If Obama and Reid hang tough on this repubican brinksmanship . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . . it will go miles toward restoring their standing among those of us for whom it started eroding in the early days when they ignored single payer advocates and went to the already-booked-and-approved Romneycare that finally made it into law. While a really piss-poor excuse for a health care financing plan, it is better than what we had. It is the kind of plan that, with time, can grow to be what we really need. Yes, it could have been much closer to ideal than it is, but it is a damn sight better than nothing.

The repubs and teabaggers are opposing this because they can. This is, after all, the plan their own Heritage Foundation devised decades ago. It isn't the plan, per se, they oppose. It is Obama, specifically, liberals in general, and any sort of social(ist) safety net expansion.

Well, I say fuck 'em. Just plain fuck every last one of 'em. Let the showdown happen. This is now just a matter of team sports. There will be an aftermath, to be sure. But right now, it is blink vs win.

Go Team.

[The Magistrate]

1. True, Sir: If The Stand Is Not Made Now, It Will Never Be

"This war was got up drunk, but will have to be settled sober."

[Doctor_J]

15. Correct, Magistrate

This is the president's last real chance to get the country back from the teabaggers. If he gives in again, it will be all over for him.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Your quote is apropos of reports of booze-sodden congress-critters leaving the House floor. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. "A Stand" ? ...

Having read (and respecting, if not agreeing with) just about every post that you have posted (and that I have seen), I'm surprised that you would be calling for a "Stand."

I would have though that you would reject that false bravado sh!t and consider what is on the table for a deal. After all, isn't that what governing is all about?

[The Magistrate]

30. No Deal, Sir: They Capitulate Or Face The Consquences Of What They Have Done To The Country

There is nothing on the table but extortionate demands to set aside the normal processes of democracy in favor of a treasonous and treacherous rabble, a deranged and deluded minority of people who are, at bottom, rotten through with selfishness and unwarranted pride.

"Republicans are people: mean, selfish, cruel, vicious, evil people."

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. I agree ...

I agree about what is currently on the table; but "no deaj" means no deal ... not even if the gop offered to allow medicare for all to replace ObamaCare as a condition to raise the ceiling. Not that that will be offered, but the we cannot have the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[grahamhgreen]

36. ROFL. Sure. But what he'll offer is the slow dismantling if all the good items in the ACA, until

We are left with nothing but a mandate to buy crapsurance from private companies.

At least, that's what I've seen as the plan from its inception:

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. More predictive speculation ...

that has yet to occur.

[CreekDog]

49. what's the deal that's on the table?

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. There probably are several ...

regarding ACA ... none of which that involve de-funding or delaying the ACA, President Obama will go for.

[CreekDog]

55. there "probably are several" --that's weak

you have no idea what you're talking about and dozens in this thread have pointed that out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Okay ...

whatever; but I'd suggest you re-read the thread. Here ... I'll save you the effort.

I suppose your "What deal is on the table" question was prompted by my response to Magistrate, here:

Having read (and respecting, if not agreeing with) just about every post that you have posted (and that I have seen), I'm surprised that you would be calling for a "Stand."

I would have though that you would reject that false bravado sh!t and consider what is on the table for a deal. After all, isn't that what governing is all about?

I think most people would recognize that I was not speaking to any specific "deal" being on the table; but rather, that it is foolish to reject any and all offers, out of hand, no matter how advantageous, just to take a "stand." That is "false bravado sh!t." And made clear in my second response to The Magistrate, when I responded, thusly:

I agree about what is currently on the table; but "no deaj" means no deal ... not even if the gop offered to allow medicare for all to replace ObamaCare as a condition to raise the ceiling. Not that that will be offered, but the we cannot have the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Apparently, you missed that point (or read what you wanted to read); but those "dozens in this thread (that) have pointed that out" did not, since no one, other than you, have asked "what deal?"

Now ... do you actually believe that there are no other deals on the table, other than de-fund or delay ObamaCare? That is either really naive; or ... really, really naive.

[Scuba]

32. No, giving in to terrorist demands is not "governance". Where would you get such an idea?

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. I know that's the phrase that pays ...

but governance is not taking a deal with the devil; but it is being willing to listen to and consider any and all proposals. You/we are free to reject the B.S., that admittedly is more than less these days; but governance requires negotiation and daresay I compromise.

[Scuba]

41. I'm good with compromise. But what have the Republicans EVER given up in compromise?

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Well ...

We did get:

The end to DADT, SALT, the end of DOMA, U/C extensions, changes to the tax code ... that preserved the cuts for the middle-class, and a bunch of other stuff.

[Scuba]

45. That's some good spin. You must be in PR.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. No ...

Just the reality based world.

[CreekDog]

50. You said there's a deal on the table...you aren't based in reality

everyone you're arguing with is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Please go back and read the thread ...

it'll save you the embarassment of my having to point out the error of your ways.

[pnwmom]

2. I agree. The best choice is to stand firm. If we don't,

they'll just be empowered for the next time, whether two months or a year from now.

[truedelphi]

4. The Democrats in leadership positons standing firm -

May I live to see that day!

Hopefully sooner rather than later.

[truedelphi]

3. The Prez could take over the entire situation -

As DU'er Markpkessinger remarked yesterday:
"What the Constitution is clear about, however, as per the 14th Amendment, that "the validity of the public debt of the United States , , , shall not be questioned.

"Therefore, the President, pursuant to his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and as a matter of national security, should instruct the Dept. of the Treasury to simply ignore the debt ceiling and continue to fund the operation and debt obligations of the government. Protecting the country from the willful infliction of harm by a minority faction would be a perfectly valid and legitimate legal defense for the President in the impeachment effort that would surely follow (and would just as surely fail)."

[Stinky The Clown]

5. That would be in the aftermath alluded to in the OP.

And I think it is the right thing to do. We, as a country, have had this discussion quite recently, actually.

[truedelphi]

11. It really truly would be the right thing to do,

With all credit on that thinking going to DU'er MarkpKessinger. (I am just the messenger of his thoughts on the matter.)

[pnwmom]

6. That appears to be the best solution to me, too. Of course,

the Rethugs will then impeach him, but the Senate will not convict.

Or they might try to take it to the Supreme Court, but I don't see how they will have standing to sue. How can any of them claim a personal injury from the U.S. having to honor its debts?

[truedelphi]

9. As far as SCOTUS, it would come down to

Roberts once again. But of course, if the Senate wouldn't allow an impeachment, (And hopefully the Dems in the Senate would grow a backbone on this) it couldn't go to SCOTUS anyway?

I mean, how was it that the SCOTUS decision was as it was, regarding allowing to disallow the full count of Al Gore's voting? That decision was so convoluted, a friend who understood it fully wrote out a seven page diatribe on the inconsistencies etc of the ruling. And then of course, the SCOTUS members acted as though no one needed to evaluate the ruling at all, as it was also ruled that the ruling could not establish a precedent!

[cui bono]

38. It should happen. Can you imagine every single Dem since Clinton getting impeached from now on?

That might actually be excellent.

History would show that, at least in Obama's case, it was because he stood up for the good of his country. In Clinton's case it's obvious it was a witch hunt type scenario. In the long run it can only make Republicans look like the vicious thugs they are.

[Doctor_J]

16. I don't see this president doing that

He simply doesn't stand up to Republicans. But here's hoping

[Brigid]

19. And this is exactly what the President should say . . .

When he goes on the TV machine to address the nation about this.

[jeff47]

28. That's actually a bit of a stretch.

One could argue that the Treasury is still forbidden from issuing new debt for general spending. So if we're utterly literal, we could argue that this only allows debt payments and not any other spending.

There's a much, much simpler argument to make: Congress passed two contradictory laws. Law 1 says "Spend this much". Law 2 says "Don't issue more than this much debt". You can't follow law 1 without violating law 2 and vice-versa.

When this has happened in the past, the President notified Congress which law would be enforced, and requested that Congress "clarify" the situation. Obama could do the same - the laws are in conflict, so he can ignore the debt limit until Congress either cuts spending to comply with it, or raises the limit.

That being said, there's absolutely zero reason for Obama to step in and save the teabaggers from themselves at this time. It's better to have tons and tons of media coverage talking about the teabaggers being utterly unable to handle the most basic aspects of governing. Otherwise, they would just grandstand and let Obama avoid the consequences for them. The consequences need to remain "real" until they would actually cause damage.

So I don't think we will see a work-around from the administration up until the debt limit is actually reached. Then we'll get something like I mentioned above, the $1 trillion coin, or the 14th Amendment to ignore the debt limit.

[Igel]

29. With one added point.

They've been doing it for years so there's a very strong precedent on how to resolve the ipasse. Obama, as a Senator, participated in the same interpretation that he'd be arguing against with nary a chirp against it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Damn straight.

Give that orange-faced crybaby something real to cry about.

[MoonRiver]

8. Obama must go to the mat on this.

If he doesn't the tea crazies will effectively control the rest of his presidency.

[Dragonfli]

10. I fully agree! However I feel that is one very big IF considering the past history

of both Reid and Obama concerning hanging tough against Republicans. Perhaps Reid will write a letter without the word "please" in it to show the continued courage that has been the trademark of his leadership.

Hoping to be surprised this time!

[truedelphi]

13. Same here, Dragonfli.

Fingers fully crossed, toe-sies too.

But I am not holding my breath.

[cui bono]

39. Yep. I can't remember how close it got last time though.

Did it come so close to the wire? Or did the Dems cave sooner than this?

[NuclearDem]

12. That would require having a spine

And most elected Democrats have them surgically removed after the primaries.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Let them shut the shit down. Maybe it won't turn all those teabag gerrymandered districts blue

next year, but it will certainly flip some of them.

[DonCoquixote]

17. They need to hang tough

or else people will think the democrats are dead. Also, people will know who to blame for this, as the teabaggers will scream it from high heaven, like a murderer that says "damn right I did it, here is the smoking gun, and I will do it again!"

[B Calm]

18. It would be refreshing to see some backbone for a change.

[Mr.Bill]

20. The Republicans will back down.

Everything they've done says they are cowards. It is they that have no spine.

[Phlem]

22. Spot on but

I'll wait and see.



-p

[Coyotl]

23. Extortion is NOT "brinkmanship" but rather a form of suicidal terrorism. I say "Please Proceed."

[The Wizard]

24. A lesson from a fictional character

Michael Corleone: "My offer is this Senator, nothing."
The Republican Party must be framed as unreasonable, radical, extremist anti American terrorists and extortionists. They should be brought up on federal charges of sedition and treason. Throw the fucking book at them and let them spend the rest of their lives defending their crimes in court. In other words, use the powers invested in the Justice Department to back them into a corner and spend their resources trying to get out. Start with Rove and Murdoch.

[Skittles]

25. THANK YOU

IT WILL INDEED

[Cryptoad]

26. You overlook a historic fact

while there where many of us wanting a single payer, including myself, there were not enough votes in the Senate to pass it..... we barely passed ACA. If The President had insisted on a single payers we would have nothing ,,, and a good chance of Romney now being Prez.

Single Payer is coming,,,,, but we have to elected more and more democrats on all levels of government!

WE must continue to get off our asses and pound the Streets!

[Aeroette]

52. +1 n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

57. You overlook a historical fact.

Single payer advocates were never given a seat at the table. In fact they were shoved away from the doorway and told to stay away.

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. And it would set a precedent. K&R. n/t

[blue14u]

33. Stand our ground!!

I have been able to be happy with TPOTUS for weeks now!

I like this man that has come out fighting for ACA. I'm also proud

of him for listening to us Dem's when we were screaming "NO WAR"...

Please Mr. President... don't back down now. I am proud to have you

out there banging on the pulpit and making noise to keep your promises.

I have been disappointed in the past with some of the things you let get by you,

I will admit.

I like seeing you stand strong with the "LEFT" and thank you for doing so..

Keep up the good work, we need you and count on you to have a voice for us.

If we loose this time, I am afraid for the future of the Democratic left.

[TBF]

35. Agree 100% K&R nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

44. I hope you're not one of those who stayed home in 2010 because you didn't get single payer.

If you were you're in part to blame for the gerrymandering that's given us the GOP House we have today.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. Don't lecture me, Bro

I'm yo daddy.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

48. Doubt that.

I'm 56. My daddy died over 30 years ago.

[Laelth]

51. Sadly, I agree.

At this point, I too must say, "Go Team!"

(and I hate thinking of politics as a team sport)

-Laelth