• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Boehner: Obama owns this shutdown now

Moot said:
Obama doesn't control Beohner..the tea party does and they are thrilled the gubbamint is shut down and some would like to see it made permanent. So how do you negotiate with that?
Click to expand...
By compromising, or in Obama's case, just point your finger at the other side and tell your minions that it's all the tea party's fault that they won't get a pony for their birthday.


Moot said:
The dems have agreed to negotiate if Boehner will allow an up or down vote on the CR.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. The negotiations definitely go in your favor if you give up the only leverage you have. I'm sure there's a better than average chance the democrats will negotiate when they hold all the cards.
 
FederalRepublic said:
By compromising, or in Obama's case, just point your finger at the other side and tell your minions that it's all the tea party's fault that they won't get a pony for their birthday.




Yeah, sure. The negotiations definitely go in your favor if you give up the only leverage you have. I'm sure there's a better than average chance the democrats will negotiate when they hold all the cards.
Click to expand...

What choice did the republicans give the democrats...either defund Obamacare or shut down the government? By any standard thats extortion, not a negotiation.
 
Moot said:
What choice did the republicans give the democrats...either defund Obamacare or shut down the government? By any standard thats extortion, not a negotiation.
Click to expand...

What choice did the democrats give the republicans? Either give the democrats everything they want, or shut down the government? By any standard that's extortion, not a negotiation.
 
FederalRepublic said:
What choice did the democrats give the republicans? Either give the democrats everything they want, or shut down the government? By any standard that's extortion, not a negotiation.
Click to expand...
The PPACA was signed into law and upheld by the Supreme Court. Not all arguments are created equal. The House had 2 years to amend the ACA and instead they spent that time trying to repeal it over 40 times. Sometimes it takes two to tango, and sometimes one person is an antagonist in a conflict. Republicans in this case are the antagonist.
 
Moot said:
The senate has voted on the house bills. It's the house thats been refusing to go to conference committee with the senate.
Click to expand...

This is statement of yours is absolutely false. The house appointed conferees last Week and passed appropriations for individual departments, it was the senate that refused to appoint conferees. This is when you heard Harry Reid say we will not negotiate until republicans pass the entire CR. A deflection and abrogation of his responsibility.
 
Last edited:
AlabamaPaul said:
Okay, let's discuss substance instead of ideology. If individuals need subsidies to purchase mandated government insurance, how will he/she ever be able to afford the co-pays much less the deductibles?
Click to expand...

They can't, maybe we should delay that mandate until the appropriations can be worked out. Oh Wait, that was the proposal that the senate rejected, wasn't it?
 
obvious Child said:
Frankly doesn't matter.

There is no Zone of Possible Agreement. This is oddly similar to the SOF with Iraq. When both sides have a condition that neither will accept, you cannot have an agreement.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a zone of agreement. The last compromise position that the republicans sent over was rejected solely on the principal that the senate and the president would not negotiate with the "hostage takers". The delay of the I mandate and the repeal of the device tax has dem support.
 
reinoe said:
The PPACA was signed into law and upheld by the Supreme Court. Not all arguments are created equal. The House had 2 years to amend the ACA and instead they spent that time trying to repeal it over 40 times. Sometimes it takes two to tango, and sometimes one person is an antagonist in a conflict. Republicans in this case are the antagonist.
Click to expand...

And now the republicans control the house, where spending bills originate per the US constitution. The house is asking for the democrats to compromise on their demand to make health care less affordable. The democrats are holding everything else in the budget hostage on this one demand. Why should the republicans want to help democrats make health care less affordable? I sent my representative there to fight against this sort of thing. That would make him the protagonist in this conflict.

Again, this is how our government is supposed to work. If there's anything worth drawing a line in the sand over, it's the legality of the federal government to force the citizens to buy a product from a private corporation.
 
FederalRepublic said:
And now the republicans control the house, where spending bills originate per the US constitution. The house is asking for the democrats to compromise on their demand to make health care less affordable. The democrats are holding everything else in the budget hostage on this one demand. Why should the republicans want to help democrats make health care less affordable? I sent my representative there to fight against this sort of thing. That would make him the protagonist in this conflict.

Again, this is how our government is supposed to work. If there's anything worth drawing a line in the sand over, it's the legality of the federal government to force the citizens to buy a product from a private corporation.
Click to expand...

So then why aren't these Republicans holding Medicare's funding hostage? F.y.i. if it was the government offering the insurance and not private companies would you be ok with it? Because single-payer was on the table during the drafting period and Republican opposition killed it.
 
reinoe said:
The PPACA was signed into law and upheld by the Supreme Court. Not all arguments are created equal. The House had 2 years to amend the ACA and instead they spent that time trying to repeal it over 40 times. Sometimes it takes two to tango, and sometimes one person is an antagonist in a conflict. Republicans in this case are the antagonist.
Click to expand...

EVERY time I see this claim it makes me want to pull my hair out! You DO realize 8 (20%) of those ~40 WERE ACA amendments that both the Senate passed AND the president SIGNED...right? Further MANY of the others were not 'trying to repeal' as you claim...
Health Care - GOP.gov

It NEVER ceases to amaze me how often erroneous rhetoric is believed and repeated BY ALL SIDES!
 
Moot said:
Obama doesn't control Beohner..the tea party does and they are thrilled the gubbamint is shut down and some would like to see it made permanent. So how do you negotiate with that?
Click to expand...

Can you provide ONE credible source that supports ANY ONE 'Tea Partier' in Congress is thrilled?
 
Dickieboy said:
EVERY time I see this claim it makes me want to pull my hair out! You DO realize 8 (20%) of those ~40 WERE ACA amendments that both the Senate passed AND the president SIGNED...right? Further MANY of the others were not 'trying to repeal' as you claim...
Health Care - GOP.gov

It NEVER ceases to amaze me how often erroneous rhetoric is believed and repeated BY ALL SIDES!
Click to expand...

Do you have a source besides the Republican party's website? Something a bit less biased perhaps?
 
reinoe said:
Do you have a source besides the Republican party's website? Something a bit less biased perhaps?
Click to expand...

Why would I need to? The specific points are linked within the page to the congressional record...I really cannot think of a more FACTUAL source.
 
Dickieboy said:
Can you provide ONE credible source that supports ANY ONE 'Tea Partier' in Congress is thrilled?
Click to expand...

"Why would I need to?" It's on FoxNews, I'm shocked that you didn't know.....


"This is about the happiest I've seen members in a long time....",

 
Moot said:
"Why would I need to?" It's on FoxNews, I'm shocked that you didn't know.....


"This is about the happiest I've seen members in a long time....",
Click to expand...

Now Fox News is a credible source?...seems hypocritical...:lamo

But thank you for this. I don't watch Hannity as his 'over the top' hyperbole is intolerable...as most of Bachmann's is.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Pretty reasonable write-up, except that you utterly ignore the other end of the negotiations. Do you think the left wing extremist democrats who are controlling the senate and the white house might suffer from a lack of proportionality? They obviously think the ACA is a BFD, otherwise they'd compromise and we wouldn't be sitting here with a government shutdown.
Click to expand...

Alternative paths toward addressing the ACA exist without shutting down the government and/or threatening a debt ceiling-related crisis. Those alternatives include:

1. Funding (if that's the path the GOP wants to take): Restrict funding when it comes to the HHS appropriations legislation.
2. Review: Work to establish an independent body or ask the GAO to review the ACA within a year to see where the problems exist, its impact on the insurance market, its impact on reducing the number of uninsured persons, its fiscal impact, etc.
3. Legislate reforms: Reform proposals could be introduced and pursued. Those based on empirical data would be strongest (option #2 is one such approach that would provide useful data).
4. Build a Senate majority and win the Presidency: That way, the GOP would be in a position to reform, even repeal, the ACA.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Alternative paths toward addressing the ACA exist without shutting down the government and/or threatening a debt ceiling-related crisis. Those alternatives include:

1. Funding (if that's the path the GOP wants to take): Restrict funding when it comes to the HHS appropriations legislation.
2. Review: Work to establish an independent body or ask the GAO to review the ACA within a year to see where the problems exist, its impact on the insurance market, its impact on reducing the number of uninsured persons, its fiscal impact, etc.
3. Legislate reforms: Reform proposals could be introduced and pursued. Those based on empirical data would be strongest (option #2 is one such approach that would provide useful data).
4. Build a Senate majority and win the Presidency: That way, the GOP would be in a position to reform, even repeal, the ACA.
Click to expand...

Option number 1 is the reason why the government shut down. Republicans decided not to provide funding for implementation of a bad law and democrats refuse to go along with anything that doesn't have said funding included. It's a political game and both sides are doing it because that's the way the game is played.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Option number 1 is the reason why the government shut down. Republicans decided not to provide funding for implementation of a bad law and democrats refuse to go along with anything that doesn't have said funding included. It's a political game and both sides are doing it because that's the way the game is played.
Click to expand...

Option 1 only deals with HHS funding, not appropriations for the whole federal government. Moreover, it should be noted that the ACA has mandatory elements with their own revenue stream. Hence, it does not rely mainly or wholly on the appropriations process for funding. Therefore, the shutdown has not prevented its implementation.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43246.pdf
 
reinoe said:
So then why aren't these Republicans holding Medicare's funding hostage? F.y.i. if it was the government offering the insurance and not private companies would you be ok with it? Because single-payer was on the table during the drafting period and Republican opposition killed it.
Click to expand...

One thing at a time. Besides, republicans aren't necessarily against the existence of a safety net. Do you believe it's possible to have a safety net without forcing everyone into it whether they want to be in it or not?

Don't kid yourself on republican opposition to single payer. Non-radical democrat opposition killed single-payer. Republicans couldn't have done anything to stop it.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Option 1 only deals with HHS funding, not appropriations for the whole federal government. Moreover, it should be noted that the ACA has mandatory elements with their own revenue stream. Hence, it does not rely mainly or wholly on the appropriations process for funding. Therefore, the shutdown has not prevented its implementation.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43246.pdf
Click to expand...

Which is all the republicans can do at the moment.
 
johndylan1 said:
Actually there is a zone of agreement. The last compromise position that the republicans sent over was rejected solely on the principal that the senate and the president would not negotiate with the "hostage takers". The delay of the I mandate and the repeal of the device tax has dem support.
Click to expand...

Come again? The delay for the mandate is nothing but a play for time. The GOP is trying to see if it can take the Senate to force a repeal. You think the Democrats are dumb enough NOT to see through that?
 
obvious Child said:
Come again? The delay for the mandate is nothing but a play for time. The GOP is trying to see if it can take the Senate to force a repeal. You think the Democrats are dumb enough NOT to see through that?
Click to expand...

This post is a bit dated, but at the time there was some indication that redstate dems would comprimise, as of now IDK.
 
johndylan1 said:
This post is a bit dated, but at the time there was some indication that redstate dems would comprimise, as of now IDK.
Click to expand...

Well, right now there are rumblings that the moderate GOP are willing to deal, specifically to pass a clean CR.

My feeling is that Boehner knows there are enough GOP votes to join the Dems to pass it. But that would mean abandoning his party. The Hasert rule has been violated so many times, but this is something else entirely.

IMO, the Democrats should hammer the crap out of the GOP in proving that there aren't enough votes. And they should resort to a discharge petition to force the vote. If Boehner really believes there aren't enough votes, he'll score political points in having the clean CR die on the floor. But something tells me he's afraid it's going to pass.
 
obvious Child said:
You mean all the points he goes over that embed Republican ideas?

Again, did you even read the article?
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. Especially the part that said:

All of them -- yes, you read that right -- are in the Senate health-care bill.
Click to expand...

But the 'Senate health care bill' is not what we have now is it?...go on you can say it.

Now since I posted:
Dickieboy said:
HUH? The ones in Klein's column:

(1) "Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines."
(2) "Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do."
(3) "Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs."
(4) "End junk lawsuits

Are not included in the current PPACA. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

...and you appear to disagree please provide the section in PPACA where these four items can be found...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom