US Politics: Thread #hbar

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

It's Lawerence O'Donnell (that socialist bastard :P ) v. Glenn Greenwald (that progressive weiner :P ).

:)

[Shryke]

Shryke,

What? I'm not extrapolating the other way, or at all. I'm saying you can't draw the conclusion you are, and that's all I'm saying. For your conclusion to be valid, it would have to be the case that the districts you're comparing are electorally identical, which they almost certainly aren't and which you definitely can't prove. You're attempting to make an argument based on one factor but ignoring other factors that are impossible to hold equal. Voters in different districts are... different people (one hopes!). If I'm misunderstanding your argument, or making an error of logic, please point it out, because I don't see it.

I pointed it out above already. That's as close as you are gonna get in this kind of stuff to a controlled experiment. 2 side by side, almost identical districts with widely varying results based on the candidates platform. WTF more do you want?

If you wanna throw up your hands and say "there's no way of knowing anything", ok, fine, do that. But that's not what FLOW was saying and it was not, from my reading, what you were saying either. You can't assume the position that "Democrats lost because they were too liberal" as the default. If I follow your logic above, it's just as equally unprovable.

In reality, like any social science, in politics you work with what you can. And that's election results like I showed above and polling and other general data.

Polling shows jobs were most people's #1 issue. This, as I said, is consistent with political theory's general rule that the largest force in elections is the economy. The better it is, the more force it puts behind whoever is seen as the incumbent. The worse it is, the more force it puts behind the challenger. Your ground game and your ads and your GOTV efforts swing the vote one way or the other, but not near as much as the overall economy.

Democrats in districts with less sure majorities from 2008 got wrecked. But those who went with the party did better then those who went against the party.

And then there's voter turnout, which shows a wildly different demographic spread then 2008.

Basically, the economy is shit and that puts the Democrats down right from the start. The GOPs voter base turned out, the Democrats didn't. And despite all that, progressive Dems lost by less then conservative Dems. I don't see how the idea of this election as a realignment or rejection of liberalism holds at all.

[Shryke]

Good question. To me, the "compromise" should be not letting disagreement on some issues prevent agreement on others. You don't dick with stuff unless you have a real disagreement. And I'm sure there will be some pretty routine stuff on which they'll agree.

But on your overall point, I actually agree that there is not much room for compromise on the core points of disagreement. One party wants to go east, the other west, so there isn't any "common ground". I think those disputes just get resolved however the legislative process plays out.

The real conflicts are going to be with the appropriations bills coming out of the House, and I do think the GOP has the strategic advantage here. Suppose the GOP sends out a bill that pays for some programs, but defunds or greatly cuts others. Do the Democrats reject the bill, essentially saying that nothing is better than something? That might be tough, especially if the GOP manages to swing a few Democrats in the Senate.

They'll just quietly kill it in the Senate. Or they quietly modify it in committee somewhere. That's what the Senate is good at and what it's been doing for like 4 years now. And in the end, Obama has the veto. (But they'll probably avoid using that since it makes a big story.)

Peoples lack of knowledge about the legislative process and the current media narrative now work against the GOP. The question is whether they will be able to turn it around.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Polling shows jobs were most people's #1 issue. This, as I said, is consistent with political theory's general rule that the largest force in elections is the economy. The better it is, the more force it puts behind

Polling also showed that a majority of voters believed that excessive levels of government spending were hurting job creation. FDR won despite a shitty economy that he could blame on Hoover because he offered the people what they wanted. The Democrats thought that the voters wanted more government spending, and they didn't.

Data shows that the savings rate is at the highest level it's been in a long time, meaning that people are practicing austerity on a personal level. It shouldn't have been hard to figure out that having a government that did the opposite wasn't going to play well.

Now granted, if the government's stimulus had worked, they might feel differently. But because it didn't work as they expected, they blame their predicament at least in part on what they view as too much government spending. And that is not a liberal POV.

[Guest Raidne]

The real conflicts are going to be with the appropriations bills coming out of the House, and I do think the GOP has the strategic advantage here. Suppose the GOP sends out a bill that pays for some programs, but defunds or greatly cuts others. Do the Democrats reject the bill, essentially saying that nothing is better than something? That might be tough, especially if the GOP manages to swing a few Democrats in the Senate.

Here's my question - something like 53% of the budget is mandatory - meaning it is not subject to the appropriations bill. Obviously that includes Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Does that not also include the funding required for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Or was that passed as subject to discretionary spending?

Or is that why I'm hearing about weird things like refusing to fund IRS enforcement of the penalty provisions and such?

Which would, by the way, only have the effect of nullifying the economic savings under the Health Care bill, while still allowing for all of the costs.

ETA: I suppose I'm a little biased on the government spending/jobs thing, as my job is a direct result of increased government spending. And what brought us to D.C. in the first place? Oh right, my husband's company's contract, also a result of increased government spending. And what is that increased government spending doing? Adjudicating Veteran's benefits claims and hiring more qualified airport security. Can't argue with that.

For me, conservatives are like the people who realize they are way outspending their income and so vow to swear off lattes while hanging on to a $600/month Mercedes. Then, when someone suggests they drive a $300/month Corolla instead of a $600/month Mercedes, they ask where on earth they're supposed to get an extra $300 from.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Here's my question - something like 53% of the budget is mandatory - meaning it is not subject to the appropriations bill. Obviously that includes Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Does that not also include the funding required for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Or was that passed as subject to discretionary spending?

There's some of both in there.

Or is that why I'm hearing about weird things like refusing to fund IRS enforcement of the penalty provisions and such?

Yup -- that's it exactly. As I said before, I think the ACA is going to come to a head in the 2012 campaign. The stuff being enacted now arguably is the most popular. But the spectre of a new entitlement being created and funded in 2013-14, by which time we won't have resolved the problems with the entitlements we already have, is going to scare the shit out of a lot of people. And unlike the "no lifetime caps" type of provisions, only a small minority are going to benefit from the new entitlement anyway.

Whether you are right or wrong about government spending and jobs is irrelevant in terms of the election. What matters is whether voters believe that more spending worked.

[Shryke]

Polling also showed that a majority of voters believed that excessive levels of government spending were hurting job creation. FDR won despite a shitty economy that he could blame on Hoover because he offered the people what they wanted. The Democrats thought that the voters wanted more government spending, and they didn't.

Data shows that the savings rate is at the highest level it's been in a long time, meaning that people are practicing austerity on a personal level. It shouldn't have been hard to figure out that having a government that did the opposite wasn't going to play well.

Now granted, if the government's stimulus had worked, they might feel differently. But because it didn't work as they expected, they blame their predicament at least in part on what they view as too much government spending. And that is not a liberal POV.

The Democrats didn't run on "More Stimulus" or "More Government Spending" though. Frankly, they didn't run cohesively on anything. And the stimulus did work. It just more stabalized a dying patient rather then lazarusing it back to life.

But you are right that these days people think "austerity" in hard times. But this isn't a universal rule and more about peoples lack of understanding of macro-economics and the populace victory of voodoo economics. It's funny you bring up FDR though. Have we forgotten the New Deal? FDR ran on the redistribution of wealth. He ran on fixing the mess, like Obama did in 2008. And like the GOP did now.

It's not about too much government spending, because that changes depending on the election. It's about the incumbent being held responsible for how shitty stuff is now.

[Shryke]

There's some of both in there.

Yup -- that's it exactly. As I said before, I think the ACA is going to come to a head in the 2012 campaign. The stuff being enacted now arguably is the most popular. But the spectre of a new entitlement being created and funded in 2013-14, by which time we won't have resolved the problems with the entitlements we already have, is going to scare the shit out of a lot of people. And unlike the "no lifetime caps" type of provisions, only a small minority are going to benefit from the new entitlement anyway.

Most of the spending is tied up, afaik, in Medicare. Good luck touching that.

And the ACA will only get more popular over time as more of it's things go into effect and more people benefit from it.

The GOP is gonna run head on into the problem that, in order to "balance the budget" or "reduce the debt" or whatever austerity type ideas they are pushing, they are gonna run head-long into the big 3: Medicare, Social Security, Defense Spending

And as I said above, good luck touching that.

[Guest Raidne]

The effects of the health care bill are a tough one. For one, people never really seemed to understand that the current health care system was irretrievably broken. Not only because of the eventual costs of employer-sponsored insurance policies, but also because of Medicare costs.

We could either cut Medicare, or we can give the government more control to drive down costs.

Also, people will say all the time that of course we are doing things that are ridiculously expensive that we could do in a cheaper way - there's a reason my health insurance right now fully covers preventative care, right? They would not do that unless it saved them money. But the same people refuse to believe that the same thing would save the government money, too, not just private insurance companies.

So, for one, everybody has to get in the pool in order to make the costs even out. But for some reason, this is understood as spending more money to give more people coverage, when, in essence, it is a cost savings measure. I have to say, the more I look at the health care bill, the more it looks like that's all it is - this thing we cooked up to try and prevent Medicare and Medicaid from bankrupting the country.

But, that's the part where, if it works, comes out just like the stimulus bill - it prevented something bad from happening. Can't run on that - nobody believes you. So, it'll be measured on expanding coverage and whether or not it drives down costs for health care plans. Which sets it up in opposition to conservatives, who think it's a huge entitlement program.

But, in actuality it's a giant Medicare reform bill, something Republicans would never be able to get through.

Gods that must be frustrating. Looking it over in more detail that I ever have before, it's a great bill and totally American - completely a model of what a bipartisan compromise on health care would actually look like.

[awesome possum]

Good question. To me, the "compromise" should be not letting disagreement on some issues prevent agreement on others. You don't dick with stuff unless you have a real disagreement.

Maybe the Republicans in power should have received that message.

Polling also showed that a majority of voters believed that excessive levels of government spending were hurting job creation. FDR won despite a shitty economy that he could blame on Hoover because he offered the people what they wanted. The Democrats thought that the voters wanted more government spending, and they didn't.

Data shows that the savings rate is at the highest level it's been in a long time, meaning that people are practicing austerity on a personal level. It shouldn't have been hard to figure out that having a government that did the opposite wasn't going to play well.

Now granted, if the government's stimulus had worked, they might feel differently. But because it didn't work as they expected, they blame their predicament at least in part on what they view as too much government spending. And that is not a liberal POV.

How completely and utterly disingenuous. The Democrats didn't think voters wanted more government spending, the Republicans simply shouted louder and longer that everything the Dems were spending was BAD BAD BAD (while lining their districts pockets with that spending at the same time).

And the stimulus did work. As has been pointed out time and time again and pretty much proven as fact is that the stimulus wasn't enough. It only stopped the bleeding, didn't heal the wound. But Republicans, being the disingenuous shitheads that they are, decided to do away with things like "facts" and "history" and "truth" this election cycle.

But hey, I guess eating a shit sandwich is better if it's served to you on a silver platter.

[Shryke]

The effects of the health care bill are a tough one. For one, people never really seemed to understand that the current health care system was irretrievably broken. Not only because of the eventual costs of employer-sponsored insurance policies, but also because of Medicare costs.

We could either cut Medicare, or we can give the government more control to drive down costs.

Also, people will say all the time that of course we are doing things that are ridiculously expensive that we could do in a cheaper way - there's a reason my health insurance right now fully covers preventative care, right? They would not do that unless it saved them money. But the same people refuse to believe that the same thing would save the government money, too, not just private insurance companies.

So, for one, everybody has to get in the pool in order to make the costs even out. But for some reason, this is understood as spending more money to give more people coverage, when, in essence, it is a cost savings measure. I have to say, the more I look at the health care bill, the more it looks like that's all it is - this thing we cooked up to try and prevent Medicare and Medicaid from bankrupting the country.

But, that's the part where, if it works, comes out just like the stimulus bill - it prevented something bad from happening. Can't run on that - nobody believes you. So, it'll be measured on expanding coverage and whether or not it drives down costs for health care plans. Which sets it up in opposition to conservatives, who think it's a huge entitlement program.

But, in actuality it's a giant Medicare reform bill, something Republicans would never be able to get through.

Gods that must be frustrating. Looking it over in more detail that I ever have before, it's a great bill and totally American - completely a model of what a bipartisan compromise on health care would actually look like.

Why do you think it was Obama's first major priority in legislation?

Any economist that wasn't just a shill for Voodoo Economics (and even some of them) have been saying that Health Care costs in the US were a giant monster coming to destroy the American economy. And they've been saying it for almost a decade now, at the least. How many years of income stagnation have health care costs caused? Last I remember looking, it was at least 6. The crash in 2008 just sort of obscured the fact that Health Care reform was also one of the US's most pressing economic issues.

I think what the Dems are hoping is that the popularity of things like ending rescission and ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and making young people easier to insure and such will build support for the bill. That and the fact that there's no way to undo it without fucking with Medicare, which is a trusty 3rd rail in the US.

Of course, the Dems would have to actually run on that this time instead of the mess of the recent election. But, as I was talking about above, most of those running against it lost. And by more in most cases then those that didn't run against it. So maybe, given that fact and the changed composition of the Democratic caucus, the message will get through.

[Inigima]

I pointed it out above already. That's as close as you are gonna get in this kind of stuff to a controlled experiment. 2 side by side, almost identical districts with widely varying results based on the candidates platform. WTF more do you want?

If you wanna throw up your hands and say "there's no way of knowing anything", ok, fine, do that. But that's not what FLOW was saying and it was not, from my reading, what you were saying either. You can't assume the position that "Democrats lost because they were too liberal" as the default. If I follow your logic above, it's just as equally unprovable.

For the record, that is what I was saying.

[awesome possum]

Half of new GOP Congressmen/women don't believe in climate change

A new ThinkProgress investigation has found that the incoming GOP freshman class is rife with legislators who not only oppose climate change legislation, but deny that manmade global warming even exists ...

Here is a snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010:

ENVIRONMENT

- 50% deny the existence of manmade climate change

- 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue

One step forward, four steps back.

[awesome possum]

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but the things I do agree with... damn, do I agree with them

I know, you think you’ve taken “your country back” with this election — and of course you have always thought it was yours for the taking, cuz that’s what we white folks are bred to believe, that it’s ours, and how dare anyone else say otherwise — but you are wrong.

You have won a small battle in a larger war the meaning of which you do not remotely understand.

...

This isn’t hubris. It isn’t ideology. It is not wishful thinking.

It is math.

Not even advanced math. Just simple, basic, like 3rd grade math.

The kind of math that proves how your kind — mostly older white folks beholden to an absurd, inaccurate, nostalgic fantasy of what America used to be like — are dying.

...

And in the pantheon of American history, conservative old white people have pretty much always been the bad guys, the keepers of the hegemonic and reactionary flame, the folks unwilling to share the category of American with others on equal terms.

Fine, keep it up. It doesn’t matter.

Because you’re on the endangered list.

And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.

In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.

There won’t be any more white folks around who think the 1950s were the good old days, because there won’t be any more white folks around who actually remember them, and so therefore, we’ll be able to teach about them accurately and honestly, without hurting your precious feelings, or those of the so-called “greatest generation” — a bunch whose white contingent was top-heavy with ethical miscreants who helped save the world from fascism only to return home and oppose the ending of it here, by doing nothing to lift a finger on behalf of the civil rights struggle.

It’s OK. Because in about forty years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.

...

You, who could not survive the thought of minimal health care reform, or financial regulation, or a marginal tax rate equal to that which you paid just 10 years earlier, perhaps are under the illusion that everyone is as weak as you, as soft as you, as akin to petulant children as you are, as unable to cope with the smallest setback, the slightest challenge to the way you think your country should look and feel, and operate.

...

Do you hear it?

The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?

Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm still having a difficult time understanding how a program with a one trillion dollar pricetag is really a cost savings. Cripe, why can't suppoters of the ACA just admit it's going to cost us a lot of money, but covering the uninsured is worth it?

The whole "we're going to provide coverage to tens of millions, provide better coverage to everyone else via no preexisting exclusions and no lifetime caps, and it will actually cost us less" line isn't credible.

[The Progressive]

There are only studies after studies that would support it, but then again rightwingers aren't really interested in them due to their threat to their truthiness.

[ThinkerX]

With the current economy, most folks in the US simply will not be able to afford *ANY* health insurance plan, let alone ones that are going to be as spendy as the ones for pre-existing conditions. Which means that these people get to pay a fine to the IRS and pay for medical costs out of pocket.

And the businesses are going to go out of their way to avoid paying any health care insurance for their employees - witness the exemption (or whatever you want to call it) recently granted to a few dozen of the biggest corporations in the country. Those exemptions are not going to fade away; they're going to become entrenched and untouchable.

Now, given this, the money for this so called reform is supposed to come from....where, exactly?

You want to make health care affordable, then you start with the costs - not with a preposterous insurance scheme. A mandatory income based sliding scale, perhaps.

[The Progressive]

Polling also showed that a majority of voters believed that excessive levels of government spending were hurting job creation.

Citations? I smell bullshit.

With the current economy, most folks in the US simply will not be able to afford *ANY* health insurance plan, let alone ones that are going to be as spendy as the ones for pre-existing conditions. Which means that these people get to pay a fine to the IRS and pay for medical costs out of pocket.

And the businesses are going to go out of their way to avoid paying any health care insurance for their employees - witness the exemption (or whatever you want to call it) recently granted to a few dozen of the biggest corporations in the country. Those exemptions are not going to fade away; they're going to become entrenched and untouchable.

Now, given this, the money for this so called reform is supposed to come from....where, exactly?

If most folks are too poor to afford health insurance, they'll qualified for Medicaid ......... just like you and your family did, ThinkerX.

You want to make health care affordable, then you start with the costs - not with a preposterous insurance scheme. A mandatory income based sliding scale, perhaps

Amazing! It seems as if you have finally read about the policies actually contained in the ACA instead of making ignorant comments about it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Thinker X, the money for the reform won't come from anywhere because according to its supporters, the "reform" doesn't cost anything at all. It's free! Like Jesus handing out the loaves and fish, the additional medical personnel needed to treat the tens of millions who previously were dying in the streets will simply spring from thin air. Or perhaps less dramatically, simply offer to work for free.

Of course, that doesn't quite explain why a bill that costs nothing had a price tag associated with it, or why tax increases were needed....

[The Progressive]

Lol, it's funny that Flow would try to seek some sort of support from ThinkerX, given that if ThinkerX could have his way, he would put a hard salary cap on all medical service providers and a similar cap on drug prices.