This_person
Well-Known Member
Ok. How?
Supreme Court confirmation hearings
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Ok. How?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Larry Gude
Strung Out
How to restate? Hmmm...we disagree.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Right. You say there was a path, I say there was not.
I'm asking you to back up your position/assertion. That's not unreasonable, is it?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
It's not unreasonable. And we disagree. You're position is that what they knew they would not get from the beginning, a straight vote, was the ONLY way they could have done it OR shutdown.
Maybe I have a complete misunderstanding of the powers of the House of Representatives but I believe, if they wanted to, they could have accomplished it, if they wanted to, with a death of 1,000's of little cuts and no shutdown.
If they wanted to.
We also seem to disagree on their motives. You seem to think they really tried. I think it obvious they meant to make it look like they did and there was NEVER any serious intent and I even stated why; important GOP constituents who did not want the ACA gone who are continuing to, very much, enjoy government controlled health care.
Now, go ahead and say that '1,000's of little cuts' needs to be specifically spelled out to your satisfaction OR the House simply doesn't have that sort of power. I could be wrong. The United States House of Representatives may have none of the powers I was taught they do. :shrug:
This_person
Well-Known Member
Actually, I agree that the "1000s of little cuts" strategy is a viable one - but it does not fit your "don't let it get entrenched" concept. You can't have thousands of cuts in one bill - that's akin to the "don't fund it" strategy that caused the shutdown. Thousands of cuts takes multitudes of years. There was nothing short of shutdown that could have had the effect of defunding and dismantling the ACA in a short period of time - pre-entrenchment - that would have worked short of what they did.
I don't feel you need to spell out each point - I think we're both smart enough to follow the broad strokes of such a discussion. I simply think that you're right in concept, but we disagree on the timeframe (apparently) in which that could be done, and therefore the net effect is something we seem to actually agree on - the ACA is entrenched and even people who love liberty also love getting "free" ####. Like corporate taxes, or even taxes taken out of your check before you ever get your money, if people are slowly brought to a boil they won't jump out of the pot. "I love my 25 year old not having to pay extra for insurance" over-rides "the government can't tell me to buy a product simply because I exist" over time. We agree on that point completely.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Again, we disagree. Had John Beohner intended to do what he was given the speakership to do, STOP the ACA he could have done it within 6 months. All he had to do is schedule the vote and keep doing it, which he did AND continue to get in front of the cameras, every day if necessary, and point out why he was there, WHY he had the Speakership and then go about gumming up everything his side could find, while keeping 'essential' services, keeping paychecks going, raising hell about the President's trying to get around him, every single say "I was sent to end the ACA and there has never been a more clear election than the one that sent me here to do it. Like it or not, this is what I, as Speaker of the people's House, was sent to do." And Obama WOULD HAVE lost and in relatively short order.
IF that is what the GOP intended to do. They did not, in my view, have the slightest intention of doing so and for the reasons I state.
This_person
Well-Known Member
The problem with this thought process is they did exactly that and it failed. The Democrats in the Senate blocked funding anything but the military. Each area had its own appropriations bill, and the Senate could not pass it once the House did.
They did what you suggest, and it didn't work.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Again, we disagree. You think they were sincere and did all they could do. I can't argue they didn't get it done. My argument is that they didn't intend to and I'll stick to thinking the House has a lot more power than you seem to think it does.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. I won't posit that more could not have been done - however, everything you suggested they could do, they did.
No one can ever win against the "yeah, but, they could have done something else [nondescript]" argument, because it doesn't allow for argument against an infinite number of postulations. What you asked for them to have done, they did. They went so far as to say, "fine, we hold the purse strings and we won't fund what you want unless you accept what we, the representatives of the people (with polls backing up our position) want." And, it didn't work. And, no one held the obstructionists responsible.
I've asked what else they could have done, and you answer "something". I can't argue against that. But, what you said they could do, they did.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No, I do not agree. In my view when you're the gahtdamn Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and you just got handed the Speaker-ship SOLELY on the basis of public OUTRAGE over the ACA, a tidal wave election of profound size, you have ENORMOUS power and when you can't get it done, repeal it, you're not trying hard enough. I simply do not accept that under the conditions of the time, he could have and should have GOT IT DONE. I merely state what I think is obvious; Boehner had no interest in doing it. None. NONE.
For a concrete example; the GOP won in fall of '10, tidal wave. That December, BEFORE he took the gavel, Pelosi HAD to get done the extension of the Bush tax cuts set to expire shortly. She could NOT have gotten them extended without his help. She had to do it because that was what the WH wanted. Boehner had just been handed a mandate to kill the ACA and here was merely his first chance;
"Sorry, Nancy. I'm not taking your job absent the fire to kill the ACA. Not only is it the only reason I am being given the job but I mean to do it. To that end, I will NOT give you the votes to extend the Bush tax cuts. I will carry that little chit with me into the next congress."
I said so at the time that he should have done that because of the enormous leverage it was in his hand. He did not do it. Obama was facing a dead economy and he, himself, saw he could NOT be seen as raising taxes at that critical juncture. Boehner needed to merely say "I agree and right after we repeal the ACA, we'll do that."
This_person
Well-Known Member
Yet, the tax rates did not skyrocket - something accomplished at the same time for the reasons stated.
I'm not SOTH. I saw they did a bunch. I think they coulda/shoulda done more. I'm not convinced any of it would have worked, because they did stuff that didn't.
You suggest that's by design, and I can't argue the possibility. It just flies in the face of what WAS done, but you justifiably argue it is exactly demonstrated by what was NOT done.
There's no way to know for sure.
Amused_despair
New Member
It was done by design because their donors did not want the ACA to be repealed. You think people donate $130 million because they feel good? They want leverage, they want to have a say-so. And they get it.
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
Good ole hypocrite democrats.
PsyOps
Pixelated
They aren't hypocrites, they do what they feel is in the greater good for the people; even if that means completely changing directions - as long as it suits their purpose they are justified.
Vince
......
EDIT: Credit goes to Baja for posting it on FB - that's where I saw it. 
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Ohh, they're not hypocrites. It's only hypocritical when it's the Republicans.
