U.S. Politics, 12

[The Progressive]

Reid has had major issues with messaging and with letting the conservative elements of his caucus get away with a little too much, but I wouldn't mistake that for lacking in fortitude. He forced quite a few tough votes, knows his way around procedure probably better than anyone since Byrd in his heyday, and while he had to give up a lot to get things passed, he never gave away the farm.

Just look at his reelection campaign. He was one of the only people out championing the legislative victories the Dems passed the last two years, he campaigned with Obama (and the first lady) and talked about future legislative victories he would fight for. He called out Angle on her craziness, constantly, and how she was unfit to be a senator. It was not the campaign of a weak-kneed man.

Reid can't for the life of him give a rousing speech, still believes in the collegiality of the Senate, and has had to deal with a 60 vote threshold and only 55 solid votes for two years; and so he's public image with liberals is not good. But don't for a second think he's about to give up and let the Republican House get away with anything.

That's a pretty good assessment of Reid's leadership style; and I hate to say this but most of the liberals who whine about Reid's public image have not a fucking clue about the arcane rules that the Senate operates by and how difficult it is to cobble together the votes among a fractious Democrat majority. But he wasn't the only one who was was championing recent legislative victories though, Barbara Boxer and several other California Democrats also flogged it hard and California went solidly blue as a result.

[Guest Raidne]

And the disparity in bipartisanship also explains the election results. When you push bills that have less popular support, you tend to lose votes.

Again, the 2005 Energy Bill is one the thing that I fail to understand here, because they managed to get through without popular support. Devious are the ways of Cheney and Rove.

Also, I would say that it's not about not having popular support - it's about not creating and maintaining popular support. I mean, you're probably never going to have unqualified popular support for - drumroll, please - the largest spending program in history!!!!, but people are all about job creation.

Here's one fact - everyone knows that Washington, D.C. has seen some of the lowest rates of job loss in the country. I know this, because all these people keep moving to the area (and because of the nifty map on Slate). Oh, gee, Bob why is that? Does federal spending create jobs?

Where are the Democrats on selling this stuff? Or the health care bill? They just don't. They have a focus-group mentality, when they should try on some Donald Draper panache.

[Odie]

I think you need to stop paying too much attention to the vomits from the right because plenty of people like the advances made in the health care reform bill (plugging of the doughnut hole, expanded coverage for the poor, end discrimination for people with pre-existing condition, letting colleg kids stay on their parents' insurance for a bit more ......... I mean those things are like literally the difference between life and death for some people).

YES. VERY FUCKING YES.

And people wonder why I'm so pissed off. These are the few things that were allowed through by the Party of No, and now they're the things they're hot-gunning to take away.

I will never support a party that is actively trying to KILL ME. I mean, seriously. Rant and rave about fiscal conservatism all you like. I'd rather a huge government that actually supports people who have shitty genes and/or who got a fucking COLD that fucked with their systems irreversibly than one that actively advocates policies that will leave people dying in the streets.

[Swordfish]

If it was simply anti-status quo, then why were so many Democratic incumbants tossed out, yet all but 2 GOP incumbants reelected?

Well, obviously it isn't 'simply' anything.

However, status quo in this context is pretty obviously equivalent to 'democratic rule'.

Are you arguing the opposite? That people (particularly people in the center) are really more optimistic and enthusiastic about the GOP's platform than they are disgruntled with the economy and perceived Big Spend?

YES. VERY FUCKING YES.

And people wonder why I'm so pissed off. These are the few things that were allowed through by the Party of No, and now they're the things they're hot-gunning to take away.

I will never support a party that is actively trying to KILL ME. I mean, seriously. Rant and rave about fiscal conservatism all you like. I'd rather a huge government that actually supports people who have shitty genes and/or who got a fucking COLD that fucked with their systems irreversibly than one that actively advocates policies that will leave people dying in the streets.

Ah.... Yes....

The tried and true 'dying in the streets' argument.

It was only a matter of time before someone trotted that one out.

If we had 'Political Thread Bingo', I'd want that one on my card for sure.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Here's one fact - everyone knows that Washington, D.C. has seen some of the lowest rates of job loss in the country. I know this, because all these people keep moving to the area (and because of the nifty map on Slate). Oh, gee, Bob why is that? Does federal spending create jobs? .

Of course you can take taxpayer money, give it to people to do something, and create a job. But that is a model that consumes itself, because the tax money you get back from those government employees is going to be much less than the tax money you used to pay them.

[Swordfish]

Of course you can take taxpayer money, give it to people to do something, and create a job. But that is a model that consumes itself, because the tax money you get back from those government employees is going to be much less than the tax money you used to pay them.

Yeah. I'm always surprised when generally smart people make such an obviously flawed argument.

Same with the 'SS is fine because there is a huge trust account out there to pay for it!!!'

Odd.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

However, status quo in this context is pretty obviously equivalent to 'democratic rule'.

If that's the case, why not state it directly and just say it was opposition to democratic rule? Because when you say it was just opposition to the "status quo", you could just as easily be agreeing with Harry Reid's take that the message from the election is that Republicans need to be more coooperative, and end the "status quo" of Republican opposition.

The reality leading up to this election is that the Democrats loudly bitched that the Republicans were stonewalling, and the Republicans openly stated that's what they wanted to do. This vote was clearly an endorsement of Republican resistance to the Democratic agenda, otherwise, they'd have thrown out all incumbents.

Are you arguing the opposite? That people (particularly people in the center) are really more optimistic and enthusiastic about the GOP's platform than they are disgruntled with the economy and perceived Big Spend?

I don't think you can separate the GOP's platform from opposition to big spending. I mean, that's pretty much the only thing on which Republicans ran.

[Fez]

That's a pretty good assessment of Reid's leadership style; and I hate to say this but most of the liberals who whine about Reid's public image have not a fucking clue about the arcane rules that the Senate operates by and how difficult it is to cobble together the votes among a fractious Democrat majority. But he wasn't the only one who was was championing recent legislative victories though, Barbara Boxer and several other California Democrats also flogged it hard and California went solidly blue as a result.

Yeah, the fact that he only ever 3-4 wayward Democrats on each major vote that he had to bring around instead of 10-15 should be a testament to his political skills. He kept the vast majority of his caucus voting in lockstep for almost the entire session.

True he wasn't the only one, but California is one of those places I expect Democrats to be championing what they're doing. To do it in Nevada, a much more purple state, shows more 'guts' in my mind. And the success of his strategy (hell, there was an even higher Latino turnout than in 2008) I hope sets an example for 2012.

Also Democrats need to push immigration reform, hard. It won't ever pass the House, but it will score major political points that the Democrats need next election.

[Guest Raidne]

The tried and true 'dying in the streets' argument.

It was only a matter of time before someone trotted that one out.

If we had 'Political Thread Bingo', I'd want that one on my card for sure.

This is probably really cute and all ironical and hipster-y if you've never seen people dying in the streets.

Of course you can take taxpayer money, give it to people to do something, and create a job. But that is a model that consumes itself, because the tax money you get back from those government employees is going to be much less than the tax money you used to pay them.

Well, that's not the argument I'm making. But explaining why would be another thread, although I remind you that it generally the job of conservatives to be the smart people pointing out that the economy is not a zero-sum game. Anyway, my point was that the Democrats didn't sell job creation to the public in the lead up to this election.

[The Progressive]

Of course you can take taxpayer money, give it to people to do something, and create a job. But that is a model that consumes itself, because the tax money you get back from those government employees is going to be much less than the tax money you used to pay them.

Yeah. I'm always surprised when generally smart people make such an obviously flawed argument.

It's only seem "flawed" to those who lacks even the most rudimentary understanding of economics. Of course the private sector will pay taxes to finance the salaries and benefits of government employees, but this cost is offset by the additional demand for goods and services produced in the private sector, which have those government employees as their customers.

[Swordfish]

If that's the case, why not state it directly and just say it was opposition to democratic rule? Because when you say it was just opposition to the "status quo", you could just as easily be agreeing with Harry Reid's take that the message from the election is that Republicans need to be more coooperative, and end the "status quo" of Republican opposition.

The reality leading up to this election is that the Democrats loudly bitched that the Republicans were stonewalling, and the Republicans openly stated that's what they wanted to do. This vote was clearly an endorsement of Republican resistance to the Democratic agenda, otherwise, they'd have thrown out all incumbents.

That's a pretty.... odd and absolute way of looking at it.

I don't think removing ALL incumbents makes sense in the context of any discussion. A lot of things would happen before you got to that kind of level of dissatisfaction with the status quo.

The economy is bad, so the party in power loses seats. This isn't rocket science.

I don't think you can separate the GOP's platform from opposition to big spending. I mean, that's pretty much the only thing on which Republicans ran.

Right. But I seriously doubt that many swing voters actually believed them and based their votes on that belief.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

This is probably really cute and all ironical and hipster-y if you've never seen people dying in the streets.

Cause what's really going to fix their problem is being required to purchase health insurance. This is a known cure for homelessness.

[Swordfish]

This is probably really cute and all ironical and hipster-y if you've never seen people dying in the streets.

Um.... No. There's virtually nothing hipstery or ironical about it. I am now unconvinced that you know what a hipster is or what ironic means.

Cause what's really going to fix their problem is being required to purchase health insurance. This is a known cure for homelessness.

Obviously.

[alguien]

Cause what's really going to fix their problem is being required to purchase health insurance. This is a known cure for homelessness.

Except homeless people aren't required to buy health insurance. Other than that, your snappy point makes perfect sense.

[Guest Raidne]

References to bingo are hipster-ville. It is known.

Pretending not to care about people dying to seem all smart and edgy is ironical(which I personally maintain is not a word and only use it to describe people who are being disingenuous) and cute, in the way people say "oh don't get cute."

It would be stupid to say "oh well, we have to pass cap and trade because people are dying in the streets." That would be deserving of contempt.

But when I have a friend who works a full time 40 hour a week job - as an attorney - with seizure disorders who cannot afford to actually get treatment and regular medication, you can fuck right off with your little cute comments where you pretend that it's all hysterical that people might worry about people without healthcare having a seizure on an escalator and, yes, dying in the street.

Do you have the faintest idea what it costs, right now, to get health insurance with a pre-existing seizure disorder? All he can afford is major medical.

Talk to me about the policy, talk to me about the details, talk to me about cost/benefit, but talk to me about being stupid for thinking there are life and death stakes for many people. That doesn't mean we can't talk policy about it and make some decisions there, but let's be real about what is on the line, and not make jokes because we can't face it.

[The Progressive]

Cause what's really going to fix their problem is being required to purchase health insurance. This is a known cure for homelessness.

Such libertarian bullshit, lol.

Point out where in the healthcare reform bill that required homeless people to purchase insurance.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Of course, there's only 1 type of flat tax proposal out there, ever...

No, but given that you are supporting the claim that Republicans want to eliminate all tax progressivity and all the Republicans mentioned in your link included large initial deductions in their proposals, you're just deliberately trying to mislead people. Which bugs me, because folks who don't follow this stuff as closely are essentially being lied to.

Also, as I understand it, progressive and regressive refers to the tax rate. A progressive tax is where your tax rate goes up.

Your understanding is incorrect, as your own link states. Progressive and regressive are concepts that address what percentage of income is paid in taxes by people at different income levels.

Flat rate, by definition, mandates the same tax rate for everyone. In your example, the fact that the the 250K household is paying more tax than the 45K household does not make the taxing plan a progressive one, because, lo and behold, both groups are taxed at the same rate regardless of their income.

Oh good God, TP, read your own link:

When deductions are allowed a 'flat tax' is a progressive tax with the special characteristic that above the maximum deduction, the rate on all further income is constant. Thus it is said to be marginally flat above that point.

Cripe, why not just admit that the claim that Republicans want to eliminate all progressivity in the tax codes is wrong? Is that so hard? The only link you offered to prove that point has actually proven the opposite. There's plenty of positions Republicans actually hold that people here hate already. Why do you have to make up bogus ones?

[Swordfish]

References to bingo are hipster-ville. It is known.

If you say so.

Pretending not to care about people dying to seem all smart and edgy is ironical(which I personally maintain is not a word and only use it to describe people who are being disingenuous) and cute, in the way people say "oh don't get cute."

Which would perhaps be relevant if someone had done that.

It would be stupid to say "oh well, we have to pass cap and trade because people are dying in the streets." That would be deserving of contempt.

But when I have a friend who works a full time 40 hour a week job - as an attorney - with seizure disorders who cannot afford to actually get treatment and regular medication, you can fuck right off with your little cute comments where you pretend that it's all hysterical that people might worry about people without healthcare having a seizure on an escalator and, yes, dying in the street.

Do you have the faintest idea what it costs, right now, to get health insurance with a pre-existing seizure disorder? All he can afford is major medical.

Talk to me about the policy, talk to me about the details, talk to me about cost/benefit, but talk to me about being stupid for thinking there are life and death stakes for many people. That doesn't mean we can't talk policy about it and make some decisions there, but let's be real about what is on the line, and not make jokes because we can't face it.

Your outrage is duly noted. As is your assumption about what I can and cannot face.

The 'people dying in the streets' argument is still a virtual godwin.

It's not a policy argument, it's not a cost/benefit argument, it's not about details. It's about melodrama and hyperbole.

So I'm gonna go ahead and continue to think it's a bullshit tactic, and if that makes you think I'm an evil ironical hipster, then that's just something I'll have to live with i guess.

Except homeless people aren't required to buy health insurance. Other than that, your snappy point makes perfect sense.

So then you'd say the health care bill doesn't care about people dying in the streets then?

[alguien]

So then you'd say the health care bill doesn't care about people dying in the streets then?

Not at all. Just that it doesn't require the homeless to buy health insurance, which would indeed be nonsensical.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

My response what based on:

I will never support a party that is actively trying to KILL ME. I mean, seriously. Rant and rave about fiscal conservatism all you like. I'd rather a huge government that actually supports people who have shitty genes and/or who got a fucking COLD that fucked with their systems irreversibly than one that actively advocates policies that will leave people dying in the streets.

Which seems to indicate that Republicans are murderers and Democrats have some sort of program to stop people from DYING IN THE STREETS. The only program that could possibly fit would be the Healthcare Bill. With the hyperbole being thrown around a snarky comment isn't outside the pale.

The 'people dying in the streets' argument is still a virtual godwin.

It's not a policy argument, it's not a cost/benefit argument, it's not about details. It's about melodrama and hyperbole.

So then you'd say the health care bill doesn't care about people dying in the streets then?

Haha