• 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!

It Seems Obama Wants To Blink...

davidtaylorjr said:
What stunt? Only ones pulling stunts are the Democrats.
Click to expand...

You're trying to hard. You don't have to pretend you actually believe the rightwing agitprop. It's OK just to repeat it.
 
Mycroft said:
...but, will Reid let him?



It seems to me I remember Obama saying something about him not getting into any negotiations with Boehner. But here he is, suggesting he'll talk. Will Reid be comfortable with that, I wonder? Reid has seemed to enjoy being in the driver's seat up till now and shows no sign of giving it up.



So what is going on here? Is this some kind of rope-a-dope tactic cooked up by Reid and Obama? Or are these two guys no longer on the same page?


I have a funny feeling that liberals across the country are not going to like what is happening here.
Click to expand...
Talking is not necessarily negotiating ...
Maybe the President just wants to tell Bohner that he is being an asshole.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I believe facts.
Click to expand...
Then you would have to believe the fact that Bohner and the House asked for a concession from the Senate and the President that they knew would be impossible thus knowing that the government would shut down when they asked for it ...Right?
That is a fact, so you must believe it.
It is like, if I went to my employer and asked them to pay me a million dollars and hour and when they threw me out, I were to say, "It's their fault I was fired not mine, because they refused to negotiate with me".
 
Buck Ewer said:
Then you would have to believe the fact that Bohner and the House asked for a concession from the Senate and the President that they knew would be impossible thus knowing that the government would shut down when they asked for it ...Right?
That is a fact, so you must believe it.
It is like, if I went to my employer and asked them to pay me a million dollars and hour and when they threw me out, I were to say, "It's their fault I was fired not mine, because they refused to negotiate with me".
Click to expand...

Half of the ACA...the employer mandate...is toxic and will cause Ben greater economic problems and everyone knows it. It is SO bad that it didn't take boehner or the republicans to shut it down, Obama himself did that. As Jon Stewart asked Sec Sebelius, why will the president suspend the employer mandate and not the individual mandate while they try to make that piece of **** a little less toxic? The second bill passed didnt cancel the ACA, nor did it repeal it...it merely gave private citizens the same benefit Obama is giving his campaign supporters. And THAT is what you consider non negotiable?
 
Buck Ewer said:
Then you would have to believe the fact that Bohner and the House asked for a concession from the Senate and the President that they knew would be impossible thus knowing that the government would shut down when they asked for it ...Right?
That is a fact, so you must believe it.
It is like, if I went to my employer and asked them to pay me a million dollars and hour and when they threw me out, I were to say, "It's their fault I was fired not mine, because they refused to negotiate with me".
Click to expand...

Then they offered other compromises, now all they asked for was that the mandate be delayed one year. Why should the people not be given the same exemption as businesses?
 
vvx said:
Congressmen don't have a lot of credibility right now.



So there's no requirement to prioritize then, whether it would be allowed. And per iguanaman the treasury says their procedure makes it impossible to pay only debt service. Seems unlikely we're going to prioritize. So does it revert to first in first out? Everything gets paid ... eventually? A short delay early in the default and as time goes on our payments are more and more delayed?
Click to expand...

The Treasury makes their own procedure, thus they can choose whether to pay interest on the debt, or the bill for the mechanical bull. Since Obama runs the Treasury, he could even order them to do so. In a way, it works the same as you do with your bills. You pay them as you get them, or you pay the most important ones first, and the rest as you can afford to.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Then you would have to believe the fact that Bohner and the House asked for a concession from the Senate and the President that they knew would be impossible thus knowing that the government would shut down when they asked for it ...Right?
That is a fact, so you must believe it.
It is like, if I went to my employer and asked them to pay me a million dollars and hour and when they threw me out, I were to say, "It's their fault I was fired not mine, because they refused to negotiate with me".
Click to expand...

Thats how negotiation works. You ask for what you want, then you bargain down to something acceptable by both parties.

And technically what you just said was speculation, not fact.
 
I questioned this in another string but got no response so I will try here.

Why is it legal (if it is) for the President to "waive" or "delay implementation" a portion of a law?
 
Jarhead said:
I questioned this in another string but got no response so I will try here.

Why is it legal (if it is) for the President to "waive" or "delay implementation" a portion of a law?
Click to expand...

It may be written in the law that he has the power to do so.
 
So...Obama went back on his word to stay out of negotiations and let the two houses of Congress hash things out and extended an offer to the House to negotiate. The House basically gave into the President and made him the offer he wanted. But then what happened?

Focus on Senate after Obama rejects House plan - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan and Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

So what happened? Did Reid tell Obama to butt out? Is this the rope-a-dope tactic I mentioned in my OP? Can anyone seriously think Obama or Reid have any intention of negotiating anything?

If Boehner were to ask my advice, I tell him to go back to playing hardball, tell the public about Reid's and Obama's intentions of not making a single deal and letting the chips fall where they may.
 
Mycroft said:
So...Obama went back on his word to stay out of negotiations and let the two houses of Congress hash things out and extended an offer to the House to negotiate. The House basically gave into the President and made him the offer he wanted. But then what happened?

Focus on Senate after Obama rejects House plan - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan and Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

So what happened? Did Reid tell Obama to butt out? Is this the rope-a-dope tactic I mentioned in my OP? Can anyone seriously think Obama or Reid have any intention of negotiating anything?

If Boehner were to ask my advice, I tell him to go back to playing hardball, tell the public about Reid's and Obama's intentions of not making a single deal and letting the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

That's what I would do too. Nothing, until the Senate offers something. However, I don't agree with tyrannizing the House/Sentae by not permitting members to bring up bills. I would simply raise the number of votes needed to pass anything to require bipartisan support, not simply majority, and then let everyone offer their bills up. If a clean bill has 60/70% of House support, then it should pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom