U.S. Politics, 16

[TrackerNeil]

Can you give an example of where I've hewn to the "GOP" position over the "traditional conservative" position?

You seem to think it's OK to increase the deficit via tax cuts but not through additional spending, or at least you defended Republicans who think so. As I have said, I think deficit reduction is a worthy goal (although not one that should be a priority at this time), but the same Republicans who campaigned on it in November voted up hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending in December. Yes, I know the Republicans campaigned on extending the Bush tax cuts, but that's a deficit increase and they should be adult enough to admit it.

BTW, FLoW, remember when I said that some Republican senators who called the individual mandate unconstitutional in 2009 supported it in 1994? Turns out some of them also supported it in 2008. Admittedly, the mandate looked a bit different in the Healthy Americans Act than it does in the Affordable Care Act, but a mandate is a mandate. And look who else endorsed the idea: Lindsey Graham, Bob Bennett, Mike Crapo and Judd Gregg, all of whom were in the Senate, and who voted against the ACA, in 2009! Seems that the road from "mainstream Republican idea" to "unconstitutional abuse of federal government power" is two years. Two years.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You seem to think it's OK to increase the deficit via tax cuts but not through additional spending, or at least you defended Republicans who think so.

No, Neil, No. You keep harping on this point and ignoring the context in which it was made. Whether or not it is a good idea is not what was being discussed. The point you made was that Republicans were going back on their word by supporting those tax cuts. With all due respect, that was a ridiculous argument given that they expressly campaigned on doing exactly that. The fact that you equate tax cuts to more spending doesn't mean that those GOP candidates "deceived" the people who voted for them.

BTW, FLoW, remember when I said that some Republican senators who called the individual mandate unconstitutional in 2009 supported it in 1994? Turns out some of them also supported it in 2008. Admittedly, the mandate looked a bit different in the Healthy Americans Act than it does in the Affordable Care Act, but a mandate is a mandate.

Well no, if the mandate is different, you can't call them hypocrites for opposing a different mandate. And leaving that aside, it is also completely unfair to point to what four GOP Senators supported while ignoring how all the rest of them felt about the exact same issue. Particularly given that the four Senators you named are not exactly popular among party conservatives. As you know, Bennett was thrown out in the primaries precisely because he was perceived as to liberal.

But this goes back to the point that I'm supposedly just parroting the "GOP line". There is no single "GOP" line. And to the extent you want to draw one, I think that "line" is generally further to the left than I am on economic issues. So why are the too-liberal (to me) actions of a group of GOP Senators somehow a lodestone around my neck?

I think the GOP is too far to the left on a great many economic issues. I don't know how much more plain I can be about that.

[Jon Sprunk]

Why do you assume it is fair to impute the motives of some Republicans to all the rest?

I'm only going by what they say and do, sir.

You seem to think the repubs in congress are heroes for blocking legislation with a record number of fillibuster threats, spinning false information about democratic accomplishments, and even telling outright lies (death panels?). I see them as opportunists (and that's being nice).

You seem to believe that the best way to revive the economy is the old republican shell-game of lower taxes tilted (overwhelmingly) toward the rich and less regulation -- precisely the medicine which got us into the worst economic mess since the Great Depression (thank you, repubs!).

I would like to see the dems get an honest chance to lead the country in a different direction. You say they got 90% of what they wanted through congress? I'd put the figure at closer to 10%. And they had to claw and scratch through a mountain of shit to get that much because the repubs preferred stonewalling to governing. And nevermind that the dems' ideas seem to be working, because we don't want to include facts in our little debate.

And, FloW, I liked your "you people" comment. Because I'm right smack in the middle of the political spectrum. I've supported both repubs and dems over the years. So if you think I'm off the rails, then imagine what the rest of the country thinks about the republican party...

[Annelise]

Not to mention it has gotten to the point that a rediculas portion of our government spending is now being spent on welfare for old people. If any politician even mentions curbing the welfare spend, the AARP lobbyists have a public lynching.

Well, the the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility said it. Granted, everyone promptly ignored their deficit reduction recommendations and extended the Bush tax cuts so that probably doesn't bode too well. Then again, there's the Independent Payment Advisory Board, if that survives the GOP. Keeping that in place sounds like a job for Tea Party reps, actually.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You seem to think the repubs in congress are heroes for blocking legislation with a record number of fillibuster threats, spinning false information about democratic accomplishments, and even telling outright lies (death panels?). I see them as opportunists (and that's being nice).

First, I don't think they're heroes. I just liked the result. And I think it can reasonably be argued that the voters agreed with them. The "death panels" issue is a perfect example. That is not an unfair characterization of what they are. It's just that the counter-argument is that "death panels" already exist with private insurance as well.

You seem to believe that the best way to revive the economy is the old republican shell-game of lower taxes tilted (overwhelmingly) toward the rich and less regulation -- precisely the medicine which got us into the worst economic mess since the Great Depression (thank you, repubs!).

This whole "seem to believe" thing. Sheesh, I post enough here so that you'd think you could find what I actually believe as opposed to what I "seem" to believe. There is enough hyperbole in there that I don't really care to take the time to deconstruct it.

But leaving that aside for a moment, perhaps you can explain something to me. Folks here repeatedly blast the GOP for not following through on their promises of fiscal conservatism, and not doing what they say. Then, they point to the failure of all those GOP ideas that they have just argued were never really implemented, as evidence that those not-implemented ideas didn't work.

I would like to see the dems get an honest chance to lead the country in a different direction. You say they got 90% of what they wanted through congress? I'd put the figure at closer to 10%. And they had to claw and scratch through a mountain of shit to get that much because the repubs preferred stonewalling to governing. And nevermind that the dems' ideas seem to be working, because we don't want to include facts in our little debate.

In terms of what was accomplished, I'm just going by what lefty defenders of Obama have been saying, what Pelosi has said, etc. And reality, also. But we obviously disagree on that. Just as we disagree on the claim that those things "seem to be working".

And, FloW, I liked your "you people" comment. Because I'm right smack in the middle of the political spectrum. I've supported both repubs and dems over the years. So if you think I'm off the rails, then imagine what the rest of the country thinks about the republican party...

I hope you'll excuse me if I'm don't accept your "in the middle" representation. I don't doubt you believe you're in the middle. I just don't think you are. And in terms of what the public wants, well, I think the most recent election doesn't quite endorse your "middle of the road" position that we need a whole lot more of what the democrats just finished doing. The GOP ran on "we're going to stop them from doing more of this", the Democrats ran on "the GOP was obstructionist", and the voters got to choose which they preferred.

As bad as the results were for Democrats, they'd have been even worse if not for those Democrats who won only by running away from what their party had just accomplished.

Just because the voters didn't like what Republicans did (perhaps because they didn't follow through on their rhetoric of conservatism?), does not mean they supported what the Democrats accomplished these last two years.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

"She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer."

- Newt Gingrich, on why he abandoned his family and divorced his wife.

[TrackerNeil]

I am guessing that TN's point is more that it seems a bit odd for them to campaign on reigning in the deficit and pursuing a tax cut policy that would seem at odds with that goal. But I get your point.

That's precisely my point.

Look, FLoW, I'm not saying that anyone should abandon a party because of some hypocrisy. Barack Obama derided the idea of an insurance mandate when he campaigned against Clinton (who supported one) in 2008, and then embraced it in 2009. Does that make him a hypocrite? To some extent, sure, but it was the right thing to do. I admit both the hypocrisy and the need for it. So if you said, "Hey, the GOP really isn't dedicated to deficit reduction but I still support the party's basic agenda," I'd have no comment other than a shrug. Same with the mandate, which members of the party endorsed until it became part of a Democratic proposal, at which time it became anathema. To try to rationalize these political about-faces with some intellectual gymnastics ("Well, Republicans never promised not to increase the deficit through tax cuts") strikes me as just...not honest.

[awesome possum]

The "death panels" issue is a perfect example. That is not an unfair characterization of what they are.

I love it when you display that the major difference between you and Tea Party nutters is a golden tongue (or in this case, fingers).

[Jon Sprunk]

First, I don't think they're heroes. I just liked the result. And I think it can reasonably be argued that the voters agreed with them. The "death panels" issue is a perfect example. That is not an unfair characterization of what they are. It's just that the counter-argument is that "death panels" already exist with private insurance as well.

I picked death panels becuase it was one of most outlandish lie I came up with off the top of my head. If you think that the HCR bill establishes them, or that dems support the idea of "killing grandma" to save a buck, then I think we're done here.

For the record, I don't really believe that repubs want to kill grandma either, but they are certainly willing to exploit that image as a scare tactic to mislead the voters. Maybe you think that's fair play. I find it reprehensible.

perhaps you can explain something to me. Folks here repeatedly blast the GOP for not following through on their promises of fiscal conservatism, and not doing what they say. Then, they point to the failure of all those GOP ideas that they have just argued were never really implemented, as evidence that those not-implemented ideas didn't work.

The GOP used to get credit for sticking to their guns on principle, even when some of those principles were misguided. Without that, they are empty shirts. Can't speak for anyone else, but at the end of day I suppose I wish they would just admit their mistakes and try to improve instead of doubling down on bad policy.

I really enjoyed how Rep. Boehner said at a press conf. after the last election that he and his fellow repubs had learned their lesson about spending, and they were committed to getting back to 'fiscal responsibility.' Then the first thing they do is declare they won't pass any other legislation until the dems agree to continue the Bush era tax cuts for top earners. Nice way to hold the country hostage. That is what I mean by slash-and-burn politics that is hurting our country.

In terms of what was accomplished, I'm just going by what lefty defenders of Obama have been saying, what Pelosi has said, etc. And reality, also. But we obviously disagree on that. Just as we disagree on the claim that those things "seem to be working".

The dems should be allowed to tout their accomplishments, the same as the repubs touted the Bush tax cuts, Medicare D, and finding Osama Bin Laden wasting billions per week invading distant nations. But that doesn't mean the senate isn't disfunctional. 10% of an overall-good agenda is better than zero.

And I know we disagree on the results. I think three (or four now?) straight quarters of economic growth is a pretty good sign; I also think losing 70k jobs per month, while not good, is certainly better than -700k jobs per month. Maybe we disagree on the metric?

I hope you'll excuse me if I'm don't accept your "in the middle" representation. I don't doubt you believe you're in the middle. I just don't think you are. And in terms of what the public wants, well, I think the most recent election doesn't quite endorse your "middle of the road" position that we need a whole lot more of what the democrats just finished doing. The GOP ran on "we're going to stop them from doing more of this", the Democrats ran on "the GOP was obstructionist", and the voters got to choose which they preferred.

I supported Reagan and Bush I. I hated Clinton until he was safely out of office (I admit to liking him better now). I never thought Bush II was smart enough for the job. I support Obama. In the eyes of the GOP, I am a commie-socialist-traitor (and perhaps related to Hitler). To everyone else, I'm middle of the road.

And I think you're badly mischaracterizing the midterm election results. It wasn't support for the GOP; it was anger at the poor economy. If the U.S. had been sitting at 5% unemployment in November, the dems likely would have picked up seats in both houses. But they got spanked because they couldn't fix a decade of malfeasance in two years. That's how the cookie crumbles.

[C S]

First, I don't think they're heroes. I just liked the result. And I think it can reasonably be argued that the voters agreed with them. The "death panels" issue is a perfect example. That is not an unfair characterization of what they are. It's just that the counter-argument is that "death panels" already exist with private insurance as well.

Okay, unless I have horribly overestimated your capacity for rational thought, I don't follow this at all. The regulation in question requires Medicare to cover a voluntary consultation with your primary physician for the purposes of pre-planning end of life care. How can a sincere, intelligent individual describe this as a death panel? Considering it's just you and your doctor, that's not a panel at all.

edited cause I left out a word.

[Altherion]

"She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer."

- Newt Gingrich, on why he abandoned his family and divorced his wife.

Where did you get this? I can't believe anyone would seriously say such a thing.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals." NYTimes.com 11/24/1994.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Newt on why he wanted a divorce from Jackie: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer."

Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals." NYTimes.com 11/24/1994.

Cited/quoted here: http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/a/gingrichn_2.htm The quote itself is on page 6 in the NYT article, and is from one of Gingrich's former aides, (Kip?) Carter. Disputed, naturally.

Ha. Tormund was on the ball!

[Annelise]

Maybe you think that's fair play. I find it reprehensible.

I wouldn't say fair but that's politics. It doesn't become reprehensible in my eyes until someone has no plan of their own other than defeating their opponent's. I won't consider voting to send a Republican to DC until they have a lot more than just repealing/defunding the Dem's HCR and replacing it with nothing.* And I do mean they, I will not vote to add to their caucus as long as that's their party line, I don't care how much someone tries to sell me on being an outsider, rogue or maverick.

*Malpractice reform is well and good, but it sure doesn't count as a plan.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Okay, unless I have horribly overestimated your capacity for rational thought, I don't follow this at all. The regulation in question requires Medicare to cover a voluntary consultation with your primary physician for the purposes of pre-planning end of life care. How can a sincere, intelligent individual describe this as a death panel? Considering it's just you and your doctor, that's not a panel at all.

edited cause I left out a word.

Because at some point, there's a decision going to be made as to whether a particular course of care, drug, product, or procedure is authorized. If not in one regulation, in another. It's a basic feature of cost containment.

The reg you are referring to in particular isn't really a "death panel", but sort of an extension of the concept. Instead of simply having a thumbs up or thumbs down on certain procedures, you add the doctor perhaps nudging the patient towards declining the extra care. But the "death panel", itself, really involves the cost-containment decisions made by regulators or the insurance company.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I meant to respond to this a few posts ago when you responded to what I said. Perhaps it's more that you oppose the Democrats on virtually everything than that you are lockstep with a mainstream GOP.

I just repeat whatever my marching orders are. You should know that better than anyone.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And I think you're badly mischaracterizing the midterm election results. It wasn't support for the GOP; it was anger at the poor economy.

I didn't claim it as support for a particular GOP agenda. I do think it fair to say voters weren't happy with the Democratic agenda.

If the U.S. had been sitting at 5% unemployment in November, the dems likely would have picked up seats in both houses. But they got spanked because they couldn't fix a decade of malfeasance in two years. That's how the cookie crumbles.

The economy sucked completely under FDR for a far longer period of time, but he was releected because people through the things he was doing were good for the economy. The Dems lost in part because of the bad economy, but also because voters did not believe that large amounts of deficit spending were going to help the job situation in the private market. You had a cognitive disconnect between private citizens believing the responsible thing to do was to tighten their belts, and a government doing the exact opposite. That simply did not play well.

[Altherion]

Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals." NYTimes.com 11/24/1994.

Newt on why he wanted a divorce from Jackie: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer."

Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals." NYTimes.com 11/24/1994.

Cited/quoted here: http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/a/gingrichn_2.htm The quote itself is on page 6 in the NYT article, and is from one of Gingrich's former aides, (Kip?) Carter. Disputed, naturally.

Ha. Tormund was on the ball!

Thanks. I can understand a politician thinking something like this, but it's hard to believe he'd be stupid enough to actually say it.

The economy sucked completely under FDR for a far longer period of time, but he was releected because people through the things he was doing were good for the economy. The Dems lost in part because of the bad economy, but also because voters did not believe that large amounts of deficit spending were going to help the job situation in the private market.

FDR's solution to the depression was also massive spending; the difference is that he knew how to fight a propaganda war and he put the money into infrastructure (guaranteed jobs!) rather than giving most of it to banks and hoping that they'd lend. FDR attacked the banks starting from his inaugural address and kept at it while his Congress put serious restrictions on them. I honestly believed that Obama and the Democrats would do the same, but either they did not dare or (much more likely) they're aligned with Wall Street about as much as the Republicans. Without this, the Republicans predictably crushed them in propaganda -- deficit spending becomes hard to explain when the unemployment rate has barely budged in two years and there's nobody else to blame.

[ThinkerX]

FDR's solution to the depression was also massive spending; the difference is that he knew how to fight a propaganda war and he put the money into infrastructure (guaranteed jobs!) rather than giving most of it to banks and hoping that they'd lend. FDR attacked the banks starting from his inaugural address and kept at it while his Congress put serious restrictions on them. I honestly believed that Obama and the Democrats would do the same, but either they did not dare or (much more likely) they're aligned with Wall Street about as much as the Republicans. Without this, the Republicans predictably crushed them in propaganda -- deficit spending becomes hard to explain when the unemployment rate has barely budged in two years and there's nobody else to blame

About sums it up. Most of Congress, these days, are nothing more at all than corporate shills, regardless of party affiliation or alleged philosophical differences.