Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
38. From the point of view of political strategy, if I were in President Obama's shoes, I would let the
Sun Sep 29, 2013, 04:23 PM
Sep 2013

irresponsible Republicans stop the funding for the government and hold steady. I would wait and reassure people that I was doing everything I could.

Once the public realized what stopping the government means (especially Republicans who are government contractors), I would ask Nancy Pelosi to count the votes among Democrats for a bill funding the government. Once I had that number, and I suspect it would be unanimous, then I would go on TV and get all my surrogates to go on TV and radio and point out loud and clear that if the Republicans abandoned the Hastert Rule and simply brought funding to the floor, Democrats on their own could be within 17 or 18 (at the most) votes of a majority for funding the government. It would be easy to swing 17 Republicans to vote to fund it after a short period of no funding. (Wall Street will be the first to scream.) THE HASTERT RULE IS THE PROBLEM IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY.

It is better for Obama to get this fight about the deficit and debt funding over now rather than later. 2014 is an election year. This issue needs to be decided right now, very soon.

The Republicans want a showdown. They want something dramatic to rally their troops in 2014. President Obama should not give it to them. He should not waiver. Sooner or later the Republicans are going to show off and try to end the government. If not now then in the future.

We are less engaged in combat in the world now than we have been for some years. The economy is very weak, but having the Republican campaign to worsen it continue beyond December would be more detrimental to the economy than just getting the unnecessary pain that these Republican shenanigans will cause over right now.

The Republicans are trying to make a philosophical point -- that we don't need government and would be better off without it. They are completely, utterly, 100% wrong about that. It's time to silence that theory altogether. Let them answer for the damage.

We Democrats need to stand strong behind our president even though the Republicans are very, very determined to destroy his administration.

I do not mean that we cannot criticize the current administration when we think it is wrong. I just mean that we should not encourage the President to try to save the day now. The moral burden and the burden of public relations is on the Republicans. They want headlines. Let them have them. This crisis is totally of their creation. Republicans voted for the budgets throughout the 2000s. They funded the war in Iraq and numerous boondoggle programs around the world. They failed to watch the housing market. The crash occurred on GWB's watch.

Obama should not take upon himself the burden or the pain that will occur when the government funding is slashed for important programs or funding is cut off altogether.

This is not the time to "compromise" unless the Republicans promise not to play this game again especially when the debt ceiling bill needs to come to the floor.

How many more Americans will die due to lack of healthcare, the inability to pay a doctor, if we delay providing broader healthcare coverage one day further?

The Republicans argue that companies will cut the hours of employees if the ACA is implemented. Companies have been moving toward hiring workers part-time and firing at will and frequently for years now.

Our prior employer-provided healthcare system worked because employers retained their employees for years. It was not uncommon for an employee to work for a company for 20-30 years and keep on working there until they reached 65 and went on a pension and Social Security.

The trend toward quick employee overturn and part-time work has been growing for years now. The ACA is RESPONDING to that trend, not causing it. Employers do not suddenly decide to cut back on hours for their employees in the middle of a busy season where there is lots of work to do just to save on healthcare costs. That is absurd.

The Republican arguments are nutty. They do not deserve to be honored with a compromise. The Republicans of today cannot think logically. No, you do not bargain with people who cannot think logically. You cajole them. You trick them. But if you ever had to deal with a person who was truly cracy, you know you cannot argue or bargain with them. The Republicans are truly crazy. They are obsessed with the idea of shutting down the government. Let them do it and let them suffer the result.

Thats some pure awesome right there. bunnies Sep 2013 #1
I like it! nt Zorra Sep 2013 #2
Send that post to the president duffyduff Sep 2013 #3
The ACA is not going to be delayed for a year. n/t PoliticAverse Sep 2013 #4
It's already been delayed FIVE YEARS Warpy Sep 2013 #55
Could for-profit health insurance companies go out of business within that year? MrsKirkley Sep 2013 #5
According to my link he does have the power. Cleita Sep 2013 #6
I posted previously suggesting signing a repeal bill in exchange for Medicare for all. Loudly Sep 2013 #22
It's actually a gray area, but if he does and no court of law Cleita Sep 2013 #23
For-profit insurance can continue as the supplemental Medi-gap business Loudly Sep 2013 #20
Then what happens when they put Medicare on hold, as hostage for the next budget frazzled Sep 2013 #7
They can't do those things unless they revoke the statutes that enable Cleita Sep 2013 #8
Seems to me you might be giving that side more credit for intellect than you need to. calimary Sep 2013 #13
Maybe, but things that affect the populace more directly like Cleita Sep 2013 #15
The law that enables Obamacare is already in force frazzled Sep 2013 #19
I agree with that. We are in perilous times where our Cleita Sep 2013 #21
Agreed 100%. Obama CANNOT cave on this BlueDemKev Sep 2013 #32
If they agree to delay it a year, I will be delayed forever. nt Snotcicles Sep 2013 #56
Yes they are - Cleita Iliyah Sep 2013 #27
The ACA is not going to be delayed for a year. Schema Thing Sep 2013 #9
And mint a couple trillion dollar coins to pay for it. GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #10
There isn't more money needed than will go into the ACA anyway. Cleita Sep 2013 #11
Healthy young people who are working are already paying into Medicare. SheilaT Sep 2013 #34
They are also paying into health care. Cleita Sep 2013 #35
Exactly. SheilaT Sep 2013 #48
I suspect that any increase to pay for it would be lost in the noise margin anyway johnd83 Sep 2013 #12
"Im going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until,,,," Cryptoad Sep 2013 #14
If Obama folded and delayed it for the Republicans AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #16
Then I guess Medicare for all would have to be extended Cleita Sep 2013 #18
Yeah that would be cool AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #49
They would be back in a year with more terrorist threats randr Sep 2013 #17
I think terra, terra has worn out its welcome as a fear tactic. Cleita Sep 2013 #25
That is an absolutely fiendishly brilliant idea. nt Flatulo Sep 2013 #24
Too fiendish I believe for our President, who likes to Cleita Sep 2013 #26
You're right, of course, but one can dream... Flatulo Sep 2013 #31
fantastic idea -- i like. nashville_brook Sep 2013 #28
That's too bold a move for this president Lydia Leftcoast Sep 2013 #29
I don't think so either. I was throwing out a possible option. Cleita Sep 2013 #30
Medicare eligibility is defined by statute. Presidents don't rule by fiat. tritsofme Sep 2013 #33
Actually the executive order strategy was touted as far back as 2009 by Cleita Sep 2013 #36
That would be completely lawless. The president does not get to unilaterally rewrite tritsofme Sep 2013 #39
Actually there is a lot of opinion about it out there that Cleita Sep 2013 #41
This isn't just us disagreeing. You are either misremembering tritsofme Sep 2013 #43
I said you are entitled to your opinion. Cleita Sep 2013 #46
And you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. tritsofme Sep 2013 #50
It is possible just unlikely and I recognize that. Cleita Sep 2013 #51
Yes, it would be possible to issue that order, or any order, but it would be unlawful. tritsofme Sep 2013 #52
Did even he try to make one that contradicted statutory law? treestar Sep 2013 #57
Never negotiate with terrorists. Rex Sep 2013 #37
If only we could get HS to start treating them as such. Cleita Sep 2013 #47
From the point of view of political strategy, if I were in President Obama's shoes, I would let the JDPriestly Sep 2013 #38
I totally agree with you, however, with Harry Reid and Pres. Obama's Cleita Sep 2013 #40
Thanks. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #44
I was going to propose writing in the public option... Barack_America Sep 2013 #42
Mine would amount to a public option because it would be a buy Cleita Sep 2013 #45
The ACA allows people to be registered to vote at the same time as they apply for coverage. PDJane Sep 2013 #53
Although your idea is awesome, truedelphi Sep 2013 #54
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the ACA is delayed a y...»Reply #38