A parable.

[Arkady]

Once upon a time, a team of professional extortionists issued a ransom notice -- either pay them a million dollars by midnight, October 16, or they'd shoot a hostage. Officials, who'd found themselves repeatedly faced with demands like this and had repeatedly made payments, decided to make a stand this time -- they would give nothing, because they knew giving up anything would simply encourage future hostage-taking. As time ticked down, officials changed their mind and negotiated a small payment for a stay of execution. For $100, the extortionists agreed not to shoot the hostage until early February. Inexplicably, some members of the hostage-taking team were livid at this deal, while the officials patted themselves on the back for having extended the hostage crisis by nearly four months.

 

[Colorforms]

Once upon a time, a team of professional extortionists issued a ransom notice -- either pay them a million dollars by midnight, October 16, or they'd shoot a hostage. Officials, who'd found themselves repeatedly faced with demands like this and had repeatedly made payments, decided to make a stand this time -- they would give nothing, because they knew giving up anything would simply encourage future hostage-taking. As time ticked down, officials changed their mind and negotiated a small payment for a stay of execution. For $100, the extortionists agreed not to shoot the hostage until early February. Inexplicably, some members of the hostage-taking team were livid at this deal, while the officials patted themselves on the back for having extended the hostage crisis by nearly four months.

And they all lived happily ever after

 

[GordonGecko]

Thing is....there is now a PRECEDENT set...

for the hostage takers to surrender as long as you don't give into their major demands.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Progress that falls short of perfection should always be rejected out of hand.

What is the opposite of "pragmatist"?

 

[Colorforms]

Thing is....there is now a PRECEDENT set...

for the hostage takers to surrender as long as you don't give into their major demands.

Well, at least until Feb 7.

 

[Cerulean Mutt]

Once upon a time, a team of professional extortionists issued a ransom notice -- either pay them a million dollars by midnight, October 16, or they'd shoot a hostage. Officials, who'd found themselves repeatedly faced with demands like this and had repeatedly made payments, decided to make a stand this time -- they would give nothing, because they knew giving up anything would simply encourage future hostage-taking. As time ticked down, officials changed their mind and negotiated a small payment for a stay of execution. For $100, the extortionists agreed not to shoot the hostage until early February. Inexplicably, some members of the hostage-taking team were livid at this deal, while the officials patted themselves on the back for having extended the hostage crisis by nearly four months.

Except for the fact that we've determined that the extortionists lack the intestinal fortitude to actually pull the trigger and will sell out for pennies on the dollar.

Not the preferred outcome, but considering the alternatives, not a bad one either.

 

[GordonGecko]

Well, at least until Feb 7.

Any reason to imagine the House Repubs can't be pushed into a surrender...again?

 

[UPNYA2]

Any reason to imagine the House Repubs can't be pushed into a surrender...again?

NONE.

 

[Colorforms]

Any reason to imagine the House Repubs can't be pushed into a surrender...again?

It depends upon the tactic they used. The only reason that republicans surrendered was because of the intractability of the democrats and the unpopularity of the tactic. If the republicans actually came up with a tactic that would not be viewed as negative, I think the democrats would have to bargain.

 

[Arkady]

Thing is....there is now a PRECEDENT set...

for the hostage takers to surrender as long as you don't give into their major demands.

The precedent is similar to the precedent set by medieval kingdoms that paid the Danegeld or storekeepers in gang-dominated areas that pay protection money: for a fairly small fee, you can buy yourself a few months of peace, but you should expect it to be an ongoing cost of doing business.

 

[Arkady]

Progress that falls short of perfection should always be rejected out of hand.

What is the opposite of "pragmatist"?

An idealist is the opposite of a pragmatist, and I'm not one. As I explained before any of us knew what form this deal would take, I would have been perfectly comfortable with the Democrats giving up symbolic concessions to get this done, or giving up things of value while getting other things of commensurate value to get it done. But what I didn't want to see is the Democrats giving up something of value while getting nothing significant in return, especially if all they were buying was kicking the can down the road by a few weeks or months. If the Democrats had traded a symbolic concession (just agreeing to formal talks about deficit reduction) for an extension long enough to potentially change the political calculus (e.g., a year, which would put the next standoff close to the next election), I'd have been in here singing their praises. But instead they gave the Republicans another round of encouragement to keep playing chicken, while making it so the next opportunity will be in early January, with a second opportunity a month after that. I object to that resolution entirely on pragmatic grounds.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Just like a one point victory in a football game. I'll take it. A "W" is a "W". The Democrats surrendered nothing of value, and furloughed federal workers can return to work this morning.

This bullshit has real world consequences, whether they affect me personally, or not.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Let them try it again in January.

I don't think they have the balls for it. They know they took an ass whipping, whether they're willing to admit it in public, or not.

 

[Arkady]

Except for the fact that we've determined that the extortionists lack the intestinal fortitude to actually pull the trigger and will sell out for pennies on the dollar.

Not the preferred outcome, but considering the alternatives, not a bad one either.

I agree we determined that, so things definitely could have been worse. But agreeing to pay them "pennies on the dollar" every few months just encourages them to keep bringing these claims, and to keep hiking the outrageousness of their demands, so that "pennies on the dollar" will grow as a result. It's a bit like a company that signals it's an easy mark for nuisance lawsuits. If the word gets out there that you'll settle any claim, no matter how weak, even if it is for pennies on the dollar, people will just bring more and more nuisance suits against you. And, to stick with that analogy, this was a particularly bone-headed settlement: picture agreeing to a lawsuit "settlement" where you agree to pay the nuisance plaintiff some small fee, not in exchange for settling the dispute over the issue, but in exchange for dismissing it, without prejudice, with an agreement not to file again for three or four months. All you'd be doing is buying yourself the hardship of having to relitigate the whole thing again from scratch a few months down the road, while helping to finance the plaintiff's next suit with whatever you paid him for the last one.

 

[Arkady]

Any reason to imagine the House Repubs can't be pushed into a surrender...again?

They didn't surrender. They agreed to a three or four months delay in exchange for a small payment.

 

[UPNYA2]

It depends upon the tactic they used. The only reason that republicans surrendered was because of the intractability of the democrats and the unpopularity of the tactic. If the republicans actually came up with a tactic that would not be viewed as negative, I think the democrats would have to bargain.

"If the republicans actually came up with a tactic that would not be viewed as negative, I think the democrats would have to bargain."

I agree. Which is why I am of the opinion that the next time the republicans WILL, once again, fold up like a Wal-Mart lawn chair trying to hold up oprah.

There is no way for republicans to come up with a tactic to not keep increasing, let alone actually reduce, the amount of monies the government confiscates from those who earn and redistributes to those who do not that the Democrats could not present as a negative to their lif long "victimhood" voter base.

It is not possible. I defy anyone to try to present me with ANYTHING that our government is currently spending money on that we can demand be chopped down some and nobody would be able to come out with some sort of example of how it is hurting someone and is therefore, "crul", or "heatless", "evil" even.......... Basically as being a negative.

 

[NightSwimmer]

They didn't surrender. They agreed to a three or four months delay in exchange for a small payment.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

Republican political capital has been severely diminished by their outrageous behavior. They can put all the lipstick they want onto this pig. It's still a pig.

It will still be a pig when 2014 rolls around.

Hide and watch.

 

[Colorforms]

"If the republicans actually came up with a tactic that would not be viewed as negative, I think the democrats would have to bargain."

I agree. Which is why I am of the opinion that the next time the republicans WILL, once again, fold up like a Wal-Mart lawn chair trying to hold up oprah.

There is no way for republicans to come up with a tactic to not keep increasing, let alone actually reduce, the amount of monies the government confiscates from those who earn and redistributes to those who do not that the Democrats could not present as a negative to their lif long "victimhood" voter base.

It is not possible. I defy anyone to try to present me with ANYTHING that our government is currently spending money on that we can demand be chopped down some and nobody would be able to come out with some sort of example of how it is hurting someone and is therefore, "crul", or "heatless", "evil" even.......... Basically as being a negative.

One strategy that I think republicans could benefit from is to force the democrats to implement Obamacare as passed, and then use the labor participation rate to tie the resulting tragedy in with the legislation. The only way that people will accept sacrifice is if they see what not sacrificing will do. Democrats will have to own it, and republicans may gain the upper hand before the 2014 elections.

 

[Arkady]

Just like a one point victory in a football game. I'll take it. A "W" is a "W". The Democrats surrendered nothing of value, and furloughed federal workers can return to work this morning.

This bullshit has real world consequences, whether they affect me personally, or not.

You're starting with the conclusion: that it's a win. I dispute that. Let's say it was a football game, to use your analogy. It's the third quarter and Team Democrat just picked up 15 yards on a pass play. Team Republican insists the receiver didn't get both feet in bounds so it should have been ruled incomplete. The ref goes to instant replay and rules for Team Democrat: the play stands as called on the field. Team Republican refuses to return to play and threatens to burn the stadium down if the Dems don't agree to move the ball back 15 yards and advance to the next down. As the deadline for the stadium-torching nears, the Dems compromise: they'll move the ball back just one yard, still keeping their first-down, and the Republicans agree they'll return to play for the next series of downs, and won't burn down the stadium until the fourth quarter, at the earliest.

If you want to call that a "win," fine. But, to me, it looks like it just encourages anyone who is unhappy with the result of a play to make absurd demands using extreme threats, with the idea they can later settle that for some small gain.

 

[Cerulean Mutt]

I agree we determined that, so things definitely could have been worse. But agreeing to pay them "pennies on the dollar" every few months just encourages them to keep bringing these claims, and to keep hiking the outrageousness of their demands, so that "pennies on the dollar" will grow as a result. It's a bit like a company that signals it's an easy mark for nuisance lawsuits. If the word gets out there that you'll settle any claim, no matter how weak, even if it is for pennies on the dollar, people will just bring more and more nuisance suits against you. And, to stick with that analogy, this was a particularly bone-headed suit: picture agreeing to a lawsuit "settlement" where you agree to pay the nuisance plaintiff some small fee, not in exchange for settling the dispute over the issue, but in exchange for dismissing it, without prejudice, with an agreement not to file again for three or four months. All you'd be doing is buying yourself the hardship of having to relitigate the whole thing again from scratch a few months down the road, while helping to finance the plaintiff's next suit with whatever you paid him for the last one.

All I can say is that time will tell. Personally, I think when the GOP saw how precipitously their approval ratings fell as a result of their little stunt they had a come to Jesus moment. They presumed that the American public would flock to their side in support, but were shocked to realize they were on the wrong side of public opinion.

Because the next showdown will occur incrementally closer to the 2014 elections, I don't think the GOP is going to take the chance of another drubbing in the polls. I also think the budget negotiations will go a little smoother now that Boehner's crossed the Rubicon with regards to thumbing his nose at the Tea Party base of his caucus.

So I guess you can say I'm predicting that there won't be another showdown before the 2014 elections.