Son of US Politics

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So would you agree that the later argument is disingenuous since the GOP isn't saying that because they want to save money, they are only saying that because it is an excuse to shoot the bill down without having to take a position or offer ideas they think would actually help fix the problems?

I disagree with your premise (everything after "since), so I can't answer the question. Sorry.

See this is the problem. To some it's just a semantic argument. To others, they are actually trying compromise on solutions.

You want to compromise? Great. How about if we eliminate all government subsidies to help people purchase insurance that are contained in the bill, essentially removing the entitlement element. Deal?

[DanteGabriel]

Obama repeats the question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats, and takes some time to (finally!) slap back at mealy-mouthed timid-ass Blue Dogs like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who's probably doomed for re-election anyway.

From there, Obama turned to a more pointed critique of Lincoln's argument. "If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."

Middle class Americans, Obama said, "are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/obama-calls-out-conservat_n_447697.html

Unsurprisingly, Fox News didn't think this was worth covering, while MSNBC and CNN did.

I checked a bit later on to see if Fox jumped back onto the story. Uhm, no. When I looked, their chyron read: "Book Reveals Cat's Ability To Predict Death." So, health care policy, I guess?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/fox-news-shuns-obama-qa_n_447537.html

[C S]

Let me try it this way. Suppose you go out and spend $6000 on basement waterproofing because your basement leaked. Your wife then goes out and spends $6000 for a boob job. Now if you said "honey, we can't afford that right now", and she responded, "well, you spent $6k on something even though money was tight, so you don't have the right to criticize me for doing the same," how would you respond to that argument? Does spending $6000 on something your home needs even though money is tight mean that you're a hypcrite for criticizing spending you view as nonessential?

[

I think a fairer comparision would be the husband spending $6000 on upgrading his workshop and the wife spending $6000 on upgrading the kitchen, when there is only $4000 in the bank. It is a case of trying to prioritize when the two sides are having a reasonable disagreement over what is the greater need.

My apologies for the stereotyping of gender roles.

[alguien]

Let me try it this way. Suppose you go out and spend $6000 on basement waterproofing because your basement leaked. Your wife then goes out and spends $6000 for a boob job. Now if you said "honey, we can't afford that right now", and she responded, "well, you spent $6k on something even though money was tight, so you don't have the right to criticize me for doing the same," how would you respond to that argument? Does spending $6000 on something your home needs even though money is tight mean that you're a hypcrite for criticizing spending you view as nonessential?

While I don't agree with your metaphor at all (which seems to equate military spending to fixing a leaky roof and social programs, education, and health care to a breast augmentation) I'll go with it to show you where our criticism of double standards comes from.

The problem is, the husband blew $6,000 on a supposed leak that wasn't bad, in fact, not only was there no leak, it only cost $1000 to fix, and he used zero forward planning to balance the budget. On the other hand, the wife had been in a terrible accident, had studied out the problem, budgeted and planned to have reconstructive surgery, and had actually put together a plan that would save money in the long term due to avoiding repetitive health costs. (this is one miraculous surgery!)

Yet now, despite overwhelming evidence of her prudent financial planning in the past, and the husband's disastrous spending on a problem that wasn't even there, he is criticizing her financial planning. And also loudly lying to others that she's spending recklessly.

Incidentally, FLoW, I will applaud that you've continued your debate in good form for the most part. The one suggestion I might add is to wrap the posts you're responding to in quote tags rather than italics. Makes it easier to differentiate.

[DanteGabriel]

My apologies for the stereotyping of gender roles.

It's at least a less demeaning set of stereotypes than the basement waterproofing/boob job dichotomy.

[Maithanet]

It's at least a less demeaning set of stereotypes than the basement waterproofing/boob job dichotomy.

I am sick and tired of being pigeonholed in with men who want to do home repairs and maintenance.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The problem is, the husband blew $6,000 on a supposed leak that wasn't bad, in fact, not only was there no leak, it only cost $1000 to fix, and he used zero forward planning to balance the budget. On the other hand, the wife had been in a terrible accident, had studied out the problem, budgeted and planned to have reconstructive surgery, and had actually put together a plan that would save money in the long term. (this is one miraculous surgery!)

Incidentally, FLoW, I will applaud that you've continued your debate in good form for the most part. The one suggestion I might add is to wrap the posts you're responding to in quote tags rather than italics. Makes it easier to differentiate.

Thanks. If I knew how to quote different folks within one post, I would....Sorry.

The point of my metaphor was that you cannot ignoring genuine policy disagreements regarding spending while trying to discuss fiscal issues. That's an artificial construct that doesn't take into account how decisions really are made. You disagreed with my subjective valuation of spending priorities, which is fine -- in fact, I think that is a legitimate debate which really validated the point I was trying to make. The argument I was responding to was the one that essentially said you can't complain about spending of one kind if you supported spending of a different kind, without being a hypocrite. I don't think that's necessarily true at all.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

...."If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."

Uh, is the President really trying to claim here that it was the failure to make health care an entitlement that led to the financial collapse?

[The Iceman of the North]

Thanks. If I knew how to quote different folks within one post, I would....Sorry.

Use the multi-quote button.

[DanteGabriel]

Uh, is the President really trying to claim here that it was the failure to make health care an entitlement that led to the financial collapse?

I think you're just trying to be dense now.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think you're just trying to be dense now.

Really? So what do you think he meant when he included health care in a listing of issues that led to "the Greatest Economic Crisis since the Great Depression".

[Maithanet]

Thanks. If I knew how to quote different folks within one post, I would....Sorry.

You can just paste the lines you are responding to, and then click the quote button on the posting feature (right next to hyperlink) and they will appear in a quote box, but with no author above them. You can either put the author right above it, or just assume that people can figure out who you responding to. If it's one of the previous 5 or so posts, it isn't difficult.

The point of my metaphor was that you cannot ignoring genuine policy disagreements regarding spending while trying to discuss fiscal issues. That's an artificial construct that doesn't take into account how decisions really are made. You disagreed with my subjective valuation of spending priorities, which is fine -- in fact, I think that is a legitimate debate which really validated the point I was trying to make. The argument I was responding to was the one that essentially said you can't complain about spending of one kind if you supported spending of a different kind, without being a hypocrite. I don't think that's necessarily true at all.

I think we may be arguing in circles here, but let me try and explain the criticism as I see it.

Republican main points:

1. I support restrained government spending. I am against a deficit.

2. I support spending on a strong military (among other republican spending priorities).

Result - When Republicans control the money, there is a deficit.

Democrats main points:

1. I support spending on healthcare (and other democratic spending priorities).

Result - When Democrats control the money, there is a deficit.

While both sides can argue that the spending priorities of the other side are wrong, only one side claims to be actively working against having a deficit. This is what makes the congressional Republicans hypocrites.

[DanteGabriel]

Really? So what do you think he meant when he included health care in a listing of issues that led to "the Greatest Economic Crisis since the Great Depression".

I think he was making a broader point that the Bush-Cheney policies of the previous eight years caused the economic crisis. He's specifically chastising the Blue Dogs about their resistance to health care reform under the argument that it's time for a change from the disastrously failed policies of the previous administration.

I don't think Obama or anyone intelligent believes health care is the most important cause of the economic crisis. But certainly, the enormous growth of health care costs in the last decade has contributed to today's shitty economy.

[alguien]

Thanks. If I knew how to quote different folks within one post, I would....Sorry.

The point of my metaphor was that you cannot ignoring genuine policy disagreements regarding spending while trying to discuss fiscal issues. That's an artificial construct that doesn't take into account how decisions really are made. You disagreed with my subjective valuation of spending priorities, which is fine -- in fact, I think that is a legitimate debate which really validated the point I was trying to make. The argument I was responding to was the one that essentially said you can't complain about spending of one kind if you supported spending of a different kind, without being a hypocrite. I don't think that's necessarily true at all.

No worries. When you're replying to a post, there is an icon that looks like a speech bubble in your toolbar. Simply highlight the previous poster's text and click on the speech bubble icon and your quoted material is wrapped in quote tags.

To your point, I agree that spending priorities is a definitely a legitimate discussion to have. My point is that even if priorities are different, you still must be able to balance your budget. That's what Clinton did. The past eight years, this didn't happen at all. Under a Republican led government, the books were cooked. Granted, I might not have liked all the funding going into a war under false pretenses, but I would have hated it a lot less if they had actually figured out a way to carry costs. They never did. In fact, they never came close to even acknowledging the problem. The criticism isn't necessarily on what they spent it on, its on how they spent it.

Now, if you watched The Daily Show's interview with Austan Goolsbee, he acknowledges that their budget is imperfect due to other factors (ie: trying to keep country afloat during recession) but that it will grow more cost efficient as we go along. You yourself applauded cutting funding for the moon project.

Now, back to the original point, for Republicans to claim the high road of fiscal prudence as their reason for opposing Obama, when they were the opposite (not just because of what they spent it on, but how they spent it) is dishonest, and leads many to believe that its just the shield to be obstructionist.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Thanks. If I knew how to quote different folks within one post, I would....Sorry.

Click the MULTIQUOTE on every post you want to quote, and then use ADD REPLY.

Uh, is the President really trying to claim here that it was the failure to make health care an entitlement that led to the financial collapse?

No, but a lot of americans are in financial problems because of rampart healthcare costs. Then we have the huge idiocy of employment based health insurance.

[Shryke]

Health Care IS an economic crisis.

The US has had years of Wage Stagnation because of the rising cost of Health Care.

[Mad Monkey]

It's sometimes easier to understand what someone is saying when you read the entire thing instead of the first few words.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Uh, is the President really trying to claim here that it was the failure to make health care an entitlement that led to the financial collapse?

Employer based healthcare is crap for business. It is the reason we are falling behind the rest of the world in small businesses and starting businesses.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To your point, I agree that spending priorities is a definitely a legitimate discussion to have. My point is that even if priorities are different, you still must be able to balance your budget.

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.

That's what Clinton did.

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.

The past eight years, this didn't happen at all. Under a Republican led government, the books were cooked.

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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp603.htm

Now, back to the original point, for Republicans to claim the high road of fiscal prudence as their reason for opposing Obama, when they were the opposite (not just because of what they spent it on, but how they spent it) is dishonest,

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.

and leads many to believe that its just the shield to be obstructionist.

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.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Employer based healthcare is crap for business. It is the reason we are falling behind the rest of the world in small businesses and starting businesses.

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.