So if Obama says he's willing to work with both parties

[BlindBoo]

In such instances on budgetary matters where both chambers can't agree, doesn't it go to a special committee to hammer out compromise? Haven't the Senate Democrats offered to have these very matters sent to a compromise committee since March? Why try and hold the country hostage to a continuing funding resolution.

Uh no. Harry doesn't allow a vote and refuses to meet and compromise.

Nope. The Senate passed a budget in March and the GOP have blocked forming a compromise committee about 17 times.

 

[zeke]

and this is "Moving Foward"?

In case you missed it. The Republican party has shown no interest in "moving forward".

The Repubs did have great interest in making Obama a one term president. But they couldn't even do that.

So now Obama has nothing to lose by doing what Republican leadership should have done months ago. And that is tell the Tea Party idiots to **** off.

Time to negotiate is over. Should of done that a while ago. You rethugs fucked up bad on this one.

But you rethugs need to quit whining and begging.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You don't know shit about negociating. You wish you had some asshole telling you they were willing to sacrifice to make a deal. You wish you had some asshole who would speak softly. My way is the best way. **** the soft voice. Talk nice time over. You threaten and you get to meet the big stick. Threaten to do harm to the people under my protection and you get what Obama is giving to the assholes threatening his people. Nice talk is over. Shut up and do what you are told or **** off. Want to fight over it. OK, lets do it. No rules. That's how to negociate.

Shut up and do what the **** you're told? LMFAO. Yes, that's the sort of executive we need. A straight up dictator. **** Congress if they don't agree with the president. Haven't they read the constitution? Don't they know that the Judicial and Legislative branches are there to rubber stamp the will of the Executive branch?

Why would we elect a king if we were gonna let these lesser beings in lesser offices object to His will?

It's what you do when you reach the conclusion that the party you are negotiating with aren't negotiating in good faith.

How are they not negotiating in good faith? What would that require, in your opinion?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama said something interesting today:

"Republicans should not threaten the good faith and credit of the United States"

So what does running up $6.6 trillion in debt in your first 5 years in office do to the 'good faith and credit' of the United States exactly?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

In such instances on budgetary matters where both chambers can't agree, doesn't it go to a special committee to hammer out compromise? Haven't the Senate Democrats offered to have these very matters sent to a compromise committee since March? Why try and hold the country hostage to a continuing funding resolution.

Uh no. Harry doesn't allow a vote and refuses to meet and compromise.

Nope. The Senate passed a budget in March and the GOP have blocked forming a compromise committee about 17 times.

Forming a compromise committee isnt' the same thing as compromising. Essentially Harry Reid proposed a deal that would centralize power every time the two parties couldn't agree on a budget deal - which these days is always. So let's take this power of the purse that was to be split between -all- the congressmen in the house and give all that power to just a few people for expedience's sake, but only when the two parties can't agree on budgetary issues (which is always).

Sorry, but I'm with congress on this one. We don't need to be consolidating any more power to less people.

Allow me to explain to those of you who've never thought about it what the advantage is to our system of government. If the vast majority of the country is on the same political/philosophical kick at election time, then you'll see most of the elected officials during that go-around sharing most of those opinions. They'll have large majorities, so a lot of shit will get done to further the ends of people sharing those political/philosophical opinions.

When the country is torn anywhere near 50/50 on their political/philosophical opinions at election time, you'll have a very mixed set of officials who will disagree with each other at every turn. Everything they get done will require compromise from -both- sides, but ultimately very little legislation will happen, compared to what would happen in the previous scenario. This is the government working as intended. If the country is torn on what should be done politically and there aren't large majorities on either side, neither party -should- be able to ram their agenda through. The separation of powers is intended -SPECIFICALLY- to keep government from walking on the will of the people.

 

[Pasco08]

Why doesn't he? He's willing to shut this government down because he refuses to make a compromise with the Republicans. Little does he know, the Republicans passed two bills to keep government running. He continues claims that "Republicans want to "fight the results of an election" or that they are willing to shut down the government for their own sakes.

So the critical question here is: If Obama claims to want to work with both parties why is he allowing Reid to reject everything the other side proposes? Answer? It's all political.

Because why is he going to Kill his own healthcare bill i know you are stupid but apparently that only makes sense to Tea party nutters.

 

[Camp]

Shut up and do what the **** you're told? LMFAO. Yes, that's the sort of executive we need. A straight up dictator. **** Congress if they don't agree with the president. Haven't they read the constitution? Don't they know that the Judicial and Legislative branches are there to rubber stamp the will of the Executive branch?

Why would we elect a king if we were gonna let these lesser beings in lesser offices object to His will?

It's what you do when you reach the conclusion that the party you are negotiating with aren't negotiating in good faith.

How are they not negotiating in good faith? What would that require, in your opinion?

It's to late now, but they should have picked Obamacare apart and found parts of it that could be changed and would have had at least some kind of public support due to the logical and pragmatic changes suggested. That would have set a precedent for future changes and shaping of the law as it stands today. Adding those controversial riders to it was just a studpid way to show they were not interested in genuine honest negotiating.That was the bad faith part.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

It's what you do when you reach the conclusion that the party you are negotiating with aren't negotiating in good faith.

How are they not negotiating in good faith? What would that require, in your opinion?

It's to late now, but they should have picked Obamacare apart and found parts of it that could be changed and would have had at least some kind of public support due to the logical and pragmatic changes suggested. That would have set a precedent for future changes and shaping of the law as it stands today. Adding those controversial riders to it was just a studpid way to show they were not interested in genuine honest negotiating.That was the bad faith part.

So basically what you're saying here is that they asked for too much? In negotiating terms, "controversial" means something that one party really doesn't wanna give. Essentially, asking for too much.

I'm not sure if you've ever negotiated for anything before, but that's pretty much a standard negotiation. One side establishes that they want A, the other side establishes that they want Z. One side then tells the other side what they're willing to concede for what they expect the other side to concede. If the other side doesn't like the offer, it doesn't mean that the offer was tantamount to not negotiating in good faith. It means its their turn to make a counter-offer.

In this case, the Democrats counter-offer was, "**** you! Give us what we want!"

How is it that it's okay for the Democrats to stone wall the issue, but if the Republicans pass a budget asking for too much, that shows a lack of good faith?

No, I think it's simpler than that for you. I'm pretty sure that the reason you believe the Republicans aren't acting in good faith is because you want what the Democrats want. Doesn't matter who's doing what, the side with which you disagree is the side at fault.

 

[Trajan]

Why would he comprimise? In a month the republicans would ask fo an abortion ban or they will shut it down. Where does it end?

If I recall Carter refused to sign a budget bill with language loosening Medicaid abortion restrictions...and...they shut down the gov for 12 days.........you know who they was?

a DEMOCRATIC house and senate ( and exec.) that was the the first squabble over the abortion issue amongst themselves to boot...then they did it again for 8 days and that wasn't the end of the issue either..hello.

I guess the lesson is; when dems do it, its principled or something, when the gop does it? They are cranks....*shrugs*

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Why doesn't he? He's willing to shut this government down because he refuses to make a compromise with the Republicans. Little does he know, the Republicans passed two bills to keep government running. He continues claims that "Republicans want to "fight the results of an election" or that they are willing to shut down the government for their own sakes.

So the critical question here is: If Obama claims to want to work with both parties why is he allowing Reid to reject everything the other side proposes? Answer? It's all political.

Because why is he going to Kill his own healthcare bill i know you are stupid but apparently that only makes sense to Tea party nutters.

So you admit then that the president is willing to make the sacrifice of a government shutdown because it's -his- bill that's on the chopping block with the budget proposal?

What you're saying is that the Republicans are willing to shut it down for ideological reasons, but the president's willing to shut it down for -his- bill? Partially ideological and partially egotistical?

So if the some prominent Republican had his name attached to something they wanted to push through via the budgetary bill and threw a little ego into the mix, would that likewise eliminate their fault in a potential shutdown?

Or is the president above such principal? Maybe it's only for executives that egotistical motives make you faultless.

 

[Trajan]

It's what you do when you reach the conclusion that the party you are negotiating with aren't negotiating in good faith.

How are they not negotiating in good faith? What would that require, in your opinion?

It's to late now, but they should have picked Obamacare apart and found parts of it that could be changed and would have had at least some kind of public support due to the logical and pragmatic changes suggested. That would have set a precedent for future changes and shaping of the law as it stands today. Adding those controversial riders to it was just a studpid way to show they were not interested in genuine honest negotiating.That was the bad faith part.

I don't see how arbitrarily abrogating the law ala giving congress and their staffers an out, is logical and pragmatic. And I include all of them that spptted this, this stinks, left right sideways.......

 

[Camp]

How are they not negotiating in good faith? What would that require, in your opinion?

It's to late now, but they should have picked Obamacare apart and found parts of it that could be changed and would have had at least some kind of public support due to the logical and pragmatic changes suggested. That would have set a precedent for future changes and shaping of the law as it stands today. Adding those controversial riders to it was just a studpid way to show they were not interested in genuine honest negotiating.That was the bad faith part.

So basically what you're saying here is that they asked for too much? In negotiating terms, "controversial" means something that one party really doesn't wanna give. Essentially, asking for too much.

I'm not sure if you've ever negotiated for anything before, but that's pretty much a standard negotiation. One side establishes that they want A, the other side establishes that they want Z. One side then tells the other side what they're willing to concede for what they expect the other side to concede. If the other side doesn't like the offer, it doesn't mean that the offer was tantamount to not negotiating in good faith. It means its their turn to make a counter-offer.

In this case, the Democrats counter-offer was, "**** you! Give us what we want!"

How is it that it's okay for the Democrats to stone wall the issue, but if the Republicans pass a budget asking for too much, that shows a lack of good faith?

No, I think it's simpler than that for you. I'm pretty sure that the reason you believe the Republicans aren't acting in good faith is because you want what the Democrats want. Doesn't matter who's doing what, the side with which you disagree is the side at fault.

I agree with much of what you are saying, but we may be talking about two different things. Certainly you are correct about open and ongoing negotiations. I was discussing what was going on today, hours from reaching a point of no return so to speak. The House is giving solutions that they should surely know are poison.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This will end like the IRS, Benghazi, and Syria...

...the rightwing nuts will end up looking like fools, and yet not one of them will be an IQ point wiser for the experience.

 

[Trajan]

This will end like the IRS, Benghazi, and Syria...

...the rightwing nuts will end up looking like fools, and yet not one of them will be an IQ point wiser for the experience.

right , becasue they are phony scandals......

 

[Papageorgio]

Why would he comprimise? In a month the republicans would ask fo an abortion ban or they will shut it down. Where does it end?

There is no compromise, Democrats hate the working class and the poor, that is why they want to force Obamacare on the working class, while exempting the business owners and the unions for another year.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's to late now, but they should have picked Obamacare apart and found parts of it that could be changed and would have had at least some kind of public support due to the logical and pragmatic changes suggested. That would have set a precedent for future changes and shaping of the law as it stands today. Adding those controversial riders to it was just a studpid way to show they were not interested in genuine honest negotiating.That was the bad faith part.

So basically what you're saying here is that they asked for too much? In negotiating terms, "controversial" means something that one party really doesn't wanna give. Essentially, asking for too much.

I'm not sure if you've ever negotiated for anything before, but that's pretty much a standard negotiation. One side establishes that they want A, the other side establishes that they want Z. One side then tells the other side what they're willing to concede for what they expect the other side to concede. If the other side doesn't like the offer, it doesn't mean that the offer was tantamount to not negotiating in good faith. It means its their turn to make a counter-offer.

In this case, the Democrats counter-offer was, "**** you! Give us what we want!"

How is it that it's okay for the Democrats to stone wall the issue, but if the Republicans pass a budget asking for too much, that shows a lack of good faith?

No, I think it's simpler than that for you. I'm pretty sure that the reason you believe the Republicans aren't acting in good faith is because you want what the Democrats want. Doesn't matter who's doing what, the side with which you disagree is the side at fault.

I agree with much of what you are saying, but we may be talking about two different things. Certainly you are correct about open and ongoing negotiations. I was discussing what was going on today, hours from reaching a point of no return so to speak. The House is giving solutions that they should surely know are poison.

So Obama helps out businesses by exempting them from Obamacare for another year, yet he wants to burden the middle class and the working class with paying premiums now.

Seem that the Republicans are helping the poor and the working middle class, while Obama wants to burden them with another bill.

 

[Hoffstra]

There is no compromise, Democrats hate the working class and the poor, that is why they want to force Obamacare on the working class, while exempting the business owners and the unions for another year.

The GOP refuses to offer any amendments to ObamaCare.

They simply want to kill it.

 

[edthecynic]

So if Obama says he's willing to work with both parties:

The Right would attack him for interfering!

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

It's to late now, but they should have picked Obamacare apart and found parts of it that could be changed and would have had at least some kind of public support due to the logical and pragmatic changes suggested. That would have set a precedent for future changes and shaping of the law as it stands today. Adding those controversial riders to it was just a studpid way to show they were not interested in genuine honest negotiating.That was the bad faith part.

So basically what you're saying here is that they asked for too much? In negotiating terms, "controversial" means something that one party really doesn't wanna give. Essentially, asking for too much.

I'm not sure if you've ever negotiated for anything before, but that's pretty much a standard negotiation. One side establishes that they want A, the other side establishes that they want Z. One side then tells the other side what they're willing to concede for what they expect the other side to concede. If the other side doesn't like the offer, it doesn't mean that the offer was tantamount to not negotiating in good faith. It means its their turn to make a counter-offer.

In this case, the Democrats counter-offer was, "**** you! Give us what we want!"

How is it that it's okay for the Democrats to stone wall the issue, but if the Republicans pass a budget asking for too much, that shows a lack of good faith?

No, I think it's simpler than that for you. I'm pretty sure that the reason you believe the Republicans aren't acting in good faith is because you want what the Democrats want. Doesn't matter who's doing what, the side with which you disagree is the side at fault.

I agree with much of what you are saying, but we may be talking about two different things. Certainly you are correct about open and ongoing negotiations. I was discussing what was going on today, hours from reaching a point of no return so to speak. The House is giving solutions that they should surely know are poison.

And what solutions, aside from ,"**** you! Give us what we want!", are the Democrats suggesting?

. . . any. . . ? I'll wait. . . .