GOP Has Had the Opportunity for Budget Negotiations...

[J.E.D]

....they have just refused to come to the table.

GOP Wants Budget Conference It Has Blocked For Last Six Months To Undo Shutdown

House Republicans have had an opportunity to conference with the Senate since April. That’s when lawmakers in the Senate, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), passed a budget and opened the door to create a committee to hash out the differences between that bill and the House budget, which it passed in March. Republicans had made the lack of a Democratic Senate budget a talking point for three years, arguing that Congress should return to “regular order” by passing budgets in both chambers and conferencing to work out the differences. Yet after the Senate passed a bill and the opportunity to do so became real, Senate Republicans blocked Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) from creating a conference committee.

In the months after that, those Republicans blocked 18 separate attempts to go to a budget conference with the House.

Republicans have offered a variety of excuses for not wanting to go to conference on the Senate Democratic budget bill. They have cited the need to work out rules, the requirement that a “framework” be worked out before heading into negotiations (which would likely be setting up a deal that cuts spending without raising any new revenue), and the demand that conferees be barred from addressing the need to raise the debt ceiling, which will need to be lifted in mid-October, claiming they are “preventing a back room deal to raise the debt limit.”

After they passed on the opportunity to proceed to regular order and a budget conference, Republicans began making demands in order to continue funding the government, starting with defunding the Affordable Care Act. That was just the latest in a series of demands the party has made in exchange for either keeping the government open and operational or raising the debt ceiling so that the country doesn’t default on its debt.

 

[J.E.D]

 

[idb]

An Inconvenient Truth

 

[Seawytch]

Gee, I am so shocked that nobody from the right wants to comment on this. Its just like the threads pointing out that the GOP planned this shutdown for months. Like idb said...inconvenient truth.

 

[rightwinger]

Because of the TeaTards, the GOP is unable to seriously negotiate unless they are in a crisis

Welcome to the new GOP

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every day the GOP does not accept its defeat on ACA and the budget makes Christie look even better in NJ race.

This fiasco has destroyed the TeaP and enhanced Christie.

 

[Seawytch]

What? Still no righties willing to defend their GOP for engineering and orchestrating the shutdown back in April? Shocking...

 

[Jarhead]

What? Still no righties willing to defend their GOP for engineering and orchestrating the shutdown back in April? Shocking...

One can not defend the indefensible. If, in fact, what you say is true, I can not defend it and I wont try to defend it. Do I believe it? To be frank, there seems to be evidence that it is true; but I don't consider it overwhelming evidence.

Now...before you say "not overwhelming!!!!".....it seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence that the IRS DID scrutinize and stall tea party organizations....but the left seems to think there is absolutely no evidence.

So it is quite obvious that we all read into things the way we want them to read.

I respect the way you see things. I expect the same respect in return.

 

[Seawytch]

What? Still no righties willing to defend their GOP for engineering and orchestrating the shutdown back in April? Shocking...

One can not defend the indefensible. If, in fact, what you say is true, I can not defend it and I wont try to defend it. Do I believe it? To be frank, there seems to be evidence that it is true; but I don't consider it overwhelming evidence.

Now...before you say "not overwhelming!!!!".....it seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence that the IRS DID scrutinize and stall tea party organizations....but the left seems to think there is absolutely no evidence.

So it is quite obvious that we all read into things the way we want them to read.

I respect the way you see things. I expect the same respect in return.

John McCain Blames Tea Party For Government Shutdown

A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning

Nunes calls fellow House Republicans ‘Lemmings with suicide vests’

I'd say the evidence is pretty "overwhelming".

The IRS targeted liberal groups too...in fact, the only groups that got denied were liberal groups. The IRS should be targeting ALL politically leaning non profits. It's against the rules. I don't like profiling...you either do it to all or none.

Sheriff Joe Arpio targets much more than the IRS but no one on the right will criticize him.

 

[Jarhead]

What? Still no righties willing to defend their GOP for engineering and orchestrating the shutdown back in April? Shocking...

One can not defend the indefensible. If, in fact, what you say is true, I can not defend it and I wont try to defend it. Do I believe it? To be frank, there seems to be evidence that it is true; but I don't consider it overwhelming evidence.

Now...before you say "not overwhelming!!!!".....it seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence that the IRS DID scrutinize and stall tea party organizations....but the left seems to think there is absolutely no evidence.

So it is quite obvious that we all read into things the way we want them to read.

I respect the way you see things. I expect the same respect in return.

John McCain Blames Tea Party For Government Shutdown

A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning

Nunes calls fellow House Republicans ‘Lemmings with suicide vests’

I'd say the evidence is pretty "overwhelming".

The IRS targeted liberal groups too...in fact, the only groups that got denied were liberal groups. The IRS should be targeting ALL politically leaning non profits. It's against the rules. I don't like profiling...you either do it to all or none.

Sheriff Joe Arpio targets much more than the IRS but no one on the right will criticize him.

Uh...excuse me.....just to show you how you fell for the rhetoric....

Yes...the IRS targeted liberal groups too.

I agree.

Of course they did. The department in question was developed to target ALL non profit groups that may have political affiliation.

The scandal has nothing to do with targeting.....for that was the role of that department.

The scandal had to do with the results of the targeting.

None of the tea party/conservative groups received answers. They continually got questioned for as long as 3 years.

Why is that an issue?

Because they couldn't do anything. They had to remain stagnant until they got a FINAL response.

It is better to be denied and allowed to make the adjustments necessary to be accepted than to receive no answer at all.

Justice delayed IS justice denied.

See? You fell for the rhetoric.

 

[Seawytch]

One can not defend the indefensible. If, in fact, what you say is true, I can not defend it and I wont try to defend it. Do I believe it? To be frank, there seems to be evidence that it is true; but I don't consider it overwhelming evidence.

Now...before you say "not overwhelming!!!!".....it seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence that the IRS DID scrutinize and stall tea party organizations....but the left seems to think there is absolutely no evidence.

So it is quite obvious that we all read into things the way we want them to read.

I respect the way you see things. I expect the same respect in return.

John McCain Blames Tea Party For Government Shutdown

A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning

Nunes calls fellow House Republicans ‘Lemmings with suicide vests’

I'd say the evidence is pretty "overwhelming".

The IRS targeted liberal groups too...in fact, the only groups that got denied were liberal groups. The IRS should be targeting ALL politically leaning non profits. It's against the rules. I don't like profiling...you either do it to all or none.

Sheriff Joe Arpio targets much more than the IRS but no one on the right will criticize him.

Uh...excuse me.....just to show you how you fell for the rhetoric....

Yes...the IRS targeted liberal groups too.

I agree.

Of course they did. The department in question was developed to target ALL non profit groups that may have political affiliation.

The scandal has nothing to do with targeting.....for that was the role of that department.

The scandal had to do with the results of the targeting.

None of the tea party/conservative groups received answers. They continually got questioned for as long as 3 years.

Why is that an issue?

Because they couldn't do anything. They had to remain stagnant until they got a FINAL response.

It is better to be denied and allowed to make the adjustments necessary to be accepted than to receive no answer at all.

Justice delayed IS justice denied.

See? You fell for the rhetoric.

Why are you trying to change the subject? Start yet another thread about the terrible IRS...but don't forget the IRS targeting that went on in previous administrations.

Profiling is bad. Targeting is bad. Non profits engaging in political activities is bad.

Now, want to talk about the hostage situation the GOP put the country in?

BOEHNER: It's about having a conversation. I gave the Senate majority leader some advice at the White House about how to proceed. I gave him some advice over a week ago about how to avert this. And yet they refuse to do it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Mr. Speaker, he says -- and he said it publicly on many occasions, that you came to him back in July and offered to pass a clean government funding resolution, no Obamacare amendments, that was $70 billion below what the Senate wanted. They accepted it. And now, you've reneged on that offer.

BOEHNER: No, clearly there was a conversation about doing this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several conversations.

BOEHNER: Several. But--

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you offered a clean resolution.

BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you decide it or was it decided for you?​

 

[Jarhead]

John McCain Blames Tea Party For Government Shutdown

A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning

Nunes calls fellow House Republicans ‘Lemmings with suicide vests’

I'd say the evidence is pretty "overwhelming".

The IRS targeted liberal groups too...in fact, the only groups that got denied were liberal groups. The IRS should be targeting ALL politically leaning non profits. It's against the rules. I don't like profiling...you either do it to all or none.

Sheriff Joe Arpio targets much more than the IRS but no one on the right will criticize him.

Uh...excuse me.....just to show you how you fell for the rhetoric....

Yes...the IRS targeted liberal groups too.

I agree.

Of course they did. The department in question was developed to target ALL non profit groups that may have political affiliation.

The scandal has nothing to do with targeting.....for that was the role of that department.

The scandal had to do with the results of the targeting.

None of the tea party/conservative groups received answers. They continually got questioned for as long as 3 years.

Why is that an issue?

Because they couldn't do anything. They had to remain stagnant until they got a FINAL response.

It is better to be denied and allowed to make the adjustments necessary to be accepted than to receive no answer at all.

Justice delayed IS justice denied.

See? You fell for the rhetoric.

Why are you trying to change the subject? Start yet another thread about the terrible IRS...but don't forget the IRS targeting that went on in previous administrations.

Profiling is bad. Targeting is bad. Non profits engaging in political activities is bad.

Now, want to talk about the hostage situation the GOP put the country in?

BOEHNER: It's about having a conversation. I gave the Senate majority leader some advice at the White House about how to proceed. I gave him some advice over a week ago about how to avert this. And yet they refuse to do it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Mr. Speaker, he says -- and he said it publicly on many occasions, that you came to him back in July and offered to pass a clean government funding resolution, no Obamacare amendments, that was $70 billion below what the Senate wanted. They accepted it. And now, you've reneged on that offer.

BOEHNER: No, clearly there was a conversation about doing this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several conversations.

BOEHNER: Several. But--

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you offered a clean resolution.

BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you decide it or was it decided for you?​

I brought up the IRS to show you how 2 sides will always see something differently...no matter how obvious it seems to each side.

You then showed me how what I see as obvious "is not obvious"...

So I showed you how what seemed "obvious" to you was due to the use of rhetoric and semantics by supporters of the left.

Threads drift all the time on here...and you know it.

Furthermore, I admitted that it is indefensible if, in fact what you claim is true. However, I don't see it as "obvious". The dialogue you just posted between Stephanopoulos can be interpreted more than one way. I don't see it as a "ploy".....I see it as "coming to a realization"....

Now, that being said, did you notice how the rhetoric and semantics had you see the IRS situation as a non issue?

Do you deny that it is inappropriate to give progressive groups 30-90 day turnaround giving them a chance to make adjustments and not giving right leaning organizations the same courtesy?

Would it not bother you if the tables were turned?

 

[martybegan]

....they have just refused to come to the table.

GOP Wants Budget Conference It Has Blocked For Last Six Months To Undo Shutdown

House Republicans have had an opportunity to conference with the Senate since April. That’s when lawmakers in the Senate, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), passed a budget and opened the door to create a committee to hash out the differences between that bill and the House budget, which it passed in March. Republicans had made the lack of a Democratic Senate budget a talking point for three years, arguing that Congress should return to “regular order” by passing budgets in both chambers and conferencing to work out the differences. Yet after the Senate passed a bill and the opportunity to do so became real, Senate Republicans blocked Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) from creating a conference committee.

In the months after that, those Republicans blocked 18 separate attempts to go to a budget conference with the House.

Republicans have offered a variety of excuses for not wanting to go to conference on the Senate Democratic budget bill. They have cited the need to work out rules, the requirement that a “framework” be worked out before heading into negotiations (which would likely be setting up a deal that cuts spending without raising any new revenue), and the demand that conferees be barred from addressing the need to raise the debt ceiling, which will need to be lifted in mid-October, claiming they are “preventing a back room deal to raise the debt limit.”

After they passed on the opportunity to proceed to regular order and a budget conference, Republicans began making demands in order to continue funding the government, starting with defunding the Affordable Care Act. That was just the latest in a series of demands the party has made in exchange for either keeping the government open and operational or raising the debt ceiling so that the country doesn’t default on its debt.

How is a budget, which is a funding bill, which originates from the Senate constitutional?

All revenue bills have to originate from the House.

 

[Seawytch]

Uh...excuse me.....just to show you how you fell for the rhetoric....

Yes...the IRS targeted liberal groups too.

I agree.

Of course they did. The department in question was developed to target ALL non profit groups that may have political affiliation.

The scandal has nothing to do with targeting.....for that was the role of that department.

The scandal had to do with the results of the targeting.

None of the tea party/conservative groups received answers. They continually got questioned for as long as 3 years.

Why is that an issue?

Because they couldn't do anything. They had to remain stagnant until they got a FINAL response.

It is better to be denied and allowed to make the adjustments necessary to be accepted than to receive no answer at all.

Justice delayed IS justice denied.

See? You fell for the rhetoric.

Why are you trying to change the subject? Start yet another thread about the terrible IRS...but don't forget the IRS targeting that went on in previous administrations.

Profiling is bad. Targeting is bad. Non profits engaging in political activities is bad.

Now, want to talk about the hostage situation the GOP put the country in?

BOEHNER: It's about having a conversation. I gave the Senate majority leader some advice at the White House about how to proceed. I gave him some advice over a week ago about how to avert this. And yet they refuse to do it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Mr. Speaker, he says -- and he said it publicly on many occasions, that you came to him back in July and offered to pass a clean government funding resolution, no Obamacare amendments, that was $70 billion below what the Senate wanted. They accepted it. And now, you've reneged on that offer.

BOEHNER: No, clearly there was a conversation about doing this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several conversations.

BOEHNER: Several. But--

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you offered a clean resolution.

BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you decide it or was it decided for you?​

I brought up the IRS to show you how 2 sides will always see something differently...no matter how obvious it seems to each side.

You then showed me how what I see as obvious "is not obvious"...

So I showed you how what seemed "obvious" to you was due to the use of rhetoric and semantics by supporters of the left.

Threads drift all the time on here...and you know it.

Furthermore, I admitted that it is indefensible if, in fact what you claim is true. However, I don't see it as "obvious". The dialogue you just posted between Stephanopoulos can be interpreted more than one way. I don't see it as a "ploy".....I see it as "coming to a realization"....

Now, that being said, did you notice how the rhetoric and semantics had you see the IRS situation as a non issue?

Do you deny that it is inappropriate to give progressive groups 30-90 day turnaround giving them a chance to make adjustments and not giving right leaning organizations the same courtesy?

Would it not bother you if the tables were turned?

The tables HAVE BEEN turned and it wasn't any blanket targeting either...it was VERY specific targeting of oh, a liberal church in CA that spoke out against the Iraq war.

I'll say it again...profiling bad, targeting bad, Joe Arpio bad, government shutdown orchestrated by the GOP bad

When the IRS targeted liberals

 

[Jarhead]

Why are you trying to change the subject? Start yet another thread about the terrible IRS...but don't forget the IRS targeting that went on in previous administrations.

Profiling is bad. Targeting is bad. Non profits engaging in political activities is bad.

Now, want to talk about the hostage situation the GOP put the country in?

BOEHNER: It's about having a conversation. I gave the Senate majority leader some advice at the White House about how to proceed. I gave him some advice over a week ago about how to avert this. And yet they refuse to do it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Mr. Speaker, he says -- and he said it publicly on many occasions, that you came to him back in July and offered to pass a clean government funding resolution, no Obamacare amendments, that was $70 billion below what the Senate wanted. They accepted it. And now, you've reneged on that offer.

BOEHNER: No, clearly there was a conversation about doing this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several conversations.

BOEHNER: Several. But--

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you offered a clean resolution.

BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you decide it or was it decided for you?​

I brought up the IRS to show you how 2 sides will always see something differently...no matter how obvious it seems to each side.

You then showed me how what I see as obvious "is not obvious"...

So I showed you how what seemed "obvious" to you was due to the use of rhetoric and semantics by supporters of the left.

Threads drift all the time on here...and you know it.

Furthermore, I admitted that it is indefensible if, in fact what you claim is true. However, I don't see it as "obvious". The dialogue you just posted between Stephanopoulos can be interpreted more than one way. I don't see it as a "ploy".....I see it as "coming to a realization"....

Now, that being said, did you notice how the rhetoric and semantics had you see the IRS situation as a non issue?

Do you deny that it is inappropriate to give progressive groups 30-90 day turnaround giving them a chance to make adjustments and not giving right leaning organizations the same courtesy?

Would it not bother you if the tables were turned?

The tables HAVE BEEN turned and it wasn't any blanket targeting either...it was VERY specific targeting of oh, a liberal church in CA that spoke out against the Iraq war.

I'll say it again...profiling bad, targeting bad, Joe Arpio bad, government shutdown orchestrated by the GOP bad

When the IRS targeted liberals

Did you read the article you posted?

I mean...READ IT?

Being audited for potential wrongdoing is par for the course with the IRS. Was it "unfairly" targeted? Maybe. But it was IT'S actions that opened the door for it to be unfairly targeted.

But again...this is not about targeting.

The IRS used its authority to UNFAIRLY prevent conservative organizations to either "change its status", "change its overall agenda" or "operate as it presented itself."

In essence, they, to no fault of their own, were denied the right TO AN ANSWER as to what they needed to do to open up, collect funds, and operate.

They were left in Limbo.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

There is no better way to put it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't see anything in there that both parties haven't engaged in the last 10 years.

 

[Avatar4321]

And yet it's the President who says he will not negotiate.

It's easy to say you could have negotiated when you are refusing to yourself. If you really care about negotiating, how about you negotiate instead of playing games.

You want to blame Republicans? Fine. Republicans are responsible. But then so are Democrats. And it's such a shame we have a man child pretending to lead us why blaming everything he does on others.

 

[bendog]

Obama never said he wouldn't negotiate: he said he wouldn't negotiate away Obamacare, and so long as that was the GOP, there was NOTHING TO negotiate. A negotiation implies a willingness to compromise and allow the other side to have what it has to have for a deal. Obama ALREADY had Obamacare, and the gop's demand was he give up that for ... nothing. Mainstream conservatives have said from day one this woudl be a gop clustrfk, and it is.

The real damage to the country is that we have a potus who reallly is interested in getting a grand bargain to move the country away from having a debt/gnp approaching 200% because he wants his LEGACY. Obama is a lot of things, but humble he ain't. The GOP simply let the TPM misread what the negotiation was about.

2011 proved Obama is willing to go to the right of Chariman Pelosi and Harry "bare knuckles" Reid. But now we're not gonna have any movement on entitlements. Maybe after 2016 ... assuming the dems to well.

 

[martybegan]

Obama never said he wouldn't negotiate: he said he wouldn't negotiate away Obamacare, and so long as that was the GOP, there was NOTHING TO negotiate. A negotiation implies a willingness to compromise and allow the other side to have what it has to have for a deal. Obama ALREADY had Obamacare, and the gop's demand was he give up that for ... nothing. Mainstream conservatives have said from day one this woudl be a gop clustrfk, and it is.

The real damage to the country is that we have a potus who reallly is interested in getting a grand bargain to move the country away from having a debt/gnp approaching 200% because he wants his LEGACY. Obama is a lot of things, but humble he ain't. The GOP simply let the TPM misread what the negotiation was about.

2011 proved Obama is willing to go to the right of Chariman Pelosi and Harry "bare knuckles" Reid. But now we're not gonna have any movement on entitlements. Maybe after 2016 ... assuming the dems to well.

The republicans were implying they might come to the table if Obama agrees to push the individual mandate back, as he did with the corporate mandate. he refused.

THAT would have been a compromise.

 

[bendog]

Obama never said he wouldn't negotiate: he said he wouldn't negotiate away Obamacare, and so long as that was the GOP, there was NOTHING TO negotiate. A negotiation implies a willingness to compromise and allow the other side to have what it has to have for a deal. Obama ALREADY had Obamacare, and the gop's demand was he give up that for ... nothing. Mainstream conservatives have said from day one this woudl be a gop clustrfk, and it is.

The real damage to the country is that we have a potus who reallly is interested in getting a grand bargain to move the country away from having a debt/gnp approaching 200% because he wants his LEGACY. Obama is a lot of things, but humble he ain't. The GOP simply let the TPM misread what the negotiation was about.

2011 proved Obama is willing to go to the right of Chariman Pelosi and Harry "bare knuckles" Reid. But now we're not gonna have any movement on entitlements. Maybe after 2016 ... assuming the dems to well.

The republicans were implying they might come to the table if Obama agrees to push the individual mandate back, as he did with the corporate mandate. he refused.

THAT would have been a compromise.

Oh yeah, a one year delay was not really and end to the act. Of course rational people believe that. Even though there are multiple reports to the contrary. Of course the TPM was being reasonalble.

Of course. Really. Sincerely.