Son of US Politics

[DanteGabriel]

You could make that argument, but to link it directly to the 2008 financial crisis, as the President did, is absurd, particularly since we've had that same employment-based system for more than 50 years without suffering a financial meltdown. He's simply trying to shoehorn his health care plan into the "don't let a good crisis go to waste" startegy of his Chief of Staff. The health care plan may be a good idea, or it made be bad idea. But trying to beat up a recalcitrant Senator by manufacturing a causal link between health care and the meltdown is both cheap politics and bad logic.

So you don't think the rapid growth of health care costs has had an adverse impact on the American economy?

He's not fucking saying that health care costs are what caused the banking sector to run aground on its own hubris. He's saying the current economic downturn, which includes but is not limited to the financial collapse of late 2008, was partially contributed to by our fucked up health care system, which causes wage stagnation, drives families into bankruptcy, and is part of the ever-tightening squeeze on the middle class.

[alguien]

But that assumes that balancing a budget is necessarily the highest priority of all, which I don't think is anyone's position. Government is a process of managing competing priorities, and there are times when other policiy considerations may mean you don't balance the budget. But just because you don't actually balance the budget is not the same as saying you don't care about deficits at all, and aren't still trying to keep them as small as they can be under the circumstances. That's why the "you ran deficits; therefore, you don't care about deficit spending" argument is just plain wrong. You just may have had higher priorities at the time.

Fair enough, balancing a budget may not be an administration's highest priority, but it should still at least be one. I saw little-to-no evidence during the past eight years that it was, nor did I hear much out of the Republican congressmen that this was a concern or priority.

Well, sort of. The U.S. ran deficts under Clinton from 1992 through 1997. Would it be fair to say he didn't care about deficits? Clinton also had a Republican House --the first one since the 50's. And I don't think that was coincidental that they managed a surplus. Clinton also benefitted enormously from the so-called "peace dividend" that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was first articulated by Bush 41, and was going to benefit whichever candidate won election in 1992. Please understand that I'm not taking credit away from Clinton, but I am pointing out that it should be shared because you had a moderate Democrat in the White House, and budget-cutting Republicans in the House who had no incentive to spend a lot of money on Republican projects that Clinton would have vetoed anyway. It worked.

Granted, there were circumstances that contributed to this budget surplus, and what they were and how much a factor they played can be debated, but its been reported that it was a huge concern to Clinton to get this done, which, Republican help or not, it was. Do you concede that this was tossed out the window during the following eight years?

I've never defended Bush fiscally or on most domestic issues, and I won't try now. Medicare D should never have been passed, and same with No Child. The problem was that the Republicans in Congress, just like Democrats today (on other issues), don't like to undercut their President, so they went along with it. To their shame, in my opinion. And I can say that in the party circles with which I'm familiar, that was not popular. The issue of the war is different, because I'd put that under the category of (perceived) higher priority. But Medicare D was just blatant vote-buying, in my opinion. It also should be pointed out that deficits under Bush peaked in 2004 at around $450B, but dropped pretty significantly in 2005, 2006, and 2007, down to only $163B. So clearly, someone cared about those deficits. The "Republicans didn't care about deficits" argument is just wrong. What is correct is to say that the deficit was not the Republicans' highest priority.

Fair enough, but by going with their president and placing it as low as they did on their list of priorities, they have abandoned the platform of fiscal conservatism, which as I understood it, was the one of central platforms of the GOP.

And that's the first argument I still don't get, for two reasons. First, as I said above, just because you deficit spend does not mean you are indifferent to the deficit. Obama is going to run huge deficits -- does that mean he's indifferent to them? I don't believe so. Like Bush, he's going to try to cut some things that aren't a priority, but he has other priorities that outweigh the deficit issue. And the second reason, which should be somewhat apparent, is that someone who may excuse a $300B deficit may not be willing to excuse one that could be in excess of $1.5T.

To say it was 300B deficit is another false talking point. (and one that I loath) Obama inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.

Now, as to your other point, I'm not saying that the Republicans didn't care at all about the deficit, more that they were so lock-step with their president, they didn't make it a high enough priority. In fact, it was so low on their priority list, they ceded the right to be called fiscally conservative.

And this is the argument I really don't understand at all. The Republican are opposing the health bill solely because of a desire to be obstructionist? The logical corrolary to that is that they are "really" in favor of the bill on its merits, but only opposing it to stick it to Obama. Sorry, but I just don't believe that. I think they really don't like it. Or to put it in the context of this discussion, I don't think Republicans consider the health bill to be a sufficiently high priority to overcome their objections regarding its costs.

Have you not heard the "Waterloo" quote? I mean, its not like we're making this up out of thin air. Can you not see how politically beneficial it would be for them for Obama's administration to fail? He said it himself, they've allowed a portion of their base to portray him as a bolshevik communist and now if they negotiate with him, it appears they're supporting that. Its not just healthcare, its everything. Have you not seen the linked articles where republicans ask for something to be put in a bill, though they will not vote for it? There has never been a Republican caucus that has voted so lock step against every proposal.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So you don't think the rapid growth of health care costs has had an adverse impact on the American economy?

To some extent, it is part of the American economy that provides a lot of jobs, etc. Are you (adn the President) actually arguing that creating a new health care entitlement, and setting higher floors for coverage, including no lifetime limit and no preexisting condition exclusions, at a cost of over $800B, is reducing the amount our country spends on health care?? Even if you want to somehow make that argument, the reduction in overall health care spending (assuming no drop in quality) is going to be insignificant compared to the factors that led to the financial meltdown.

He's saying the current economic downturn, which includes but is not limited to the financial collapse of late 2008, was partially contributed to by our fucked up health care system,

Okay, I think that's an indefensible argument given the costs of his proposal, especially since he's telling us that nothing will change for those of us who have employer-based health care, but you know what, I dont care enough about this one to argue anymore on it.

[DanteGabriel]

I'm not going to have the 1000th iteration of the debate of long-term costs of health care reform vs. letting the Beast That Cannot Be Fed get bigger.

I just thought your one take-away from the article I posted, that Obama is blaming health care for the banking sector's implosion, was dumb and irrelevant.

You may return to defending the integrity and fiscal policies of the GOP.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think that completely overlooks the rather dramatic drop in the deficit from 2004 through 2007, especially since he inherited an economy that was getting ready to enter a recession. They should have done better, but cutting the deficit from $450B to $163B in three years is not inconsequential. And if you don't think Republicans were saying in the 2000's that they needed to get control of the deficit, I would respectfully suggest that might be a function of the media outlets you choose to follow, because I recall reading about it quite a bit. Just as one example, Bush and House Republicans pushed from more than $50B in Medicare cuts in 2005, but 7 "moderate" Republicans voted with Dems to kill it.

Do you think the GOP planned to have that large a deficit? Because if we're discussing whether GOP intentions matched their rhetoric, that's the relevant question. They clearly took steps all along to try to either 1) reduce the decifit, or 2) keep it from getting too large. The 2008 meltdown wasn't anything anyone planned for, so it isn't relevant to the claim that the GOP consciously abandoned deficit-cutting.

Of what value is this "right" to be called "fiscally conservative"? I mean, if we were each drafting campaign commercials, I might get the point of the argument. But if we're discussing issues, I don't see what relevance it has to the GOP claiming that Obama's health care plan costs too much.

Yup. And I think it just was someone stating openly what opposing politicians have always said among themselves.

Yes. And the exact same can be said about Bush for the Democrats, etc. As a matter of fact, I recall reading an article on Salon in 2003 where the editor who wrote admitted to secretly rooting for more troops to get killed during the invasion, because a quick and easy victory would help Bush too much politically. And he mentioned that while he was hesitant to say this to his liberal friends, he was amazed at how many of them admitted agreeing with the sentiment. Now that's some pretty nasty stuff, and I don't think all Democrats were willing to see troops die just to benefit politically. But I certainly think a lot of them wished for his policies otherwise to fail.

And to be honest, I see nothing wrong with the general sentiment of wanting an opposing politician to fail, with the proviso that you don't wish so if it harms the nation. But on principle/beliefs alone, I disagree with most of Obama's policies. Why would I want Congress to pass thing I don't think are good for the country? I'd rather have Congress do nothing rather than something with which I disagree, and I don't understand why that it offensive to some.

Have you not seen the linked articles where republicans ask for something to be put in a bill, though they will not vote for it?

Okay. I assume you did not support the invasion of Iraq, and would have opposed the October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force. Suppose you had been asked if the resolution should include a provision stating that any prisoners taken suring such an invasion should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. My guess is that you'd say yes, and ask for that to be included in the final resolution. Does that mean you'd have voted for the resolution simply because they included one thing you'd like in something you otherwise found objectionable?

[DanteGabriel]

Do you think the GOP planned to have that large a deficit? Because if we're discussing whether GOP intentions matched their rhetoric, that's the relevant question. They clearly took steps all along to try to either 1) reduce the decifit, or 2) keep it from getting too large. The 2008 meltdown wasn't anything anyone planned for, so it isn't relevant to the claim that the GOP consciously abandoned deficit-cutting.

You think the administration that consciously kept the Iraq and Afghanistan occupation costs from being accounted for in their budgets were trying to be sound financial managers? Sure, they were trying to reduce the deficit... by cooking the books. It was Enron all over again with those fuckers.

As far as I can tell you haven't addressed the enormous bad faith demonstrated by the GOP's off-the-books financing of the occupations. Why the fuck are we supposed to trust those people on economic policy when they ran a war like Enron?

Yes. And the exact same can be said about Bush for the Democrats, etc. As a matter of fact, I recall reading an article on Salon in 2003 where the editor who wrote admitted to secretly rooting for more troops to get killed during the invasion, because a quick and easy victory would help Bush too much politically. And he mentioned that while he was hesitant to say this to his liberal friends, he was amazed at how many of them admitted agreeing with the sentiment. Now that's some pretty nasty stuff, and I don't think all Democrats were willing to see troops die just to benefit politically. But I certainly think a lot of them wished for his policies otherwise to fail.

That's a pretty awful fucking thing to say. I'd like to see this Salon article. And I'd like to see some evidence that anyone more than a couple of Salon staffers were saying that.

You know, once I saw an article on the National Review where the editor and his friends confessed joy at skullfucking Iraqi war orphans during their taxpayer-funded junkets to Baghdad. That's pretty nasty stuff. I'm not saying all Republicans skullfuck Iraqi war orphans on the taxpayer's dime, but I certainly think a lot of them want to.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

To some extent, it is part of the American economy that provides a lot of jobs, etc. Are you (adn the President) actually arguing that creating a new health care entitlement, and setting higher floors for coverage, including no lifetime limit and no preexisting condition exclusions, at a cost of over $800B, is reducing the amount our country spends on health care??

Why the hell not? Other places with "healthcare entitlement" pay less for healthcare. Why not here?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's a pretty awful fucking thing to say. I'd like to see this Salon article. And I'd like to see some evidence that anyone more than a couple of Salon staffers were saying that.

I never claimed that anything more than a Salon editor said that, but feel free to read the article for yourself. Here's the guts of it:

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds.

Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/04/11/liberation/index1.html

Please note that I didn't tar everyone with this guy's feather. I don't think most people who disliked Bush went as far as he did -- to be willing to accept more deaths just to ensure Bush's failure. But I do think at least half of that sentiment, wanting Bush to fail generally so he wouldn't get re-elected, was no less common than the "Waterloo" sentiment. And again, I don't see anything inherently immoral in that at all. If you think a politician's policies are bad for the country, you should want him or her to fail.

[The Iceman of the North]

Do you think the GOP planned to have that large a deficit? Because if we're discussing whether GOP intentions matched their rhetoric, that's the relevant question. They clearly took steps all along to try to either 1) reduce the decifit, or 2) keep it from getting too large. The 2008 meltdown wasn't anything anyone planned for, so it isn't relevant to the claim that the GOP consciously abandoned deficit-cutting.

Surely, nothing is more effective in avoiding deficit than reducing taxes and keeping roomful of cash in war-zones with little to no control.

[DanteGabriel]

Please note that I didn't tar everyone with this guy's feather. I don't think most people who disliked Bush went as far as he did -- to be willing to accept more deaths just to ensure Bush's failure. But I do think at least half of that sentiment, wanting Bush to fail generally so he wouldn't get re-elected, was no less common than the "Waterloo" sentiment. And again, I don't see anything inherently immoral in that at all. If you think a politician's policies are bad for the country, you should want him or her to fail.

So one Salon writer and his friends secretly had dirty thoughts about wanting Bush's invasion to fail, and that is somehow morally equivalent with elected public servants openly announcing their intention to hamstring a duly elected President in the middle of an economic crisis, for the political benefit of their own faction that caused the fucking crisis?

Fuck your horseshit.

[alguien]

I think that completely overlooks the rather dramatic drop in the deficit from 2004 through 2007, especially since he inherited an economy that was getting ready to enter a recession. They should have done better, but cutting the deficit from $450B to $163B in three years is not inconsequential. And if you don't think Republicans were saying in the 2000's that they needed to get control of the deficit, I would respectfully suggest that might be a function of the media outlets you choose to follow, because I recall reading about it quite a bit. Just as one example, Bush and House Republicans pushed from more than $50B in Medicare cuts in 2005, but 7 "moderate" Republicans voted with Dems to kill it.

My problem with your reasoning is that yes, there was a drop from 2004 to 2007, there was rise from 2000 to 2004 of 450 billion! And then it more than tripled in 2008. Most of my media soundbites, that I recall were that the Republican congressmen stating they supported the President. But yes, its not as cut and dry as all that.

Do you think the GOP planned to have that large a deficit? Because if we're discussing whether GOP intentions matched their rhetoric, that's the relevant question. They clearly took steps all along to try to either 1) reduce the decifit, or 2) keep it from getting too large. The 2008 meltdown wasn't anything anyone planned for, so it isn't relevant to the claim that the GOP consciously abandoned deficit-cutting.

No, I'm not saying they planned a deficit. What I'm arguing is against is the false premise Obama increased the deficit from 300 billion to 1.5. trillion.

Of what value is this "right" to be called "fiscally conservative"? I mean, if we were each drafting campaign commercials, I might get the point of the argument. But if we're discussing issues, I don't see what relevance it has to the GOP claiming that Obama's health care plan costs too much.

I guess I thought that would be self-evident. They're claiming to oppose the health care reform because it costs too much, which goes against the core fiscal conservative values of the GOP. I call bs because the GOP of the past eight years has completely abandoned this platform.

Now, if you're saying they oppose healthcare because they don't believe its an entitlement, that's one thing. However, nearly all the soundbites I've heard from their caucus have stated their opposition to stem from a financial concern.

Yup. And I think it just was someone stating openly what opposing politicians have always said among themselves.

Fine, then you acknowledge its also evidence that their opposition is politically motivated rather than motivated by principle or integrity.

Yes. And the exact same can be said about Bush for the Democrats, etc. As a matter of fact, I recall reading an article on Salon in 2003 where the editor who wrote admitted to secretly rooting for more troops to get killed during the invasion, because a quick and easy victory would help Bush too much politically. And he mentioned that while he was hesitant to say this to his liberal friends, he was amazed at how many of them admitted agreeing with the sentiment. Now that's some pretty nasty stuff, and I don't think all Democrats were willing to see troops die just to benefit politically. But I certainly think a lot of them wished for his policies otherwise to fail.

Link please. [ETA: never mind. Read them. Failing to see the equivalence between a writer in Salon and actual politica representatives]

And to be honest, I see nothing wrong with the general sentiment of wanting an opposing politician to fail, with the proviso that you don't wish so if it harms the nation. But on principle/beliefs alone, I disagree with most of Obama's policies. Why would I want Congress to pass thing I don't think are good for the country? I'd rather have Congress do nothing rather than something with which I disagree, and I don't understand why that it offensive to some.

You're proviso is the part that I think is the most important. I think at this point, Republicans are hoping for failure regardless of the consequences to the country, as evidenced by popular conservative talk show hosts (Rush) and by the politicians themselves. (see Waterloo)

I'm not offended that you oppose the health care bill, but I think it would do you some good to take into account that your political party's motives in opposing it are not as pure as you're stating.

Okay. I assume you did not support the invasion of Iraq, and would have opposed the October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force. Suppose you had been asked if the resolution should include a provision stating that any prisoners taken suring such an invasion should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. My guess is that you'd say yes, and ask for that to be included in the final resolution. Does that mean you'd have voted for the resolution simply because they included one thing you'd like in something you otherwise found objectionable?

Not the best hypothetical, for several reasons. One of them being that Iraq was started on a false premise and health care is a very real problem. Also, there's a huge difference in starting a war (and setting the most dangerous precedent of a preemptive strike) and giving people better access to health care. So lets not call these two apples when one is a rotten carrot.

But, if there was a bill that I opposed, but had national support, then I would try to work in as many compromises as possible. I have yet to see that in this instance with Republicans and health care besides the pithy vote from Olympia Snowe.

ps. thanks for using the multi-quote!

[The Progressive]

But that assumes that balancing a budget is necessarily the highest priority of all, which I don't think is anyone's position. Government is a process of managing competing priorities, and there are times when other policiy considerations may mean you don't balance the budget. But just because you don't actually balance the budget is not the same as saying you don't care about deficits at all, and aren't still trying to keep them as small as they can be under the circumstances. That's why the "you ran deficits; therefore, you don't care about deficit spending" argument is just plain wrong. You just may have had higher priorities at the time.

Of what value is this "right" to be called "fiscally conservative"? I mean, if we were each drafting campaign commercials, I might get the point of the argument. But if we're discussing issues, I don't see what relevance it has to the GOP claiming that Obama's health care plan costs too much.

Surely you could see the inherent contradiction between these statement. By your rational, the Democrats are about as fiscally conservative as the Republicans due to the priorities of the time, yes?

To spent all that time arguing that fiscal conservatism is the fundamental thing that set the Republicans apart are pretty pointless, I think. Your strongest argument would be what is the proper role of the government and/or how it should use its power to ensure that those responsibilities are carried out effectively.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why the hell not? Other places with "healthcare entitlement" pay less for healthcare. Why not here?

Without grubbing the details, I don't think you can cover millions of the previously uninsured and improve coverage for everyone else without it costing some money. The cost estimates right now are based on future cuts to Medicare, when Congress has refused to implement prior "automatic" cuts every single year in the past. It is possible that a reform plan could save money, but it can't do so by covering so many more people and providing more benefits without a drop in care or in research. Something has to give. I'm sure you have a link that disagrees, but I don't care to get into that.

[The Progressive]

Without grubbing the details

I have to say that is just another way of saying that one really can't bother to argue the facts of the issues and therefore would rather stick to groundless generalization as a way to advance their argument. Surely intellectual credibility still means something even in this age of soundbites and talkingpoints?

But whatever float one's boat, I guess.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nope. Sorry.

That may very well be true depending upon the particular facts at the time. Look, I'll say this -- Reagan wanted to increase military spending and cut social spending. Democrats wanted the reverse. I don't think either position is inherently more sound fiscally than the other. I do think you can draw a distinction between binding entitlement programs on the one hand, and other expenditures that can more naturally be terminated over time or reduced, though. To me, entitlements are fiscal death because there's no real prospect of a peace dividend drawdown. Entitlements are fiscal herpes.

I agree, which is why I never argued that. I don't think it's even true except in the limited entitlement context I mentioned above, and even there, the GOP deserves a kick in the nuts for Medicare D. But that's a far cry from saying that Republicans can't morally raise an anti-deficit argument in response to a specific program. I'd expect Democrats to do the same thing if they think there is Republican spending with which they don't agree.

Yup.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I have to say that is just another way of saying that one really can't bother to argue the facts of the issues and therefore would rather stick to groundless generalization as a way to advance their argument. Surely intellectual credibility still means something even in this age of soundbites and talkingpoints?

But whatever float one's boat, I guess.

Hitler made a mistake of fighting on two fronts at once. I'm doing about six, dude. And the problem with the "facts" on these things is that the numbers are generally all based on estimates as to things that will happen in the future, which is a freakin' guess half the time. As I said, the numbers in the current health care plan, which still costs nearly $900B, are dependent upon future Congresses having the cojones to cut Medicare. Without those cuts, costs will be nearly a half trillion higher. Will they happen, or not? Who knows. History tells us no. Even the CBO report gives numbers, and then steps back and essentially admits its a lot of guesswork. So I'll just fall back on the aphorism that you can't get something for nothing.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

So I'll just fall back on the aphorism that you can't get something for nothing.

That's a fucking straw man though. Noone is claiming you can get something for nothing. The money could be spent much more efficiently though, as is evident from other countries successfully doing just that.