsehoods as truth. This congress has done absolutely nothing of note because of partisan bickering and it's always the democrats who are forced to give ground. So the one time when they don't, the republicans throw a hissy fit and shut down the government. Tough noogies.
GasBandit
Staff member
Naturally I would. The waivers are just the proponents admitting the shortcomings as well.
A business has to stay in business. These people would be a lot worse off if the company that employs them ran itself into bankruptcy.
It belies the falsehood of the "if you like what you have you can keep it" line that was largely used to mitigate objection to TACA during its crafting/enacting in the first place. Changing the deal after it's signed is chicanery - chicanery that might have made the difference in the razor-slim, dead-of-night-on-christmas-eve vote that passed it in the senate.
So, if you had your way, modern civilization would revert to horse-and-buggy agrarianism and food riots would tear every major metropolitan area to shreds. And Canada's tankers to China do pass through water/past shorelines we share with them.
Not to this degree, and not for these reasons. It's less about winding down and more about flat out nationalization. And frankly, any such seizures should disconcert anyone who accepts the concept of private property.
The WSJ Says oil production in general is booming, which it is as Bush-era approved projects start to bear fruit, and most of the increase in oil production is on private land instead of federal or offshore - demand must be met and always grows, hence why both production and prices are up. Here's some interesting reading. Don't get me wrong, ALL oil exploration in the gulf hasn't stopped, but other countries are doing it to a greater degree, compared to the US.
Some, assuredly, but not as much as he gets blamed for. The much more pertinent change of power that preceded the crash would be the 2006 midterms. The job losses came from the crash that came from the financial crisis that came from the decade plus of social engineering of the indigent into homeownership - which Bush warned and railed against several times, causing Barney Frank to, naturally, call him a racist and a poor-hater.
Oh, I think the majority of the current republican party loves deficits, too. And McConnell, Cornyn, McCain and the rest are just as eager for Cruz and Lee to be found twitching in a ditch as any Democrat you could name.
What deal? If it wasn't made into a bill and passed in both, then it wasn't ever "reached"
And yes, I do believe you're ignoring recent history. Obama and the democrats have never negotiated on the healthcare bill or spending cuts, except when under threat of shutdown. That is the only time they've budged, and each time it's been far less than what's been needed.
Now they're saying they won't negotiate until after, but the reality is that once the current crisis is over they'll go back to the old line of not negotiating when not under threat of cutoff.
They have been obstructing real movement since the house came under control of the republicans, and both sides know that the democrats will never, ever reach a bi-partisan deal unless they are bludgeoned with it.
They will not talk. They will not discuss. They will not negotiate.
Every time they open their mouth they say they want to work together, but they don't.
They are still acting as though they control the government. Well, they should know by now what they don't, and if they want to work together we can move forward, but if they refuse to fix bills and spending with bi-partisan compromises, then they'll get exactly nothing.
You can blame one party or the other all you want, but it takes two to tango. You may find it politically expedient to believe one party is on the dance floor with the hand out, but you should listen to what they're saying. If you do you'll find both on the edge with their arms folded, and neither will come to the floor without the other party giving something up.
The democrats are as much to blame as the republicans.
To deny that is arrogance.
And yes, I do believe you're ignoring recent history. Obama and the democrats have never negotiated on the healthcare bill or spending cuts, except when under threat of shutdown. That is the only time they've budged, and each time it's been far less than what's been needed.
Now they're saying they won't negotiate until after, but the reality is that once the current crisis is over they'll go back to the old line of not negotiating when not under threat of cutoff.
They have been obstructing real movement since the house came under control of the republicans, and both sides know that the democrats will never, ever reach a bi-partisan deal unless they are bludgeoned with it.
They will not talk. They will not discuss. They will not negotiate.
Every time they open their mouth they say they want to work together, but they don't.
They are still acting as though they control the government. Well, they should know by now what they don't, and if they want to work together we can move forward, but if they refuse to fix bills and spending with bi-partisan compromises, then they'll get exactly nothing.
You can blame one party or the other all you want, but it takes two to tango. You may find it politically expedient to believe one party is on the dance floor with the hand out, but you should listen to what they're saying. If you do you'll find both on the edge with their arms folded, and neither will come to the floor without the other party giving something up.
The democrats are as much to blame as the republicans.
To deny that is arrogance.
Look ultimately there is no way that any law can be perfect I don't think waivers to make the transition smooth are really a shortcoming.
It might have changed the vote it might not have. Either way it's not changing the deal it's acknowledging that part of the law isn't ready for prime time.
Should they have gone forward with the business mandate when the infrastructure wasn't there for it?
Tar sands oil isn't the difference between modern civilization and horse and buggy agrarianism. Get your head out of your ass.
Why? Banks signed agreements when they were formed that the government could step in and wind them down if they started going critical.
Why would that worry anybody besides banks who signed the agreements?
Today, three years after Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling is booming in the Gulf of Mexico, driven by the continued high price of oil, a series of massive new fields discovered with the help of improved exploration technology, and the growing difficulty of finding major new oil fields abroad.
Emphasis added.
Citation needed on your allegation that Obama has strangled the offshore oil drilling.
Bush actually celebrated and supercharged the housing crisis. Hell the increase in homeownership was one of his proudest achievements.
Also it was his guys who actively fought back against anybody trying to regulate the bundling and selling off of sub prime mortgages which was at the heart of the credit crisis.
GasBandit
Staff member
Then why is a one year delay on the individual mandate to "make the transition smoother" considered the same as the business mandate? It's simply political - delaying the business mandate without delaying the individual mandate is acceptable to them because it chases more people to the exchanges who otherwise wouldn't use them, thus setting the individual mandate's barbed hook even deeper and more quickly in, so it's that much harder to extricate when the system breaks down. If ease of transition was really paramount, they would have delayed both mandates. As it stands, it was just a political consideration and maneuvering tactic.
Oh, and here I thought we were being so chummy and civil. When you said you'd rather they "leave that stuff in the ground" I thought you were talking about oil in general. You can understand how I took you to mean that, what with you being a raving delusional leftist. See, I can add an unhelpful barb at the end of my points, too.
Did the banks have a choice? The choice is sign the agreement or don't get to be a bank. Furthermore, as I said, it's not about "winding down," it's about nationalization. This isn't just the FDIC we're talking about here, this is more akin to the government taking ownership of GM and making sure their friends got paid and anyone else (even those with secured shares) can just eat the loss.
You can emphasize it all you want, it doesn't conflict with what I said - you're assuming the gulf drilling is primarily American.
Will you accept the Huffington Post?
Just attacking the subprime mortgage bundling without addressing the underlying reason it existed - that democrat social policy required banks to find ways to give more home loans to those completely unequipped to pay for them - is selective intellectual dishonesty. If you hold a gun to a man's head and demand he push someone off a cliff, you can't then accuse him of cold blooded murder. Bush himself addressed the legislature many times over his entire time as president on attempting to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Democrats and especially Barney Frank would not tolerate any talk of reform, claiming Republicans were fearmongering a crisis that didn't exist just as a pretext to racial bigotry against poorer demographics getting home loans.
As regards to the Keystone Pipeline
Other than a handfull of refinery jobs in Texas, and perhaps some maintenance crews . . . No, it really won't have any benefits for America.
Other than a handfull of refinery jobs in Texas, and perhaps some maintenance crews . . . No, it really won't have any benefits for America.
Because a one year delay in the individual mandate wouldn't make anything smoother. It would be one more year of the GOP chumming the waters, outright lying to people and frustrating Obamacare anyway they could.
I really don't see how you could when we were distinctly talking about tar sands oil. But my opinion is that Tar sands oil should just be left in the ground until we need it as a last resort.
The banks acted irresponsibly and nearly destroyed the economy. You don't just remove the regulations on them 4 years after that. If Boehner was proposing better regulation to replace Dodd Frank then yeah I would say go for it. But he isn't and would probably like to just go back to the days before Dodd Frank.
I do love HuffPo. Of course a study or something would be better than an article from 2010 since one from 2011 clearly contradicts it.
Except the social policy wasn't at all the reason why the subprime crisis hit as hard as it did. The problem was the bundling of the sub prime loans. which allowed bankers to make billions off selling the loans off to other investors in a completely unregulated marketplace. Often times those bundles that they sold were AAA rated despite the fact that they were garbage loans that were set up to be paid off early through a refinance.
I suggest you read "All the Devils are Here" it's a book on the financial crisis from the creation of these mortgage bundles to the blow up with awesome stuff about all the movers and shakers who made the financial house of cards that fell down.
Banks trying to make something worthwhile out of the terrible sub prime loans they wee forced to make due to the democrats social policy forced upon them, and you say that being forced to make such terrible loans wasn't the problem?
Congratulations you're making the same argument as those that claim the civil war wasn't about slavery.
Congratulations you're making the same argument as those that claim the civil war wasn't about slavery.
Actually, while the FCIC identified the mortgages themselves as a proximate cause, they also concluded that mortgage lenders were assuming risk far above and beyond what they needed to, and that the bundling of the loans into AAA-rated financial instruments by banks should never have been allowed to pass sight unseen and greatly exacerbated the financial effect of the crisis.
It's always more complicated.