The bargaining advantage of not caring

[PokerGuy]

You / the author of that blog might think something is more symbolic while something else is more policy, but in reality they are intertwined and can not be separated. If one side thinks a certain policy is a bad one, then there's no point in haggling over how much of that policy to enact since it's a bad one to begin with. That logic holds no matter which side of the fence you're on.

 

[fskimospy]

You / the author of that blog might think something is more symbolic while something else is more policy, but in reality they are intertwined and can not be separated. If one side thinks a certain policy is a bad one, then there's no point in haggling over how much of that policy to enact since it's a bad one to begin with. That logic holds no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

You do realize that what you are saying has no point happens every single day in every single country on the planet, right? Your logic gets violated an awful lot.

 

[ShawnD1]

You / the author of that blog might think something is more symbolic while something else is more policy, but in reality they are intertwined and can not be separated. If one side thinks a certain policy is a bad one, then there's no point in haggling over how much of that policy to enact since it's a bad one to begin with. That logic holds no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Pretty much this. The republicans aren't a bunch of idiots who stonewall the democrats just to be dicks. If democrats are trying to expand the role of government in a way that is against republican ideology, then it's the responsibility of republicans to stop it and not make any compromises.

Earlier it was mentioned that it's more common for democrats to agree with republicans than for republicans to agree with democrats. Think about why that might be. The republicans generally want to do as little as possible. When they want to get things done, it's often something democrats would want as well such as invading a country that supports terrorism (Afghanistan) or trying to build some kind of centralized network so police in different cities can check each others records. These are things that involve the government taking some kind of action, which is something democrats would support.
When democrats throw out ideas, some of them are things like Afghanistan, but a lot of them are social programs. School lunches? That's against republican ideology because it's too much socialism. Increase welfare? That's against republican ideology.

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty much this. The republicans aren't a bunch of idiots who stonewall the democrats just to be dicks. If democrats are trying to expand the role of government in a way that is against republican ideology, then it's the responsibility of republicans to stop it and not make any compromises.

Earlier it was mentioned that it's more common for democrats to agree with republicans than for republicans to agree with democrats. Think about why that might be. The republicans generally want to do as little as possible. When they want to get things done, it's often something democrats would want as well such as invading a country that supports terrorism (Afghanistan) or trying to build some kind of centralized network so police in different cities can check each others records. These are things that involve the government taking some kind of action, which is something democrats would support.
When democrats throw out ideas, some of them are things like Afghanistan, but a lot of them are social programs. School lunches? That's against republican ideology because it's too much socialism. Increase welfare? That's against republican ideology.

Uhmmmm, most of that is exactly my point. It gives them a bargaining advantage because they don't have a preferred policy. They have no need to compromise.

That is except for the idea that most of the things Republicans want to do Democrats want to do as well, that's not really accurate.

 

[PokerGuy]

Uhmmmm, most of that is exactly my point. It gives them a bargaining advantage because they don't have a preferred policy. They have no need to compromise.

That is except for the idea that most of the things Republicans want to do Democrats want to do as well, that's not really accurate.

They DO have a preferred policy, it is "don't screw things up further!". That's both a policy and ideology.

 

[fskimospy]

They DO have a preferred policy, it is "don't screw things up further!". That's both a policy and ideology.

 

[Fern]

Actually the framework was very similar to conservative ideas in the 90s in theory and later in practice with Romney care.
-snip-

I keep seeing this repeated by the left (boy, do they take to their talking points).

First, it wasn't a "conservative idea". IIRC, It was a proposal a few Repubs came up with to counter Hillary Care in 1993. It was not popular among the Repubs as a whole from what I read. It didn't go anywhere.

If the Repubs didn't support it back when some of their own proposed it, I don't see why they should now accept something somewhat similar by the Dems.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

I keep seeing this repeated by the left (boy, do they take to their talking points).

First, it wasn't a "conservative idea". IIRC, It was a proposal a few Repubs came up with to counter Hillary Care in 1993. It was not popular among the Repubs as a whole from what I read. It didn't go anywhere.

If the Repubs didn't support it back when some of their own proposed it, I don't see why they should now accept something somewhat similar by the Dems.

Fern

No, no, you have it all wrong! Republicans fully supported the legislation very similar to what eventually got passed as Obamacare. They supported it so much that it got fast-tracked.... right into the garbage can where it belonged. Sadly it got picked up from that garbage bin and passed in 2010. Guess it should have been incinerated to be sure.....

 

[fskimospy]

I keep seeing this repeated by the left (boy, do they take to their talking points).

First, it wasn't a "conservative idea". IIRC, It was a proposal a few Repubs came up with to counter Hillary Care in 1993. It was not popular among the Repubs as a whole from what I read. It didn't go anywhere.

If the Repubs didn't support it back when some of their own proposed it, I don't see why they should now accept something somewhat similar by the Dems.

Fern

What our good friend Fern means by 'a couple' is that it was a bill put out by a Republican and cosponsored by almost half the Republican caucus in the Senate. I frequently describe bills directly sponsored by half a party's caucus as 'not popular' too.

Also definitely not a 'conservative idea'. Nahhhhh.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

 

[Fern]

You missed werepossum's point that if one party desires no change while the other desires change, compromise means that eventually one party gets everything they want while the other party gets nothing.

The sort of incrementalism you allude to above was brought up by Obama in his speech yesterday.

Obama spoke of how social security intially only covered old widows and orphans, then pointed out how "see, we eventually got it where we wanted".

His strategy was on full display.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I see an awful lot of agitation by the Dems over extending the tax breaks to those making $250K or more (somehow they prefer to keep referring to billionaires etc).

Ezra Klein reports that the extension of cuts to those people 'costs' $130 billion. The whole package is $900B (IIRC).

So the Dems are ready to go all out fighting against passage over about 15%?

Right, tell me again who is 'ideological'?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I see an awful lot of agitation by the Dems over extending the tax breaks to those making $250K or more (somehow they prefer to keep referring to billionaires etc).

Ezra Klein reports that the extension of cuts to those people 'costs' $130 billion. The whole package is $900B (IIRC).

So the Dems are ready to go all out fighting against passage over about 15%?

Right, tell me again who is 'ideological'?

Fern

You realize that in your example the Democrats compromised and gave in to the Republicans because they refused to budge, right?

Nice self ownage.

 

[Fern]

You realize that in your example the Democrats compromised and gave in to the Republicans because they refused to budge, right?

Nice self ownage.

WTH?

Of course the Repubs budged. They agreed to several (quite expensive) things Obama specifically wanted.

But the whole point is that the Dems don't look to be compromising; Obama did. A bunch of Dems are claiming they will stop this.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

WTH?

Of course the Repubs budged. They agreed to several (quite expensive) things Obama specifically wanted.

But the whole point is that the Dems don't look to be compromising; Obama did. A bunch of Dems are claiming they will stop this.

Fern

Sure they will.

 

[PokerGuy]

You realize that in your example the Democrats compromised and gave in to the Republicans because they refused to budge, right?

Nice self ownage.

You still have not shown how policy in that case is different than ideology. The repubs wanted the tax cuts to remain for all, both as a matter of ideology and as a matter of policy. They were not willing to compromise on that. The democrats wanted to raise taxes on one group as a matter of ideology and as a matter of policy. In the end, they gave that up to get something else. So both sides did the same. The only reason you think they are different is because you're a democrat.

 

[fskimospy]

You still have not shown how policy in that case is different than ideology. The repubs wanted the tax cuts to remain for all, both as a matter of ideology and as a matter of policy. They were not willing to compromise on that. The democrats wanted to raise taxes on one group as a matter of ideology and as a matter of policy. In the end, they gave that up to get something else. So both sides did the same. The only reason you think they are different is because you're a democrat.

I'm not a democrat, first of all.

Second of all, I don't know how to explain it to you any more clearly. Ideology directs your policy preferences, policy that actually is implemented reflects much more than that.

 

[Fern]

Sure they will.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not.

But acording to many reports Bernie Sanders has said he'll do everything in his power to stop this. As a Senator he can stop it. He can do a "pocket veto". He only need do so for a weeks.

There is also opposition in the House.

Last night there were many reports that this compromise, as outlined by Obama, won't pass either chamber without additional 'goodies' from each.

I don't know what will happen, but I think it clear there is much ideological opposition from Dems. E.g., Mary Landriu (sp?) and others have called the extension for 'rich' "morally outrageous".

If you wanna see boatloads of moral outrage or ideological opposition watch Left commentators such as Olbermann or Maddow.

Fern

 

[Phokus]

Pretty much this. The republicans aren't a bunch of idiots who stonewall the democrats just to be dicks. If democrats are trying to expand the role of government in a way that is against republican ideology, then it's the responsibility of republicans to stop it and not make any compromises.

Are you on crack? That's exactly why they do it. They don't really care about the 'big government/little government' thing, they mostly care about being in power. If they're out of power, of course they're going to be for 'small government'. That's because the inbred yokels in the red states want it so they have to be on message.

The contradiction is, those same inbred yokels also love big government when it directly benefits them (see: Agricultural subsidies, military spending, medicare, etc. etc. etc.) so you'll see Republicans touting big government programs (see: Tea Party darling Rand Paul and his love of medicare and agricultural subsidies).

The really masterful repbulicans are the ones that scream about 'limited government', while at the same time go about pork barrel spending without repercussions (see: ron paul).

Did you completely ignore the Bush administration or something?

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not.

But acording to many reports Bernie Sanders has said he'll do everything in his power to stop this. As a Senator he can stop it. He can do a "pocket veto". He only need do so for a weeks.

There is also opposition in the House.

Last night there were many reports that this compromise, as outlined by Obama, won't pass either chamber without additional 'goodies' from each.

I don't know what will happen, but I think it clear there is much ideological opposition from Dems. E.g., Mary Landriu (sp?) and others have called the extension for 'rich' "morally outrageous".

If you wanna see boatloads of moral outrage or ideological opposition watch Left commentators such as Olbermann or Maddow.

Fern

Shockingly enough, this was not meant to be an ironclad rule to apply to every person who is a leftist commentator or an independent socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. What's funny is that the situation you are mentioning means that the Democrats are looking to bargain for more policy concessions before they sign onto it... exactly my point.

Being more policy oriented doesn't mean that you never oppose anything ever, it just means that crafting policy is the important part to you. This should be obvious.

 

[werepossum]

You realize that in your example the Democrats compromised and gave in to the Republicans because they refused to budge, right?

Nice self ownage.

The Republicans refused to budge? Just off the top of my head:

Pubbies want the tax cuts made permanent.
Pubbies want the unemployment extension paid for from unspent stimulus money.
Pubbies want NO death tax.
Pubbies did not want (or at least, were not asking for) the payroll tax cuts.

Dems want tax cuts not extended for those earning over $180,000 or $225,000 for couples.
Dems want death tax for all evil rich, back at Clinton-era 55%. (Which, just to make a point, is far heavier than the heriot most unfree serfs' estates paid to their owner lords upon their deaths.)

And your read is that Democrats bravely compromised for their policy whilst Republicans "refused to budge" from their ideology?

Surely you are blushing at your own dishonesty/partisan myopia right now.

Oh wait, I forgot. Progressives craft reality with your very utterances.

 

[Jhhnn]

A big part of this process is that Democrats want to fundamentally change the country, whereas Republicans only want to tweak it. Half of the Democrat agenda on many issues equals all the Democrat agenda in time, due to incrementalism, so the Pubbies have no reason to compromise. Kind of like the men proposing that we rape all the women, whereas the women propose that no women be raped and the men agree to rape only the cute women. While it's technically compromise, it's a total win for the men.

That's lame.

Repubs have set out to fundamentally change America, and they have. Income has been shifted tremendously to the top over the last 30 years and industry offshored to help provide for that. Top tier tax cuts enable it as well, as does lack of effective financial regulation.

Our current malaise isn't an accident, but rather the deliberate result of their policies.

Now they just want to keep the rudder set and the sails trimmed to keep going in the same direction.

They're holding the economy and govt. hostage to those ends.