Skip to main content

View Diary: Dems prepared to meet GOP halfway, but Republicans still predict shutdown (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Also, Dems leak their compromises to the press.. (3+ / 0-)

    Which totally blows their position.  What clods!

    •  Compare Effectiveness - Compromising With Self (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Laslo, StrayCat

      vs following internal demands to take a more aggressive position.

      $0 vs  $15 Billion:  March to the  Middle =  $7.5 Billion in cuts.

      $0 vs $32 Billion:  March to the Middle =  $16 Billion cuts

      $0 vs $61 Billion:  March to the Middle =  $32 Billion cuts.

      GOP Runs Negotiations Like Used Car Lot

      So the GOP House Leadership, in order to sell their clunker for $32 Billion, sets the sticker price at $61 Billion and tells potential buyers that their "supervisor" (aka Republcian Tea Party extremist Congressional newcomers) is someone you just can't reason with and anything less than $61 Billion will probably mean they'd lose their job - certainly $32 Billion (nearly a 50% discount) is just out of the question.  Oh, and we're closing the car lot down in a couple of minutes so you'd better act now or the price may go up from $62 Billion tomorrow.
       

       

      Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

      by Into The Woods on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:37:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The argument doesn't work unless one assumes (0+ / 0-)

        the content is the same.  One of the problems Rs had with the two extensions is that while the dollars might have been right, what was in fact compromised was not on their agenda, but on the Dems', save for the allegedly bipartisan elimination of 'earmarks.' It's always easier to win half an argument, Into.

        •  Content? $$$$ (0+ / 0-)

          Did it matter when the initial target for budget cuts from the GOP went from 32 to 61?

          Does anyone care any more what was in Ryan's original $32 Million.

          Sure content (details) matter, but without the numbers, the detail gets impossibly more difficult to manage.

          Add to what I had above some additional surcharges on income tax for those making more than $1 Million (supported by 81% of the American public) and then see what kind of negotiation would occur.

          We start in the hole and negotiate downwards.

          Not a strategy most would embrace.

          Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

          by Into The Woods on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:39:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For women and the huge amount of anti woman (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Into The Woods, StrayCat

            anti child, anti family legislation the Rs put into their budget, it does. For Vets, for LGBT, for a lot of folks, it is not just a matter of numbers of dollars that must be dealt with. To have their lives reduced to dollars alone to maintain lives or not, is a betrayal of a lot of folk, and a lot of what progressives and religious people of many stripes care about.

             Think how different the discussion here and in many places would be if the sixty one billion were found in the Defense Budget exclusively, say, to defund, except for return, the Afghan war. Would we be having this discussion then?

            •  Absolutely Correct. And particularly relevent (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StrayCat

              if there had been any remote possiblity that the GOP budget cuts would include those areas.

              Or if the Democratic budget cuts would have.

              Neither were much of a possiblity beyond that already contained in Obama's budget proposal.

              So from a matter of Congressional strategy the very targets you correctly identify as having the most dire impact was pretty much set from the start.  

              The only aspect of that we could have possibly changed was the potential of having significant additional cuts in those areas included in the Democratic proposal along with tax increases on the wealthy.

              I did not include either in my original comment because of the lack of realistic expectation that they would have or could have been included.

              Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

              by Into The Woods on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:52:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Messaging only works when one sends it out. (0+ / 0-)

      Dems are messaging on this that they are prepared to compromise to work out budget and other issues and it is the Republicans who keep drawing back to more and more extreme positions. You can't both complain that Dems don't message, and also complaint that they are giving away bargaining secrets because they do.

      •  You assume that "compromise" is rewarded (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Laslo, StrayCat, 3goldens

        By assuming that a public recognition of "compromise" is more important than the cuts that affect ordinary people in their everyday survival, we place a disproportionate value on "compromise".

        We keep attacking Republicans for violating "rules" that they simply don't believe apply to them,  rules in which the public has almost no interest compared to the huge challenges facing them today.

        The GOP Senate majority did not "compromise" much between 2008 and 2010.  

        Could you point to anything that would show us that the GOP paid a price for that?

        On the other hand, the Democrats were so busy compromising on Health Reform, Financial Reform, and a host of other issues that the public was convinced that they were not only "compromising", but "compromised".

        If you are engaged in a fight on my behalf, I'd certainly applaud good manners but I'll reward results.

        Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

        by Into The Woods on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:46:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Messgaing that you are willing to compromise (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens

        is one thing.  Giving the exact amount you are willing to give is just stupid.

        Dickering is an art.  One the Dems have proven time and time again they have no talent for.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site