Son of US Politics

[The Real Will]

As I stated upthread, Republicans tend to view defense spending as part of government's core function -- a need rather than a want. They'd generally prefer to cut spending by cutting domestic programs. The whole reason this came up in this thread was because of the allegedly hypocritical position the Republicans have supposedly taken on the health care bill. Well, if you're going to argue that the Republicans have always wanted to spend money on "different things" than Democrats, then the hypocrisy argument loses some force.

I feel like you're misunderstanding the accusation of hypocrisy. I don't think anyone expects Republicans to be in favour of social welfare. I think most people are aware of the Republican stance on any kind of entitlement. The accusation is that the Republicans are not fiscally conservative. When they have control of the purse strings they spend like drunken sailors. When the Democrats get control they suddenly want to limit government spending. That is hypocrisy. Obviously, at all times they want to prevent spending that their base will dislike and encourage spending that their base approves of, but the fact that the conservative base approves of a particular type of spending doesn't let them escape the accusation of hypocrisy or let them reclaim their fiscal conservative stripes. The corner stones of fiscal conservatism are limited spending and balanced budgets. The Republicans didn't even try to deliver either, ergo they are not fiscal conservatives, ergo acting as though they are fiscal conservatives is hypocritical.

*No one believes that the Republicans secretly like the healthcare bill.

*Spending money you don't have on the military is not fiscally conservative, no matter how much your base likes it.

Do you understand that I (and I think most others) are arguing that the hypocrisy applies to the party in general and the way in which they choose to portray themselves. It is not specific to their conduct regarding the healthcare bill.

[Shryke]

Um, people, the US IS withdrawing from Iraq.

Obama gave his schedule back in the campaign as 16 months, minimum for the withdrawl. That's this August and so far everyone has said it's still on schedule.

And Gitmo is a whole other kettle of fish. There's been people released already but the last time he tried to transfer the people there to normal prisons, every Politician in the US threw a fit. It's gonna take some effort to shut that place down.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't think anyone expects Republicans to be in favour of social welfare. I think most people are aware of the Republican stance on any kind of entitlement.

I'm not sure that is what everyone upthread was saying. There was a lot of finger-pointing about the medicare D entitlement in particular, and saying that opposition to an even more expanded health care entitlement was therefore hypocrisy.

The accusation is that the Republicans are not fiscally conservative.

I have no argument with that as applied in particular to the Bush Administration. Bush wasn't a budgetary conservative when he came in, and he loosened the pursestrings even more to buy Democratic votes for his foreign/military policy. But look, the natural consequence of political compromise is that Dems end up accepting more military spending than they'd like, and the GOP accepts more domestic spending than it likes. Both would prefer to see the other reduced and the budget brought closer into balance, but politically, they can't get it done, so we end up a lot spending on both. So both of them are to blame for the budgets, but that shouldn't effect their right to oppose specific spending proposals with which they disagree.

When they have control of the purse strings they spend like drunken sailors. When the Democrats get control they suddenly want to limit government spending.

Huh? Sorry, but I don't see the latter half of that statement at all. Have you seen the President's budget proposals?

The corner stones of fiscal conservatism are limited spending and balanced budgets. The Republicans didn't even try to deliver either, ergo they are not fiscal conservatives, ergo acting as though they are fiscal conservatives is hypocritical.

First, some Republicans have tried to deliver that. But second, I don't understand the emphasis on Republicans "acting as though they are fiscal conservatives." So what? I'm not crafting a campaign commercial or platform, and I'm not trying to say that Republicans are better than Democrats. I was discussing a specific issue of the health bill. Is your point that Republicans can't/shouldn't object to budget expenditures they view as excessive? If not, what is the point of the "hypocrisy" argument at all?

*No one believes that the Republicans secretly like the healthcare bill.

Those claiming that the Republicans would have supported this except that they really want to nail Obama would disagree.

Spending money you don't have on the military is not fiscally conservative, no matter how much your base likes it.

Right. But I think a lot of Republicans (and I hate to use the collective to describe individuals who disagree on specific issues) would say that is an appropriate reason to deficit spend, and/or that the budget should be balanced by cutting social programs.

Do you understand that I (and I think most others) are arguing that the hypocrisy applies to the party in general and the way in which they choose to portray themselves.

Okay, you think Republicans are hypocrites. I've given reasons above why I think both parties look that way. But absent relating it to the discussion of a specific issue, I'm not sure the value of that point.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Um, people, the US IS withdrawing from Iraq.

Obama gave his schedule back in the campaign as 16 months, minimum for the withdrawl. That's this August and so far everyone has said it's still on schedule.

Well, even forgetting that he was advocating withdrawal in 16 months long before he became president, giving dates that would have meant that all troops would have been out in 2008, his campaign pledge was all troops out of Iraq within 16 months of him becoming President. That would mean by July of this year. And I don't quite think that is happening..... Why? Because events on the ground dictate otherwise, which is the exact same position taken by the last Administration.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/04/nation/na-campaign4

And Gitmo is a whole other kettle of fish. There's been people released already but the last time he tried to transfer the people there to normal prisons, every Politician in the US threw a fit. It's gonna take some effort to shut that place down.

And none of those arguments had any merit before November 2008? Bush said way back in 2006 that he wanted to close the place, but the problem was what to do with them. Which is the exact same problem this President faces. The fact is that once any abuses were ended, Gitmo became the perfect place to hold these guys, and President Obama knows it. But he's trapped by his pre-election rhetoric promising to close it, so now he's trying to figure out what to do with them, and he can't.

[Maithanet]

Um, people, the US IS withdrawing from Iraq.

Obama gave his schedule back in the campaign as 16 months, minimum for the withdrawl. That's this August and so far everyone has said it's still on schedule.

Well, even forgetting that he was advocating withdrawal in 16 months long before he became president, giving dates that would have meant that all troops would have been out in 2008, his campaign pledge was all troops out of Iraq within 16 months of him becoming President. That would mean by July of this year. And I don't quite think that is happening..... Why? Because events on the ground dictate otherwise, which is the exact same position taken by the last Administration.

Obama pledged to have all troops out of Iraq by 2008, before he took office? I'm extremely skeptical that he made such a foolish promise.

And Shryke posted something about troops being out of Iraq by August 2010. And you are quibbling about the fact that he initially wanted to have them out by July 2010? Seriously?

[Shryke]

1) So basically Obama is still saying he's on schedule for the 16 month pull out he promised. Your "point" was bullshit. And I'm pretty sure he never said "Before 16 months", just "In roughly 16 months".

16 months was the estimate the military was giving for how quickly they could pull off a withdrawl.

2) Bush CREATED Gitmo. He doesn't get a pass because he then has trouble shutting down the monstrosity he made. All of the issues with shutting Gitmo down are because of how GWB handled the whole "War on Terror".

Gitmo is not the "perfect place to hold them" you half-wit, the problem is that due to Bush's negligence and fear mongering there's alot of problems with shutting the place down. Politically it's a fucking nightmare.

It's incredibly difficult to move these guys anywhere cause everyone thinks they are fucking Super-Villains who need a Plastic Super Prison to hold them. And many of them are actually guilty but it's completely unprovable since Bush's treatment of them renders all evidence against them inadmissible. Beyond that, many that weren't terrorists to begin with sure as fuck are now. Being held for years for no reason and possibly tortured has that effect on people.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Obama pledged to have all troops out of Iraq by 2008, before he took office? I'm extremely skeptical that he made such a foolish promise.

And Shryke posted something about troops being out of Iraq by August 2010. And you are quibbling about the fact that he initially wanted to have them out by July 2010? Seriously?

Hold it -- I misread something Shryke said so I apologise. But all combat brigades actually out by August....we'll see.

By the way, the Bush Administration itself announced in August 2008 that it planned to have all combat troops out by June 2010, which apparently wasn't fast enough for some.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/21/iraq/main4368936.shtml

[Guy Kilmore]

Hold it -- I misread something Shryke said so I apologise. But all combat brigades actually out by August....we'll see.

By the way, the Bush Administration itself announced in August 2008 that it planned to have all combat troops out by June 2010, which apparently wasn't fast enough for some.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/21/iraq/main4368936.shtml

Read your article closer. All combat troups pulled out from cities by June 2010, all combat troups pulled out by December 2011.

ETA:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/62930.html

Here is an article on Obama's withdrawl. Obama went 2 months over his promised 16 months. I am ok with that as it is something that is going down. I am curious at the 50k he is remaining behind until 2011. Obama's and Bush's plans appear similar. However, we are all aware at how well the Bush administration is able to prosecute a war. The Obama administration is still an unknown. I don't see it as political hyprocrisy to wait on criticsm to see how these manuevers turn out. Bush had multiple failures when it came to both wars he engaged in, so disbelief and criticsm of his later actions make sense.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

What do 2000 self-identified republicans actually think about various issues?

Research2000/dailykos poll crosstabs

:leaving:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Bush CREATED Gitmo. He doesn't get a pass because he then has trouble shutting down the monstrosity he made. All of the issues with shutting Gitmo down are because of how GWB handled the whole "War on Terror".

Obama knew every bit of that during the campaign, and reiterated it after his inauguration. So that can't be an excuse for not following through on his promise to shut it down.

Gitmo is not the "perfect place to hold them" you half-wit

If you can think of a better place, why not call the President and let him in on the secret? I'm sure he'd love to know.

Gitmo is completely secure because it's essentially a Marine Base. It's not near any population centers so you don't have to worry about it making some city a target. That also means you have no issues relating to appeasing the locals, either. It's secure, remote, and fully functional. Can you think of any other facility that meets all those criteria?

[Guy Kilmore]

If you can think of a better place, why not call the President and let him in on the secret? I'm sure he'd love to know.

Gitmo is completely secure because it's essentially a Marine Base. It's not near any population centers so you don't have to worry about it making some city a target. That also means you have no issues relating to appeasing the locals, either. It's secure, remote, and fully functional. Can you think of any other facility that meets all those criteria?

Where have we kept terrorists, domestic and other, imprisoned prior to Gitmo? How many of these places have experienced a terrorist attack because they were housing said terrorist?

[The Progressive]

Obama knew every bit of that during the campaign, and reiterated it after his inauguration. So that can't be an excuse for not following through on his promise to shut it down.

If you can think of a better place, why not call the President and let him in on the secret? I'm sure he'd love to know.

Gitmo is completely secure because it's essentially a Marine Base. It's not near any population centers so you don't have to worry about it making some city a target. That also means you have no issues relating to appeasing the locals, either. It's secure, remote, and fully functional. Can you think of any other facility that meets all those criteria?

Wait, you're holding Obama responsible for failing to do something that you preferred him not to do?

[The Iceman of the North]

If you can think of a better place, why not call the President and let him in on the secret? I'm sure he'd love to know.

Chatham County jail would be more than secure enough. It's right wing cry babies that make anything but Gitmo seem like a security risk.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Read your article closer. All combat troups pulled out from cities by June 2010, all combat troups pulled out by December 2011.

You're right.

I guess the test will be whether the current Adminstration really will have all combat brigades out of Iraq by the end of August. Based on everything I know now, there's no way in hell that's going to happen, but I suppose you never know. Well, actually, you do. What they're going to do is keep combat brigades there, and simply rename them something else.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wait, you're holding Obama responsible for failing to do something that you preferred him not to do?

If the issue is one of hypocrisy, absolutely, though I think debating that concept is somewhat pointless. But if Democrats are going to complain that Republicans are selective in their criticism depending upon which party controls the government, I see nothing wrong with returning the favor. Obama pledged to shut Gitmo, he broke the pledge, and he's getting a pass because he's your guy.

Personally, I'd prefer he tell everyone to go to hell and keep them at Gitmo. As I said, I think its the perfect facility to detain those guys.

[The Progressive]

To be clear, I'm not expecting any such solutions to result in everyone having coverage.

But an incredibly expensive form of universal coverage is already happening by default due to the existence of ER and the mandate to provide treatment whether or not one could afford to pay for it. You're already subsidizing it via the convoluted mechanism in which hospitals and providers charge your insurance company.

But I will say this -- a lot of the ideas I've read will result in lower care or less research.

This is just the "unique snowflake" being worded differently, which is demonstratably false given that virtuall all other industrialized nations do not lack in research or quality of care compared to the US. In some case, the quality of care is even superior.

I don't think its that small a minority at all, but I guess that's beside the point because there admittedly is a large group whom my solution wouldn't benefit. So the answer is that generally, I wouldn't "deal with it" at all.

It's hard to dispute the number when 1 out of 10 of the working population is unable to find work but nonetheless still need health coverage for themselves and/or their families. Your refusal to "deal with it" won't make the problem go away and no technical tinkering with COBRA would solve the problem.

[The Progressive]

If the issue is one of hypocrisy, absolutely, though I think debating that concept is somewhat pointless. But if Democrats are going to complain that Republicans are selective in their criticism depending upon which party controls the government, I see nothing wrong with returning the favor. Obama pledged to shut Gitmo, he broke the pledge, and he's getting a pass because he's your guy.

Personally, I'd prefer he tell everyone to go to hell and keep them at Gitmo. As I said, I think its the perfect facility to detain those guys.

I think your definition of "hypocrisy" is seriously flawed. Obama's failure to quickly close GITMO is due to political opposition and fear-mongering from Republicans and resources constraint, not because Obama is secretly sabotaging the Justice Department in order to derail the project.

Nonetheless, there are consistent stream of GITMO detainees being released and/or subjected to trial after reviews done by DoJ but I guess that's a rather inconvinient fact against GOP talkingpoints.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But an incredibly expensive form of universal coverage is already happening by default due to the existence of ER and the mandate to provide treatment whether or not one could afford to pay for it. You're already subsidizing it via the convoluted mechanism in which hospitals and providers charge your insurance company.

Oh, I see. So the plan really doesn't cost anything at all, does it? Great! So we don't need any new taxes or fees of any kind, because the whole thing pays for itself because we're already paying the cost anyway. But then....why do its sponsors admit that it costs nearly a trillion dollars? And why does the CBO claim -- and the administration not deny -- that it is going to raise the cost of insurance?

So let's see....The plan gives me more taxes, and also increases the cost of my insurance. And worst of all, we're not really covering anyone extra because "universal coverage is already happening by default".

People were trying that argument out before a plan was actually proposed based on the "we're already paying for it" argument, but once the thing was budgeted, the argument just eats itself.

Your refusal to "deal with it" won't make the problem go away and no technical tinkering with COBRA would solve the problem.

Agreed. Look, seriously, this debate is somewhat pointless. If I don't accept that the government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has health care, then you can't sell me this plan. The rest is just nibbling at the edges.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think your definition of "hypocrisy" is seriously flawed. Obama's failure to quickly close GITMO is due to political opposition and fear-mongering from Republicans and resources constraint, not because Obama is secretly sabotaging the Justice Department in order to derail the project.

You're missing the point -- I've never accused Obama of sabotaging this. I truly think he is trying to close the base but is finding it more difficult than he thought. But the factors that are making it difficult to close were obvious before he took office. So either he's being disingenuous now (which I don't believe) or he was making a campaign promise that he should have known he couldn't fulfill (which I do). But the larger point is this -- both parties sometimes find themselves having to engage in actions they find distateful because of political realities. How else do you explain all those Democrats voting for that resolution in October 2002?

Nonetheless, there are consistent stream of GITMO detainees being released and/or subjected to trial after reviews done by DoJ but I guess that's a rather inconvinient fact against GOP talkingpoints.

Interestingly, the Bush Administration released more people from Gitmo in 2008 than this Administration did in 2009. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

[DanteGabriel]

Interestingly, the Bush Administration released more people from Gitmo in 2008 than this Administration did in 2009. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

And who'd have thunk that the detainees released from Gitmo who went back to terrorism were all Bush releases, while none of Obama's releases have been identified as recidivists...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/brennan-all-transferred-detainees-who-returned-to-terrorism-were-released-by-bush-no-recidivism-for-.html