Okay, so apparantly President Obama has invited the senior/leading Republicans to a open and televised discussion on Healthcare.
And they think they are walking into a trap.
I wonder why. Maybe its because they know they'll get humiliated?
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
Well, they're playing the angle that the Obama admin has some kind of sinister motive in mind. Well, that's probably true, from the perspective of the Republicans, in that they now are being forced to show their hand, whereas before all they have to do is fold(or continue the bidding, depending on your perspective).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I hadn't heard about this. But it sounds quite excellent. And really, I don't see how Republicans can refuse. After all the complaining we've heard about how Obama has ignored them, he publicly invites them to discuss their ideas. What are they going to say? No? Then how are they going to complain?
Seems to me Obama just called their bluff.
I just looked at what Obama is proposing, and it's interesting. It's a summit, so structurally I'm not entirely sure how it'll work, but it looks like maybe it will be more rehearsed than the GOP House meeting we saw last month, but far less rehearsed than say the State of the Union back and forth, or a scripted debate. There will be ample opportunity for either side to engage the other, and the CBO will be in attendance to essentially call shenanigans if either side makes a wild accusation.
And all on television. This could be fun. Or it could be a big dud.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Obama sees the writing on the wall. He needs to move to the center or he'll be a one term president. He needs to televise a meeting to show his bipartisanship. He ran a campaign in the middle but spent the last year locking the republicans out of Health Care legislation meetings. He's met more with the union leaders than the Republican party. Despite his campaign promises, the people know he is the least open and most partisan president we've had in a very long time.
He's about to sell out Pelosi and Reid and the tension is building in the democrat party. All of the sudden, Obama is for offshore drilling, coal and nuclear power. He's going to talk to the Republicans because he knows which way the political wind is blowing. Republicans are going to take over the house and senate and if he expects a second term, he knows he needs to throw the left under the bus.
[ February 13, 2010, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, ignoring most of what you've said...his support of nuclear power isn't at all new.
The support for offshore drilling on the other hand was a dramatic shift that caught a lot of people by surprise.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
In his last state of the union he called for more coal and offshore drilling. He made an executive order shutting down yucca mountain...where's he going to store the nuclear waste from the new reactors he's now calling for? He'll reopen yucca mountain. Not because he believes in it, it's politically expedient.
He ran to shutdown Gitmo and defended the rights of terrorists. Gitmo is still open (and will remain open) and the trials in NY have been cancelled. He doesn't do what he thinks is right, he does what he thinks is best for him. Terrorists will be moved back to a military tribunal and the next crotch bomber will not be read his rights. He's learning from his mistakes. Unfortunately, his learning curve is bad for the American people. He might make a good second term president, like Clinton.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm convinced that you either don't know what you're talking about, or that you know perfectly well, and are pretending to be ignorant for some personal reason that I can't fathom.
And it seems to me that there's actually been a devolution of your rhetorical style. You used to at least be a functional, if bombastic and unhelpful, participant in these discussions. Now you just seem to be spewing talking points that often don't jive with reality, and that often are only tangentially related to the posts you're theoretically responding to.
Why do you even bother?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Talking points?
In his last state of the union he called for offshore drilling, increased coal and nuclear power.
All things he opposed before. He did shut down Yucca mountain and now he is calling for increased nuclear power. He was opposed to coal and now he is for it. He was opposed to offshore drilling and now he's called for it.
I said "called for it". These are words he included in his state of the union to get a bump in polls. In reality, I know he isn't really going to push offshore drilling, coal or nuclear power. Just words a speech writer inserted in his state of the union to get a bump in approval. Which he did.
State of the union Jan 27th. After his address, his approval increased to -4 from -17. (for the mathematically challenged, -4 is bigger than -17). Not to worry, speeches only boost ratings for a few days and his approval is back to it's normally low level. People know he really isn't for coal, offshore drilling and nuclear power.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.
Glenn Beck is still waiting for his phone to ring to prove him wrong. How many white house staffers have resigned at midnight on Saturday because of the facts Glenn Beck has presented?
It's a sad world when the Enquirer is true breaking news,....ie John Edwards. The big media didn't want' to tarnish a Dem presidential candidate. I think it is funny that the Enquirer has applied for the Pulitzer prize. They deserve it. The other networks are too busy getting "chills up their legs" every time Obama speaks. If the Enquirer gets a Pulitzer, Beck can't be ridiculed for a lack of media credibility.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Have you seen the video where Jon Stewart nailed his paranoid deluded mannerisms down to a T?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.
With less style, and less intellect.
I wasn't sure the second part was possible until I started reading mal's posts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Glenn Beck is still waiting for his phone to ring to prove him wrong.
And I'm sure you're still waiting for posts that you think prove you wrong. Same issue, in one way or another. His metaphorical phone doesn't ring for him, just in the same way that none of the myriad interactions you've had on this forum even begin to penetrate your desperate illusions.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Come on folks, mal's been an obvious troll since day 1 - why pretend otherwise?
This discussion is a trap.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What bugs me about the Republican position on energy is the fact that they'll turn even that political. Health care is one thing. People need to start taking responsibility for their own health. Get off the junk food, turn off the TV, exercise, stop smoking, etc. However, energy is a much more serious issue.
I, as an individual, have no realistic way to take responsibility for the fact that our government vehicles run on gas and diesel, or that millions of private cars also run on gas and diesel. I can have a tremendous effect on my own health (and therefore my own life experience) by changing certain behaviors. I can have almost zero effect on the fact that al-Qaeda, etc. are funded by everyone's gas and diesel use.
Of the two hazards that threaten my health and longevity, Islamic terrorism or heart disease/strokes (which run rampant in my family) I can do almost nothing, individually, to reduce the first one. Therefore, it is the government's job, every politician's job, to stop politicizing the issue and fix that already.
I suppose they may politicize partly because the Republicans are the Big Oil party, and admitting that something needs to be done that will NOT help big oil would be admitting that 8 years of Bush/Cheney (and years of supporting Big Oil BEFORE that) was wrong. But you know what? I don't care. Buck up, oh Republicans, bite the bullet, admit you were dead, dead, dead WRONG, and help get us off the sandy, oily tit of Islam. Please.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Glenn Beck is still waiting for his phone to ring to prove him wrong.
Glenn Beck has been proven wrong several times. What he's really "waiting" for is something that forces him to admit he's wrong, and that's not going to happen as long as his audience doesn't demand accuracy from him.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think I prefer the Enquirer being the one who breaks news about sexual indiscretions in our leaders. To be honest, unless it is sexual harassment or a relationship that represents a conflict of interest (ie sleeping with an ambassador or maybe a lobbyist), I would rather not hear about politicians' sexual behavior at all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think I prefer the Enquirer being the one who breaks news about sexual indiscretions in our leaders. To be honest, unless it is sexual harassment or a relationship that represents a conflict of interest (ie sleeping with an ambassador or maybe a lobbyist), I would rather not hear about politicians' sexual behavior at all.
I would if they were running for public office, which they are constantly. Him having an affair while at the same time talking about how he stands with his dying wife, spoke volumes to me about his egotistical nature.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
To all who dog on mal for saying what he believes, if you feel so strongly that he is incompetent, a hack, a troll, or whatever, and don't want to debate him, then stop responding to his posts. Aren't we all just stating our opinions based on what we feel are the "facts"? That is the thing about politics. We all have a right to believe what we wish, just as we have a right to not believe what others do. I happen to lean more to the right than the left. Does that make me a bad person? No, just as someone who leans to the left is not a bad person. We all see things differently.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.
With less style, and less intellect.
I wasn't sure the second part was possible until I started reading mal's posts.
Whistled.
I get that you don't like mal. I don't really understand why, in light of this, you keep giving him exactly what he wants, but whatever. Stop breaking the TOS.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm unclear where the line is when looking into politician's private behavior, but I do think that things like cheating on your spouse or in your private life not following the values you espouse in your public life are things I want to know about. I am a character voter and I think that a lot of our political problems come from a lack of real character in our elected officials.
On the other hand, I don't know that journalists can be trusted to do this sort of looking in services of the public interest.
So, I don't know where to stand on this. I'm uncomfortable with the current state of affairs, but I'm not sure how I would change it to a more acceptable one.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.
Minus the crying.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Minus the crying.
How do you know?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Now is the time to act on behalf of the millions of Americans and small businesses who are counting on meaningful health insurance reform. In the last year, there has been an extraordinary effort to craft effective legislation. There have been hundreds of hours of committee hearings and mark-ups in both the House of Representatives and Senate, with nearly all of those sessions televised on C-SPAN. The Senate spent over 160 hours on the Senate floor considering health insurance reform legislation and, for the first time in history, both the House of Representatives and Senate have approved comprehensive health reform legislation. This is the closest our Nation has been to resolving this issue in the nearly 100 years that it has been debated.
Language like this doesn't indicate to me that the White House is serious about bipartisan ideas. It seems more a defensive reaction to the recent Republican talking points about back room deals and the President's CSPAN promise. If the White House really wanted Republicans to show up at the Blair House summit, it should at least pretend to understand that there are significant problems (political ones, if nothing else) with the health reform bill as presently constituted and attempt a modicum of humility. Something along the lines of, "We tried, it didn't work, but we can't stop trying. Reforming health care is essential to our national prosperity and security. So we're looking to improve on what we have and could really use your help."
I am encouraged by the fact that the White House will be posting "the text of a proposed health insurance reform package." I think another indication of the White House's real inclination for bipartisan solutions would be if the package they post diverges significantly from the current HCR bills in Congress.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: We all have a right to believe what we wish, just as we have a right to not believe what others do. I happen to lean more to the right than the left. Does that make me a bad person? No, just as someone who leans to the left is not a bad person. We all see things differently.
This is startlingly irrelevant, because people aren't 'dogging' on mal because they think he's a 'bad person for taking a position on the political right.' It's not even what's suggested.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I am encouraged by the fact that the White House will be posting "the text of a proposed health insurance reform package." I think another indication of the White House's real inclination for bipartisan solutions would be if the package they post diverges significantly from the current HCR bills in Congress.
I agree with you on the tone, but I think there's a problem with significant divergence. Look at the current HCR bill that passed the Senate, and look at the original proposal that Obama and like-minded Democrats wanted. You'll notice the resemblance is somewhat strained. They had to cut a lot of the things out that they wanted to make it more palatable to moderate Republicans who jumped ship, but Republicans have managed to convince most people that those cuts never happened.
So if Democrats try to reintroduce them, they appear to be hijacking bi-partisan bill with liberal addenda.
I don't think it's fair that liberals should have to give up the things they wanted the most, a lot of which frankly were their best ideas so far as care and cost go, just because Republicans spent the last six months with their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la!" and the public blindly went along with it.
Your post suggests to me a lack of recognition of the movement that has already taken place in the current legislation. Now, if Republican ideas like tort reform (a tiny fix) and removing some of the giveaways to individual states and some of the mess that was put into the bill to woo right leaning Dems on board, make it into a new bill, would that be enough to call it bi-partisan? Somehow I doubt it.
Democrats HAVE shown a willingness to work with Republicans in the past, and all it got them was a watered down bill with their best ideas killed, and Republicans complaining to any microphone that was turned on about how Democrats were intractable and refused to listen. If anything, they should have stuck to their guns and NEVER tried to negotiate. We'd be exactly where we are today, and they'd have a LOT more bargaining chips.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I wish we could see a debate between Ron Paul and Obama on health care. That'd be worth watching.
The Republic leaders don't have the spine to insist that it be an open debate. This sham debate isn't going to be on health care reform; it's going to be on the Obama administration's plan for health care reform. And that's hugely different. Basically, they're going to set this up as "If you're against our plan for health care reform, you're against health care reform."
The Republicans are too cowardly to come straight out and say, "We have to reform health care in the direction of less government involvement than there already is." It's not just cowardice, though. It's because they really are in the center on this issue. The radicals are people like Obama, who would like to make everything government run (for our own good, of course) and Ron Paul, who wants to get the government out of our lives. The Republicans are wishily and washily floating in the middle, not wanting to act, but not liking the Obama extreme.
Of course it's a trap. They'll be eviscerated, because they have no alternative themselves, other than doing nothing. Ron Paul would trounce Obama on this subject.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The problem with Obama inviting Republicans to a meeting to discuss National Health Care is that the Republicans have already put out their own Health Care Plan, which Democrats and Obama have totally ignored for months. So in having the "bipartisan" meeting, is the president really going to be bipartisan and listen to what the Republicans have already said, or is he just going to try to jawbone them, as if he is qualified to lecture anyone on anything?
When Republicans regain control of both houses of Congress after the November elections, then they can pass their own previously proposed Health Care Plan. And then Obama and the Democrats would be in a trap. How could they veto or vote against it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Of course it's a trap. They'll be eviscerated, because they have no alternative themselves, other than doing nothing. Ron Paul would trounce Obama on this subject.
yeah right? Not that ron paul is particularly relevant at all in terms of a a health care debate (his proposals lack any kind of actionable support and would be rejected by a vast majority of the population, something like 80-90%) but the fact is that there's a surplus of extremely unpopular proposals that Paul would have to defend that Obama could hammer on ("What would YOU do with Medicare, Ron?") — pitting Obama against Paul is trying to represent one side through an unpopular fringe pedagogue. just a sure-fire way to scare the moderates towards Obama's side.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The problem with Obama inviting Republicans to a meeting to discuss National Health Care is that the Republicans have already put out their own Health Care Plan, which Democrats and Obama have totally ignored for months. So in having the "bipartisan" meeting, is the president really going to be bipartisan and listen to what the Republicans have already said, or is he just going to try to jawbone them, as if he is qualified to lecture anyone on anything?
When Republicans regain control of both houses of Congress after the November elections, then they can pass their own previously proposed Health Care Plan. And then Obama and the Democrats would be in a trap. How could they veto or vote against it?
I have issues with it, of course, because it's still statist in the extreme. It starts off by mandating state run insurance. Only it's state run, as opposed to federally run. I'm not sure that's such a huge improvement.
And inserting an anti-illegal immigrant agenda and an anti-abortion agenda into the bill isn't going to help it pass. I bet they could get more support for it without that caveat.
Making denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is obviously a crowd pleaser, but it's a precursor to government bailouts of insurance companies. Such denials may not be kind, but without them, the insurance companies will eventually go under.
But the comparison chart definitely shows it as a huge improvement over the Obama plan.
[ February 15, 2010, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But the comparison chart definitely shows it as a huge improvement over the Obama plan.
Can John Boehner write a 'comparison chart' that doesn't look like it was written by push-pollers?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
To Lyrhawn:
I think much of the watering down you observed primarily served to make the bill more palatable to a few moderate Dems and possibly (hopefully?) Sens. Snowe and Collins. I said in another thread that the bill is moderate but not bipartisan and the White House's overtures don't seem to indicate a desire to change that. Which is fine; the Dems have majorities all around and are able to do whatever they want.
But the political reality is that the bill is unpopular with the public, particularly independents, and the Dems don't seem willing to take the political hit by passing it, whether through reconciliation or by outlasting the filibuster.
Taking the situation where it stands today, if the Democrats are serious about reforming health insurance they'll need to find a third way; something that isn't a watered-down version of anybody's agenda, but a wholly new approach. I don't think rewarming the current bill is going to change the direction of public opinion, and absent changing public opinion I don't think there will be the political will to get anything passed.
It's a recognition of this political reality that I would have hoped to see indicated in the White House's summit invitation. The fact that they appear more interested in perpetuating the finger-pointing is disappointing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lisa -
I would love to see that debate as well. It would involve Ron Paul saying "get the government out of our lives!" And Obama saying "Okay people, you heard the man, no more medicare and medicaid. Get out there and have fun on the open market!"
Hatred of government is part of the great disconnect in American's demands of government. They want low taxes, but no reduction in services. Why do you think our deficits are so high? The easy answer is just to say "well cut spending!" but people go nuts when you start cutting tens of billions of dollars in domestic spending. Yet those same people will decry and demonize government spending (but generally, spending that affects other people, not them). I think if we really pulled the rug out on government spending and dropped it by the trillion dollars that it needs to be cut by, people would absolutely freak out. I think the problem is that for every bad government program, there's a good one that was created with good intentions that actually serves a good purpose. But when people talk about cutting spending, it tends to be without nuance for those differences.
I think that conservatives think that people hate government a more than they really do. Ron Paul is an extreme example of this.
And as far as your comparison chart: Where does it say where I get my free pony? I would have to see a serious analysis and discussion to believe even half of the claims made there. Basically they're saying we can get a LOT of something for less than nothing. Prove it.
Ron -
They didn't ignore it. They incorporated some of the ideas, like selling insurance across state lines, with some people have still pointed out problems with. And insurance exchanges. Two ideas that Republicans pushed big, and both made it into the final version. The problem with the rest of their "ideas" is that they sound a whole lot more like goals rather than specific policy elements. Those types of details could be discussed at a meeting, so it isn't like there's nothing to talk about.
As for Republican control of Congress and what not. Who's to say Republicans are going to be any more effective than Democrats at actually getting a vote? Republicans have to get to 60 just like Democrats, and if they DO get control of Congress, it's going to be an incredibly slim majority in the Senate, and I doubt they'll retake the House at all. This could be our first divided Congress in quite some time. How successful do you think they'll be in wooing seven or eight Democrats in the Senate, and maybe a Democratic House, onto their plan, especially after how they behaved when the Democrats were trying to push their own bill? Obama will never have to veto it. Nothing he'd consider vetoing will ever reach his desk.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Senoj -
The bill itself might be unpopular because of Republican propaganda, but the ideas and plans within it generally earn at least a majority's worth of support in polling when each individual bit is polled by itself, as not as a part of the whole.
In other words, a majority of the population likes almost everything in the bill. They just don't like the bill as a whole. It's a wonderful country we live in.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I would love to see that debate as well. It would involve Ron Paul saying "get the government out of our lives!" And Obama saying "Okay people, you heard the man, no more medicare and medicaid. Get out there and have fun on the open market!"
At which point, Obama would find out what it's like to debate someone who is actually informed.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the problem is that for every bad government program, there's a good one that was created with good intentions that actually serves a good purpose.
And I don't think that intentions matter.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think that conservatives think that people hate government a more than they really do. Ron Paul is an extreme example of this.
But Ron Paul doesn't hate government. He isn't an anarchist. Neither am I. The preamble to the Constitution spoke of promoting the general welfare, and then specified how that could be achieved. And it was all by protecting us from the federal government and from foreign enemies. There was nothing in it about creating programs to help people. That's not the role of government; that's the role of other people.
The debate over proactive government went on for decades, with the Whig Party pushing for it and everyone else screaming "NO!" When the Whig Party finally went under and disappeared, a dedicated Whig named Abraham Lincoln decided to bring his Whig ideology into the Republican Party. And he used the Civil War as a tool with which to implement the platform of the Whig Party. The nation said no to the Whigs, but war fervor gave one very tricky Whig the opening to impose it on us anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And as far as your comparison chart: Where does it say where I get my free pony? I would have to see a serious analysis and discussion to believe even half of the claims made there. Basically they're saying we can get a LOT of something for less than nothing. Prove it.
....
The problem with the rest of their "ideas" is that they sound a whole lot more like goals rather than specific policy elements. Those types of details could be discussed at a meeting, so it isn't like there's nothing to talk about.
Since the link I posted contained a direct link to the actual legislation the Republicans are proposing, it's a little disingenuous to claim that there's nothing concrete.
Here is the direct link to the proposed bill.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:At which point, Obama would find out what it's like to debate someone who is actually informed.
Give me a brief rundown on how that would go exactly. I don't dislike Ron Paul. I loved what he had to say about the Iraq War in 2008, and I was infuriated by the way he was treated by his competitors for the Republican nomination. But whereas other candidates gave specific responses for how to fix specific problems, his response was some form of "remove government from the equation." I don't think government can solve every problem, but I also don't think it can't solve any problem, which seems to be the general message that Ron Paul has for anyone who will listen. If that isn't his message, he needs to master nuance fast. Seriously though, what would his argument against Obama be?
quote:And I don't think that intentions matter.
When it comes to effectiveness, neither do I. But you didn't address the second part of my sentence.
quote:But Ron Paul doesn't hate government. He isn't an anarchist. Neither am I. The preamble to the Constitution spoke of promoting the general welfare, and then specified how that could be achieved. And it was all by protecting us from the federal government and from foreign enemies. There was nothing in it about creating programs to help people. That's not the role of government; that's the role of other people.
The debate over proactive government went on for decades, with the Whig Party pushing for it and everyone else screaming "NO!" When the Whig Party finally went under and disappeared, a dedicated Whig named Abraham Lincoln decided to bring his Whig ideology into the Republican Party. And he used the Civil War as a tool with which to implement the platform of the Whig Party. The nation said no to the Whigs, but war fervor gave one very tricky Whig the opening to impose it on us anyway
You're painting a lovely version of history that I've not come across in my own studies. Republicans passed a lot of legislation 1861 and 1864, and most of it was wildly popular, like the Homestead Act. Some stuff, particularly relating to monetary policy, I seem to recall didn't go over so well. They ran on a platform promising increased government intervention, and people voted them into power. They then proceeded to enact almost everything they said they would. It seems you are claiming they did some sort of war-induced bait and switch to sneak in ideas that otherwise wouldn't have passed. That ignores the fact that they were elected before the war (obviously) and passed legislation they'd promised to enact before the war started.
I respect the position of a strict constructionist, which it seems is what you are touting. But 21st century America isn't 1789. The Founders never could have imagined the changes that the Industrial Revolution could have brought, or the problems that sprang up during the Gilded Age and into the 20th century. I would argue that government reluctance to involve itself has caused far more problems in history than over-involvement (with the possible exception of the last 20 years, I'm not sure about that).
Also, I question the basic premise of your belief that protecting the general welfare and what not automatically entailed protecting us from the federal government. I think that yes, initially many of them feared an overpowered and overpowering government, but not all of them. Remember that the Founders weren't a monolithic bloc. Many of them felt that the government should have quite a lot of power, so long as it was split amongst the various branches of government.
And I'll take a look at the actual bill in the next week or two. I don't have time this week, but I won't ignore it.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: We all have a right to believe what we wish, just as we have a right to not believe what others do. I happen to lean more to the right than the left. Does that make me a bad person? No, just as someone who leans to the left is not a bad person. We all see things differently.
This is startlingly irrelevant, because people aren't 'dogging' on mal because they think he's a 'bad person for taking a position on the political right.' It's not even what's suggested.
And yet in every posting that I have seen(and I admit I am limited on what I read due to my schedule) mal seems to be belittled for his opinions, misinformed or not. My original point still stands; if you do not wish to debate his opinions, than stop responding to his posts. Or am I thinking wrong here?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
On the subject of the thread. Is it a trap? I don't know. All I can say is that from what I have seen, nothing that the White House, Pelosi, or Reed have done seems to lead me to believe that they care at all about being bipartason.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:My original point still stands; if you do not wish to debate his opinions, than stop responding to his posts. Or am I thinking wrong here?
Yes. Do you think even one of my posts to him here indicate that I do not wish to debate his opinions? They actually represent something startlingly different: that I wish to clearly point out in which ways I believe him to be egregiously wrong.
Obviously, I lack any desire not to debate his opinions, and I possess the right to respond to his posts based on how credibly I think he represents himself as a party to the open dissemination of opinions.
And, to supplant an understanding of your schedule of understanding mal's interaction with this forum: mal is belittled constantly because he constantly makes misinformed opinions that he either cannot or will not retract even in the face of clear evidence of poor judgment, fallacious logic, et al.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I would argue that government reluctance to involve itself has caused far more problems in history than over-involvement (with the possible exception of the last 20 years, I'm not sure about that).
Could you elaborate?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
About which part? The harm caused by lack of government involvement? Or the possible exception of the last 20 years?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:My original point still stands; if you do not wish to debate his opinions, than stop responding to his posts. Or am I thinking wrong here?
Yes. Do you think even one of my posts to him here indicate that I do not wish to debate his opinions? They actually represent something startlingly different: that I wish to clearly point out in which ways I believe him to be egregiously wrong.
Obviously, I lack any desire not to debate his opinions, and I possess the right to respond to his posts based on how credibly I think he represents himself as a party to the open dissemination of opinions.
And, to supplant an understanding of your schedule of understanding mal's interaction with this forum: mal is belittled constantly because he constantly makes misinformed opinions that he either cannot or will not retract even in the face of clear evidence of poor judgment, fallacious logic, et al.
Sam, you kinda just proved my point in your last paragraph. You will NEVER get him to change his opinion, no matter what you say, so what is the point? it's kinda like this. Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
On the health care issue, people seem to forget one little fact; the Democrats controlled EVERYTHING! They had a vast majority in the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and they controlled the White House. And they still could not pass reform. It seems to me that the Republicans were not the problem. It seems that the problem lies within the Democratic party itself.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
If I may butt in, the point I think is that some of us find some of the responses to mal's posts informative and enlightening. (Sam in particular is, I think, one of the more intelligent and entertaining posters here.)
And even if they're not, why do you care if Sam is butting his head against a wall?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: On the health care issue, people seem to forget one little fact; the Democrats controlled EVERYTHING! They had a vast majority in the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and they controlled the White House. And they still could not pass reform. It seems to me that the Republicans were not the problem. It seems that the problem lies within the Democratic party itself.
The Democrats aren't the monolithic voting bloc that the Republicans are, and that's regardless of the fact that there were only 58 Democrats in the Senate, not 60.
Without a Republican filibuster, Democrats wouldn't have had a problem passing their reform bill in a straight up or down vote.
To me, your argument doesn't really mean a whole lot. It might make sense to someone who wasn't aware of how the Senate really works though. 60 is very much an arbitrarily magic number. Anyone who thought, and this includes stupid TV pundits, that just because Democrats got 60 votes, they could start passing whatever they want, doesn't know what they are talking about. Cloture votes are very much ad hoc coalitions that are heavily issue dependent. Party affiliation matters, but there will ALWAYS be people who defect depending on the issue, which makes having 60 official Democrats nice, but you're referring to a paper tiger. In reality they were never that strong.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
And to me, you just stated my whole point, only with different words. Or was the fact that I stated that the problem lies with the Democrats, and not the big, bad Republicans, kind of escape your grasp?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not really. I guess I just don't see your point. It was Republicans who used parliamentary rule trickery to create the 60 vote necessity to begin with. They created an obstacle for Democrats, and you blame Democrats for not overcoming it?
If you're all about assigning blame, then how do you blame the guy who fell over an obstacle and never reached the finish line, but totally ignore the guy who put the obstacle there in the first place?
I just think you're wrong. Saying "Democrats had 60 votes, why didn't they get it done?" is misrepresenting Senate politics. It sounds nice to you, but means nothing without a lot more explanation that you don't seem particularly willing to engage (if your last couple posts are examples of your understanding of nuance in this subject, that is).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Sam, you kinda just proved my point in your last paragraph. You will NEVER get him to change his opinion, no matter what you say, so what is the point? it's kinda like this.
I have two points regarding this post. Both of them really reinforce why I'm not actually proving a point/standpoint you are making. It might get pedantic because I'm blitzed out of my mind on anti-allergens.
1. Directly implicating malanthrop with an inability to change his opinion, no matter what I say? Not only is that wrong (I've forced him to change his approaches and waffle small points frequently) but if it were true that it is no matter what I say, it would necessarily implicate that malanthrop's opinion is indeed impervious to correction, because there's 'no matter' how clearly corrective my statements would hypothetically be able to be. Not a very nebulous defense of the guy.
2. Whether or not my responses to malanthrop can be construed to have 'a point' by you is irrelevant to whether or not I "do not wish to debate his opinions" — I still obviously wish to debate his opinions, so as I mentioned before, your original point does not, in fact, stand.
So I strongly recommend that you re-evaluate your stance before continuing to assert that I'm reinforcing it. Since this seems to be a technique you rely upon often, I should mention that you should re-evaluate whether Lyrhawn has just "stated [your] whole point" in the subsequent discussion between you two (hint: he didn't).
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Fact: I stated that the problem lies in the Democratic party. Fact: Lyrhawn stated that there will ALWAYS be people who defect depending on the issue. That sounds very similar to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: That sounds very similar to me.
I'm sure it does. I am well aware you don't actually understand why your appraisal is wrong, yet.
The fact remains that what Lyrhawn is stating is very different from what you are claiming, and they're not just for reasons like how your entire construction of the liberal/conservative power balance doesn't take into account the fact that they only had supermajority through common caucus, not supermajority within the party. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: About which part? The harm caused by lack of government involvement? Or the possible exception of the last 20 years?
I'd love to see your opinion of the last twenty years, personally. The problem looks to me like really uneven regulation that led to piling the risk up in a few small areas. Which we still haven't fixed.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: That sounds very similar to me.
I'm sure it does. I am well aware you don't actually understand why your appraisal is wrong, yet.
The fact remains that what Lyrhawn is stating is very different from what you are claiming, and they're not just for reasons like how your entire construction of the liberal/conservative power balance doesn't take into account the fact that they only had supermajority through common caucus, not supermajority within the party.
That is the point I was trying to make. Neither party would be willing to say "We could have got this done, if only our own party would not have stopped us." It is more politically convenient to blame the other party. I'm sure the Republicans did same thing during the Clinton administration, when the they controlled Congress.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: About which part? The harm caused by lack of government involvement? Or the possible exception of the last 20 years?
The last 20 years part.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I would have to break the last twenty years into two halves, by subject, not by chronology. When I look at American history from say, 1865 to the 1980s, I see a huge array of problems that nobody but the government could have realistically fixed. With a few notable exceptions (such as social issues like race relations, civil rights, gender equality etc), I tend to view most American history through the lens of a struggle between the average citizen and corporate America (let's say, from the Gilded Age, when corporations actually arose, onward). There are a lot of exceptions to this lens, which is why I never limit myself to it, but it has reared its ugly head pretty rudely in recent history.
If you go back to the 1865 era, you find that government intervention in the south is massive. The north ran the south under federally dominated military dictatorships for years. Now the south still uses this as an example of federal overreaching and government intrusion, but really, which southerners? Certainly not black southerners, who saw their rights ebb and flow in perfect correlation with the level of federal involvement. When Redeemer Governments took over, black voting rates, which had been impressively high during Reconstruction, vanished entirely. Mississippi and I want to say South Carolina, actually sent black Senators to Congress in the post-war Reconstruction period. But after the Hayes-Tilden fiasco in 1877, Federal troops were removed, and it was almost a century until black southerners had those rights again. I would also argue that blacks today don't have the Congressional representation and governmental clout that they had during Reconstruction. Part of that is due to black migratory diffusion of power in the 20s, 30s and 40s, and a lot of other reasons, but had they kept that power, things would be considerably different. I'd also throw out that the south became educationally and economically the most backward region of the country for a century after the federal government pulled out.
American labor history, which is my specific field of interest, is a story purely of the struggles between workers and management. For anyone who says that people should be allowed to work problems out themselves without government getting in the way, here's your best example of how that doesn't work. Workers, even when united, have historically never had the power necessary to break corporations. This has changed somewhat as finding replacement workers for skilled labor isn't as easy as it used to be, but for more than a hundred years, the only redress these people had was a government that stepped in to help.
I'd also throw out worker safety laws, minimum wage laws, environmental protection laws like the clean air and clean water act, etc, all as acts that ONLY the government could realistically achieve in order to protect the people against corporate apathy and avarice.
I'm a little hesitant to put pronouncements on an era that is the least studied in American history (the last 20 years), so I'll put forth the qualifier that this opinion is without having done in depth research on the subject, it's just observations based on what I have seen in comparison with material I actually have done a lot of research on.
It seems to me that, as it relates to corporations and the relaxing of regulations, the last 20 years is identical to the previous 150. With regulations relaxed, corporations immediately regressed to a time of acting less responsibly, which suggests to me an inherent greed and lack of care for the nation as a whole in corporations that is kept in check purely through regulation, and when that vigilance is lowered, the greed pours forth.
I think the difference between now and past generations though is personal responsibility. The argument always used to be in the Gilded Age and the early 20th century, a call to the Horatio Alger self-made man mantra as one of America's great themes. But the irony has generally been that up until the 40s, this theme was largely hollow, and that the average man could never be that successful, it was the few, not the many, and it was due to situation, not potential. I don't think this has radically changed. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed." It's not a scientific study, but it's a good example of how impossible it is to live off the minimum wage (of course, it was written in the 90s before recent changes in the minimum wage, but then, the jobless rate is much higher today, so maybe there's an overlap). And her study wasn't even in the inner city, where living is considerably more difficult.
Many of the problems of the inner city were caused by regular people, and many of them were also caused by the government, and a lack of government involvement at precisely the times when a minimum of effort would have solved a lot of problems which have now become massive and systemic.
I think the difference I see though, in the last 20 years over all of American history, is a breakdown in basic personal responsibility. The problem used to be that people struggled against titanic forces that they could never hope to defeat without the government stepping in to help, and now it seems a great portion of the population simply expects the government to fix all their problems for them. Sometimes they're right, it should be the government, but the broad brush painted by some without thinking about what they can do for themselves, is change from the past. I think this, combined with a demand for lower taxes is where America gets most of its disconnect, and ALL of its budget problems.
This doesn't apply quite as much to the poor, but people spend too much. People eat too much fast food. People do irresponsible things without taking personal responsibility for their actions. Ironically, people are acting a lot more like corporations. They're making big messes, and then expecting the government to bail them out, but also like corporations, they demand help but decry any intrusions other than ones specifically asked for, even when they are for the good of the nation as a whole.
I know that last sentence will get some people hot and bothered. After all, shouldn't government back off when we tell them to, and help when we ask? Shouldn't we be leery of phrases like "for the good of the nation as a whole"? I think those are valuable things to be wary of, and it goes to the question of vigilance that I brought up earlier. But again, there's this mountain of history of things we've done wrong that government has fixed through massive intrusions into our lives and into the workings of business, and we're all better off for it. It's the problem with the individualistic nature of Americans. It might not be so much that we're selfish, for Americans can be very generous, but we often fail to see the forest for the trees, and fail to realize that what's good for the nation as a whole, and maybe even for me individually in the long run, might mean some short-term personal sacrifices I wouldn't have chosen otherwise.
This is kind of a meandering post, and I apologize for that. I'm trying to type as fast as I can because I have to get back to reading for a mid-term essay that's due in 48 hours. But I'll close by saying I'm invoking the "possible exception" part of what I claimed before. In a lot of ways, the last 20 years are more like the Gilded Age than anything was during the 20th century. But that's at the highest level. At the personal level, I think we've departed from a mantra of personal responsibility that used to be connected with our mantra of individualism.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
I agree with you that people have gotten more of a "it's not my fault" philosophy in recent years. It frustrates me to no end, because I personally have made mistakes in my life, but never have I blamed anyone else for them. I also tend not to ask others to solve my problems or fix my mistakes for me. that is just my way of thinking.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's absolutely excellent that Stephen Colbert used this in reference to this very issue on his show tonight.
That guy really has his finger on the pulse of the geek community.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think it's absolutely excellent that Stephen Colbert used this in reference to this very issue on his show tonight.
That guy really has his finger on the pulse of the geek community.
That's because he's a super geek himself. He can recite passages from Lord of the Rings from memory, for goodness sake.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Can't we all?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Congress has 16 doctors, 6 accountants and over 200 lawyers. We wonder why there is no discussion of tort reform, the budget isn't balanced and the healthcare debate is so messed up.
We need to go back to electing proven leaders instead of lawyers and community organizers. Generals and CEO's are better than ambulance chasing lawyers and community organizers.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
CEO's would much prefer making money to actual politics (and in fact much prefer controlling politics from behind the scenes) and Generals usually know better then to enter politics as the blackhole that won't let them leave.
Although I did voice vocal support for Romney as a possible Repubican candidate due to his successful business credentials.
However to say that lawyers are somehow inherently worse then Generals or CEOs to be is just plain retarded of you, and thats ignoring your obvious and not to subtle barb at Obama, community organizers if anything are suporior credential to lead while the purpose of CEOs and Generals is to advise.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We need to go back to electing proven leaders instead of lawyers and community organizers. Generals and CEO's are better than ambulance chasing lawyers and community organizers.
While I'm amused by your attempt to turn "community organizer" into a slur on par with "ambulance-chasing" lawyers, and while I actually agree that we have too many lawyers in Congress (although, to be honest, I think it's worth noting that this isn't a recent trend, and perhaps it's fairly natural that people interested in law tend to also be people interested in legislation), I hesitate to agree with the assertion that CEOs and generals are "better" -- by any objective standard -- than lawmakers and activists.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It seems like lawyers might write tight, well-written laws with narrow bias, while non-lawyers might write crappy, hole-ridden, ill-written laws with a wider range of biases.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
It seems like a non-lawyer congressman might have one or more lawyers on staff for that purpose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, given how many laws created in Congress are crappy laws, and how many Congresspeople are lawyers, I'm not sure we have much evidence for that even if it seems logical on its face. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It could be so, so much worse.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Every congressman and every senator has a staff that includes legal professionals even if they aren't lawyers themselves. Every bill at both national and state levels is sent to legal council for review. There is no reason that a politician needs legal training any more than other forms of expertise, as long as they appoint competent people to their staff and respect the opinions of genuine experts.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Appoint competent people AND respect the opinions of genuine experts? Really? Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:All I can say is that from what I have seen, nothing that the White House, Pelosi, or Reed have done seems to lead me to believe that they care at all about being bipartason.
In all seriousness, what could the White House do that would lead you to believe that they care about being bipartison that they haven't done?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's wrong, Rabbit. They could be spending all their time and energy on stupid ideas that no matter how you craft the language, are inherently unenforcable and unconstitutional. No matter how smart the staff, the legislator is still in charge. Staff can't and shouldn't dictate the legislator's agenda.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's wrong, Rabbit. They could be spending all their time and energy on stupid ideas that no matter how you craft the language, are inherently unenforcable and unconstitutional. No matter how smart the staff, the legislator is still in charge. Staff can't and shouldn't dictate the legislator's agenda.
No kat, you are the one who is mistaken. The role of legal council isn't to craft the language, it is to offer expert opinion on what is unconstitutional, unenforcable, or in direct conflict with existing law.
For example, in the Utah state legislature, all bills are reviewed by the legislature's General Counsel whose job it is to provide legal advice on the issues you mention. The Legislators are free to heed or ignore such advice as they please.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, Rabbit, you are simply wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's a non-partisan Office of Legislative Counsel attached to Congress itself.
Here's a list of their duties (edit: this is actually for the Senate office):
quote:Drafting bills and resolutions for introduction, and drafting of amendments for use by Senators during subcommittee, committee, and floor consideration of bills and resolutions.
Drafting bills reported by Senate committees and conference reports for House and Senate conference committees.
Providing advice (including advice on form and procedure) on drafts of bills, resolutions, and amendments.
Providing advice on constitutional, legal, and technical problems in statutes, proposed legislation, and reports and explanatory statements accompanying proposed legislation.
[ February 18, 2010, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I don't trust politicians that have never been anything other than a politician. The people should be lead by the best of the people, with all backgrounds. Obama and his ilk, went to college, studied, interned and worked all towards a lifelong political power goal. What is a "community organizer", if not the consumate politician. His credentials....a political leader of class warfare. Then you have the royals...Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Pelosi, etc, etc. A family heritage of political power. They were raised in power and trained to be in power. Stupid voters fall in line for their name.
Do you really think these people represent "the people"? They know how to win elections but they are not "Of the people". Congress was never intended to be a full time job. Texas has the right idea. Their legislature is called every two years. We don't need full-time lawmakers...unless you think we can never have enough laws.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)