The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Cincinnatus on December 28, 2013, 05:50:11 pm
-
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 27 -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued the following news release:
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the expiration of emergency unemployment compensation for 1.3 million Americans, which falls tomorrow:
"Starting tomorrow, too many American families will face the New Year with uncertainty, insecurity, and instability as a result of congressional Republicans' refusal to extend critical unemployment insurance. For 1.3 million Americans, this means less money to support their families, less to spend in their communities, and an even greater struggle to make ends meet. This is the last gift any Member of Congress should deliver to the American people as we head into 2014.
"Neglecting to extend this vital lifeline to millions of workers is simply immoral - an abdication of our obligation to do what we can to support those who worked hard, played by the rules, and lost their jobs through no fault of their own. What's more, unemployment insurance remains one of the most effective ways to quickly and immediately boost our economy and inject demand into our markets. Indeed, every dollar invested in this initiative yields $1.52 in economic growth, and an extension of UI could produce as many as 300,000 jobs.
"For the Americans affected by this Republican inaction, there's no time to waste. The first item on Congress' agenda in the New Year must be an extension of unemployment insurance. That must be our priority on day one - as Democrats continue to advance an agenda focused on job creation, a stronger middle class, and responsible deficit reduction."
[emphasis added]
http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2013/12/28/pelosi-statement-on-the-expiration-of-unemployment-insurance-for-millions-of-ame-a-441590.html#.Ur8OM5jTmcw
Boys and girls, I think we have just discovered the solution to the chronic Obama unemployment problem. For government bureaucrats anyway.
-
Does anyone really think we can afford the optics of obstinately refusing to budge one inch on this, only to capitulate when it becomes clear that the democrats are making fields and fields of hay out of that obstinacy?
-
Does anyone really think we can afford the optics of obstinately refusing to budge one inch on this, only to capitulate when it becomes clear that the democrats are making fields and fields of hay out of that obstinacy?
Giving in never works, either. Especially when the result would be the opposite of what Pelosi ignorantly claims. If the American public is stupid enough to believe this nonsense, then it is incumbent upon the opposition (there is still an "opposition", right?) to explain the fallacies inherent in those beliefs. At some point, we are going to have to force people off of the "something for nothing, it's all someone else's money" vehicle that they gleefully pile onto like a tour bus in Mumbai.
-
In addition, if Pelosi is right ( Indeed, every dollar invested in this initiative yields $1.52 in economic growth..., we could simply put everyone on unemployment and have the most booming economy ever.
-
Does anyone really think we can afford the optics of obstinately refusing to budge one inch on this, only to capitulate when it becomes clear that the democrats are making fields and fields of hay out of that obstinacy?
Definitely YES!
-
Definitely YES!
Ahh, so capitulation is your favored method of controlling the legislation passed by Congress? That's a very strange definition of success.
-
In addition, if Pelosi is right ( Indeed, every dollar invested in this initiative yields $1.52 in economic growth..., we could simply put everyone on unemployment and have the most booming economy ever.
Clearly she's not correct. But that doesn't mean that discretion is not the better part of valor in this instance.
-
Giving in never works, either. Especially when the result would be the opposite of what Pelosi ignorantly claims. If the American public is stupid enough to believe this nonsense, then it is incumbent upon the opposition (there is still an "opposition", right?) to explain the fallacies inherent in those beliefs. At some point, we are going to have to force people off of the "something for nothing, it's all someone else's money" vehicle that they gleefully pile onto like a tour bus in Mumbai.
Who says the republicans have to "give in?" Did Reagan just meekly "give in" when he made various compromises with the democrats in order to achieve some of his more important goals? Did Reagan just meekly "give in" when he compromised on the issue of taxes by agreeing to an increase in the social security payroll tax in order to achieve what he felt was the important goal of saving social security?
-
What's more, unemployment insurance remains one of the most effective ways to quickly and immediately boost our economy and inject demand into our markets. Indeed, every dollar invested in this initiative yields $1.52 in economic growth.
FINALLY!
An effective liberal solution to our ailing economy.
Just think, if everyone stopped working and opted instead to collect unemployment benefits, the economy would bounce back in no time at all!
-
Who says the republicans have to "give in?" Did Reagan just meekly "give in" when he made various compromises with the democrats in order to achieve some of his more important goals? Did Reagan just meekly "give in" when he compromised on the issue of taxes by agreeing to an increase in the social security payroll tax in order to achieve what he felt was the important goal of saving social security?
Do capitulation and give in mean the same thing in your world?
-
Do capitulation and give in mean the same thing in your world?
I'm not exactly sure what you think you mean. Perhaps you could elucidate those of us who do not have direct, unmediated access to your pre-verbal consciousness.
-
I'm not exactly sure what you think you mean. Perhaps you could elucidate those of us who do not have direct, unmediated access to your pre-verbal consciousness.
First this from you
Does anyone really think we can afford the optics of obstinately refusing to budge one inch on this, only to capitulate when it becomes clear that the democrats are making fields and fields of hay out of that obstinacy?
and then this later Who says the republicans have to "give in?"
I see someone trying to play both sides of a fence there. What do you see?
-
FINALLY!
An effective liberal solution to our ailing economy.
Just think, if everyone stopped working and opted instead to collect unemployment benefits, the economy would bounce back in no time at all!
Sort of like saving $200 on every new TV you buy! Buy enough of them and you'll be rich!
-
FINALLY!
An effective liberal solution to our ailing economy.
Just think, if everyone stopped working and opted instead to collect unemployment benefits, the economy would bounce back in no time at all!
Very strange thing, that. You'd think such a devoted servant of her constituents would be happy to volunteer to prove her point by becoming unemployed.
-
Who says the republicans have to "give in?" Did Reagan just meekly "give in" when he made various compromises with the democrats in order to achieve some of his more important goals? Did Reagan just meekly "give in" when he compromised on the issue of taxes by agreeing to an increase in the social security payroll tax in order to achieve what he felt was the important goal of saving social security?
In normal times, political compromise is sometimes called for in the interest of obtaining something of value in return.
We do not live in normal times.
In these times, Republicans never obtain anything of value in return for their (inevitable) concessions. Instead, they are given unenforceable promises, and then mercilessly maligned as unprincipled. And the next time: Democrats, knowing they have an easy mark, double down on their demands.
Today's Democrats do not argue or negotiate in good faith. Their object is not smart governance, or even merely protecting the interests of their member constituent groups.
Instead, their object is the radical transformation of America into a socialist welfare state, and as a necessary means to that end, the destruction of the opposition. Not its electoral defeat, mind you: its destruction.
Today's Democrats are radical Marxist utopians who have learned how, in the words of one of their leading lights and Obama loyalist Van Jones, how to "drop the radical pose for the radical ends". They pretend to be old-school Democrats, but they are not.
"Old school" Democrats, such as Hubert Humphrey, Carl Albert, Sam Rayburn, Tom Foley, Tip O'Neill - all were liberals who yet loved America as it essentially was, even while advocating for social change and equal justice.
Today's Democrat leaders - Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy , and of course, Barack Obama - all are far to the Left of their predecessors; their legislative and executive staffs even more so.
They know that the Progressive movement now controls all of America's vital social institutions, most importantly for their purposes, the mainstream news media. With control of the news and entertainment media, the academic world, and the Federal bureaucracies, the Left has no fear in pursuing a scorched-Earth program against Republicans, and it does so on a daily basis.
When the answer to virtually every utterance by a GOP member is some variant of "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Tea Party, fundamentalist, gun nut", you must at least begin to consider the possibility that negotiation with such people is pointless at best, and dangerous at worst.
-
First this from you
and then this later
I see someone trying to play both sides of a fence there. What do you see?
Because skillfully, strategically compromising is not "giving in" nor is it capitulating. Is "giving in" the same as capitulating? Generally, yes. But a strategic compromise is neither, unless you'd prefer to classify Reagan with McCain, Graham, McConnell, and all of the other RINOs you love to hate. Reagan knew the art of the strategic compromise, the others do not.
Taking a page from Reagan's playbook here and making a compromise on the issue of extending unemployment benefits, along with the extraction of some countervailing compromise from the democrats, for the strategic purpose of improving the GOP's chances of retaking the Senate and keeping the House - both of which are predicates for being able to do anything constructive about entitlements like unemployment benefits - is not "giving in" nor is it capitulating.
-
In normal times, political compromise is sometimes called for in the interest of obtaining something of value in return.
We do not live in normal times.
In these times, Republicans never obtain anything of value in return for their (inevitable) concessions. Instead, they are given unenforceable promises, and then mercilessly maligned as unprincipled. And the next time: Democrats, knowing they have an easy mark, double down on their demands.
Today's Democrats do not argue or negotiate in good faith. Their object is not smart governance, or even merely protecting the interests of their member constituent groups.
Instead, their object is the radical transformation of America into a socialist welfare state, and as a necessary means to that end, the destruction of the opposition. Not its electoral defeat, mind you: its destruction.
Today's Democrats are radical Marxist utopians who have learned how, in the words of one of their leading lights and Obama loyalist Van Jones, how to "drop the radical pose for the radical ends". They pretend to be old-school Democrats, but they are not.
"Old school" Democrats, such as Hubert Humphrey, Carl Albert, Sam Rayburn, Tom Foley, Tip O'Neill - all were liberals who yet loved America as it essentially was, even while advocating for social change and equal justice.
Today's Democrat leaders - Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy , and of course, Barack Obama - all are far to the Left of their predecessors; their legislative and executive staffs even more so.
They know that the Progressive movement now controls all of America's vital social institutions, most importantly for their purposes, the mainstream news media. With control of the news and entertainment media, the academic world, and the Federal bureaucracies, the Left has no fear in pursuing a scorched-Earth program against Republicans, and it does so on a daily basis.
When the answer to virtually every utterance by a GOP member is some variant of "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Tea Party, fundamentalist, gun nut", you must at least begin to consider the possibility that negotiation with such people is pointless at best, and dangerous at worst.
Would you prefer the situation where the GOP gets to lambaste the democrats repeatedly over the unfolding trainwreck of Obamacare, freed from collateral issues the democrats would use to distract the voters, or the situation where the democrats distract the voters from Obamacare by making the GOP out to be the enemy of the little guy, the one who's unemployed through no fault of his own?
Which situation is more likely to lead to GOP successes in the Nov. 4 elections?
-
Would you prefer the situation where the GOP gets to lambaste the democrats repeatedly over the unfolding trainwreck of Obamacare, freed from collateral issues the democrats would use to distract the voters, or the situation where the democrats distract the voters from Obamacare by making the GOP out to be the enemy of the little guy, the one who's unemployed through no fault of his own?
Which situation is more likely to lead to GOP successes in the Nov. 4 elections?
Those are not the only options.
There is no reason why Republicans cannot link the issues by reference to one of the chief reasons for persistently high unemployment rates in the first place: the looming threat of ObamaCare.
They can then explain that in lieu of continuing extended unemployment at the Federal level - which both costs money and destroys job creation - Congress would better serve the interest of economic growth and creating jobs by cutting Federal regulations and taxes on the small business owners who create them.
Republicans can further explain that Democrats are conspiring to keep Americans poor, needy and dependent, and that they are no better than a band of lying, thieving whores. Okay, they can leave out the very last part, but personally, I'd go for it.
-
Those are not the only options.
There is no reason why Republicans cannot link the issues by reference to one of the chief reasons for persistently high unemployment rates in the first place: the looming threat of ObamaCare.
They can then explain that in lieu of continuing extended unemployment at the Federal level - which both costs money and destroys job creation - Congress would better serve the interest of economic growth and creating jobs by cutting Federal regulations and taxes on the small business owners who create them.
Republicans can further explain that Democrats are conspiring to keep Americans poor, needy and dependent, and that they are no better than a band of lying, thieving whores. Okay, they can leave out the very last part, but personally, I'd go for it.
I like explanations as well as the next guy, and I think that in due course they need to be provided to voters, but in terms of an imminent election I would point to Paul Ryan, whose explanations were great, but not enough to fire people up for the election. And I say that as someone who affirmatively liked, and still likes, Ryan.