Kirk: "Coffins outside each Democratic Office"

[moderatevoter]

Over the DHS funding dispute in Congress right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Remember when Atlas Democrats wanted Republicans to be shot for shutting down the government?

[bedstuy]

Come on.  Democrats have always been willing to compromise on spending.  But, that's not enough for Republicans.  They want to make every budget battle into a "Do what we say or else your pathetic little country gets it!" ransom situation over non-budgetary issues.

[Boston Bread]

Democrats should retaliate by building coffins to represent dead Iraq war veterans and those dead from lack of health care outside each Republican office.

[Mr. Illini]

Democrats should retaliate by building coffins to represent dead Iraq war veterans and those dead from lack of health care outside each Republican office.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Democrats should retaliate by building coffins to represent dead Iraq war veterans and those dead from lack of health care outside each Republican office.

Too bad so many Democrats joined with literally 99.7% of the Republicans in Congress to vote for the war, because that would be an awesome stunt otherwise.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Democrats should retaliate by building coffins to represent dead Iraq war veterans and those dead from lack of health care outside each Republican office.

Too bad so many Democrats joined with literally 99.7% of the Republicans in Congress to vote for the war, because that would be an awesome stunt otherwise.

[IceSpear]

Wow, what a sensible moderate!

[Cory]

Remember when Atlas Democrats wanted Republicans to be shot for shutting down the government?

No?

[Likely Voter]

So the message from the GOP is: we hate brown people so much and want to deport them all so badly that we will risk inviting a terrorist attack on the USA.  Way to reach out guys.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Come on.  Democrats have always been willing to compromise on spending.  But, that's not enough for Republicans.  They want to make every budget battle into a "Do what we say or else your pathetic little country gets it!" ransom situation over non-budgetary issues.

Not entirely true.

First off, note that McConnell has already allowed votes for ~41 bill amendments - that's about 3 times the number of bill amendments that Reid allowed votes on during the entirety of 2013 and 2014. And yes, that includes democratic-proposed and republican-proposed amendments. Now, we'll have to see if McConnell's open amendment process promise is kept throughout the next 2 years, but he's certainly honoring it right now.

Secondly, the democrats were only willing to negotiate on spending during the last congress if it was done at a truly convenient time for them. It was always a matter of - you pass a debt ceiling increase with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING attached to it - and then MAYBE we'll think about cutting spending somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I realize the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, but attaching a couple of lower-tier republican ideas to the raise could have gone a long way toward us not getting into the last-minute action situations we were frequently in during the last congress. And then of course, there's the Warren-led base that won't support any entitlement reform (which, aside from defense, is where any serious spending cuts that will solve our long-term problems need to come from) no matter what.

And to be clear, with entitlements, I'm talking about things like raising the retirement age or reducing benefits for the wealthy - Not the Crappy Paul Ryan Plan.

[badgate]

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for some milk.

[bedstuy]

First off, note that McConnell has already allowed votes for ~41 bill amendments - that's about 3 times the number of bill amendments that Reid allowed votes on during the entirety of 2013 and 2014. And yes, that includes democratic-proposed and republican-proposed amendments. Now, we'll have to see if McConnell's open amendment process promise is kept throughout the next 2 years, but he's certainly honoring it right now.

Why is that a good thing?  The party that has no hope of passing its agenda loves amendments because they drag out the process.  During the Obama Presidency, Republicans have been world-class obstructionists and they want every tool available to that end.  Republicans have no problem larding up the process with amendments because they have no interest in efficiency or passing important legislation.  And, during the Bush Presidency it was reversed, so give me a break.

Secondly, the democrats were only willing to negotiate on spending during the last congress if it was done at a truly convenient time for them. It was always a matter of - you pass a debt ceiling increase with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING attached to it - and then MAYBE we'll think about cutting spending somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I realize the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, but attaching a couple of lower-tier republican ideas to the raise could have gone a long way toward us not getting into the last-minute action situations we were frequently in during the last congress. And then of course, there's the Warren-led base that won't support any entitlement reform (which, aside from defense, is where any serious spending cuts that will solve our long-term problems need to come from) no matter what.

And to be clear, with entitlements, I'm talking about things like raising the retirement age or reducing benefits for the wealthy - Not the Crappy Paul Ryan Plan.

That's not mutual compromise, that's holding the country for ransom.  It's just playing off the fact that many Republicans hate Obama and Democrats more than they like America.  Compromise is you give up something you want, I give up something I want.  Ransom is, you give up something I want, and in exchange I won't do something neither of us want, whether it's kill a child or wreck the economy.  You just want Democrats to establish the precedent that they will do what Republicans tell them, but only sometimes or on some issues.   Is it OK to kidnap a child if you only ask for $100 or is it OK to threaten to piss on someone's car if they don't give you $5? Not defaulting on the debt is not some Democratic pet issue, that was economic terrorism by the Tea Party.  Democrats can't give into bullying or threats of sabotaging the country, even if it's for some minor concession.  That's all there is to it. 

And, since when are Democrats the stumbling block for entitlement reform rather than Republicans? When have Republicans openly proposed entitlement reform that isn't merely a privatization or voucherization?  They haven't.  We all know that social security and Medicare are the third rail of American politics.  Republicans just want Democrats to openly contemplate benefit cuts or tax increases, and then run ads about it in the next election.  It's that simple.  And, Democrats have been more reasonable, in being amenable to a mixture of benefit cuts and tax increases, whereas Republicans mostly just want privatization and the roll back of the New Deal.

[Lief 🗽]

Today he flip-flopped and said that he now sides with Senate Democrats. LOL

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Bedstuy, the important thing about allowing votes on bill amendments is that it allows for the culture of discussion and debate that's supposed to happen in the senate. Reid would play the "I don't want my caucus to have tough votes!" card half the time, and the "I/the democratic base doesn't like it" card the other half of the time, and not even allow the vote to happen even if he knew it wasn't going to pass. With McConnell's (at least so far) open amendment process, most/all amendments get votes - everything from Sanders's liberal ideas to Wicker's conservative ideas - and the bad amendments simply don't get the required 60 votes, and the good amendments do.

And the liberal base's entitlement mantra has been either "Not a problem because it won't go bankrupt until (insert projection here)." (Which is just simple procrasination, I'd rather have the debate now so we can ensure that the best solutions are used), or "Eliminate the payroll tax cap!" (A proposal that, despite my support of it, has literally 0% support among the republican party).

Also, the idea of concessions to raise the debt ceiling is not new, it's been used by both parties in past administrations. Sometimes the party using it got something and sometimes they didn't. This article is pretty good:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/19/obamas-claim-that-non-budget-items-have-never-been-attached-to-the-debt-ceiling/

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

Anyways, on the topic of DHS funding, I don't endorse the republican plan. As I've said elsewhere, I actually support what Obama's executive order does. As much as I prefer these things to be done through the legislative process, I'm not going to support blocking an executive order I like because of "muh procedural preferences".

[King]

The Department of Homeland Security is a completely worthless bureaucracy that doesn't need to exist. The party of fiscal conservatism championing it is just another plot point of our broken system.

[Cory]

Don't get me wrong, I realize the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, but attaching a couple of lower-tier republican ideas to the raise could have gone a long way toward us not getting into the last-minute action situations we were frequently in during the last congress.

It's funny because the exact opposite of that is the truth.

You will have set a precedent of holding the economy hostage for petty partisan points. It actually makes it more likely in the long term that an actual default will occur.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yeah, that'll teach'em!

What a stupid comment.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The Department of Homeland Security is a completely worthless bureaucracy that doesn't need to exist. The party of fiscal conservatism championing it is just another plot point of our broken system.

You mean your party?

[King]

The Department of Homeland Security is a completely worthless bureaucracy that doesn't need to exist. The party of fiscal conservatism championing it is just another plot point of our broken system.

You mean your party?

You're right. I should start support a worthless bureaucracy because it's a Republican thing for some reason.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

3000 died because Bush ignored all of the 9/11 warnings during his month long vacation right before.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The Department of Homeland Security is a completely worthless bureaucracy that doesn't need to exist. The party of fiscal conservatism championing it is just another plot point of our broken system.

You mean your party?

You're right. I should start support a worthless bureaucracy because it's a Republican thing for some reason.

Not telling you what to support at all.  Was just pointing out that by registering as a Republican, you're part of the debate on where the party should go.  You seem to want it to go in a more liberal direction on just about every issue imaginable, and I respect that.  Just thought it was weird to refer to it as if it's not a group you're technically a part of.

[CountryClassSF]

Fair and balanced analysis -

Democrats repeatedly obstruct/filibuster DHS funding because they demand purity on executive amnesty.

That'd be the headline if the Republicans filibustered any bill for any reason.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If Obama doesn't want to use DHS to go after undocumented immigrants that inaction doesn't cost a dime and it's within his authority. But if he wants to use funding to issue work permits, he has to get Congressional approval for those funds, right?  Did he not realize this before now?