Strong disagree. You can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. And if you're not messaging about your successes then nobody will know about them. "Trying to get an agreement/busy governing" = negotiating with economic terrorists and caving into their demands. They're continuing to set an awful precedent of allowing budget negotiations to commence at gunpoint outside of normal budgetary sessions. We already have a time for budgets. The GOP is using non-budgetary time windows to claw back demands they couldn't pass during budgetary time windows. And dems are letting them do it via active negotiations rather than saying "This shit stops now, and if you send us into default because you didn't like the spending you already signed off on then that default will fall squarely on your shoulders." Instead, they're doing the usual weak-kneed Dem bullshit and playing right into the GOP's hands. If you cave to screaming and ranting children you only encourage more screaming and ranting in the future from the children who will always be thinking about what they want next.
By negotiating with the terrorists you're already platforming them for doing something absolutely asinine (pointing a loaded gun at the economy and demanding budget cuts in return). It's not like this is the part where the dems are just play-negotiating with the terrorists to give the SWAT team time to go in and waste all the terrorists and save the hostage. There are only two ways out of this:
1) The dems cave to demands and make a deal that may or may not even pass in congress
2) the dems call the GOP bluff and say "go ahead and blow up the economy if you want, you'll own that fallout."
Joe will cave, and by doing so he'll be giving the GOP exactly what they want: demands met over the threat of economic catastrophe. Even worse, his party won't use the precedent set by the GOP. When it's a GOP president in power and dems in control of congress do you think they'll utilize this new precedent to demand tax hikes on the rich in order to pass the debt ceiling under a GOP president? Of course not. Why? Because they really really suck at figuring this game out for themselves. They'd rather be in the victim's seat every single time.
Strong disagree. You can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. And if you're not messaging about your successes then nobody will know about them. "Trying to get an agreement/busy governing" = negotiating with economic terrorists and caving into their demands. They're continuing to set an awful precedent of allowing budget negotiations to commence at gunpoint outside of normal budgetary sessions. We already have a time for budgets. The GOP is using non-budgetary time windows to claw back demands they couldn't pass during budgetary time windows. And dems are letting them do it via active negotiations rather than saying "This shit stops now, and if you send us into default because you didn't like the spending you already signed off on then that default will fall squarely on your shoulders." Instead, they're doing the usual weak-kneed Dem bullshit and playing right into the GOP's hands. If you cave to screaming and ranting children you only encourage more screaming and ranting in the future from the children who will always be thinking about what they want next.
By negotiating with the terrorists you're already platforming them for doing something absolutely asinine (pointing a loaded gun at the economy and demanding budget cuts in return). It's not like this is the part where the dems are just play-negotiating with the terrorists to give the SWAT team time to go in and waste all the terrorists and save the hostage. There are only two ways out of this:
1) The dems cave to demands and make a deal that may or may not even pass in congress
2) the dems call the GOP bluff and say "go ahead and blow up the economy if you want, you'll own that fallout."
Joe will cave, and by doing so he'll be giving the GOP exactly what they want: demands met over the threat of economic catastrophe. Even worse, his party won't use the precedent set by the GOP. When it's a GOP president in power and dems in control of congress do you think they'll utilize this new precedent to demand tax hikes on the rich in order to pass the debt ceiling under a GOP president? Of course not. Why? Because they really really suck at figuring this game out for themselves. They'd rather be in the victim's seat every single time.