Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 10:38:54 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most "childish" of them all?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most "childish" of them all?  (Read 3153 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26919
United States


View Profile
« on: July 23, 2011, 12:49:31 pm »
Ignore

Picking up my little debate with px, and continuing for the sake of continuity if nothing else with the maturity, or lack thereof, meme, I thought I would throw this article on the pile as my next counterpunch.  I mean two can play this game, and this one is quite detailed, and to my little no doubt biased mind has considerable verisimilitude. In that regard, please focus on the text, rather than trashing the author as yet another right wing hack. Sometimes even hacks get it right. Thanks.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 12:53:04 pm by Torie »Logged

Grumps
GM3PRP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32655
Vatican City State
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2011, 01:01:52 pm »
Ignore

Well now, that's a spin not found in the other articles posted.......and basically a lie by the President.....interesting.
Logged

In one thread -

Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 11:45:57 pm by True Federalist

Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 11:43:45 pm by True Federalist

Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 11:41:31 pm by True Federalist

-------------------------

Good call on the edit, Ernest.  We don't want the jailed mass murderer to call Dave on copyright infringement.
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3702
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2011, 01:12:24 pm »
Ignore

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.  But, when the Senate Dems found out the Gang of Six tax plan had been basically ignored, they got pissed, probably threatened not to pass the Boehner-Obama deal, and Obama caved to that and tried to get Boehner on board with the Senate tax plan.  In response, the House GOP caucus got pissed and said: "ok, if you're going to crank up your demands, big O, so are we; give us your mandate."

I think the article's indictment of Obama is reasonable.  It might however not be clear which is more the case here, whether Obama simply lacks leadership, or whether the Senate Dems muscled him and basically undermined his deal with Boehner.  Probably a good share of both.  In any event, the two chambers don't agree on the tax plan going forward, so Boehner talking to Reid makes some sense.

My God, what a sad mess.
Logged

Lіef
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30980
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2011, 01:24:45 pm »
Ignore

I'm sorry, but including the Bush tax cuts for the rich as some big compromise from the Republicans is just ridiculous. If Congress does nothing they expire anyway. Repealing the Bush tax cuts is already established policy.
Logged

RIP opebo
RIP the jfmtsc
RIP joshgreen
RIP King

Don't get me wrong, I love variety, and get a kick out of all these odors.
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15636


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2011, 01:25:11 pm »
Ignore

This analysis is too simplistic, for pinning everything on the extra 400 billion. Obama asked for the extra 400 billion on Tuesday, and talks continued for an extra three days. If there had been something inherent about this that killed the deal, then Boehner would have pulled out right there and then. Instead negotiations continued about other provisions. I don't think the evidence is inconsistent with that Obama genuinely wanted a deal and was trying to put together a bipartisan coalition with a majority in the House, and his asking for an extra 400 billion, which his aide says was negotiable, was a bid for more Democratic votes. On Friday morning the talks were in progress. The bottom line, was that Boehner was the one who refused to talk to Obama all Friday afternoon, and pulled out of talks.

Here is the article I relied on for my analysis.

Edit: And there is another article up at Politico. It makes clear that Boehner appears to have decided to end all talks by the end of Thursday and didn't notify the President for a day.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 01:30:27 pm by Beet »Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14153


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2011, 01:29:15 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26919
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2011, 01:29:51 pm »
Ignore

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.  But, when the Senate Dems found out the Gang of Six tax plan had been basically ignored, they got pissed, probably threatened not to pass the Boehner-Obama deal, and Obama caved to that and tried to get Boehner on board with the Senate tax plan.  In response, the House GOP caucus got pissed and said: "ok, if you're going to crank up your demands, big O, so are we; give us your mandate."

I think the article's indictment of Obama is reasonable.  It might however not be clear which is more the case here, whether Obama simply lacks leadership, or whether the Senate [and House] Dems muscled him and basically undermined his deal with Boehner.  Probably a good share of both.  In any event, the two chambers don't agree on the tax plan going forward, so Boehner talking to Reid makes some sense.

My God, what a sad mess.

Obama, perhaps for good reason, and perhaps not, is just not willing to have his Sister Souljah moment with the left wing of his party, which is about two thirds of it. Obama really did want a bigger deal I think. It certainly would have been to his electoral advantage. But Obama is really rather light in the courage department is my perception. Don't you agree Anvik with that?

In any event, Obama is a very good chess player (btw, do you play bridge too, in which event perhaps we can have a rubber match or two someday?), and managed quite well to make it seem like the plug was pulled by the Tea Party or something. Part of that is due to Boehner not being a very effective spokesman for himself. He should hire the author of this article to write what appears on his teleprompter for him to read!  Smiley
Logged

anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3702
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2011, 01:34:37 pm »
Ignore

Lief, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2012, and the Congress has to pass a budget before then, and the Republicans had not been willing up to this point to let them expire for the top bracket.  In comparison, it's my understanding that the Gang of Six tax plan did not include a rollback of the Bush tax cuts, but instead a shifting of all the rates in exchange for closing loopholes and deductions.  One of the ironies of this argument is that the $800 billion tax deal Boehner was apparently offering, though generating less revenue in the next ten years, was farther left in terms of what Dems have said they wanted; namely a rate increase for the top bracket.  The Senate tax plan, though it raises more revenue, is farther right in terms of what Republicans have been seeking in tax reform.  Obama ended up at the end of last week pushing for the plan that was ideologically farther right, but may have generated more revenue.  The whole thing could cause vertigo if I stare at it long enough.
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26919
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2011, 01:35:40 pm »
Ignore

This analysis is too simplistic, for pinning everything on the extra 400 billion. Obama asked for the extra 400 billion on Tuesday, and talks continued for an extra three days. If there had been something inherent about this that killed the deal, then Boehner would have pulled out right there and then. Instead negotiations continued about other provisions. I don't think the evidence is inconsistent with that Obama genuinely wanted a deal and was trying to put together a bipartisan coalition with a majority in the House, and his asking for an extra 400 billion, which his aide says was negotiable, was a bid for more Democratic votes. On Friday morning the talks were in progress. The bottom line, was that Boehner was the one who refused to talk to Obama all Friday afternoon, and pulled out of talks.

Here is the article I relied on for my analysis.

Edit: And there is another article up at Politico. It makes clear that Boehner appears to have decided to end all talks by the end of Thursday and didn't notify the President for a day.

Boehner took Obama's ratchet up to his membership, which took some time, and when he got his answer that it was a deal killer, he told Obama that negotiations were going backwards, and that there was no point in talking further about a big deal, unless the ball moved back to where it was. It is that simple. Sure he should have taken Obama's call, and told him a response would be forthcoming, but that the tea leaves did not look good. He got back to Obama when he had a firm answer.

Don't you think it fair to characterize the side that killed negotiations, the one who backtracks on some major items (it was not just the 400 billion, but also the revenue floor and ceiling business), at the last moment? And that point, the optics obviously preclude any deal that includes the backtrack items. And that is the point of the article I think.
Logged

anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3702
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2011, 01:43:20 pm »
Ignore

Torie, I don't know how I'd answer the question about Obama's courage, per se.  I do think he is in a tough spot electorally next year; if he makes the Dem base happy and alienates independents, he is toast, but if he draws back independents by pissing off the Dem base, he risks death there too.  He is in a tougher spot with the constituencies that won him the presidency than the Republicans are with the constituency that won them back the House.  But, after a while, one just has to choose, because at this point, there is no fail-safe deal for him.  I think if I were to fault Obama for anything, it would be less lack of courage than lack of vision; the guy doesn't have his own plan, and so he tries to be a broker and gets caught too easily between the many fronts at odds on the Hill. 

By the way, I've played bridge a few times, but haven't built up any skill at it yet.  Best for me to stick to the chessboard.  But, you know, even on a chessboard, one needs both vision and courage!
Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15636


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2011, 01:45:48 pm »
Ignore

This analysis is too simplistic, for pinning everything on the extra 400 billion. Obama asked for the extra 400 billion on Tuesday, and talks continued for an extra three days. If there had been something inherent about this that killed the deal, then Boehner would have pulled out right there and then. Instead negotiations continued about other provisions. I don't think the evidence is inconsistent with that Obama genuinely wanted a deal and was trying to put together a bipartisan coalition with a majority in the House, and his asking for an extra 400 billion, which his aide says was negotiable, was a bid for more Democratic votes. On Friday morning the talks were in progress. The bottom line, was that Boehner was the one who refused to talk to Obama all Friday afternoon, and pulled out of talks.

Here is the article I relied on for my analysis.

Edit: And there is another article up at Politico. It makes clear that Boehner appears to have decided to end all talks by the end of Thursday and didn't notify the President for a day.

Boehner took Obama's ratchet up to his membership, which took some time, and when he got his answer that it was a deal killer, he told Obama that negotiations were going backwards, and that there was no point in talking further about a big deal, unless the ball moved back to where it was. It is that simple. Sure he should have taken Obama's call, and told him a response would be forthcoming, but that the tea leaves did not look good. He got back to Obama when he had a firm answer.

Don't you think it fair to characterize the side that killed negotiations, the one who backtracks on some major items (it was not just the 400 billion, but also the revenue floor and ceiling business), at the last moment? And that point, the optics obviously preclude any deal that includes the backtrack items. And that is the point of the article I think.

The nature of negotiations is that it is an ongoing process. You could also say that Obama took Boehner's original offer, existence of which was not disclosed until Monday, back to his party (House and Senate) and found that it was unacceptable, even though the White House themselves would have accepted it. I think, if you want to say X was so inherently bad that it's at fault for everything, you need to say it as soon as X is proposed-- that would have been in Boehner's case, Tuesday or at the very latest Wednesday once he had a chance to poll his members. You can't continue negotiations with this hanging out there for three days and then at the end of the three days say that something that was done on Tuesday was at fault for everything irrevocably breaking down.

It's the same as the Republican behavior on the health care bill-- if Republicans think the mandate is unconstitutional they should have said it straight from the beginning, rather than trying to argue against it on legislative grounds and then only turn to the Courts once they'd lost in Congress. It smacks of changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26919
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2011, 01:49:00 pm »
Ignore

Many Pubbies have been asserting that the mandate is unconsitutional since rocks cooled. To suggest that it was some kind of bait and switch or whatever you are doing, confused me really.

 The Dems made a mistake in not finessing the mandate conundrum with the Torie approach, because I think they got a bit arrogant in those heady days for them. Where have all the flowers gone - long time passing? Maybe they were hoping one of the more conservative five on SCOTUS would die or something in the interim. In any event, it is up to the side that enacts something to weigh its legal risks. Obviously the opposition will test its legality. That goes without saying no?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 01:50:34 pm by Torie »Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15636


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2011, 01:55:02 pm »
Ignore

Many Pubbies have been asserting that the mandate is unconsitutional since rocks cooled. To suggest that it was some kind of bait and switch or whatever you are doing, confused me really.

I don't remember hearing about that during the debate-- the main Republican objections seemed to be that it would cost too much money, 'death panels', procedural things like they were 'going too fast', and objection to the mandate on policy grounds. It's certainly possible that Republicans were also making a constitutional argument but it wasn't very prominent.

If something is unconstitutional, you'd expect that to be the first argument made, and we simply didn't see it. Most legal experts at the time the bill passed had no idea it would face such a strong challenge in the Courts. Had this discussion been more prominent from the beginning, the law might have been designed differently-- maybe the Torie finesse would have been taken. But it certainly seemed like a bait and switch to me, and most legal scholars would probably feel the same way.

In any case, this is not to rehash the health care debate.
Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2259
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2011, 02:03:09 pm »
Ignore

Many Pubbies have been asserting that the mandate is unconsitutional since rocks cooled. To suggest that it was some kind of bait and switch or whatever you are doing, confused me really.

I don't remember hearing about that during the debate-- the main Republican objections seemed to be that it would cost too much money, 'death panels', procedural things like they were 'going too fast', and objection to the mandate on policy grounds. It's certainly possible that Republicans were also making a constitutional argument but it wasn't very prominent.

If something is unconstitutional, you'd expect that to be the first argument made, and we simply didn't see it. Most legal experts at the time the bill passed had no idea it would face such a strong challenge in the Courts. Had this discussion been more prominent from the beginning, the law might have been designed differently-- maybe the Torie finesse would have been taken. But it certainly seemed like a bait and switch to me, and most legal scholars would probably feel the same way.

In any case, this is not to rehash the health care debate.

Umm, if a law is Unconstitutional, it is Unconstitutional because the party whom has standing has had his Constitutional rights violated by the legislation. The opinion of each political party is irrelevent. If that political class takes offense, screw them!
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3702
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2011, 02:07:24 pm »
Ignore

I agree with Beet on the mandate issue as a matter of process in the health care debate.  In the negotiations of 2009, I don't remember hearing the alleged unconstitutionality of the mandate brought up until very late, when the bill was in the final stages of negotiations in the Senate, either.  As a matter of fact, I have a suspicion the language of the mandate was adjusted at the very end of the process, stripping away enforcement powers of the IRS if fines for violation weren't paid, in deference to the late objections.  Of course, it's true that when the GOP introduced their counter-proposal to Clintoncare in '93-94, which included a stronger mandate than is in current legislation, a lot of conservatives at the time balked, and by the end of that spectacle, Dole had abandoned the mandate too.  But, anyway, this discussion is about a different issue, and yes, the constitutionality of the mandate will now be decided by the courts.  The House throwing the mandate demand down in the face of Obama's request for Gang of Six revenue outlays the other day was an act of spite.  But, you know, I think the Obama people should have taken a little more time, maybe a day, to huddle with Senate Dems to get them more on board with the Boehner offer, or something closer to it; it may have just been that lack of consultation that ticked the Senate Dems off.
Logged

A dog on every car, a car in every elevator
Bull Moose Base
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2496


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2011, 02:09:09 pm »
Ignore

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:

Quote
As of last weekend, the President was willing to support three individual tax rates, and the top rate would be less than 35 percent. Team Obama also agreed that the difference between the top individual and corporate rates would be limited.

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.
Logged
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2259
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2011, 02:12:10 pm »
Ignore

I agree with Beet on the mandate issue as a matter of process in the health care debate.  In the negotiations of 2009, I don't remember hearing the alleged unconstitutionality of the mandate brought up until very late, when the bill was in the final stages of negotiations in the Senate, either.  As a matter of fact, I have a suspicion the language of the mandate was adjusted at the very end of the process, stripping away enforcement powers of the IRS if fines for violation weren't paid, in deference to the late objections.  Of course, it's true that when the GOP introduced their counter-proposal to Clintoncare in '93-94, which included a stronger mandate than is in current legislation, a lot of conservatives at the time balked, and by the end of that spectacle, Dole had abandoned the mandate too.  But, anyway, this discussion is about a different issue, and yes, the constitutionality of the mandate will now be decided by the courts.  The House throwing the mandate demand down in the face of Obama's request for Gang of Six revenue outlays the other day was an act of spite.  But, you know, I think the Obama people should have taken a little more time, maybe a day, to huddle with Senate Dems to get them more on board with the Boehner offer, or something closer to it; it may have just been that lack of consultation that ticked the Senate Dems off.

Well, if the Constitution enshired the rights of political parties you might have a point. But, the Constitution enshires the rights of the American people. The Constitution clearly places the onus on the legislature passing Constitiutional laws in the first place, and, not, on potential objectors filing their Constitutional objections prior to the passage of the legislation.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2259
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2011, 02:16:08 pm »
Ignore

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:

Quote
As of last weekend, the President was willing to support three individual tax rates, and the top rate would be less than 35 percent. Team Obama also agreed that the difference between the top individual and corporate rates would be limited.

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.

Well, if there is consensus to raise the debt limit, and a consensus to cut spending, but no consensus to raise taxes, the obvious solution is to agree to a package of spending cuts with an increase in the debt limit.

This solution seems obvious, unless, of course, the Democrats don't really want to cut spending.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13240


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2011, 02:24:49 pm »
Ignore

Neither party has a ridiculous position here. One wants to raise revenue by $800 Billion over 10 years and the other wants to raise it by $1.2 Trillion. The difference isn't huge enough to abandon a long term plan imo. Of course, regardless of what Torie says, both Obama AND the Republicans are scared of doing anything big, whether that be cutting back on entitlements or raising taxes. Smiley
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3702
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2011, 02:24:49 pm »
Ignore

Well, if the Constitution enshired the rights of political parties you might have a point. But, the Constitution enshires the rights of the American people. The Constitution clearly places the onus on the legislature passing Constitiutional laws in the first place, and, not, on potential objectors filing their Constitutional objections prior to the passage of the legislation.

I don't know what the first comment about the constitutional rights of political parties means.  The point is that even the GOP, as far as I remember it, did not raise a constitutionality objection until very late in the negotiations, when it looked like the health care bill might pass in the Senate, and they knew about the mandate long, long before that point.  And, back in the early '90's, mandates were originally a GOP idea, so for many Dems, the fact that their constitutionality was questioned all of a sudden by the GOP came as a surprise.  The only thing I'm talking about on that score is process.  But the constitutionality of a law can be questioned by the courts only after the law has been passed.  And, FYI, more courts have upheld the constitutionality of the mandate than have rejected it so far.  If SCOTUS says it's unconstitutional, then it will be unconstitutional, and none of us yet knows what they will decide.  We'll see.

And, by the way, no "consensus" on spending cuts will pass the Senate unless a "consensus" on revenue enhancements is reached too; that would be just as true of a short-term fix as of a long-term fix.  Divided government means everyone has to give a little, not that the party that controls one chamber gets to dictate to the other party that controls the other chamber and the White House what to do.  Even the Constitution acknowledges that.
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26919
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2011, 02:25:53 pm »
Ignore

I agree with Beet on the mandate issue as a matter of process in the health care debate.  In the negotiations of 2009, I don't remember hearing the alleged unconstitutionality of the mandate brought up until very late, when the bill was in the final stages of negotiations in the Senate, either.  As a matter of fact, I have a suspicion the language of the mandate was adjusted at the very end of the process, stripping away enforcement powers of the IRS if fines for violation weren't paid, in deference to the late objections.  Of course, it's true that when the GOP introduced their counter-proposal to Clintoncare in '93-94, which included a stronger mandate than is in current legislation, a lot of conservatives at the time balked, and by the end of that spectacle, Dole had abandoned the mandate too.  But, anyway, this discussion is about a different issue, and yes, the constitutionality of the mandate will now be decided by the courts.  The House throwing the mandate demand down in the face of Obama's request for Gang of Six revenue outlays the other day was an act of spite.  But, you know, I think the Obama people should have taken a little more time, maybe a day, to huddle with Senate Dems to get them more on board with the Boehner offer, or something closer to it; it may have just been that lack of consultation that ticked the Senate Dems off.

Boehner tossed the mandate repeal on the table at the last minute if spending targets are not met, to match Obama's last minute "demand" that the tax rates on the 250K plus earners go up if the targets are not met. Both triggers are deal killers, and both sides knew it.  Boehner was just making that point.

At the risk of beating the mandate thing to death, it was the responsibility of the Dems to do their legal homework. It was an obvious legal risk to me, when after the bill was passed, I finally understood how the mandate worked. That was another problem. As Pelosi said, the bill had to be passed to find out what was in it.  That hopefully will never happen again.
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26919
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2011, 02:31:21 pm »
Ignore

Well, if the Constitution enshired the rights of political parties you might have a point. But, the Constitution enshires the rights of the American people. The Constitution clearly places the onus on the legislature passing Constitiutional laws in the first place, and, not, on potential objectors filing their Constitutional objections prior to the passage of the legislation.

I don't know what the first comment about the constitutional rights of political parties means.  The point is that even the GOP, as far as I remember it, did not raise a constitutionality objection until very late in the negotiations, when it looked like the health care bill might pass in the Senate, and they knew about the mandate long, long before that point.  And, back in the early '90's, mandates were originally a GOP idea, so for many Dems, the fact that their constitutionality was questioned all of a sudden by the GOP came as a surprise.  The only thing I'm talking about on that score is process.  But the constitutionality of a law can be questioned by the courts only after the law has been passed.  And, FYI, more courts have upheld the constitutionality of the mandate than have rejected it so far.  If SCOTUS says it's unconstitutional, then it will be unconstitutional, and none of us yet knows what they will decide.  We'll see.

And, by the way, no "consensus" on spending cuts will pass the Senate unless a "consensus" on revenue enhancements is reached too; that would be just as true of a short-term fix as of a long-term fix.  Divided government means everyone has to give a little, not that the party that controls one chamber gets to dictate to the other party that controls the other chamber and the White House what to do.  Even the Constitution acknowledges that.

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.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 02:34:37 pm by Torie »Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15636


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2011, 02:45:19 pm »
Ignore

At the risk of beating the mandate thing to death, it was the responsibility of the Dems to do their legal homework. It was an obvious legal risk to me, when after the bill was passed, I finally understood how the mandate worked. That was another problem. As Pelosi said, the bill had to be passed to find out what was in it.  That hopefully will never happen again.

But much of the 'legal homework' consists in anticipating how judges will rule on a particular issue. In other words, it's not so cut and dry, it relies on inherent guesswork and a lot of politics. What's really put the mandate at judicial risk is not anything written down on paper prior to passage, it's that the conservative and tea party movements have made it a political priority to have it struck down in courts strongly enough that it has become a mainstream conservative judicial position (and don't try to argue that courts aren't political institutions, that would only be doubling down on the disingenuousness). It's particularly underhanded for anyone who believes it's unconstitutional to argue against the bill on policy grounds without at first stating their belief in its unconstitutionality, because the latter invalidates the whole point of the former. And yes, the broad principle of the individual mandate was known well before passage.

It's like, your wife comes to you and says she wants to go out and see a movie with her. You spend half an hour arguing about which movie to see, which is finally settled with a coin toss which she wins. Then you say 'I never wanted to see a movie in the beginning. It was your responsibility to ask me that.' Technically correct, but substantively dishonest and unfair.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 02:47:23 pm by Beet »Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2259
View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2011, 02:48:55 pm »
Ignore

Well, if the Constitution enshired the rights of political parties you might have a point. But, the Constitution enshires the rights of the American people. The Constitution clearly places the onus on the legislature passing Constitiutional laws in the first place, and, not, on potential objectors filing their Constitutional objections prior to the passage of the legislation.

I don't know what the first comment about the constitutional rights of political parties means.  The point is that even the GOP, as far as I remember it, did not raise a constitutionality objection until very late in the negotiations, when it looked like the health care bill might pass in the Senate, and they knew about the mandate long, long before that point.

The relevent question is whether, or not, the underlying bill is Unconstitutional. What is irrelevent, is the timing the political class in its comments on the bill.


Quote
 And, back in the early '90's, mandates were originally a GOP idea, so for many Dems, the fact that their constitutionality was questioned all of a sudden by the GOP came as a surprise.  The only thing I'm talking about on that score is process.  But the constitutionality of a law can be questioned by the courts only after the law has been passed.  And, FYI, more courts have upheld the constitutionality of the mandate than have rejected it so far.  If SCOTUS says it's unconstitutional, then it will be unconstitutional, and none of us yet knows what they will decide.  We'll see.

And, by the way, no "consensus" on spending cuts will pass the Senate unless a "consensus" on revenue enhancements is reached too; that would be just as true of a short-term fix as of a long-term fix.  Divided government means everyone has to give a little, not that the party that controls one chamber gets to dictate to the other party that controls the other chamber and the White House what to do.  Even the Constitution acknowledges that.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26919
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2011, 02:50:32 pm »
Ignore

Odd position Beet to me, but OK. In any event, I bet you dollars to donuts a lot of Pubbies at the time did say it was unconstitutional, but they were laughed off, because a fair number of them claim stuff is unconstitutional that SCOTUS long ago ruled in fact is, and those Pubbies are just SCOTUS nullification artists. But not this time!  As I said it is a risk - but it is only a risk. There is certainly a 40% or so chance that Kennedy will uphold the mandate perhaps. So hope is left in that particular Pandora's box for you. Be happy!  Smiley
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines