Revisionist history. From the Washington Post:In 1987, Dems shutdown the government because they wanted to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. So technically you are right, they didn't attempt to repeal legislation...they just wanted to enact it. Not really much difference in my opinion...but I'm sure that you can find some way to justify their actions.
Previous government shutdowns
Shutdown #14: I Think You're a Contra
When did it take place? Dec. 18-20, 1987
How long did it last? 1 day
Who was president? Ronald Reagan
Who controlled the Senate? Democrats, 54-46; Robert Byrd was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 258-177; Jim Wright was speaker
Why did it happen? Reagan and congressional Democrats could not agree on funding for the Nicaraguan "Contra" militants in time to avoid a shutdown. Additionally, Democrats pushed for a provision reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine," which required that broadcasters give equal airing to both sides in political disputes, and which the FCC had recently stopped enforcing at the time.
What resolved it? Democrats yielded on the Fairness Doctrine, and a deal was worked out wherein nonlethal aid was provided to the Contras.
As far as I recall, shit like that keeps going.
I know social security does, not sure if SNAP is a division of SS. Either way, there might be a backlog generated for getting checks out I suppose - but other than that the gravy train keeps oging.
In this case...false equivalence is in the jaundiced eye of the beholder. I notice that you rather walk away than entertain me...no worries...I get it.We need accountability terribly. If only some people wouldn't keep trying to push a false equivalence narrative. Any ideas on how to get them to stop?
It was about Contra funding AND Fairness Doctrine.Revisionist history. From the Washington Post:
In this case...false equivalence is in the jaundiced eye of the beholder. I notice that you rather walk away than entertain me...no worries...I get it.
Well I guess if you are willing to wait 60 years for repeal you can repeal a law that 90% of people have no understanding of and that basically directly impacts no one.
When is the government going to shut down already?
I want to see millions of people on food stamps riot when their cards stop working.
What's funny is that stuff keeps going and Republicans take the blame for shutting down national parks and delaying military pay.
Do you plan to address my point or not?I genuinely didn't see your post. You can see that in a few posts up it looks like your description of the event was... misleading at best.
Revisionist history. From the Washington Post:Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan
In 1987, Dems shutdown the government because they wanted to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. So technically you are right, they didn't attempt to repeal legislation...they just wanted to enact it. Not really much difference in my opinion...but I'm sure that you can find some way to justify their actions.
Revisionist history because he didn't list EVERY difference? Seriously? Reagan gave something, and the Dems gave something - although it's worth pointing out that what the Dems gave was actually once again giving government the power to decide who gets free speech on the airwaves. That's something which the left nominally supports except where they do not have the balance of power.Previous government shutdowns
Shutdown #14: I Think You're a Contra
When did it take place? Dec. 18-20, 1987
How long did it last? 1 day
Who was president? Ronald Reagan
Who controlled the Senate? Democrats, 54-46; Robert Byrd was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 258-177; Jim Wright was speaker
Why did it happen? Reagan and congressional Democrats could not agree on funding for the Nicaraguan "Contra" militants in time to avoid a shutdown. Additionally, Democrats pushed for a provision reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine," which required that broadcasters give equal airing to both sides in political disputes, and which the FCC had recently stopped enforcing at the time.
What resolved it? Democrats yielded on the Fairness Doctrine, and a deal was worked out wherein nonlethal aid was provided to the Contras.
One important piece of this puzzle is missing - the squabble isn't about defunding Obamacare, but about delaying it for a year. In other words, the Democrats are standing their ground to avoid granting to all Americans the same protection the bureaucracy routine grants to FOBs, even though they are insisting that this shut-down will end life as we know it.
Note the bolded bit is hyperbole; everyone knows it, and it will NOT make you look smart to point out that Democrats have not (yet) used those exact words.
I doubt it. Generally, the party protects its members so that the people at the forefront of either party are in states and districts where they could be live on air roasting and eating babies without worrying about losing to the other party. Politics is generally self > party > contributors > constituents > country. Where there are significant differences, it is usually just swapping party and contributors.So the Shutdown's a given. How long will it last and what's the next step?
The next major milestone is the 15th, that's when the military get's paid. I doubt congress will let the military go without a paycheck so I suspect a shutdown to end before then. If not the 17th is the debt ceiling deadline, and a compromise must be reached before then to avoid financial Armageddon.
My prediction is a long (week plus) shutdown, with a compromise reached the 2nd week right before the 15th. Part of the reason for such a long shutdown is that there is no room for compromise. One of the parties needs to capitulate, though I can see a random spending cut thrown into the compromise as an attempt to save face. The great fear is the shutdown lasting past the 15th, as then the already high stakes become even higher. Sadly there is no way for this to end with everyone saving face, one section of a party will have to capitulate, this will end the careers of a few people.
Do you plan to address my point or not?
Revisionist history. From the Washington Post:
Revisionist history because he didn't list EVERY difference? Seriously? Reagan gave something, and the Dems gave something - although it's worth pointing out that what the Dems gave was actually once again giving government the power to decide who gets free speech on the airwaves. That's something which the left nominally supports except where they do not have the balance of power.
One important piece of this puzzle is missing - the squabble isn't about defunding Obamacare, but about delaying it for a year. In other words, the Democrats are standing their ground to avoid granting to all Americans the same protection the bureaucracy routine grants to FOBs, even though they are insisting that this shut-down will end life as we know it.
Note the bolded bit is hyperbole; everyone knows it, and it will NOT make you look smart to point out that Democrats have not (yet) used those exact words.
No one is insisting that the government shutdown will have such hyperbolic results. When you see those predictions of catastrophe people are referring to the debt ceiling, which is an entirely different thing.
The Republicans just happen to be behaving similarly recklessly on both, which might account for the confusion.
Delay, not repeal. Republicans have compromised their initial demands to repeal Obamacare. As they should; this is not the correct place for a repeal battle.I'm not entirely sure what your point was, to be honest. You appear to be trying to equate a fight over the exact dollar amount of funding that was being provided to the contras as part of a larger negotiated spending bill (that was itself full of compromises) which led to a weekend shutdown with a unilateral demand for the repeal of a law and no compromises or concessions offered by the other side.
You can't seriously think that's a good argument.
Again, the Democrats are fighting to avoid granting to all Americans the same protection the bureaucracy routine grants to FOBs. Saying that this bill would repeal the ACA is, what's the word . . Oh yeah, lying. Of course, to be fair the bill would also repeal the tax on medical devices (we shall fund health care by raising taxes on, um, health care . . .) and we all know that tax increases are sacred to Democrats.Reuters) - With just hours to go before a midnight deadline to avert a federal government shutdown, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Monday was poised to reject a funding measure that would delay reforms promised in the 2010 healthcare overhaul.
Delay, not repeal. Republicans have compromised their initial demands to repeal Obamacare. As they should; this is not the correct place for a repeal battle.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-idUKBRE98N11220130930
Compromise means offering something in order to get something. What is it that the Republicans are offering in order to get what they want?Delay, not repeal. Republicans have compromised their initial demands to repeal Obamacare. As they should; this is not the correct place for a repeal battle.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-idUKBRE98N11220130930
Again, the Democrats are fighting to avoid granting to all Americans the same protection the bureaucracy routine grants to FOBs. Saying that this bill would repeal the ACA is, what's the word . . Oh yeah, lying. Of course, to be fair the bill would also repeal the tax on medical devices (we shall fund health care by raising taxes on, um, health care . . .) and we all know that tax increases are sacred to Democrats.
Compromise means offering something in order to get something. What is it that the Republicans are offering in order to get what they want?
Yawn. You're not really this dumb. You're just playing dumb to support your partisanship. He omitted the primary, substantive issue, instead fixating on a secondary issue. He did this deliberately to create a false impression that the shutdown was due to something trite.Revisionist history. From the Washington Post:
Revisionist history because he didn't list EVERY difference? Seriously?
This isn't a thread about the Fairness Doctrine. Briefly, it is perfectly reasonable to expect businesses gaining profits from exploiting scarce public resources to somewhat serve the public interest in doing so. Businesses did just that, in fact, for many years. They eventually grew greedy however, and decided they were entitled to those airwaves and even greater profits, the public interest be damned. This mindset was the hallmark of the Reagan era.Reagan gave something, and the Dems gave something - although it's worth pointing out that what the Dems gave was actually once again giving government the power to decide who gets free speech on the airwaves. That's something which the left nominally supports except where they do not have the balance of power.
Yes, we've all heard that propaganda point, parroted endlessly by Republican mouthpieces and their faithful drones. Good job.One important piece of this puzzle is missing - the squabble isn't about defunding Obamacare, but about delaying it for a year. In other words, the Democrats are standing their ground to avoid granting to all Americans the same protection the bureaucracy routine grants to FOBs ...
Compromise means offering something in order to get something. What is it that the Republicans are offering in order to get what they want?
"There has never been an attempt to repeal legislation in this way." - eskimospyI'm not entirely sure what your point was, to be honest. You appear to be trying to equate a fight over the exact dollar amount of funding that was being provided to the contras as part of a larger negotiated spending bill (that was itself full of compromises) which led to a weekend shutdown with a unilateral demand for the repeal of a law and no compromises or concessions offered by the other side.
You can't seriously think that's a good argument.
Debt limit?"There has never been an attempt to repeal legislation in this way." - eskimospy
Yet there was an attempt by Democrats to enact Fair Doctrine legislation in this way back in 1987. There's no real difference in principle as both used the debt limit as hostage in an attempt to change legislation they found especially desirable/undesirable. The fact of the matter is that this tactic was first used by Democrats and this approach is not unprecedented.
"There has never been an attempt to repeal legislation in this way." - eskimospy
Yet there was an attempt by Democrats to enact Fair Doctrine legislation in this way back in 1987. There's no real difference in principle as both used the debt limit as hostage in an attempt to change legislation they found especially desirable/undesirable. The fact of the matter is that this tactic was first used by Democrats and this approach is not unprecedented.
Their compromise is "devoid of all compromise on their part"? Seriously?So now your argument is that they are making a slightly less onerous unilateral demand, devoid of all compromise on their part.
Or wait, is the argument now that if a robber only demands half the money in your wallet that he's compromised?
The Republicans offered to once again authorize bail-out level spending for another year, without a politically embarrasing (to Democrats) budget, AND drop the demand for repealing Obamacare as a compromise to their preferred position of no debt ceiling increase* and repeal of Obamacare. In return, they ask to extend the same delay given to FOBs and a repeal of the medical equipment tax. The Democrats' counter-offer was "give us everything we want because we own the media."Compromise means offering something in order to get something. What is it that the Republicans are offering in order to get what they want?
LOL Repeating the truth is propaganda, but bravely lying your ass off to advance your political agenda is not. Gotcha.Yawn. You're not really this dumb. You're just playing dumb to support your partisanship. He omitted the primary, substantive issue, instead fixating on a secondary issue. He did this deliberately to create a false impression that the shutdown was due to something trite.
This isn't a thread about the Fairness Doctrine. Briefly, it is perfectly reasonable to expect businesses gaining profits from exploiting scarce public resources to somewhat serve the public interest in doing so. Businesses did just that, in fact, for many years. They eventually grew greedy however, and decided they were entitled to those airwaves and even greater profits, the public interest be damned. This mindset was the hallmark of the Reagan era.
Yes, we've all heard that propaganda point, parroted endlessly by Republican mouthpieces and their faithful drones. Good job.
I'll be interested in seeing just how well you stick to that point in two weeks, when the Dems are screaming for a debt ceiling increase and the Pubbies want spending cuts to give it.Right out the door more false information, the debt limit != government shutdown.
Attempting to add additional elements to an ongoing negotiation where both sides are compromising is not the same thing as making unilateral demands. Keep buying their spin, you're just enabling more bad behavior.