Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most "childish" of them all?

[Beet]

It's not an odd position at all.

It's true that there are some really far out Pubbies who claim old stuff is unconstitutional, and get laughed off, and deserve to get laughed off because they're not mainstream. There isn't a 40% chance that their views will get imposed, no more than that the SCOTUS will strike down Social Security as unconstitutional, or child labor laws. (But if there is, I'd like to know about it now, because it seems that if Social Security is unconstitutional, there's no point in arguing about what its funding level should be. At least you can agree on this, right?)

We need to make a distinction between them and mainstream Pubbies, by which I mean the Pubbie judges who are actually sitting on the court, Pubbie politicians, and most Pubbie voters. This is important to me because had I known that the mainstream Pubbies, would actually make this such a huge deal, then I would have supported a different wording of the law in order to make it safer and legally stronger. Just as your wife wouldn't have spent 30 minutes arguing with you over which movie to see if she'd known you didn't want to see any movie. Maybe, had I known of the Constitutional objection, I wouldn't have supported Obama spending so much political capital on something that had a 60% chance of being struck down. Everything would have been different, and we all would have been saved a lot of bickering and useless arguing. I feel I was made to play one game, only to be told after I thought I'd won by the very difficult and intricate rules that it meant nothing.

[Torie]

What it is odd is this notion that the opposition has some duty to help the other party avoid stubbing its toe and suffering political damage for doing so.  Good luck with that Beet.

And sure, when you are not sure what the legalities are, in the off chance or maybe better that something may be upheld, you fight like hell on the merits of bills that are in the legal twilight zone - absolutely!  Doesn't that go without saying?

[Beet]

What it is odd is this notion that the opposition has some duty to help the other party avoid stubbing its toe and suffering political damage for doing so.  Good luck with that Beet.

Not help the other party, but at least debate in good faith. If you can't see anything wrong with the scenario I've outlined above, you're choosing not to look.

Edit: In response to your edit: Torie. A bill with 99% chance of being upheld is worth a lot more than a bill with a 40% chance of being upheld. Many who would fight like hell for the former-- give up 30 seats in Congress for the former-- would take a pass on the latter.

Yes, you could say that the Republicans simply had more determination in the Courts than the Democrats realized, but then you're admitting that it's not about the merits of the case (constitutional or unconstitutional), it's about moving the goalposts to a different branch of government after losing in the other two.

[Torie]

What it is odd is this notion that the opposition has some duty to help the other party avoid stubbing its toe and suffering political damage for doing so.  Good luck with that Beet.

Not help the other party, but at least debate in good faith. If you can't see anything wrong with the scenario I've outlined above, you're choosing not to look.

I don't consider that bad faith. I also don't think the Pubbies were laying in the weeds on this one. Do you have any evidence that they were, and just laughing their butts off at their most clever sting? Maybe - just maybe - they missed the legal risks too, because they are just as dumb as the Dems on this one. Is that at all possible - that the Pubbies are not in fact smarter than the Dems on Constitutional law and its assorted and sundry opacities? 

[Beet]

I don't think it was a deliberate strategy, I just think the Republicans care so passionately about overturning this law that they couldn't accept they'd lost in the democratic process (after a grueling hard fought fight) and were willing to shift over to a few unelected men sitting on benches, even if that meant surprising most legal experts in the process.

[Torie]

I don't think it was a deliberate strategy, I just think the Republicans care so passionately about overturning this law that they couldn't accept they'd lost in the democratic process (after a grueling hard fought fight) and were willing to shift over to a few unelected men sitting on benches, even if that meant surprising most legal experts in the process.

It was inevitable that somebody would bring such lawsuits. And both parties sue if they can find a reasonably plausible way after losing in the public square. Always have, always will. That is part of the process. Look at all those lawsuits in Wisconsin lately!   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The article confirms the fact that negotiations were ongoing and then Boehner decided he didn't want to participate anymore because he didn't like where they were headed. Such a choice is incredibly irresponsible when we're 10 days away from catastrophe.

The article also fails to mention that Boehner wouldn't've even return the President's phone call for nearly a day and announced to the press he was pulling out of the talks before he told the President. Difficult to get more childish than that.

It's time for Obama to man up and say "I'll immediately sign any clean bill, but I'm done playing this extortion game, and will spend my time on other matters."

[Beet]

I don't think it was a deliberate strategy, I just think the Republicans care so passionately about overturning this law that they couldn't accept they'd lost in the democratic process (after a grueling hard fought fight) and were willing to shift over to a few unelected men sitting on benches, even if that meant surprising most legal experts in the process.

It was inevitable that somebody would bring such lawsuits. And both parties sue if they can find a reasonably plausible way after losing in the public square. Always have, always will. That is part of the process. Look at all those lawsuits in Wisconsin lately!   

That is always the case, yes, but usually these claimants don't have much chance of success, let alone a presumption of success. That's why we fight so hard over the outcomes in the public square. Otherwise you are going to bring the judiciary in, explicitly as a lawmaking body, with extra veto power over everything.

[anvi]

You think the Dem position is that they won't cut anything at all, unless they get more revenue?  If so, they need to go on record with that, per the Pubbies forcing a vote on that very issue. The Pubbies need to pass a bill that cuts just the most popular cut items, and see if the Dems want to explore what happens after August 2nd if they won't pass it.

The Pubbies should also say they will entertain more revenues as part of a larger tax reform bill that is growth friendly, and will continue to work on that with the Dems in the interim. But at the moment, time has run out. It is tough to rework our entire financial system in such a short period really.

I don't know what the Dem "strategy" is, exactly.  I'm finding out daily just like everyone else.  What I'm saying is that what you're suggesting boils down to the Dems accepting immediate spending cuts up to $500 billion in exchange for the debt ceiling being raised.  That solution assumes 1.) that raising the debt ceiling is only in the Dems interest, and 2.) the Dems should just take the Republicans at their word that they'll work out tax hikes later, even though the initial deal is a total win for the GOP and they'd have no incentive to work out any tax deals "in the interim" before the election, having made their base ecstatic by not giving in on any tax hikes.  I doubt that the Dems would exactly jump at that solution.

[Beet]

That solution assumes 1.) that raising the debt ceiling is only in the Dems interest,

That assumption could be valid, though. Many Republicans are probably hoping that the economy collapses so that their anointed one can win next year.

[Bull Moose Base]

Just to clarify here...  Obama is not interested in a clean lift (though presumably would sign one).  I think he ought to rake the Republicans over the coals for using the entire economy as a hostage but he's not doing that.  He continues to frame the situation as an opportunity for a big debt reduction deal.  I don't get why they're linked but that's that.

Harry Reid added 1.5 trillion in spending cuts to McConnell's escape hatch offer: to raise the debt ceiling clean provided Republicans could fake like their trying to stop it.  The Democrats added 1.5 tril in cuts into the mix.  McConnell-Reid received a chilly reception from House Republicans initially and it's gotten even colder today.  Going by reports, $1.5 trillion in cuts and no revenue in exchange for a ceiling lift big enough to get us into 2013 is being rejected by House Republican leaders (who voted repeatedly to raise the ceiling clean when the debt kept growing under a Republican president).  That is all.

[anvi]

Thanks for the clarification, Joe.

[Torie]

You think the Dem position is that they won't cut anything at all, unless they get more revenue?  If so, they need to go on record with that, per the Pubbies forcing a vote on that very issue. The Pubbies need to pass a bill that cuts just the most popular cut items, and see if the Dems want to explore what happens after August 2nd if they won't pass it.

The Pubbies should also say they will entertain more revenues as part of a larger tax reform bill that is growth friendly, and will continue to work on that with the Dems in the interim. But at the moment, time has run out. It is tough to rework our entire financial system in such a short period really.

I don't know what the Dem "strategy" is, exactly.  I'm finding out daily just like everyone else.  What I'm saying is that what you're suggesting boils down to the Dems accepting immediate spending cuts up to $500 billion in exchange for the debt ceiling being raised.  That solution assumes 1.) that raising the debt ceiling is only in the Dems interest, and 2.) the Dems should just take the Republicans at their word that they'll work out tax hikes later, even though the initial deal is a total win for the GOP and they'd have no incentive to work out any tax deals "in the interim" before the election, having made their base ecstatic by not giving in on any tax hikes.  I doubt that the Dems would exactly jump at that solution.

My assumption, giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, it is that they believe that some cuts are in the nation's best interest in some areas, even if not a dime of additional revenue is raised. Heck, let's start with the defense department!  

I don't seem to be making any progress here. Am I really that poor an advocate?  

[Torie]

Just to clarify here...  Obama is not interested in a clean lift (though presumably would sign one).  I think he ought to rake the Republicans over the coals for using the entire economy as a hostage but he's not doing that.  He continues to frame the situation as an opportunity for a big debt reduction deal.  I don't get why they're linked but that's that.

Harry Reid added 1.5 trillion in spending cuts to McConnell's escape hatch offer: to raise the debt ceiling clean provided Republicans could fake like their trying to stop it.  The Democrats added 1.5 tril in cuts into the mix.  McConnell-Reid received a chilly reception from House Republicans initially and it's gotten even colder today.  Going by reports, $1.5 trillion in cuts and no revenue in exchange for a ceiling lift big enough to get us into 2013 is being rejected by House Republican leaders (who voted repeatedly to raise the ceiling clean when the debt kept growing under a Republican president).  That is all.

That is because the cut thing down the road was not bankable.

[anvi]

Nah, you're not a bad advocate, Torie.  You at least convinced me that Obama has been doing some bungling the last few days.  Well, that's not hard to believe anyway, I guess.  If it were you and I negotiating, I have a feeling we'd have solved this long ago.    But, there are five hundred thirty nine people or so in a high-pitched negotiation here, and it's pretty hard for any of us to figure out how to get them all unstuck.  

[Torie]

What you and I would have done is first figure out how much revenue we can get from reforming the tax code in a way I love, and you can tolerate, while you love the amount of revenue raised, and I can tolerate it, and then with that money in the bank to move the ball down the field towards solvency, proceed to figure out how to get the debt beast under control to the promise land of actual solvency. And you and I would get it done, because we are both willing to piss off the geezers, and just take the political hit. Do I have that about right, Anvik?  

[anvi]

You have that right on the money, Torie!    Just as long as we can continue to adequately help the geezers that are truly in need, I don't mind pissing off the rest.

[Torie]

You have that right on the money, Torie!    Just as long as we can continue to adequately help the geezers that are truly in need, I don't mind pissing off the rest.

Heck, we could clean up Obamacare too while we are at it, since I think you and I got close to agreement on how to approach that puppy too. (The only thing I would add there to our previous discussion, is that the subsidization number for medical insurance premiums (partially means tested), as well as for medicare and medicaid services for that matter, should be based on HMO bids, and as to the latter, delivered by HMO's, but I digress.)  So the only thing left to work out is which one of us will be Mr. Congress, and which Mr. President.  

[t_host1]

Read the article and it sounds right to me.  It's a little strange, since grabbing what Boehner was offering, $800 billion in taxes which seems to have included rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 2.5% and maybe the Dem estate tax package, would have given the Dems more bragging rights too-they have been pushing for the upper-tier rollback for quite a while. 

The article says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's lowering the tax rate on the richest.  There is no chance the GOP would agree to anything they couldn't argue was a tax cut.  If they are too afraid of their caucus to go back with a plan that's 3/4 spending cuts, that's their issue.

Democrats and Obama should be uniting around a simple message.  We and Republicans agree we can't agree.  Let's take an easy step to raise the ceiling clean and enough to get us past the next election, we'll both present visions and you decide at the voting booth how you want to reduce the debt.  Anyone who votes to let us default is responsible for what happens.

The Potomac two step?  The tune, the music changed Nov. 2. 2010. The vision, it's tune and beat may take a little getting use to.

[anvi]

Torie, I'd have to look in more detail at the HMO bid rates and all that, but it sounds interesting.  In any case, I'd be happy to be Mr. Congress and you can be Mr. President.  I honestly can't viscerally understand why anyone would want to be president.  I'd prefer be run over by a bus, myself.

t_host1, If it were up to me, I'd take the tax bracket overhauls  over the upper-tier tax hikes alone, so long as I could be reasonably confident that the former could raise more revenue.  But the tune didn't completely change on Nov. 2, 2010.  The folks you like only won one chamber, and the other chamber and the White House are still held by your "opposition."  The GOP House is not going to get everything it wants, no matter what happens, and neither is the opposition.

[BigSkyBob]

What it is odd is this notion that the opposition has some duty to help the other party avoid stubbing its toe and suffering political damage for doing so.  Good luck with that Beet.

Not help the other party, but at least debate in good faith. If you can't see anything wrong with the scenario I've outlined above, you're choosing not to look.

Edit: In response to your edit: Torie. A bill with 99% chance of being upheld is worth a lot more than a bill with a 40% chance of being upheld. Many who would fight like hell for the former-- give up 30 seats in Congress for the former-- would take a pass on the latter.

Yes, you could say that the Republicans simply had more determination in the Courts than the Democrats realized,

Again, you have asserted that this is an inside-the-beltway issue of subjection motivations.

This is a question of law. The Republicans are doing better in the Courts than you expected because they have a more meritorious  case than you initially believed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Beet]

I don't believe the Republicans have anything close to a 'meritorious' case. Health care insurance is one of the most complex industries in the whole economy, and it passes the interstate test with flying colors if any form of commerce does. And forcing someone to buy something on the private market is actually a lot less intrusive than forcing someone to buy something from the government, which is what programs like Medicare and Medicaid do. If the former is unconstitutional, the latter should be unconstitutional even more so.

[Torie]

I don't believe the Republicans have anything close to a 'meritorious' case. Health care insurance is one of the most complex industries in the whole economy, and it passes the interstate test with flying colors if any form of commerce does. And forcing someone to buy something on the private market is actually a lot less intrusive than forcing someone to buy something from the government, which is what programs like Medicare and Medicaid do. If the former is unconstitutional, the latter should be unconstitutional even more so.

Then you should have no worries!    Why all the angst?

Moving right along, Medicare and Medicaid are government largess, funded with taxes. And you need not toke. The test is not the quantum of government "intrusion," and never has been, when it comes to the Constitution and SCOTUS. That is a public square issue.

[Beet]

I don't believe the Republicans have anything close to a 'meritorious' case. Health care insurance is one of the most complex industries in the whole economy, and it passes the interstate test with flying colors if any form of commerce does. And forcing someone to buy something on the private market is actually a lot less intrusive than forcing someone to buy something from the government, which is what programs like Medicare and Medicaid do. If the former is unconstitutional, the latter should be unconstitutional even more so.

Then you should have no worries!    Why all the angst?

Moving right along, Medicare and Medicaid are government largess, funded with taxes. And you need not toke. The test is not the quantum of government "intrusion," and never has been, when it comes to the Constitution and SCOTUS. That is a public square issue.

Actually, the case is all about government "intrusion," in theory, although in practice it is quite often about politics too.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't believe the Republicans have anything close to a 'meritorious' case. Health care insurance is one of the most complex industries in the whole economy, and it passes the interstate test with flying colors if any form of commerce does. And forcing someone to buy something on the private market is actually a lot less intrusive than forcing someone to buy something from the government, which is what programs like Medicare and Medicaid do. If the former is unconstitutional, the latter should be unconstitutional even more so.

1) Well, Courts haven't always shared your opinion.


2) Why are you bitching and moaning about a lack of Republicans stating their Constitutional objections to the bill when they aren't meritorious? If they are bound to lose, why complain?