U.S. Politics part X

[Meili]

I suppose one could draw some equivalency between Bush, who came from a family with a decades-long financial interest in the House of Saud and did special things like letting all the bin Ladens leave the country really quickly and secretly after 9/11, and Obama, who mistakenly bowed to their king and said some flowery things about US-Saudi relations on an official state visit...

I mean, you could draw an equivalency, but it may be unreasonable to expect people to take your opinion seriously.

Sarcasm aside, the issue is the US policy towards Saudi Arabia and not their family connections especially concerning unproved conspiracy theories. Obama's comments are an indication of the relationship between the US and Saudi in the future and saying a gesture was a mistake is glossing over the prepared speeches and actions of the President. The hostile view of the hands off approach Bush treated the Saudis insofar as the 'War on Terror' was handled and the congratulatory way Obama is behaving is very hypocritical but not surprising given his Rock Star treatment in the states.

Bush was scolded because of his close relations with the country even who, as you pointed out, had a much deeper connection to 9/11 than other countries along with the corrupt government who doesn't have a firm grip on extreme fundamentalist groups and side issues like Shari'a law and the treatment of women while Obama is getting a pass on a much more accepting attitude towards Saudi when the exact same issues have remained unchanged. His statements are much more than 'flowery', they are a statement indicating the shift in policies with the relationship between the two countries. A policy I might add that might hold the Saudi government even greater latitude in holding the government less accountable for the actions of the fringe groups there.

I agreed then that Bush wasn't firm enough with the Saudi's. I look at Obama with the same scrutiny as I did with Bush. Seeing the public response to the way Bush handled Saudi lightly compared to less rich in oil countries should have made him put more political pressure on Saudi to put more pressure on the extremists, not less.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Czar,

But the end result is identical! :thumbsup:

But the mechanism matters in that circumstance. Rasing taxes and allowing taxes to go up are kissing cousins at a minimum. Giving someone money and not taking their money are completely different actions regardless of result.

[TrackerNeil]

In unrelated news, New Hampshire (finally) does the right thing.

By my count, that's State the Sixth. On to New York, New Jersey, and, yes, California.

[Annelise]

In unrelated news, New Hampshire (finally) does the right thing.

By my count, that's State the Sixth. On to New York, New Jersey, and, yes, California.

:cheers:

[DanteGabriel]

In unrelated news, New Hampshire (finally) does the right thing.

By my count, that's State the Sixth. On to New York, New Jersey, and, yes, California.

New England leads the way again. Now gay people in NH can live free or die as well. :cheers:

California, get your shit together.

[DanteGabriel]

The California situation is interesting to me. They are a fairly liberal state. Perhaps not as much so as say, Vermont. But I would think more so than New Hampshire.

Does anyone know if California's heavy Hispanic-American population played a big part in the Prop 8 vote? I was thinking that possibly a lot of people from that demographic tend to vote for Democrats yet voted against gay marriage. Anyone know?

New Hampshire can surprise people from time to time because there are a ton of educated libertarians ensconced there. They hate taxes and government regulation, but something about New England has prevented them from turning into the McJesus-worshipping caricature that so much of the right wing has made of itself.

As for why California failed on Prop 8, I think there are a number of factors...

- High population of (poor) minorities who have a good deal of cultural homophobia built in

- An often overlooked great mass of people who don't live in SF or LA and are actually pretty conservative

- A pronounced effort by the Mormons and other religious groups

- Bungling and tone deafness by the No-on-8 organizers (Andrew Sullivan ragged on them a lot)

[lokisnow]

Now this is a fascinating article:

http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/nixons-revenge/

Second, the consistent theme, going back to the late 40s, is that the Nixon wing has been, almost without major exception, in favor of international interventionism. The GOP seems to have approved of nearly every American projection of power overseas, no matter which party is behind it. It’s fairly rare for policy makers in this orbit to call for pull backs in military interventions or to admit that any significant projection of force was a mistake. This view, of course, requires continual expansion of the executive branch’s power.

My colleague Hans Noel pointed out that the Nixonites occupy a niche found in every party: the people who like institutions of power and who are interested in getting more of it. From this view, it makes sense that national security and executive power, not markets or culture, form the basic worldview of the Nixon wing. National security is more compatible with sustained control of the party and state than cultural politics (which can alienate people outside your cultural group) or radical free market politics (not the majority view of most Americans).

If you believe this story, then conservative politics was not “reborn†after the Goldwater campaign in 1964 and cemented by Reagan. Instead, the Nixonites allowed this new ideological trend to be the face of the party, but they retained control over the institutional functions of the party, as evidence by Nixon’s resurgence. This observation explains a lot of other puzzling feature of Republican politics. This is not the party of small government, it’s the party of national security. The party of individual liberty and self-reliance is actually the party of “enhanced interrogation.†The idea tying it together is national security, with superficial appeals to whatever helps win the election.

My dad sent me a bunc of links today, trying to correllate Obama's policies with those that led to the the post Treaty of Versailles hyper inflation in Germany post WWI. This is the only one I read (note that they sneak a reference in that the hyper inflation was started by the sin of moving away from the gold standard)

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=347363

As early as 1919, when the peace treaty was signed, Keynes had warned that the settlement imposed on Germany would ruin it. By early 1922, even the Times, much given to berating Germany for allegedly failing to meet its promises to disarm, was warning that the Allied demands would lead to

further production of paper marks on a massive scale. In the present state of German finances, that would mean a big step on the way to Moscow.

Anyone else see irony in a paper that quotes Keynes, but is being used by my father to attempt to convince me that the conservative fiscal principles of making Germany pay their debt while hamstringing them in other capacities and refusing to assist them in recovering/rebuilding from the war are somehow equivalent to Obama's and Bush's liberal fiscal principals of stimulus assistance based on the fiscally liberal (and successful) Marshall plan post WWII and that we will suffer hyper inflation because of the similarities?

[lokisnow]

you can try and balance the cali budget yourself with this tool at the la times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-state...95571.htmlstory

I've been loosely following the budget crisis, but trying to do it myself sort of drove home just how much you have to cut that you don't want to cut to even get close to a balanced budget.

In interesting news, the governer asked the state congress to wipe out a slush board filled with retired legislators drawing 6 figure salaries doing little of nothing. Instead the congress decided to trim their salaries a bit, make the slush board more powerful and instead eliminate most of the governer's policy departments support staff. tit for tat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bu...0,2569636.story

[Ormond]

Does anyone know if California's heavy Hispanic-American population played a big part in the Prop 8 vote? I was thinking that possibly a lot of people from that demographic tend to vote for Democrats yet voted against gay marriage. Anyone know?

According to Nate Silver, Hispanics generally back same sex marriage at the same level as the general population:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/his...ge-at-same.html

[Annelise]

What frustrates me are the folks content to live in the now because they currently have it good, when I think they should be looking down the line as, overall, I have come to believe healthcare reform is in everyone's longterm interest, not just the poor.

This only increases that sentiment:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just six years, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.

"Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations."

The researchers, whose work was paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the share of bankruptcies that could be blamed on medical problems rose by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090604/us_nm/...care_bankruptcy

[Annelise]

It also seems like a handful of Republicans (Megan McCain being one of them) have realized that this is a total losing battle.

Yes, from what I've read, the demographic analysts say this is definitely a problem for GOP with the under 30 crowd, which is obviously a longterm issue.

[TrackerNeil]

you can try and balance the cali budget yourself with this tool at the la times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-state...95571.htmlstory

I've been loosely following the budget crisis, but trying to do it myself sort of drove home just how much you have to cut that you don't want to cut to even get close to a balanced budget.

Hey, that's neat! I hope lots of Californians (and others) play around with that, to get an idea of just how hard it is to balance a budget when no one wants to lose services and no one wants to pay higher taxes. People have this idea that cutting government waste will balance a budget, but that's just fantasy. New Jersey is in the midst of a similar situation. The state is deeply in debt, and Democratic Governor Corzine is in trouble because he's making hard choices in a tough fiscal situation.

[Annelise]

you can try and balance the cali budget yourself with this tool at the la times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-state...95571.htmlstory

I've been loosely following the budget crisis, but trying to do it myself sort of drove home just how much you have to cut that you don't want to cut to even get close to a balanced budget.

So when is the constitutional convention?

[DanteGabriel]

According to Nate Silver, Hispanics generally back same sex marriage at the same level as the general population:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/his...ge-at-same.html

Someone else may be able to dig up polling data on this, but my gut feeling is that a lot of the Asian folks in CA (especially older generations) are not very progressive on same sex marriage.

[potsherds]

you can try and balance the cali budget yourself with this tool at the la times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-state...95571.htmlstory

I've been loosely following the budget crisis, but trying to do it myself sort of drove home just how much you have to cut that you don't want to cut to even get close to a balanced budget.

Huh. That's pretty neat. I accepted all of the tax increases, though I wasn't too happy about making it more expensive for businesses in Cali, then reduced prison time...and didn't want to cut anything else. :P

I'd love to see something like this for the federal government. Primarily just to cut back military spending and watch all that money free up for better purposes. :P

[Trencher]

New Hampshire can surprise people from time to time because there are a ton of educated libertarians ensconced there. They hate taxes and government regulation, but something about New England has prevented them from turning into the McJesus-worshipping caricature that so much of the right wing has made of itself.

As for why California failed on Prop 8, I think there are a number of factors...

- High population of (poor) minorities who have a good deal of cultural homophobia built in

- An often overlooked great mass of people who don't live in SF or LA and are actually pretty conservative

- A pronounced effort by the Mormons and other religious groups

- Bungling and tone deafness by the No-on-8 organizers (Andrew Sullivan ragged on them a lot)

You forgot one of the main reasons. Blacks (unless you meant they were a homophobic minority). They aren't that supportive of changing the definiton of marriage to include homosexual relationships. They came out to vote for both Obama and Yes on 8. Estimates on exit polling were that they supported Prop 8 around 60% - 70%.

[DanteGabriel]

You forgot one of the main reasons. Blacks (unless you meant they were a homophobic minority). They aren't that supportive of changing the definiton of marriage to include homosexual relationships. They came out to vote for both Obama and Yes on 8. Estimates on exit polling were that they supported Prop 8 around 60% - 70%.

I tried to tapdance around calling out specific minorities (except above when I mentioned Asians, the group to which I belong and with which I have the most cultural experience).

I also remember seeing a lot of counter-arguments in the days and weeks after the Prop 8 vote last year that attempted to debunk the idea that black people were a big part of the Prop 8 problem, so I'm not going to specifically blame the black people of California for Prop 8.

[TrackerNeil]

I tried to tapdance around calling out specific minorities (except above when I mentioned Asians, the group to which I belong and with which I have the most cultural experience).

I also remember seeing a lot of counter-arguments in the days and weeks after the Prop 8 vote last year that attempted to debunk the idea that black people were a big part of the Prop 8 problem, so I'm not going to specifically blame the black people of California for Prop 8.

I blame any person of minority who voted for Prop 8, and I'm not shy about admitting it. No one gets a pass on discrimination, but those who have personally experienced it should be the most staunchly opposed. And I don't want to hear about "voting values." If I voted in favor of a law that forbade African Americans to use the state roads, I would be accused - and rightly so - of bigotry, and not celebrated as standing up for what I believe it.

[lokisnow]

read obama's big speech. loved it.

[Frog Eater]

you can try and balance the cali budget yourself with this tool at the la times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-state...95571.htmlstory

Hard choices ahead for California. After the easy choices, you start to lose some important programs.