Oh they have much to gain: They won't default on the national debt, for one. And this tactic needs no encouraging, it's dramatic, effective, and easy. They are repeatedly asking for compromise. But as I've said before, part of any good haggle is to overstate your position in the beginning. What do you consider to be "legitimate channels"? They hold a majority in the House of Representatives. In this government you don't get more "legitimate" than actual legislative control.the Democrats have nothing to gain, by conceding anything [...] It just encourages this kind of tactic
The Republicans don't seem to be interested in compromise - it seems like a simple ultimatum to me
they can't get what they want through legitimate channels.
I'm not sure the best way for our government to work is the faction in control of the house gets to repeal whatever existing law they want or we default. >Oh they have much to gain: They won't default on the national debt, for one. Is that really gaining anything? Why are you phrasing it as 'they'? The house would be entity responsible for defaulting the nation, first. But is 'not defaulting' to be considered a gain for any political party? Is repeal of healthcare act progress?
You can't take not-defaulting for granted. It's a possible future they want to avoid, and that takes effort. I'm referring to the Democratic Party as a whole. Also, the Senate would be responsible for refusing to compromise, and Obama would be responsible because some people will probably find a way to blame him for some reason. They don't have to fight the Republicans, they could easily give up and then the debt ceiling would be raised. There's quite enough blame to go around. Blame is an infinite resource. That depends on your opinion of the healthcare act.Is that really gaining anything? Why are you phrasing it as 'they'?
The house would be entity responsible for defaulting the nation, first.
Is repeal of healthcare act progress?
I dunno, I think government might work better if it were taken for granted a party cannot default the nation and thus upend the economic world order if they don't get x. Because, while you say all it takes for Obama to compromise ... which in this case would be a defunding of ACA -- the democrats only legislative success -- and leaving us back to square one on healthcare, all the while legitimizing the default tactic in the first place so no potential future legislative success, and therefore cementing Obama's legacy as an utter failure So there's that compromise. Which, I mean... why would the tea party settle for less? You say, oh, you know repubs are just making a hardline stance in order to get the most -- but the way the House gets to default the nation if they don't like the deal basically gives them the ultimate power doesn't it? And the debt ceiling needs to be raised and raised and raised, each time an opportunity to defund anything and everything if so be it! Greaaat deal. I'm not convinced it's in the dems best interest to do any negotiation, which is why they probably aren't. Anyways, I've noticed you've been implying that compromise is necessarily a moral obligation, effective governing. So in this view, any situation where compromise is forced and every side comes out feeling bad can be considered a good outcome. But businesses aren't run like that. Families aren't run like that. Film sets aren't run like that. Food drives aren't run like that. I can't think of a single functional organization operating by compromise and political framing and reframing of what approximates "fairness". Decisions need to be made on the basis of what works. And honestly, I can't think of a better conservative love letter than ACA. Sure, there's the narrative that ACA was born in a conservative think tank, and implemented successfully by a conservative governor. Sure sure but the right has drifted farther right and now that's not conservative etc etc But hey explain this one to me: ACA's main mechanic is the mandate of poor, healthy people to pay into the pool, effectively paying for the end of pre-existing conditions and the lowering costs for everyone. Poor, healthy people paying for shit. The republican alternative wants to pay for pre-existing conditions by subsidizing with government money state high-risk pools in the order of billions of dollars. Then also offer people federal money in the form of tax break deduction $7000 for individuals $20000 for families in order to get insurance. So, fuck the deficit I guess. And then let the private market do with all that new money what they will. I know another private market heavily subsidized that can be bought across state lines. A decent college education. You know how they compete and all that and tuition is stupid high and it's all top notch. Or poor people could pay for healthcare, like you guys would want. Well, I concede that allowing ACA wouldn't fuck over Obummer so there's that. EDIT: I edited like crazy, and I'm sorry. Bad habit. I get all passionate and write then post, but then go back because it reads different when something is published. Then small things change here and there in a way I cannot catalog.You can't take not-defaulting for granted.
They don't have to fight the Republicans, they could easily give up and then the debt ceiling would be raised.
You've written some words here, and I've read them, but I still don't see why the Democrats shouldn't just do nothing, and let the Republicans (rightly) take the heat for what they have done / are doing.