It's always sad when intelligent people invest so heavily in the wrong idea that they end up completely embarrassing themselves with absurd arguments as their only means to continue down the wrong path. And this is surely the case with Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard who wrote a post called Give Me $1 Billion to Cut the Budget Deficit.
Now, I'm sure Mankiw is a bright guy. I mean, I never even dreamed of going to Harvard, let alone being smart enough to teach there. And I'm sure that if the topic was purely on economics, Mankiw could run circles around me. I doubt he'd be right, but I'm sure I wouldn't understand all his fancy jargon which he'd insist was untranslatable into English. So unless we kept the focus on practical economics, rather than academic economics that might not necessarily apply to the real world, I don't think I'd challenge the guy to a debate. My point? I'm sure the guy's intelligent.
But...he's on the wrong side of issues, and so in the end, no matter how smart he is, he's going to end up wrong. Because it's garbage-in and garbage-out, and if your foundation is wrong, you're going to come up with the wrong answers. And that's what we see here with his $1 Billion post.
Taxes = Bad
Basically, Mankiw's arguing that it's wrong to say that the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, because the spending part of the bill doesn't reduce the deficit. And that's it. That's his argument. But of course, nobody's making that claim. We claim that the law reduces the deficit, because it does. That's what the CBO says and he's not arguing against it. But nobody ever claimed it was the spending that reduced the deficit.
So right off the bat, he's arguing against a point that no one would make. And for as much as his argument works, it's something everyone already knows. It'd be like me lecturing you on all the reasons you shouldn't poke your eye out with a poo stick. It's such a bad idea that it doesn't need to be said.
And he seems to be making the same mistake I mentioned Charles Krauthammer made earlier today. At a guess, I'm thinking they've got a mental hang-up about taxes. They believe implicitly that taxes are a bad thing and can't be used as a positive. So in their minds, Democrats are saying that their spending bill reduces the deficit, and then added a bad thing to it; thus making it worse. But of course, it's the "bad thing" that explains why we're saying it reduces the deficit.
Silly Tricks for Silly People
Beyond that, his argument is absolutely embarrassing. His point is to suggest that our claims that ACA reduces the deficit would be the same as him saying that he can reduce the deficit by $2 billion if we raise taxes by $3 billion and give him $1 billion.
But...that would reduce the deficit. And if this were somehow the only way we could raise taxes, and I mean absolutely the only way, I suppose I might consider supporting the $1 Billion Greg Mankiw Subsidy Act. Not because I think he needs the money, but because we need the money and it'd be the only way to get it.
And the same went with ACA. Because Congress only raised these taxes to pay for this bill, and wouldn't have otherwise. That wasn't a gimmick. That was how we paid for the spending, which is supposedly important to conservatives like Mankiw. And the reason his deficit reduction plan sounds ridiculous isn't because it's ridiculous to raise taxes to pay for spending and deficit reduction, but because it involved giving the money to him. And we immediately see that he wasn't making some valid point against his opponents, but using a silly rhetorical trick that wouldn't impress a junior high debate team.
And I don't think this paints Mankiw's intelligence in a bad light, as I don't think his intelligence was involved at all. This was allllll emotions. He knows he doesn't like ACA and is really upset now that he's realizing that efforts to repeal it will increase the deficit, and has to figure some way out of it. But he can't. There is no way out. It does what he doesn't want it to do and it bugs the hell out of him.
Now if he wants, he can argue that the tax increases might destroy America, as it puts such a horrible burden on tanning salon owners, who are the heart and soul of our nation, as well as imposing upon gold-plated health insurance policies for people who really want health costs to explode. But he can't argue that it's bad for the deficit. And so he's stuck making childish arguments because it's all he's got left. I don't know much about Mankiw's knowledge of economics, but I suspect there's a good reason he doesn't teach logic.
And as I said with Krauthammer, I still can't believe these people are finally acknowledging that ACA doesn't hurt the deficit. Baby steps, people.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Link Blogging
While I normally only use this blog as a source of analysis I'm not seeing anywhere else and almost never as a news site posting links to other stories and blogs, there were a few interesting things I've read recently that I thought I should highlight without much comment.
First was an analysis by Ian Millhiser of the Center for American Progress, who wrote a post called Clearly Constitutional, which makes clear that the Affordable Care Act is most definintely constitutional.
Next up is a post from Richard Unger at Forbes, in which he explains why our Founding Fathers supported socialized medicine, by mandating that sailors pay a tax in order to build a government healthcare system for them to use. And the irony here is that the main ways that this differed from our supposedly unconstituional healthcare solution is that our plan relies upon private insurers and hospitals for healthcare, rather than a purely government solution that conservatives would hate even more.
And finally, I just wanted to highlight this selection from BarackObama.com of Promises Kept, showcasing many of the great policies we got through Congress; including repealing DADT, reforming student loans, ending many bad credit card practices, and of course, getting everyone decent healthcare.
Enjoy!
First was an analysis by Ian Millhiser of the Center for American Progress, who wrote a post called Clearly Constitutional, which makes clear that the Affordable Care Act is most definintely constitutional.
Next up is a post from Richard Unger at Forbes, in which he explains why our Founding Fathers supported socialized medicine, by mandating that sailors pay a tax in order to build a government healthcare system for them to use. And the irony here is that the main ways that this differed from our supposedly unconstituional healthcare solution is that our plan relies upon private insurers and hospitals for healthcare, rather than a purely government solution that conservatives would hate even more.
And finally, I just wanted to highlight this selection from BarackObama.com of Promises Kept, showcasing many of the great policies we got through Congress; including repealing DADT, reforming student loans, ending many bad credit card practices, and of course, getting everyone decent healthcare.
Enjoy!
Pushing the Envelope on Conservative Math
Steve Benen's got a post about a delusional column by Charles Krauthammer (does he have any other kind?), in which Krauthammer writes:
And I suspect that part of Krauthammer's problem is that he's bought into the absurdist myth that there is somehow something wrong or evil about taxes. As if nothing involving a tax increase can be good for the deficit, while tax cuts are a magical thing that make deficits disappear.
Protecting Peter to Destroy Paul
And this delusion is so strong that it now permeates even their most basic analysis, as they now seem to have conflated tax revenues with the funds we're collecting from, and if we let rich people keep more of their money, it's the same as the government collecting it. And since the free markets are better at allocating funds than the government, in their minds, then it's simply better to allow the markets to decide where the money is spent.
But of course, it's not like that and in order to compensate for every dollar we don't collect in taxes, the cut would have to make considerably more in order to keep tax revenues equal. As a simple example, if we tax $100 at a 40% rate, we'd collect $40 in revenue. But if we cut that rate to 35%, the person who got the cut would have to generate an additional $14.29 with the $5 he got to keep in order to keep tax revenues at $40.
And that's why it's absurd to imagine that tax cuts pay for themselves, as that would have to happen every year. And if private industry can't parlay that $5 savings into an extra $14.29 every year, we'll come out behind. But to conservatives, this has become a zero-sum game, in which we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, unaware that Peter is part of Paul's expenses and if Paul doesn't have enough to pay his bills, it'll hurt Paul, Peter, and Mary.
And that's part of another lie, in which government spending only benefits the government, and if we deny them funds, it'll benefit the rest of us. And so you get the impression that the Fat Cats in Washington are giving themselves huge bonuses with the funds they collect, rather than building roads and helping people who are struggling to survive.
And even if they acknowledge that the money is spent to help people, it's as if we're to somehow believe that this money falls into a vacuum, rather than pumping up the economy the same as if private industry kept it. And rather than understand how taxes can help individuals, communities, and the economy; they inexplicably believe that it does none of these things and only makes things worse.
Even the individuals we help are damaged by these funds, we're told, as it just makes them lazy; which is why they don't deserve to be helped, because they're so lazy that they need help from the government. It's an amazing piece of circular logic that doesn't even make sense in its own terms.
The Tax Hike Secret
But frankly, I'm just amazed that Krauthammer has at least acknowledged how it is the healthcare law reduces the deficit, even if he finds it laughable for reasons he can't explain. Most conservatives simply accept it on faith that it'll balloon the deficit, unaware of the tax increases it contained.
I recently mentioned the tax increases to a conservative friend who opposed the law and he didn't seem aware of them at all and had no response. Apparently, he hadn't been given a talking point on this, and couldn't even rant against Obama raising taxes. And for as much as that's odd, as you'd think they'd be screaming about Obama hiking taxes on everyone, I suppose since that'd let everyone understand how Obama's being truthful when he says it cuts the deficit, I can see why they prefer to be mum on the whole thing.
But seeing as how even an intelligent conservative like Krauthammer considers it laughable that a tax increase could pay for spending increases, I suppose it's just a matter of time until they all accept on faith that "Obamacare" destroys the budget while also raising taxes on those poor rich people. I truly worry about these people.
Suppose someone -- say, the president of United States -- proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I've got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion.And along with Benen, I'm left wondering: What exactly is so laughable about this? $770 billion minus $540 billion is $230 billion. That seems like pretty basic arthimatic, even with the word "billion" in there. Perhaps this is part of the new math, where 770 isn't bigger than 540.
He'd be laughed out of town. And yet, this is precisely what the Democrats are claiming as a virtue of Obamacare.
And I suspect that part of Krauthammer's problem is that he's bought into the absurdist myth that there is somehow something wrong or evil about taxes. As if nothing involving a tax increase can be good for the deficit, while tax cuts are a magical thing that make deficits disappear.
Protecting Peter to Destroy Paul
And this delusion is so strong that it now permeates even their most basic analysis, as they now seem to have conflated tax revenues with the funds we're collecting from, and if we let rich people keep more of their money, it's the same as the government collecting it. And since the free markets are better at allocating funds than the government, in their minds, then it's simply better to allow the markets to decide where the money is spent.
But of course, it's not like that and in order to compensate for every dollar we don't collect in taxes, the cut would have to make considerably more in order to keep tax revenues equal. As a simple example, if we tax $100 at a 40% rate, we'd collect $40 in revenue. But if we cut that rate to 35%, the person who got the cut would have to generate an additional $14.29 with the $5 he got to keep in order to keep tax revenues at $40.
And that's why it's absurd to imagine that tax cuts pay for themselves, as that would have to happen every year. And if private industry can't parlay that $5 savings into an extra $14.29 every year, we'll come out behind. But to conservatives, this has become a zero-sum game, in which we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, unaware that Peter is part of Paul's expenses and if Paul doesn't have enough to pay his bills, it'll hurt Paul, Peter, and Mary.
And that's part of another lie, in which government spending only benefits the government, and if we deny them funds, it'll benefit the rest of us. And so you get the impression that the Fat Cats in Washington are giving themselves huge bonuses with the funds they collect, rather than building roads and helping people who are struggling to survive.
And even if they acknowledge that the money is spent to help people, it's as if we're to somehow believe that this money falls into a vacuum, rather than pumping up the economy the same as if private industry kept it. And rather than understand how taxes can help individuals, communities, and the economy; they inexplicably believe that it does none of these things and only makes things worse.
Even the individuals we help are damaged by these funds, we're told, as it just makes them lazy; which is why they don't deserve to be helped, because they're so lazy that they need help from the government. It's an amazing piece of circular logic that doesn't even make sense in its own terms.
The Tax Hike Secret
But frankly, I'm just amazed that Krauthammer has at least acknowledged how it is the healthcare law reduces the deficit, even if he finds it laughable for reasons he can't explain. Most conservatives simply accept it on faith that it'll balloon the deficit, unaware of the tax increases it contained.
I recently mentioned the tax increases to a conservative friend who opposed the law and he didn't seem aware of them at all and had no response. Apparently, he hadn't been given a talking point on this, and couldn't even rant against Obama raising taxes. And for as much as that's odd, as you'd think they'd be screaming about Obama hiking taxes on everyone, I suppose since that'd let everyone understand how Obama's being truthful when he says it cuts the deficit, I can see why they prefer to be mum on the whole thing.
But seeing as how even an intelligent conservative like Krauthammer considers it laughable that a tax increase could pay for spending increases, I suppose it's just a matter of time until they all accept on faith that "Obamacare" destroys the budget while also raising taxes on those poor rich people. I truly worry about these people.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Why We Need Conservative Democrats
Like it or not, America is not a dictatorship. I happen to like that, not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government for coming up with the right answers, because it isn't. If we wanted the "right" answers, we'd give dictator powers to technocrats and let them solve all our problems.
Democracy's strength, on the other hand, has to do with giving people power over their own lives in order to give them an interest in seeing it continue; much like how some businesses give company stock to their employees, to give those employees an incentive to see it improve. But for many people on both ends of the political spectrum, that's not good enough. Yeah, sure, they'll pay lip service to democracy, but if it doesn't give them the right policies, they'd just as soon choose a form of government that allowed them to get the right policies.
And we saw that on the right during the Bush years, when conservatives celebrated a rubber-stamp Congress that they've written out of existence, now that Bush's policies turned out to suck and they were forced to declare that he wasn't a conservative after all. And even now, they'll insist that the results of elections only mean something if their side wins. And that completely goes against the idea of democracy.
A chief pillar of democracy is that you support the system, win or lose. It's not about getting the right results. It's about having the right system. And if you only support the system when it gives you the answers you wanted, then you're not talking about a democracy at all.
Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em
And we also see that on the left, with people who blame Obama for not giving us everything he said he would. And it's as if Congress doesn't exist and Obama can do anything he wants, were he to choose to do so. And if he falls back and blames Congress for not passing his agenda, it's all part of a kabuki theater he's using to trick us. And they'll insist that we're all just patsies and that this isn't democracy because both sides are the same; all evidence to the contrary. And that's why these people have to ignore all the great things Obama got for us, while emphasizing very tenuous similarities between Obama and Bush.
And I was thinking about this while reading a post at Washington Monthly, which points out how House Democrats are now relishing the fight to defend the healthcare law. And that's in contrast to last year, when they wanted to talk about anything but the healthcare law. And at first this seems dumb, as the time to fight was last year, before the election. And now, some might see this as more kabuki theater, in that they're only willing to fight as long as they can't actually do anything about it.
But this misreads the situation. Because our chief problem is that there were conservative Democrats who refused to support the law. For example, Lieberman and others had made it clear that they would absolutely kill the bill if it had a Public Option, so it had to be dropped. And for as much as Obama's critics on the left use that as proof that Obama's a fraud, it's well known that this wasn't his fault. There are conservative Democrats who didn't like this debate at all and were quite happy to insert as many poison pills as possible to get it off the table.
And now that many of these conservatives lost anyway, the remaining Democrats are free to act more like Democrats in defending the law. And of course, progressives on the left may say that this is reason enough for us to always oppose conservative Democrats, so that they can't sabotage our platform like this.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work either. Because without conservative Democrats, we don't have control of Congress. And rather than freeing us to pass our agenda, it prevents us from pushing an agenda at all. And without conservative Democrats, we're stuck with conservative Republicans; who are almost always going to be further to the right than any of the Democrats who are screwing us up.
Conservatives Vote, Too
And so we're screwed. If we have conservative Democrats in Congress, they'll water down our bills, undermine our agenda, and screw us up. If we don't have conservative Democrats in Congress, then we lose control of Congress and spend all our time preventing Republicans from steamrolling us. And yes, in an ideal world, we could push for all liberal Democrats and get everything we want. But that's simply not a possibility. Not right now, anyway.
For as much as places like Kentucky, Indiana, and Wyoming would benefit from liberal policies, that's simply not part of the current political background and no amount of attacking conservative Democrats will change that. Right or wrong, the people in those states are conservatives, and we're stuck working with the people they send to Congress; just as our Founding Fathers were stuck making compromises with people who were screwing things up. That's just the nature of democracy.
And so our biggest problem is democracy, as it allows people in Kentucky just as much say over their lives as it does people in California. And as much as that causes problems, there is no alternative. Because for as much as you and I know the right policies for our nation, these people think they know the right answers, too. And were we to eschew our democracy for one in which we elected the "right" people, it would be at the cost of alienating people who didn't agree and it'd soon spell the end of our nation.
And so our democracy is both a blessing and a curse. And for as much as some people don't like the answers it gives us, it's really the only option we have. And so that means we're stuck with conservative Democrats who oppose good policies for bad reasons, and tie our hands behind our back when we were already short-handed. And as much as that's a problem we have to deal with, it's a lot better than the one's we'd face if we had a system that allowed Obama to get everything he wanted.
Democracy's strength, on the other hand, has to do with giving people power over their own lives in order to give them an interest in seeing it continue; much like how some businesses give company stock to their employees, to give those employees an incentive to see it improve. But for many people on both ends of the political spectrum, that's not good enough. Yeah, sure, they'll pay lip service to democracy, but if it doesn't give them the right policies, they'd just as soon choose a form of government that allowed them to get the right policies.
And we saw that on the right during the Bush years, when conservatives celebrated a rubber-stamp Congress that they've written out of existence, now that Bush's policies turned out to suck and they were forced to declare that he wasn't a conservative after all. And even now, they'll insist that the results of elections only mean something if their side wins. And that completely goes against the idea of democracy.
A chief pillar of democracy is that you support the system, win or lose. It's not about getting the right results. It's about having the right system. And if you only support the system when it gives you the answers you wanted, then you're not talking about a democracy at all.
Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em
And we also see that on the left, with people who blame Obama for not giving us everything he said he would. And it's as if Congress doesn't exist and Obama can do anything he wants, were he to choose to do so. And if he falls back and blames Congress for not passing his agenda, it's all part of a kabuki theater he's using to trick us. And they'll insist that we're all just patsies and that this isn't democracy because both sides are the same; all evidence to the contrary. And that's why these people have to ignore all the great things Obama got for us, while emphasizing very tenuous similarities between Obama and Bush.
And I was thinking about this while reading a post at Washington Monthly, which points out how House Democrats are now relishing the fight to defend the healthcare law. And that's in contrast to last year, when they wanted to talk about anything but the healthcare law. And at first this seems dumb, as the time to fight was last year, before the election. And now, some might see this as more kabuki theater, in that they're only willing to fight as long as they can't actually do anything about it.
But this misreads the situation. Because our chief problem is that there were conservative Democrats who refused to support the law. For example, Lieberman and others had made it clear that they would absolutely kill the bill if it had a Public Option, so it had to be dropped. And for as much as Obama's critics on the left use that as proof that Obama's a fraud, it's well known that this wasn't his fault. There are conservative Democrats who didn't like this debate at all and were quite happy to insert as many poison pills as possible to get it off the table.
And now that many of these conservatives lost anyway, the remaining Democrats are free to act more like Democrats in defending the law. And of course, progressives on the left may say that this is reason enough for us to always oppose conservative Democrats, so that they can't sabotage our platform like this.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work either. Because without conservative Democrats, we don't have control of Congress. And rather than freeing us to pass our agenda, it prevents us from pushing an agenda at all. And without conservative Democrats, we're stuck with conservative Republicans; who are almost always going to be further to the right than any of the Democrats who are screwing us up.
Conservatives Vote, Too
And so we're screwed. If we have conservative Democrats in Congress, they'll water down our bills, undermine our agenda, and screw us up. If we don't have conservative Democrats in Congress, then we lose control of Congress and spend all our time preventing Republicans from steamrolling us. And yes, in an ideal world, we could push for all liberal Democrats and get everything we want. But that's simply not a possibility. Not right now, anyway.
For as much as places like Kentucky, Indiana, and Wyoming would benefit from liberal policies, that's simply not part of the current political background and no amount of attacking conservative Democrats will change that. Right or wrong, the people in those states are conservatives, and we're stuck working with the people they send to Congress; just as our Founding Fathers were stuck making compromises with people who were screwing things up. That's just the nature of democracy.
And so our biggest problem is democracy, as it allows people in Kentucky just as much say over their lives as it does people in California. And as much as that causes problems, there is no alternative. Because for as much as you and I know the right policies for our nation, these people think they know the right answers, too. And were we to eschew our democracy for one in which we elected the "right" people, it would be at the cost of alienating people who didn't agree and it'd soon spell the end of our nation.
And so our democracy is both a blessing and a curse. And for as much as some people don't like the answers it gives us, it's really the only option we have. And so that means we're stuck with conservative Democrats who oppose good policies for bad reasons, and tie our hands behind our back when we were already short-handed. And as much as that's a problem we have to deal with, it's a lot better than the one's we'd face if we had a system that allowed Obama to get everything he wanted.
Why Armies Gather
While writing my last post, I got around to reading the Declaration of Independence, and thought I'd highlight the part where they explained why they were declaring independence. It's a well-known truism among Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers revolted over a tea tax. As if a simple tax was enough to enrage our nation into revolt, making it perfectly sensible for us to want to revolt against liberals taxes now.
And really, there is no finer example of delusional political advertising than this one, in my humble opinion.
And beyond the absurdity of this turd thinking he could lecture to Washington & Co about reasons to revolt, my favorite part is how upset he is about them revolting over a tea tax. A tea tax! Because for me, the emphasis is entirely different from the one he intended, as I'd think our Founding Fathers were absolute fools if their chief reason for rebelling was a tea tax.
And of course, the punchline is that Washington did gather an army over taxes, in order to enforce the Whiskey Tax Congress had passed. It's as if we're to imagine our Founding Fathers wanted us to collect no taxes at all. Yet all the same, many conservatives still insist the Founding Fathers were anti-taxation.
A Reason to Revolt
But let's just go to a source document on this one, and see what it is they were revolting against:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such disolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass [sic] our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Something tells me these guys had a little bit more on their minds than a tea tax.
And really, there is no finer example of delusional political advertising than this one, in my humble opinion.
And beyond the absurdity of this turd thinking he could lecture to Washington & Co about reasons to revolt, my favorite part is how upset he is about them revolting over a tea tax. A tea tax! Because for me, the emphasis is entirely different from the one he intended, as I'd think our Founding Fathers were absolute fools if their chief reason for rebelling was a tea tax.
And of course, the punchline is that Washington did gather an army over taxes, in order to enforce the Whiskey Tax Congress had passed. It's as if we're to imagine our Founding Fathers wanted us to collect no taxes at all. Yet all the same, many conservatives still insist the Founding Fathers were anti-taxation.
A Reason to Revolt
But let's just go to a source document on this one, and see what it is they were revolting against:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such disolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass [sic] our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Something tells me these guys had a little bit more on their minds than a tea tax.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Omitting God From America
Conservatives are such weird people. I was just reading this letter which the Congressional Prayer Caucus sent to Obama, because they wanted Obama to issue a correction for not properly identifying their god as the source of America's greatness in speeches he's given.
Now, the first part of the correction I kind of understand, in that Obama said our national motto was "out of many one," which is only an unofficial national motto. While our official national motto is "In God we trust." And that's understandable, even if it's a bit lame, as E pluribus unum is one of our mottos, and it's really a lot better than the god one they came up with in the 50's. But whatever.
But the other part is ridiculous, as they attack Obama for "omitting" God from his speeches, because he mentioned that we have unalienable rights, without mentioning who gave us these rights. Similarly, they attack him for mentioning that we're united under one flag, without saying that we're "one nation under God." They even went on to complain that he did this repeatedly, which proves that it wasn't accidental.
And I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. It'd be one thing if he quoted from the Declaration of Independence or the Pledge of Alligence and skipped over the God parts. But the idea that he's supposed to reference God every time he references the Declaration of Independence or the Pledge of Allegiance is absolutely moronic. Seriously.
Which Creator?
And the funny part is when they write:
And the only use of the word "God," in the whole document is a reference to "Nature's God," which is most assuredly not His name. Of course, "God" is merely God's nickname and not His name in any case, but there's certainly a distinction between "God" and "Nature's God." And again, if they meant God, they would have said "God."
And let's not forget that the Declaration quite clearly states that our rights are secured by the government, which derives its power from the consent of the governed. And again, they could have said it derives power from God or that God secures our rights, but they didn't. They didn't mention God at all. Not by name, anyway. It's as if they were being intentionally vague as to which Creator they were referring to, because it didn't really matter. They had rights that couldn't be taken away, and it was up to men to take care of them. And if they wanted biblical based laws, they certainly could have said so.
Now, maybe the Congressional Prayer Caucus might have some issues with Jefferson about this, as he certainly could have named which Creator he was referring to, and that's a conversation I'd really like to see. I'm just imagining Michelle Bachman, Steve King and the rest of these freaks informing Jefferson of this omissions, right before he blows up on them and kicks them out of the bar they found him in.
And that's just something conservatives really don't let themselves think too much about, as to why it was that our Founding Fathers didn't bother mentioning God in the Declaration, or why they forgot to mention in the Constitution that all laws need to be based on the Bible. And why they didn't think of "In God We Trust" as their national motto, or why they didn't force us all to recite a pledge to the flag. Conservatives are all about turning the clock back to 1776, just as long as they get to keep the God stuff that came later.
Now, the first part of the correction I kind of understand, in that Obama said our national motto was "out of many one," which is only an unofficial national motto. While our official national motto is "In God we trust." And that's understandable, even if it's a bit lame, as E pluribus unum is one of our mottos, and it's really a lot better than the god one they came up with in the 50's. But whatever.
But the other part is ridiculous, as they attack Obama for "omitting" God from his speeches, because he mentioned that we have unalienable rights, without mentioning who gave us these rights. Similarly, they attack him for mentioning that we're united under one flag, without saying that we're "one nation under God." They even went on to complain that he did this repeatedly, which proves that it wasn't accidental.
And I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. It'd be one thing if he quoted from the Declaration of Independence or the Pledge of Alligence and skipped over the God parts. But the idea that he's supposed to reference God every time he references the Declaration of Independence or the Pledge of Allegiance is absolutely moronic. Seriously.
Which Creator?
And the funny part is when they write:
The Declaration of Independence definitively recognizes God, our Creator, as the source of our rights.But uh, that's not actually the case. Because Jefferson surely could have written "they are endowed by God, their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights," had he wanted to. But he didn't. Hell, if he meant God, he could just have said "God," and left the Creator part out completely; as that would would have been implied. But he didn't. He didn't mention God at all.
And the only use of the word "God," in the whole document is a reference to "Nature's God," which is most assuredly not His name. Of course, "God" is merely God's nickname and not His name in any case, but there's certainly a distinction between "God" and "Nature's God." And again, if they meant God, they would have said "God."
And let's not forget that the Declaration quite clearly states that our rights are secured by the government, which derives its power from the consent of the governed. And again, they could have said it derives power from God or that God secures our rights, but they didn't. They didn't mention God at all. Not by name, anyway. It's as if they were being intentionally vague as to which Creator they were referring to, because it didn't really matter. They had rights that couldn't be taken away, and it was up to men to take care of them. And if they wanted biblical based laws, they certainly could have said so.
Now, maybe the Congressional Prayer Caucus might have some issues with Jefferson about this, as he certainly could have named which Creator he was referring to, and that's a conversation I'd really like to see. I'm just imagining Michelle Bachman, Steve King and the rest of these freaks informing Jefferson of this omissions, right before he blows up on them and kicks them out of the bar they found him in.
And that's just something conservatives really don't let themselves think too much about, as to why it was that our Founding Fathers didn't bother mentioning God in the Declaration, or why they forgot to mention in the Constitution that all laws need to be based on the Bible. And why they didn't think of "In God We Trust" as their national motto, or why they didn't force us all to recite a pledge to the flag. Conservatives are all about turning the clock back to 1776, just as long as they get to keep the God stuff that came later.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
The Thin End of the Wedge
Related to my previous post is a problem people have when they take real facts, speculate about them, and eventually turn that speculation into facts, which they then build upon. And you see this sort of thing when one side presents a policy and the other side rejects that policy, not based upon the policy itself, but for what they speculate the "real" purpose of that policy is; which is always the thin end of the wedge. The beginning of the end of whatever it is they hold dear. So no policy is what it seems, as they all have nefarious goals which will eventually undermine our side completely.
And we see this with the current suggestion by liberals that we once again restrict the sort of high-capacity gun clips used by the insane guy in Tucson. I mean, 2nd Amendment or not, why do we need to have Glocks that hold 33 bullets? A smaller gun clip would have surely saved lives and even the NRA hasn't proposed any real world situation for why we need them.
But for them, it's not about the clips. It's about what this ban will mean in future debates. For them, this is just a nefarious plot: The thin end of the wedge towards a gun ban. So they oppose this policy because of speculation of what this policy might mean, and the speculation becomes a fact that they now treat as reality. They've already decided that Obama wants to destroy the 2nd Amendment, all evidence to the contrary, and they can now accept this latest proposal as just more of that push to destroy America.
Social Security Still Safe
And we see the same thing on the left. Obama came up with an idea for giving workers more spending money by having the government pay a small portion of their Social Security for them. And from there, liberals began speculating that this will eventually lead to Social Security being defunded and eventually dissolved. And before you know it, this speculation of what might happen became a reality of what will happen and was a reason for not supporting a policy that will allow people to spend more money.
And this is something to be avoided. Speculation is great and it's definitely a requirement for us to make educated guesses as to what the future implications of our actions will be; and it'd be irresponsible to not speculate about such things. But...we shouldn't allow ourselves to convert speculation into reality. Yes, renewing the ban on high-capacity gun clips might lead to more gun control, and allowing people to keep part of their Social Security tax while it gets paid by the government might lead to Social Security being defunded. But this is only speculation and not reality. Simply because a dreaded thing might occur doesn't mean it will occur.
Because yeah, there are real fears of any policy being the thin end of the wedge which helps destroy other policies. But more often than not, most policies see a pendulum effect, not a momentum effect. Success on one side makes future success more difficult, not easier. A ban on high-capacity clips makes future bans more difficult. And anyone who actually imagines Americans will accept a defunded Social Security just hasn't been paying attention.
People will accept a lot of things, but hardline gun control and destroyed Social Security will simply not be tolerated. Anyone who suggests otherwise is deluding themselves. Maybe I'm wrong, but the evidence is clearly on my side. We must remain vigilant in protecting Social Security, but not allow ourselves to believe it's already been damaged.
And we see this with the current suggestion by liberals that we once again restrict the sort of high-capacity gun clips used by the insane guy in Tucson. I mean, 2nd Amendment or not, why do we need to have Glocks that hold 33 bullets? A smaller gun clip would have surely saved lives and even the NRA hasn't proposed any real world situation for why we need them.
But for them, it's not about the clips. It's about what this ban will mean in future debates. For them, this is just a nefarious plot: The thin end of the wedge towards a gun ban. So they oppose this policy because of speculation of what this policy might mean, and the speculation becomes a fact that they now treat as reality. They've already decided that Obama wants to destroy the 2nd Amendment, all evidence to the contrary, and they can now accept this latest proposal as just more of that push to destroy America.
Social Security Still Safe
And we see the same thing on the left. Obama came up with an idea for giving workers more spending money by having the government pay a small portion of their Social Security for them. And from there, liberals began speculating that this will eventually lead to Social Security being defunded and eventually dissolved. And before you know it, this speculation of what might happen became a reality of what will happen and was a reason for not supporting a policy that will allow people to spend more money.
And this is something to be avoided. Speculation is great and it's definitely a requirement for us to make educated guesses as to what the future implications of our actions will be; and it'd be irresponsible to not speculate about such things. But...we shouldn't allow ourselves to convert speculation into reality. Yes, renewing the ban on high-capacity gun clips might lead to more gun control, and allowing people to keep part of their Social Security tax while it gets paid by the government might lead to Social Security being defunded. But this is only speculation and not reality. Simply because a dreaded thing might occur doesn't mean it will occur.
Because yeah, there are real fears of any policy being the thin end of the wedge which helps destroy other policies. But more often than not, most policies see a pendulum effect, not a momentum effect. Success on one side makes future success more difficult, not easier. A ban on high-capacity clips makes future bans more difficult. And anyone who actually imagines Americans will accept a defunded Social Security just hasn't been paying attention.
People will accept a lot of things, but hardline gun control and destroyed Social Security will simply not be tolerated. Anyone who suggests otherwise is deluding themselves. Maybe I'm wrong, but the evidence is clearly on my side. We must remain vigilant in protecting Social Security, but not allow ourselves to believe it's already been damaged.
An Ad Hominem Universe
Carpetbagger's got a great post about The Dangers of Epistemic Closure, in which he describes the problem conservatives have when they only accept facts and opinions from like-minded conservatives, including the dismissal of conservatives who ever stray from what they want to hear. Basically, it's a garbage-in, garbage-out situation, and since they're fact-checking their garbage with more garbage, they only get more delusional with every passing day.
But of course, this doesn't only afflict people on the right, but is something everyone can fall victim to. If the only news you're willing to accept is news that already agrees with you, you're going to have a hard time dealing with the real world; which can often have things you don't want to hear in it.
And one major problem is that too many people suffer from an ad hominem mindset, in which they reject a piece of news if it comes from the wrong source. And even worse, they have a natural assumption of propaganda from any source that doesn't conform to what they want to hear; while they're too willing to accept news from a preferred source, without bothering to check if it's true.
Propaganda Isn't Always False
If the NY Times reports something negative about conservatives, then conservatives will naturally assume the Times has a hidden agenda and will dismiss the report. Similarly, if Fox News reports something negative about liberals, then liberals will assume that Fox has a hidden agenda and will dismiss the report.
Now, of course, Fox News is propaganda and does have a hidden agenda that isn't even well hidden, so it's understandable why someone would dismiss them as a news source. Yet all the same, facts are facts, and simply because Fox News reports something doesn't make it automatically false.
Similarly, the NY Times does have a liberal bias, in the sense that reality has a liberal bias and the NY Times reports reality. And so it's understandable that conservatives would dismiss this source because they so rarely report what conservatives want to hear. And whenever the Times reports something they want to hear (which happens far more often then they'll admit), they'll think "Oh, if the liberal NY Times says it, then it really must be true," even if it's not.
Just the Facts
And the problem is that any source can have truths and facts hidden in them, no matter how propagandic they are. And it's too easy to dismiss a fact, simply based upon its source. But that's something we must reject if we want to know the truth.
And the thing to do is to read news from all sources and really scour for the truth. To not accept information just because it came from Krugman, Kos, or Kuchinich; or reject something because it came from Fox or RedState. Only by doing independent research can we determine that "Obamacare" didn't have Death Panels, or that Obama's tax deal last month didn't defund Social Security.
Because it's not about who says the information, but what the information is; and even the most reliable source is only human and must be verified. And if anything, we must be more vigilant when reading news from an accepted news source; not less. And if you're not clicking through the links of your sources, and clicking through their links, and the links from those links, you might be getting deceived by someone who was themselves deceived. Everyone's human; including those we agree with.
Fact Check Thyself
And most of all, it's ourselves that we must be most vigilant about double-checking. It's easy to see when others are lying to us, but very difficult to see when we're lying to ourselves. Yes, you can have a working assumption that RedState is full of shit most of the time, but when it comes to fact checking, we should assume them to be more trustworthy than ourselves.
Only after triple-checking our own facts can we add it to the pile of information we use for other fact-checking. And if the only information you're willing to accept is the information that immediately confirms your own beliefs, then you probably don't know what you're talking about.
That's why I read Washington Monthly and TPM and other sources that report what conservatives are saying; while generally avoiding liberal sites that only report liberal news and opinions. And why I scour Yahoo News for stories of all types, while visiting sites like RedState. Many commenters at WaMo and TPM deride them for focusing too much on what conservatives say, insisting that we should be discussing liberal policies. But to me, that's exactly opposite. Because we already know our own facts and opinions. It's healthy to know what the other side is saying, just to make sure we're not missing something.
So I look towards outside sources in order to get as much information as possible, as well as engaging in any debate I can, while avoiding discussions with people who already agree with me; so as to not get caught in echo chambers and mutual admiration circle-jerks. And if you're dismissing a story solely because it was reported by a source you don't trust, then you can't possibly have any way of verifying your own beliefs.
But of course, this doesn't only afflict people on the right, but is something everyone can fall victim to. If the only news you're willing to accept is news that already agrees with you, you're going to have a hard time dealing with the real world; which can often have things you don't want to hear in it.
And one major problem is that too many people suffer from an ad hominem mindset, in which they reject a piece of news if it comes from the wrong source. And even worse, they have a natural assumption of propaganda from any source that doesn't conform to what they want to hear; while they're too willing to accept news from a preferred source, without bothering to check if it's true.
Propaganda Isn't Always False
If the NY Times reports something negative about conservatives, then conservatives will naturally assume the Times has a hidden agenda and will dismiss the report. Similarly, if Fox News reports something negative about liberals, then liberals will assume that Fox has a hidden agenda and will dismiss the report.
Now, of course, Fox News is propaganda and does have a hidden agenda that isn't even well hidden, so it's understandable why someone would dismiss them as a news source. Yet all the same, facts are facts, and simply because Fox News reports something doesn't make it automatically false.
Similarly, the NY Times does have a liberal bias, in the sense that reality has a liberal bias and the NY Times reports reality. And so it's understandable that conservatives would dismiss this source because they so rarely report what conservatives want to hear. And whenever the Times reports something they want to hear (which happens far more often then they'll admit), they'll think "Oh, if the liberal NY Times says it, then it really must be true," even if it's not.
Just the Facts
And the problem is that any source can have truths and facts hidden in them, no matter how propagandic they are. And it's too easy to dismiss a fact, simply based upon its source. But that's something we must reject if we want to know the truth.
And the thing to do is to read news from all sources and really scour for the truth. To not accept information just because it came from Krugman, Kos, or Kuchinich; or reject something because it came from Fox or RedState. Only by doing independent research can we determine that "Obamacare" didn't have Death Panels, or that Obama's tax deal last month didn't defund Social Security.
Because it's not about who says the information, but what the information is; and even the most reliable source is only human and must be verified. And if anything, we must be more vigilant when reading news from an accepted news source; not less. And if you're not clicking through the links of your sources, and clicking through their links, and the links from those links, you might be getting deceived by someone who was themselves deceived. Everyone's human; including those we agree with.
Fact Check Thyself
And most of all, it's ourselves that we must be most vigilant about double-checking. It's easy to see when others are lying to us, but very difficult to see when we're lying to ourselves. Yes, you can have a working assumption that RedState is full of shit most of the time, but when it comes to fact checking, we should assume them to be more trustworthy than ourselves.
Only after triple-checking our own facts can we add it to the pile of information we use for other fact-checking. And if the only information you're willing to accept is the information that immediately confirms your own beliefs, then you probably don't know what you're talking about.
That's why I read Washington Monthly and TPM and other sources that report what conservatives are saying; while generally avoiding liberal sites that only report liberal news and opinions. And why I scour Yahoo News for stories of all types, while visiting sites like RedState. Many commenters at WaMo and TPM deride them for focusing too much on what conservatives say, insisting that we should be discussing liberal policies. But to me, that's exactly opposite. Because we already know our own facts and opinions. It's healthy to know what the other side is saying, just to make sure we're not missing something.
So I look towards outside sources in order to get as much information as possible, as well as engaging in any debate I can, while avoiding discussions with people who already agree with me; so as to not get caught in echo chambers and mutual admiration circle-jerks. And if you're dismissing a story solely because it was reported by a source you don't trust, then you can't possibly have any way of verifying your own beliefs.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Tear Down This Idiot
I was starting a different post which unfortunately required me to go to RedState and saw the first post which was Trying to Erase 'Tear Down This Wall' by Moe Lane. And first off, that title. Huh? What? I know creating titles for blogposts can be a bit wearisome, but that's an awkwardly phrased title, to say the least.
The point of the post is that Ron Reagan Jr. (which Moe repeatedly refers to as "the boy," in a deliberate attempt to put Ron in his place, in accordance with Moe's juvenile understanding of the universe), has written a book about his father in which he claims that Reagan had Alzheimer's as early as 1984 and would have resigned in 1987, had it been diagnosed at the time.
Oh, 1987, you say? That can only mean one thing, right? I mean, 1987? Eh, eh? We all know why The Boy might have picked that year, right? Right?
Oh, wait. You don't know? It's not obvious to you, because you're not stuck using Moe Lane's delusional mind? Well then, I'll just have to clue you in: That was the year Reagan gave his now famous "Tear Down This Wall" speech which led to the immediate destruction of the Soviet Union, a mere four and a half years later.
Picking 1987 Because We Hate Reagan
Now you're seeing it, right? It's perfectly obvious why The Boy picked that year, right? Right? What? You're still not getting it? Well maybe you're the one with Alzheimer's, then. Ok, fine. I'll let Moe connect the dots for you.
And Reagan's work was so effortless that it didn't seem like he did a god damn thing and even our best intel completely failed to predict it. It was only in hindsight that anyone suggested that Reagan could beat the Soviets, as he never said that was his plan at all. That's what good presidenting is all about.
Reverse-Engineered Smears
But it looks like Moe figured out our trick. We told The Boy to use that year because we hated Reagan so much. And so, uhm, err...hold on. I lost the thought train on this one. We picked 1987 because we knew people think of that speech when they think of 1987 and want them to think he was senile when he made it because...it would erase the speech from our memories if we thought he had memory issues when he made it?
Wait, huh? That can't be right. Ok, sorry. I blew it. I thought I understood Moe's point, but realize he lost me completely.
And was the pick of 1987 a smear on Reagan, or on the significance of that speech? I fail to see how it works on either count. And, well, screw it. I can't figure this out. Even with my famed biobrain, I can't quite grasp the logic Moe was working with here.
My best guess is that he reverse-engineered the smear. He saw the year 1987 and searched for some significant event that happened that year; assuming that Ron was up to some trick. And seeing as how 1987 really wasn't that great of a year for Reagan, with his approval ratings at a four-year low, half the country considering him "out of touch with what is going on in the government," and Iran-Contra looming large, I guess it makes sense that Moe had to settle on a non-event that could only look impressive in hindsight...assuming the hindsight was by a childlike partisan trying desperately to link a single speech to an event that happened four years later. Particularly as the rest of Reagan's 1987 sounds kind of like a mildly senile guy having a hard time at an extremely difficult job.
And so yeah, sure, maybe someone might see some connection between the overall cluelessness Reagan exhibited during the Iran-Contra blow-up and the mental issues which supposedly appeared out of nowhere after he left office. But dammit, Reagan sure sounded good when he was reading a speech written by someone else. So it's gotta be the speech that The Boy was referring to, and not any actual events which might support his case.
Oh, and in case you were wondering. No, the book hasn't come out yet and Moe hasn't read it. He merely read a quote from the book, in which Ron wrote:
The point of the post is that Ron Reagan Jr. (which Moe repeatedly refers to as "the boy," in a deliberate attempt to put Ron in his place, in accordance with Moe's juvenile understanding of the universe), has written a book about his father in which he claims that Reagan had Alzheimer's as early as 1984 and would have resigned in 1987, had it been diagnosed at the time.
Oh, 1987, you say? That can only mean one thing, right? I mean, 1987? Eh, eh? We all know why The Boy might have picked that year, right? Right?
Oh, wait. You don't know? It's not obvious to you, because you're not stuck using Moe Lane's delusional mind? Well then, I'll just have to clue you in: That was the year Reagan gave his now famous "Tear Down This Wall" speech which led to the immediate destruction of the Soviet Union, a mere four and a half years later.
Picking 1987 Because We Hate Reagan
Now you're seeing it, right? It's perfectly obvious why The Boy picked that year, right? Right? What? You're still not getting it? Well maybe you're the one with Alzheimer's, then. Ok, fine. I'll let Moe connect the dots for you.
Before they hated Sarah Palin, or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, or Condoleeza Rice, or George W Bush, the Left hated Ronald Wilson Reagan. They hated and feared him - and not least for the way that he destroyed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in eight short years. It’s not even that he did it; it’s that he did it so apparently effortlessly.And yes, one of the big reasons liberals hated Reagan while he was in office was because he destroyed Mother Russia almost three years after he left office. Because yeah, we all know how much us liberals pine for the glory days of the Soviet Union, and gnash our teeth that we lost.
And Reagan's work was so effortless that it didn't seem like he did a god damn thing and even our best intel completely failed to predict it. It was only in hindsight that anyone suggested that Reagan could beat the Soviets, as he never said that was his plan at all. That's what good presidenting is all about.
Reverse-Engineered Smears
But it looks like Moe figured out our trick. We told The Boy to use that year because we hated Reagan so much. And so, uhm, err...hold on. I lost the thought train on this one. We picked 1987 because we knew people think of that speech when they think of 1987 and want them to think he was senile when he made it because...it would erase the speech from our memories if we thought he had memory issues when he made it?
Wait, huh? That can't be right. Ok, sorry. I blew it. I thought I understood Moe's point, but realize he lost me completely.
And was the pick of 1987 a smear on Reagan, or on the significance of that speech? I fail to see how it works on either count. And, well, screw it. I can't figure this out. Even with my famed biobrain, I can't quite grasp the logic Moe was working with here.
My best guess is that he reverse-engineered the smear. He saw the year 1987 and searched for some significant event that happened that year; assuming that Ron was up to some trick. And seeing as how 1987 really wasn't that great of a year for Reagan, with his approval ratings at a four-year low, half the country considering him "out of touch with what is going on in the government," and Iran-Contra looming large, I guess it makes sense that Moe had to settle on a non-event that could only look impressive in hindsight...assuming the hindsight was by a childlike partisan trying desperately to link a single speech to an event that happened four years later. Particularly as the rest of Reagan's 1987 sounds kind of like a mildly senile guy having a hard time at an extremely difficult job.
And so yeah, sure, maybe someone might see some connection between the overall cluelessness Reagan exhibited during the Iran-Contra blow-up and the mental issues which supposedly appeared out of nowhere after he left office. But dammit, Reagan sure sounded good when he was reading a speech written by someone else. So it's gotta be the speech that The Boy was referring to, and not any actual events which might support his case.
Oh, and in case you were wondering. No, the book hasn't come out yet and Moe hasn't read it. He merely read a quote from the book, in which Ron wrote:
Had the diagnosis been made in, say 1987, would he have stepped down? I believe he would have.From that, he concluded that Ron Reagan is trying to erase "Tear Down the Wall;" whatever that means. And that's pretty much SOP for conservatives. They're great at telling you about liberal conspiracies to destroy their legacy, but not so great at explaining how the conspiracy is supposed to work.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Paying for Government Mistakes
And so I'm reading about how Illinois is passing a temporary tax hike and how Republicans are insisting that this is the end of the world and lots of businesses will pack up and move. As if we're to imagine that a tax increase from 4.8% to 7% would somehow justify the cost of moving your entire business to another state...especially when that other state still has higher taxes.
And then I read this oddity:
But of course, government spending doesn't just disappear. Sure, some of it gets siphoned off due to corruption and waste; particularly in Illinois. But the vast majority of it goes towards the very people who paid for it.* Even the funds that are paid to employees get spent, the same as a paycheck from any other employer. And seeing as how the main areas Republicans want to cut go towards healthcare for the poor and elderly, as well as other aid programs; I'm a bit confused as to how these are mistakes.
But that's just par for the course with Republicans. It's all about rallying against unnamed government expenses, because if you name them, you start to get unpopular. That's why Republicans are so insistent upon getting Democrats to agree with them on spending cuts, because they wouldn't dare touch this money otherwise.
*Post updated to mention government corruption.
And then I read this oddity:
"We're saying to the people of Illinois, `For eight years we've overspent, now we're going to make it your problem,'" said Rep. Roger Eddy. "We're making up for our mistakes on your back."It's as if this money just up and vanished. No roads were built. No children were educated. It didn't pay a retired firefighter's pension. It all went to waste. Just a mistake, really. Nobody but the politicians wanted this spending. It just happened...for eight years.
But of course, government spending doesn't just disappear. Sure, some of it gets siphoned off due to corruption and waste; particularly in Illinois. But the vast majority of it goes towards the very people who paid for it.* Even the funds that are paid to employees get spent, the same as a paycheck from any other employer. And seeing as how the main areas Republicans want to cut go towards healthcare for the poor and elderly, as well as other aid programs; I'm a bit confused as to how these are mistakes.
But that's just par for the course with Republicans. It's all about rallying against unnamed government expenses, because if you name them, you start to get unpopular. That's why Republicans are so insistent upon getting Democrats to agree with them on spending cuts, because they wouldn't dare touch this money otherwise.
*Post updated to mention government corruption.
Gimme My America Back
And so I was reading this interesting piece about we've blocked off public access to many important buildings in Washington D.C. for better security. And if you've got a moment, I recommend reading it, because it was fairly interesting. Go on. I can wait.
And as I usually do when I read stories on Yahoo, I scanned down to see what the crazies on the messageboard were saying. I'm not sure why. Yahoo's messageboard is truly one of the worst cesspools of idiocy I've seen this side of RedState. Seriously. Even the smart ones are pretty dumb, and the dumb ones are f-ing scary.
Here's a sample of some of the crazy I found there:
I'm not sure which one I like best. Wondering Soul was a good one, with his warm Muslims who cut your head off spiel. Presumably, he wasn't speaking from personal experience, but then again, that would explain a few things. But really, they're all pretty good.
We're All Victims Now
Now mind you, these all came from the first page of comments I found. I didn't go hunting for these. The screen showed ten posts and six of them were batshit crazy. And let me tell you, this is the saddest bunch of ragtag victims ever. They had their country taken from them and they're desperate to get it back. But what do they even mean by that? What is being denied to them? Who knows? They never say. It's all about how things used to be better, without a hint as to what it is they think they're actually being denied.
And that's because they can't really admit what their problem is, because it sounds so stupid. And their real complaint is that they're not living the lives that they imagined they were promised, and now they're bitter about it because they're stuck having to live the same reality as everyone else. They wanted to be the sports star, the cowboy, the rich guy; just like they were promised they could. But instead, they're stuck working a shitty job so they can support their shitty wives and shitty little kids.
That's the America these bozos are pining for. They don't care about having the right to discriminate or tell sexist jocks. What they want is their dreams. They want to be the winning quarterback. They want to be Dirty Harry. They want to be the hero, yet they're just extras. They were assured that there was something special about them, and they want the shiny new America back; the one they were imagined they were promised so long ago.
And as I usually do when I read stories on Yahoo, I scanned down to see what the crazies on the messageboard were saying. I'm not sure why. Yahoo's messageboard is truly one of the worst cesspools of idiocy I've seen this side of RedState. Seriously. Even the smart ones are pretty dumb, and the dumb ones are f-ing scary.
Here's a sample of some of the crazy I found there:
We are no longer an open society thanks to the radicals most of whom are the Muslims. They can be very warm people just before they cut your head off with what ever is close. Doesn't even have to be sharp.Yikes!
Wondering Soul
This country has turned into that overbearing government bureaucracy our forefathers fled from. The Constitution, that great historical document is merely words on paper. Our freedoms have been taken away to the point where we are no longer free but subservient to those who hold power and control over us. Wake up America! Shake off those chains which do bind you. Awake and arise! Return this country to its foundation of liberty and justice for all!
Return to Freedom
Yep, all of the buildings we used to just be able to waltz right in, we get the denied sign. But as I read below, i agree with alot of others here. Who Cares? for those of you who may live near D.C., have you seen the reflecting pool on the mall?? Its down right disgusting, the only thing that its reflecting is the constant @#$% that keeps coming out of our politicians mouths on the daily bases. I could give a rats @#$% about our buildings, gimmie my @#$% country back!!! For those of you who read this and think otherwise, im independent.
Dan
Good bye America. It was nice knowing you. You sure were great once. I'm glad I'm old enough to have seen you then. It was something! Whatever this grotesque aberration is today that calls itself America, has more in common with Komrade Stalin or Herr Hitler. This is no longer America.
David Selznik
Has anyone seen my country? If you have please send it home.
Just a Man
they have won
T L
I'm not sure which one I like best. Wondering Soul was a good one, with his warm Muslims who cut your head off spiel. Presumably, he wasn't speaking from personal experience, but then again, that would explain a few things. But really, they're all pretty good.
We're All Victims Now
Now mind you, these all came from the first page of comments I found. I didn't go hunting for these. The screen showed ten posts and six of them were batshit crazy. And let me tell you, this is the saddest bunch of ragtag victims ever. They had their country taken from them and they're desperate to get it back. But what do they even mean by that? What is being denied to them? Who knows? They never say. It's all about how things used to be better, without a hint as to what it is they think they're actually being denied.
And that's because they can't really admit what their problem is, because it sounds so stupid. And their real complaint is that they're not living the lives that they imagined they were promised, and now they're bitter about it because they're stuck having to live the same reality as everyone else. They wanted to be the sports star, the cowboy, the rich guy; just like they were promised they could. But instead, they're stuck working a shitty job so they can support their shitty wives and shitty little kids.
That's the America these bozos are pining for. They don't care about having the right to discriminate or tell sexist jocks. What they want is their dreams. They want to be the winning quarterback. They want to be Dirty Harry. They want to be the hero, yet they're just extras. They were assured that there was something special about them, and they want the shiny new America back; the one they were imagined they were promised so long ago.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Multicultural Terrorism
Another review I found at The Textbook League's website involved a supplemental social studies text called The Challenge of Terrorism, a 270 page text which the publisher describes as "a collection of diverse, balanced readings that examine the issues arising from contemporary terrorism."
And that's apparently what it is: A collection of various points of view in regards to terrorism, with at least some attempt for critical-thinking discussions. This isn't a direct lesson on terrorism, but a collection of essays and speeches from various people. The collection isn't intended to push a specific view, but to expose different viewpoints. Even the guy reviewing it admits that.
Unfortunately, the guy reviewing it is Michael Radu, a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute (in Philadelphia) and a co-chairman of the Institute's Center on Terrorism and Counterterrorism.
His review is entitled: This Book Doesn't Teach What Students Need to Know
And what is it that students need to know, according to Michael Radu? That multiculturalism is bad and most contemporary terrorism is Islamic. And because the text is meant to stimulate debate by offering diverse opinions about terrorism, the book is trash. Either you admit that Muslims are the cause of terrorism, or you're a leftist fool. There can apparently be no middle ground.
Political Correctness Will Kill Us All
Think I'm joking? Here's the end of his review:
And yet, that's his strongest point against the book. That's his closing argument. To insist that multiculturalism means that we have to love Osama Bin Laden, and students instead need to learn to blame Muslims for terrorism. As a reminder, the purpose of this supplemental textbook was to give diverse points of view. And that's the exact problem Mr. Radu had with it.
Looks Like a Terrorism, Sounds Like a Terrorist...
Oh, and another problem Radu had with the book? It suggested that the Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist attack. As he says:
But oh, he's white. And today's students need to learn that most terrorism is Islamic and multiculturalism is dangerous. Any other message is bad history.
And that's apparently what it is: A collection of various points of view in regards to terrorism, with at least some attempt for critical-thinking discussions. This isn't a direct lesson on terrorism, but a collection of essays and speeches from various people. The collection isn't intended to push a specific view, but to expose different viewpoints. Even the guy reviewing it admits that.
Unfortunately, the guy reviewing it is Michael Radu, a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute (in Philadelphia) and a co-chairman of the Institute's Center on Terrorism and Counterterrorism.
His review is entitled: This Book Doesn't Teach What Students Need to Know
And what is it that students need to know, according to Michael Radu? That multiculturalism is bad and most contemporary terrorism is Islamic. And because the text is meant to stimulate debate by offering diverse opinions about terrorism, the book is trash. Either you admit that Muslims are the cause of terrorism, or you're a leftist fool. There can apparently be no middle ground.
Political Correctness Will Kill Us All
Think I'm joking? Here's the end of his review:
For instance: How can "multiculturalism," which demands uncritical respect for whatever non-European people do, be squared with what students will read in the article that fills pages 79 through 89? Headlined "Osama bin Laden on the Attacks," the article is an excerpt from a transcript of a conversation in which OsamaIndeed. We're supposed to imagine that the "multiculturalism" that is being taught in this book and in classrooms across America instructs us to give uncritical respect to whatever non-European people do. That's right. I remember being taught that. As were we all. And yes, that means that we have to have uncritical respect for Bin Laden's plans against us, because that's what we were all taught. He's totally got us there. But of course, that's a joke, because multiculturalism doesn't mean we have to have uncritical respect for people who attack us. That's absolutely absurd.
And yet, that's his strongest point against the book. That's his closing argument. To insist that multiculturalism means that we have to love Osama Bin Laden, and students instead need to learn to blame Muslims for terrorism. As a reminder, the purpose of this supplemental textbook was to give diverse points of view. And that's the exact problem Mr. Radu had with it.
Looks Like a Terrorism, Sounds Like a Terrorist...
Oh, and another problem Radu had with the book? It suggested that the Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist attack. As he says:
The inclusion of the Oklahoma City bombing underscores the difficulty of defining terrorism, and it reminds us that this term is often used sloppily and promiscuously. The men who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building may have hated the federal government, but is there any evidence to suggest that they were trying to influence the federal government's policies or were trying to achieve some other political or social goal?Oh, how sloppy and promiscuous. To even suggest that Timothy McVeigh had a goal in blowing up that building is an offense. As if we're just to assume he was a madman, and had no other purpose than the destruction of that building and the people inside. Like he wasn't trying to give a big blackeye to the government, and proclaim victory over it due to the impact he made. Sounds like a terrorist to me.
But oh, he's white. And today's students need to learn that most terrorism is Islamic and multiculturalism is dangerous. Any other message is bad history.
History of a Freak Nation
Upon reading about Virginia's factually-challenged textbooks, I started delving into various issues on textbooks, leading me to TTL, The Textbook League; which is apparently some group of educators who review school textbooks in order to weed out the bad ones. I don't know much about their group, but the guys who write for their website are some rightwing kooks. Certainly intelligent, but kooks nonetheless.
Here's a review by Angelo M. Codevilla, a professor of international relations at Boston University, titled Brainless, Twisted "History" and Ridiculous Ignorance; which was a review of a 1996 textbook called "History of a Free Nation." Needless to say, it wasn't a favorable review. Codevilla says of Free Nation: "leftist indoctrination masquerades as history." Why? Because it had mistakes? No, because it didn't emphasize how much white people kick ass.
Apparently, if a history of freedom doesn't highlight white asskickers, it's a biased piece of trash. Even worse, it didn't explain who Jesus Christ was or emphasize how important Christianity was towards our freedom. Instead, it dared suggest that our Founding Father revolted for materialistic reasons, rather than godly ones. The horror!
Assimilate!
And yeah, sure, the textbook acknowledges that America is special, but it dares suggest that some of this specialness came from non-Europeans. Ouch. Codevilla also complains that the book doesn't say that the immigrants of today (ie, brown ones) aren't as good as the immigrants of yesteryore (ie, white ones).
As he laments:
It's as if Little Italy and Chinatown were just kitschy tourist traps. I suppose the parts in the Godfather movies when they speak Italian is some sort of leftish hoax on America, as there's no way the Mafia wouldn't have dropped all their cultural ties to the old country.
I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Angelo Codevilla gets around to anglicizing his name; lest we be reminded that he's named for the town in Italy his people came from. Way to assimilate, Codevilla.
Manly Historians
Towards the end of the review, Codevilla writes:
But of course, that's what the good professor is really getting at. His problem with the textbook isn't that it's factually incorrect, but rather, it didn't conform to his worldview or emphasize the parts he liked best. He believes that America's brilliance is due to his brilliance and people like him. He believes he's owed something a little extra because of this, and doesn't appreciate the snubbing Glencoe served him with their history text.
It didn't get the facts wrong, it just didn't stoke his ego. And for guy's like Codevilla, that's what it's all about. His own life is a boring mess, but he can always relive the past, back when men could be men and God ruled the earth. And he'll be damned if anyone tries to tell him it wasn't exactly like that.
Here's a review by Angelo M. Codevilla, a professor of international relations at Boston University, titled Brainless, Twisted "History" and Ridiculous Ignorance; which was a review of a 1996 textbook called "History of a Free Nation." Needless to say, it wasn't a favorable review. Codevilla says of Free Nation: "leftist indoctrination masquerades as history." Why? Because it had mistakes? No, because it didn't emphasize how much white people kick ass.
Apparently, if a history of freedom doesn't highlight white asskickers, it's a biased piece of trash. Even worse, it didn't explain who Jesus Christ was or emphasize how important Christianity was towards our freedom. Instead, it dared suggest that our Founding Father revolted for materialistic reasons, rather than godly ones. The horror!
Assimilate!
And yeah, sure, the textbook acknowledges that America is special, but it dares suggest that some of this specialness came from non-Europeans. Ouch. Codevilla also complains that the book doesn't say that the immigrants of today (ie, brown ones) aren't as good as the immigrants of yesteryore (ie, white ones).
As he laments:
The American establishment of a century ago insisted that immigrants must melt into our common nationality. Among some members of today's establishment, the very idea of nationality is problematic.Because of course, nobody knows who the Italians, Irish, or Jews are anymore, because everyone so quickly melted together many generations ago. And we don't have ethnic-themed restaurants all over the place with their crazy German, Italian, or Japanese culture. It's only with these pesky immigrants who come in with their spicy foods and crazy dance music who are causing all the problems.
It's as if Little Italy and Chinatown were just kitschy tourist traps. I suppose the parts in the Godfather movies when they speak Italian is some sort of leftish hoax on America, as there's no way the Mafia wouldn't have dropped all their cultural ties to the old country.
I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Angelo Codevilla gets around to anglicizing his name; lest we be reminded that he's named for the town in Italy his people came from. Way to assimilate, Codevilla.
Manly Historians
Towards the end of the review, Codevilla writes:
Reading this book, one gets the impression that America, for most of its life, has been a land of racial and economic iniquity, ruled by an aggressive, regressive, repressive style of morality.Uh, yep. Sounds about right to me. I mean, slavery was built into the Constitution. And it wasn't until the last sixty or so years that we, as a nation, really started to work to fix all that. Freeing the slaves was great and everything, but that was only a start. And all the same, we still have people who want a more aggressive, regressive, and repressive society; at least as far as they're the ones who get to be that way. In their way of thinking, they're being repressed if they can't oppress others.
But of course, that's what the good professor is really getting at. His problem with the textbook isn't that it's factually incorrect, but rather, it didn't conform to his worldview or emphasize the parts he liked best. He believes that America's brilliance is due to his brilliance and people like him. He believes he's owed something a little extra because of this, and doesn't appreciate the snubbing Glencoe served him with their history text.
It didn't get the facts wrong, it just didn't stoke his ego. And for guy's like Codevilla, that's what it's all about. His own life is a boring mess, but he can always relive the past, back when men could be men and God ruled the earth. And he'll be damned if anyone tries to tell him it wasn't exactly like that.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Checking In On What Actual Conservatives Say
I've recently been accused of being a conservative. So I decided to check in on what actual conservatives say, in a segment I'll now entitle Checking In On What Actual Conservatives Say.
BTW, I wrote this several days ago, but I'm now on a pseudo-vacation and didn't have time to finish it. Needless to say, it'll end abruptly, as I don't feel like finishing it now.
RedState's Brian Darling
And his solution? For Republicans to demand specialer protections against gun laws that aren't under consideration, as well as one demanding that we make it easier for the government to go into default. Wow.
Extended Debate and Free Amendments
Even more hilarious, Darling writes:
After all, if Democrats have a simple majority, as they do on just about every item Obama wants, then they're going to win all the amendment votes that Republicans are throwing at them. And the only reason they're throwing in amendments is to slow down the process to kill it. They have no hope of winning, but they don't want to win. They want to stifle debate. It's all about obstructionism and the ability to stifle democracy.
And Darling's appeal to freedom is thrown completely on its ear. Darling is advocating against majority rules. That's what conservatives say. They talk about how wrong it is for Obama and Democrats to fix legislative rules that Republicans are abusing. They're advocating for red tape. They want it easier for the minority to tyrannize the majority.
And that's what a modern conservative talks about: Ranting about how Obama is destroying America by saving democracy.
BTW, I wrote this several days ago, but I'm now on a pseudo-vacation and didn't have time to finish it. Needless to say, it'll end abruptly, as I don't feel like finishing it now.
RedState's Brian Darling
Senate Democrats are going to be working over the Christmas break to deliver a lump of coal to the American people in the form of a radical changing of the Senate’s rules. This is a naked power grab by liberals in the Senate pure and simple.That's right, we're going to return Senate rules back to Majority Rule. That's the horrible thing he's complaining about, the "lump of coal to the American people." Democrats are attempting to return the Senate as it was originally created; and these bozos are acting as if it's an assault on The American Way.
[....]
Republicans would be smart to fire back with a proposed rule to abolish the Senate Majority Leader’s power to block amendments to bills, create at 2/3rds supermajority before 2nd Amendment rights can be infringed and a 2/3rds supermajority before increasing the debt limit.
And his solution? For Republicans to demand specialer protections against gun laws that aren't under consideration, as well as one demanding that we make it easier for the government to go into default. Wow.
Extended Debate and Free Amendments
Even more hilarious, Darling writes:
Liberals are going to destroy the tradition of extended debate and a free amendment process in the Senate if they can pull off this procedural coup.Uhm, Darling? Republicans aren't using the filibuster to extend debate. They're using it to prevent any debate at all. This guy's got it completely backwards. And the complaint about "free amendments" is a joke, as again, they're just using it was a way of subverting the interests of the Senate.
After all, if Democrats have a simple majority, as they do on just about every item Obama wants, then they're going to win all the amendment votes that Republicans are throwing at them. And the only reason they're throwing in amendments is to slow down the process to kill it. They have no hope of winning, but they don't want to win. They want to stifle debate. It's all about obstructionism and the ability to stifle democracy.
And Darling's appeal to freedom is thrown completely on its ear. Darling is advocating against majority rules. That's what conservatives say. They talk about how wrong it is for Obama and Democrats to fix legislative rules that Republicans are abusing. They're advocating for red tape. They want it easier for the minority to tyrannize the majority.
And that's what a modern conservative talks about: Ranting about how Obama is destroying America by saving democracy.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Why We Play Nice With Our Opponents
Carpetbagger's got a post about how Republicans in the House actually blocked a bill that would work to stop child marriage worldwide, even though it passed through the Senate unanimously and was co-sponsored by many of the same Republicans who voted against it. Why did the House Republicans oppose it? Because they were wrongly told that it somehow involved abortion and that their base would be upset about it. And that was enough for them. Due to arcane congressional rules, this bill needed two-thirds approval, so it failed.
And in case you were wondering, yeah, this is yet another of my posts about people on the left attacking Obama and why they shouldn't. Because I read this and think: If these congressmen are so crazy and/or scared of their base that they're willing to support child marriage, what exactly is Obama supposed to do to appease them on issues like healthcare and financial reform that they'd actually disagree with? How can he cow them into submission from his Bully Pulpit, if they're already this scared of their base?
Because that's a part of all this Obama'a leftwing critics get backwards. They keep acting like Obama is some great fool for trying to work with them. And I understand that thinking, but it's flawed. Because the reality is that Obama isn't trying to work with Republicans. He's trying to work with a handful of conservative Democrats and any non-crazy Republicans he can find. Not because he wants to, but because our rules force him to. And he has to bend over backwards, forwards, and sideways to appease them, and even then they might pull out at the last minute and support a filibuster for something they support.
Wooing the "Moderates"
And these aren't issues that Obama needs to take to the American people to convince them that he's right, because they already agree with him. The problem is Republicans and their subservience to their base. And in that context, there's no amount of bellowing that Obama can perform to woo them to his side, because he's already lost them. His only hope is to convince Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, and the other cowardly "moderate" jerkoffs that they won't get punished for voting with him.
And if he can't do that, then he can't get anything. It's that simple. This isn't a dictatorship. We are ruled by laws. There simply is no other way around this. In our democracy, majority doesn't always win and you still have to convince powerful cowards that it's in their best interests to do the right thing. And if anyone could explain how insulting Republicans will woo Nelson, Landrieu, Snowe, Brown, and these other "moderates" to our side, I'm willing to listen.
But the reality is that these people are grown-up babies who are scared of their own base, and that's what democracy has wrought. Should we have better politicians? Yes. Do we have some dumb rules? Oh yeah, definitely. But like it or not, this is what Obama is dealing with and if you really think that people who'd oppose an anti-child marriage law that they co-sponsored can be insulted into submission, then you're really not paying attention.
Being polite to the people who attack you is a requirement in modern life. Try insulting someone you're trying to win over and you'll see what I mean.
And in case you were wondering, yeah, this is yet another of my posts about people on the left attacking Obama and why they shouldn't. Because I read this and think: If these congressmen are so crazy and/or scared of their base that they're willing to support child marriage, what exactly is Obama supposed to do to appease them on issues like healthcare and financial reform that they'd actually disagree with? How can he cow them into submission from his Bully Pulpit, if they're already this scared of their base?
Because that's a part of all this Obama'a leftwing critics get backwards. They keep acting like Obama is some great fool for trying to work with them. And I understand that thinking, but it's flawed. Because the reality is that Obama isn't trying to work with Republicans. He's trying to work with a handful of conservative Democrats and any non-crazy Republicans he can find. Not because he wants to, but because our rules force him to. And he has to bend over backwards, forwards, and sideways to appease them, and even then they might pull out at the last minute and support a filibuster for something they support.
Wooing the "Moderates"
And these aren't issues that Obama needs to take to the American people to convince them that he's right, because they already agree with him. The problem is Republicans and their subservience to their base. And in that context, there's no amount of bellowing that Obama can perform to woo them to his side, because he's already lost them. His only hope is to convince Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, and the other cowardly "moderate" jerkoffs that they won't get punished for voting with him.
And if he can't do that, then he can't get anything. It's that simple. This isn't a dictatorship. We are ruled by laws. There simply is no other way around this. In our democracy, majority doesn't always win and you still have to convince powerful cowards that it's in their best interests to do the right thing. And if anyone could explain how insulting Republicans will woo Nelson, Landrieu, Snowe, Brown, and these other "moderates" to our side, I'm willing to listen.
But the reality is that these people are grown-up babies who are scared of their own base, and that's what democracy has wrought. Should we have better politicians? Yes. Do we have some dumb rules? Oh yeah, definitely. But like it or not, this is what Obama is dealing with and if you really think that people who'd oppose an anti-child marriage law that they co-sponsored can be insulted into submission, then you're really not paying attention.
Being polite to the people who attack you is a requirement in modern life. Try insulting someone you're trying to win over and you'll see what I mean.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
A Review of "Obamacare"
As is typical of groundbreaking laws, the Affordable Care Act has quite a few critics; as you may have noticed. And it's funny to contrast the attacks by those on the right, who imagine it to be a socialist takeover of the entire healthcare industry, compared with those on the left, who don't think it did a damn thing because it didn't include a Public Option that most folks wouldn't have used.
And all this made sense back before it was passed, because there was no real bill to discuss, as everything was influx and up for negotiations. Yet, here we are a good eight months after the law was passed, yet these people still seem to think it's either a dastardly government takeover or a dastardly handout to the insurance industry; depending upon their ideology.
And I'm like, huh? If we're going to discuss the law, could we at least discuss the actual law, rather than what you were told about the law before it passed? Because I see conservatives ranting every day about how Obama has made healthcare worse and more expensive, yet cite no examples of how the law does either of these things. And there are those on the left who still insist it did nothing, while refusing to talk about rescission, pre-existing conditions, endless rate hikes, and other bad things that have been dealt with.
And for as much as I definitely score the leftwing critics as being infinitely closer to reality than the conspiracy theorist whackjobs on the right, I'd prefer that both sides at least discuss the actual law they're attempting to dismiss. And so I decided to go through the Wikipedia page of the Affordable Care Act and highlight the important changes that have already been implemented. Enjoy!
Effective Immediately
A non-profit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is established, independent from government, to undertake comparative effectiveness research.
Creation of task forces on Preventive Services and Community Preventive Services to develop, update, and disseminate evidenced-based recommendations on the use of clinical and community prevention services.
Effective June 21, 2010
Adults with pre-existing conditions will be eligible to join a temporary high-risk pool, which will be superseded by the health care exchange in 2014.
Effective September 23, 2010
Insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays in new policies issued.
Dependents (children) will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.
Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.
Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments or deductibles for Level A or Level B preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.
Individuals affected by the Medicare Part D coverage gap will receive a $250 rebate, and 50% of the gap will be eliminated in 2011. The gap will be eliminated by 2020.
Insurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.
Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get sick.
Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.
Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.
Medicare is expanded to small, rural hospitals and facilities.
And again, those are all the changes that have already been implemented. I dare anyone to look through this list and tell me this stuff isn't important. That these are Republican ideas. That we'd have been better off without these things. Go ahead, I dare you.
The reality is that many of these directly cure complaints liberals had about insurers. Yet, now that Obama has ended these problems, we're to imagine they weren't problems at all. Or maybe we're supposed to think insurers can still rescind policies and deny coverage to children born with birth defects, and as if the appeals process for claims isn't a good thing. And we're removing the "doughnut hole" Bush gave us in his prescription drug plan. And we expanded Medicare. Does this really count for nothing? Really?
Better than the Public Option
And why do they discredit all these things? Because we lost the Public Option. Yet...the Public Option we "lost" wasn't the Public Option people envisioned. The one being debated wasn't some backdoor single-payer that would allow you to dump your shitty employer-paid insurance. It would have been yet another option for those who are forced to use the Insurance Exchanges we're setting up. It was for people who lacked insurance, not people who wanted another option than their current insurance.
And seeing as how the Affordable Care Act also includes strong incentives for small businesses to provide insurance to their employees, as well as forcing larger companies to cover their employees, the Public Option would be even more unnecessary than it is already. Especially as the government now gets to set the minimum standard for health insurance, as well as dictating what the rates will be and how much of the premium must go towards healthcare. By contrast, the Public Option was pretty small potatoes.
And so that's why Obama's so frustrated with people on the left attacking him over this law, because we got most of what we wanted, and the Public Option was only a minor part of the deal. If you look over these things we've gotten and will get in the next few years, you'll realize that the insurers have been muzzled by government regulations and the crappy insurance of the past will soon be over. We won.
So again, I defy anyone to look over this list and tell me it does nothing, or isn't reflective of liberalism. And this is just the beginning, with the big things happening in 2014. The reality is that Obama has changed healthcare as we know it, and it's a damn good change.
And all this made sense back before it was passed, because there was no real bill to discuss, as everything was influx and up for negotiations. Yet, here we are a good eight months after the law was passed, yet these people still seem to think it's either a dastardly government takeover or a dastardly handout to the insurance industry; depending upon their ideology.
And I'm like, huh? If we're going to discuss the law, could we at least discuss the actual law, rather than what you were told about the law before it passed? Because I see conservatives ranting every day about how Obama has made healthcare worse and more expensive, yet cite no examples of how the law does either of these things. And there are those on the left who still insist it did nothing, while refusing to talk about rescission, pre-existing conditions, endless rate hikes, and other bad things that have been dealt with.
And for as much as I definitely score the leftwing critics as being infinitely closer to reality than the conspiracy theorist whackjobs on the right, I'd prefer that both sides at least discuss the actual law they're attempting to dismiss. And so I decided to go through the Wikipedia page of the Affordable Care Act and highlight the important changes that have already been implemented. Enjoy!
Effective Immediately
A non-profit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is established, independent from government, to undertake comparative effectiveness research.
Creation of task forces on Preventive Services and Community Preventive Services to develop, update, and disseminate evidenced-based recommendations on the use of clinical and community prevention services.
Effective June 21, 2010
Adults with pre-existing conditions will be eligible to join a temporary high-risk pool, which will be superseded by the health care exchange in 2014.
Effective September 23, 2010
Insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays in new policies issued.
Dependents (children) will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.
Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.
Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments or deductibles for Level A or Level B preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.
Individuals affected by the Medicare Part D coverage gap will receive a $250 rebate, and 50% of the gap will be eliminated in 2011. The gap will be eliminated by 2020.
Insurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.
Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get sick.
Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.
Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.
Medicare is expanded to small, rural hospitals and facilities.
And again, those are all the changes that have already been implemented. I dare anyone to look through this list and tell me this stuff isn't important. That these are Republican ideas. That we'd have been better off without these things. Go ahead, I dare you.
The reality is that many of these directly cure complaints liberals had about insurers. Yet, now that Obama has ended these problems, we're to imagine they weren't problems at all. Or maybe we're supposed to think insurers can still rescind policies and deny coverage to children born with birth defects, and as if the appeals process for claims isn't a good thing. And we're removing the "doughnut hole" Bush gave us in his prescription drug plan. And we expanded Medicare. Does this really count for nothing? Really?
Better than the Public Option
And why do they discredit all these things? Because we lost the Public Option. Yet...the Public Option we "lost" wasn't the Public Option people envisioned. The one being debated wasn't some backdoor single-payer that would allow you to dump your shitty employer-paid insurance. It would have been yet another option for those who are forced to use the Insurance Exchanges we're setting up. It was for people who lacked insurance, not people who wanted another option than their current insurance.
And seeing as how the Affordable Care Act also includes strong incentives for small businesses to provide insurance to their employees, as well as forcing larger companies to cover their employees, the Public Option would be even more unnecessary than it is already. Especially as the government now gets to set the minimum standard for health insurance, as well as dictating what the rates will be and how much of the premium must go towards healthcare. By contrast, the Public Option was pretty small potatoes.
And so that's why Obama's so frustrated with people on the left attacking him over this law, because we got most of what we wanted, and the Public Option was only a minor part of the deal. If you look over these things we've gotten and will get in the next few years, you'll realize that the insurers have been muzzled by government regulations and the crappy insurance of the past will soon be over. We won.
So again, I defy anyone to look over this list and tell me it does nothing, or isn't reflective of liberalism. And this is just the beginning, with the big things happening in 2014. The reality is that Obama has changed healthcare as we know it, and it's a damn good change.
Obama's Clear Liberal Voice, Part II
In my last post, I highlighted a few remarks Obama said in his press conference announcing the tax deal he cut with Republicans last week, in order to show that his remarks were more focused on his disagreement with Republicans and their policies than with progressives. Next, I'll cover what he said during his Q&A:
Question 1
The first question asked Obama why people should trust him on the issue of letting the tax cuts for the rich expire after his tax deal "flip flop" which he did for political reasons. Obama insisted that this wasn't about politics, but about helping struggling Americans, including the unemployed. Saying:
He then went on to say exactly what any good liberal would say:
He was asked a follow-up question as to why he wasn't able to get it done in the last two years, to which Obama replied that tax cuts for the wealthy were the Republican "holy grail" and described it as "their central economic doctrine," which is why they refused to budge on the issue. Subtle yet definite jab on Republicans.
And again, he sounded like his liberal detractors when he said:
So the only difference between Obama and his left-wing critics is that he says he gave up fighting with them after several weeks of trying, while his critics say he gave up immediately. And seeing as how I know the fighting lasted for weeks, I've got to score this one for Obama. But all the same, there is no policy dispute here, merely a disagreement on political strategy.
Question 2
He was then asked if the stimulus portion of this deal was going to be as strong as the Recovery Act. He said it wouldn't be as strong, but again insisted that getting more money to the middle-class and unemployed was a great stimulus, because they'd have more money to spend. Sounds like a liberal to me.
Question 3
He was then asked about progressives who will attack him for rewarding Republican obstruction, to which he started by making another dig on Republicans, saying:
He then went on to explain why it's so important to protect the unemployed and middle-class, which is the only reason he gave in to the hostage-takers. He then went on to say how he'd have enjoyed a battle with Republicans, because he's seen the polls and knows America is on his side. He then explained how it'll be easier for him to fight Republicans in 2014, because they won't be able to hold America hostage next time.
Of course, that's debatable, as he mentions the added difficulties of a Republican House and a smaller Dem Senate; but he says he's willing to take that chance because he'll be in a stronger position when Republicans can no longer hold us hostage like this. And I've got to agree with his analysis on that, as it matches my own. I wouldn't want to be a Republican presidential nominee trying to justify this unpopular policy. This year, Republicans didn't care about public opinion. The Republican nominee will. Just ask John McCain.
Now note, he was directly asked about progressives disagreeing with him, but rather than impugn their integrity, he brought it to Republicans by calling them hostage-takers and insisting that their policies are dangerous for America. Sounds like a liberal to me.
Question 4
He was then asked about his claim that walking away from negotiations with South Korea led to a better deal with them, yet he wasn't willing to walk away from negotiations with Republicans. And he responded that the difference was that there wasn't a time limit on the South Korea deal, while two million Americans would be hurt if he didn't get a tax deal by January 1.
As a follow-up question, he was asked if he'd use the next two years to overhaul the tax code, and he said he would. As he explained, his first two years were all about fixing emergencies, and now that he's fixed these emergencies, he can focus on long-term measures, like improving our education system, spurring innovation, improving America's infrastructure, and paying for it all.
He then said:
Question 5:
He's asked if he had considered including the raising of the debt limit as part of the tax deal, and he says he didn't because he believes that Republicans aren't going let the government collapse, adding:
And again, I've got to agree with that. Republicans had nothing to lose and everything to gain by saying "no" to Obama the last two years, and they weren't bluffing about this at all. But now that they're expected to do something, the rules have changed. Republicans are always more effective in the minority, and they're about to prove that again next year.
Question 6:
And then, we get to the final question, which is the one in which Obama caught a lot of flak from progressives for attacking them. And it's like we're to imagine that the prepared speech I cited in the previous post and the first five questions of the Q&A didn't exist, and knocking progressives is the only thing he did.
He's asked about people on the left who are disappointed in him and how he can reassure them that he's not going to let them down again. Now mind you, this is basically a rewrite of question three, and counts as the second time he was asked about progressives who don't like him.
And even this time, he takes it to Republicans saying:
He then goes on to explain what his "lines in the sand" are, which are that he won't make the tax cuts for the rich permanent or allow the taxcuts for the middle-class expire.
He then moves on to talking about the Public Option debate and details all the things the healthcare law did, but how all those things weren't enough because he didn't get the Public Option, too. And yes, he referred to his left-wing critics as having a "purest position" and being "sanctimonious." And he explained how he had to compromise because he didn't want the middle-class and unemployed to suffer.
The Underpants Gnomes Strategy
And he ends the Q&A with:
And the knock on him is based entirely on a hypothetical argument which suggests that the president can make Congress do things it doesn't want to do. Yet, they don't treat it like it's a hypothetical argument. They treat it as fact: Obama could do more...somehow. At a guess, I'd say this elusive presidential power comes from the same place the Underpants Gnomes get their profits. No president has had this power, yet Obama's critics attack him for not wielding it. Disagree? Then tell me the president who had these powers.
And overall, throughout this press conference, liberalism was at the core of everything he said. He could have pretended that the tax cuts for the rich were somehow good for the economy to make his compromise look better, but he didn't. He said they were worthless, dangerous, and needed to go away, while insulting the people who forced them on him.
And again, this sounds like a liberal to me.
Obama the Idiot
Yet, somehow, these words weren't good enough. It's like we're to imagine he intentionally takes a strong enough liberal position that he's tied to the policies, yet doesn't want to take a strong enough stake that he'd actually win. That way, he looks like a loser for losing, and gets blamed by the only people he was trying to woo. In other words, Barack Obama is the dumbest man in the world.
Because if he didn't want to pass liberal polices, he'd say he did, and the refuse to compromise. And then, the bills would die and the liberal base would praise him for being tough, yet he could have avoided adopting the policies. And since the majority of Americans support his policies, he wouldn't get hurt by this. So following liberal advice would be the easiest thing for him to do, assuming he didn't want their policies to pass. And yeah, you should read that paragraph twice and tell me how I'm wrong, because I assure you, I'm not.
Conversely, he could have pulled a Clinton by using conservative arguments, in order to piss off the far-left, and then picked his battles by fighting on conservative turf by picking the position that was to the immediate left of the Republican position. And he'd avoid making any stake in a liberal policy, because he wouldn't want liberal policies and also wouldn't want to lose when they didn't get passed.
Occam's Liberal
Yet, we're to imagine it's something different: That Obama takes liberal positions, just so he can lose because he doesn't really like liberal policies. How does that make any sense? Why would he stake a position on something he plans to lose? And of course, "losing" is defined as only getting most of what we want. While to many progressives, Obama would "win" if he got none of what he want, just as long as he didn't compromise on it. Huh? How does losing everything beat losing a few things?
Seriously, think about all this. How does the "Obama's a sell-out" argument even work?
As usual, the simplest explanation is probably the right one: He wanted to pass these policies because he knew they were good policies that would help America and make his job easier, but wasn't able to do it all. I'm open to suggestions as to how any other explanation makes sense, but it'd have to be one that didn't involve Obama being stupid and/or crazy. And if you think Obama purposefully hypes liberal policies in order to lose and get yelled at by the base, then you're assuming he wants the economy to suffer and wants to lose the next election. In other words, that Obama is stupid and crazy.
And that's the reason Obama's frustrated with progressives. It's not because he thinks they're liberal wackos who need to STFU. It's because he's trying to do the right thing, achieves many of these right things, but gets yelled at for it because he didn't get everything. And all the same, he only talked about them once during the press conference after having been asked about them repeatedly, and was still nice to them. And for that, he gets yelled at and I get yelled at for defending him. How odd.
Question 1
The first question asked Obama why people should trust him on the issue of letting the tax cuts for the rich expire after his tax deal "flip flop" which he did for political reasons. Obama insisted that this wasn't about politics, but about helping struggling Americans, including the unemployed. Saying:
And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.Pretty unequivocal. No bipartisan, touchy-feely stuff here. The Republican position is wrong.
He then went on to say exactly what any good liberal would say:
Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me. There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.Now, the only difference between him and his left-wing critics is that he says he's tried fighting and his critics say he hasn't fought hard enough. But these are just differences of opinion, not ideology. And notice, his answer was focused on why Republicans are wrong, and couched in terms of liberal policies helping Americans, while insisting that Republican policies didn't.
But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position. I have not been able to budge them. And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now.
He was asked a follow-up question as to why he wasn't able to get it done in the last two years, to which Obama replied that tax cuts for the wealthy were the Republican "holy grail" and described it as "their central economic doctrine," which is why they refused to budge on the issue. Subtle yet definite jab on Republicans.
And again, he sounded like his liberal detractors when he said:
I think our proposal to make sure that the middle class is held harmless, but that we don’t make these Bush tax cuts permanent for wealthy individuals, because it was going to cost the country at a time when we’ve got these looming deficits, that that was the better position to take. And the American people were persuaded by that.And notice, his response was exactly what liberals were complaining about with the tax deal: That we can't afford them because they're too expensive. I've heard repeated complaints about this tax deal by people suggesting that Obama is "trying to put lipstick on a pig." But it's obvious that he's calling the pig a pig and complaining about the guys who made him buy it. Never once did he suggest that the tax cuts for the rich were a good idea.
So the only difference between Obama and his left-wing critics is that he says he gave up fighting with them after several weeks of trying, while his critics say he gave up immediately. And seeing as how I know the fighting lasted for weeks, I've got to score this one for Obama. But all the same, there is no policy dispute here, merely a disagreement on political strategy.
Question 2
He was then asked if the stimulus portion of this deal was going to be as strong as the Recovery Act. He said it wouldn't be as strong, but again insisted that getting more money to the middle-class and unemployed was a great stimulus, because they'd have more money to spend. Sounds like a liberal to me.
Question 3
He was then asked about progressives who will attack him for rewarding Republican obstruction, to which he started by making another dig on Republicans, saying:
I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.Hostage-takers. He called them hostage-takers. Does it sound like he's loving his Republican opponents? No. He's likening them to unscrupulous criminals and insisting that he didn't want to give in to their demands.
He then went on to explain why it's so important to protect the unemployed and middle-class, which is the only reason he gave in to the hostage-takers. He then went on to say how he'd have enjoyed a battle with Republicans, because he's seen the polls and knows America is on his side. He then explained how it'll be easier for him to fight Republicans in 2014, because they won't be able to hold America hostage next time.
Of course, that's debatable, as he mentions the added difficulties of a Republican House and a smaller Dem Senate; but he says he's willing to take that chance because he'll be in a stronger position when Republicans can no longer hold us hostage like this. And I've got to agree with his analysis on that, as it matches my own. I wouldn't want to be a Republican presidential nominee trying to justify this unpopular policy. This year, Republicans didn't care about public opinion. The Republican nominee will. Just ask John McCain.
Now note, he was directly asked about progressives disagreeing with him, but rather than impugn their integrity, he brought it to Republicans by calling them hostage-takers and insisting that their policies are dangerous for America. Sounds like a liberal to me.
Question 4
He was then asked about his claim that walking away from negotiations with South Korea led to a better deal with them, yet he wasn't willing to walk away from negotiations with Republicans. And he responded that the difference was that there wasn't a time limit on the South Korea deal, while two million Americans would be hurt if he didn't get a tax deal by January 1.
As a follow-up question, he was asked if he'd use the next two years to overhaul the tax code, and he said he would. As he explained, his first two years were all about fixing emergencies, and now that he's fixed these emergencies, he can focus on long-term measures, like improving our education system, spurring innovation, improving America's infrastructure, and paying for it all.
He then said:
And in that context, I don’t see how the Republicans win that argument. I don’t know how they’re going to be able to argue that extending permanently these high-end tax cuts is going to be good for our economy when, to offset them, we’d end up having to cut vital services for our kids, for our veterans, for our seniors.He wants to help needy Americans, spend more on schools and infrastructure, and he wants to pay for it by taxing the rich more and creating a more equitable tax system. And he insists that Republicans will lose this argument because their position isn't popular. Call me crazy, but this guy sounds like a liberal to me.
Question 5:
He's asked if he had considered including the raising of the debt limit as part of the tax deal, and he says he didn't because he believes that Republicans aren't going let the government collapse, adding:
But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower.Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I believe he just called John Boehner a "bomb thrower," though he thinks Boehner will be more responsible now that he has to be.
And again, I've got to agree with that. Republicans had nothing to lose and everything to gain by saying "no" to Obama the last two years, and they weren't bluffing about this at all. But now that they're expected to do something, the rules have changed. Republicans are always more effective in the minority, and they're about to prove that again next year.
Question 6:
And then, we get to the final question, which is the one in which Obama caught a lot of flak from progressives for attacking them. And it's like we're to imagine that the prepared speech I cited in the previous post and the first five questions of the Q&A didn't exist, and knocking progressives is the only thing he did.
He's asked about people on the left who are disappointed in him and how he can reassure them that he's not going to let them down again. Now mind you, this is basically a rewrite of question three, and counts as the second time he was asked about progressives who don't like him.
And even this time, he takes it to Republicans saying:
Well, over the next two years, they’re going to have to show me what it is that they think they can do. And I think it becomes pretty clear, after you go through the budget line by line, that if in fact they want to pay for $700 billion worth of tax breaks to wealthy individuals, that that’s a lot of money and that the cuts -- corresponding cuts that would have to be made are very painful. So either they rethink their position, or I don’t think they’re going to do very well in 2012. So that’s on the first point.And he's perfectly right about that. It was easy for Republicans to sit on the sidelines and criticize Obama when they weren't responsible for anything. But now it's time for them to put up or shut up, and if they can't find $700 billion in spending cuts that people don't hate them for, then they're going to be punished in 2012. And that's my thinking exactly. Saying "no" is the easy part. Getting to "yes" is always more difficult.
He then goes on to explain what his "lines in the sand" are, which are that he won't make the tax cuts for the rich permanent or allow the taxcuts for the middle-class expire.
He then moves on to talking about the Public Option debate and details all the things the healthcare law did, but how all those things weren't enough because he didn't get the Public Option, too. And yes, he referred to his left-wing critics as having a "purest position" and being "sanctimonious." And he explained how he had to compromise because he didn't want the middle-class and unemployed to suffer.
The Underpants Gnomes Strategy
And he ends the Q&A with:
And so the -- to my Democratic friends, what I’d suggest is, let’s make sure that we understand this is a long game. This is not a short game. And to my Republican friends, I would suggest -- I think this is a good agreement, because I know that they’re swallowing some things that they don’t like as well, and I’m looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years.And that's it. That's all he did. Did he insult progressives? Did he say they had bad policies or were too liberal? Did he impugn their intentions? No, he didn't. He said how he tried to do the things they wanted him to do, but couldn't get all of them and was attacked for it.
And the knock on him is based entirely on a hypothetical argument which suggests that the president can make Congress do things it doesn't want to do. Yet, they don't treat it like it's a hypothetical argument. They treat it as fact: Obama could do more...somehow. At a guess, I'd say this elusive presidential power comes from the same place the Underpants Gnomes get their profits. No president has had this power, yet Obama's critics attack him for not wielding it. Disagree? Then tell me the president who had these powers.
And overall, throughout this press conference, liberalism was at the core of everything he said. He could have pretended that the tax cuts for the rich were somehow good for the economy to make his compromise look better, but he didn't. He said they were worthless, dangerous, and needed to go away, while insulting the people who forced them on him.
And again, this sounds like a liberal to me.
Obama the Idiot
Yet, somehow, these words weren't good enough. It's like we're to imagine he intentionally takes a strong enough liberal position that he's tied to the policies, yet doesn't want to take a strong enough stake that he'd actually win. That way, he looks like a loser for losing, and gets blamed by the only people he was trying to woo. In other words, Barack Obama is the dumbest man in the world.
Because if he didn't want to pass liberal polices, he'd say he did, and the refuse to compromise. And then, the bills would die and the liberal base would praise him for being tough, yet he could have avoided adopting the policies. And since the majority of Americans support his policies, he wouldn't get hurt by this. So following liberal advice would be the easiest thing for him to do, assuming he didn't want their policies to pass. And yeah, you should read that paragraph twice and tell me how I'm wrong, because I assure you, I'm not.
Conversely, he could have pulled a Clinton by using conservative arguments, in order to piss off the far-left, and then picked his battles by fighting on conservative turf by picking the position that was to the immediate left of the Republican position. And he'd avoid making any stake in a liberal policy, because he wouldn't want liberal policies and also wouldn't want to lose when they didn't get passed.
Occam's Liberal
Yet, we're to imagine it's something different: That Obama takes liberal positions, just so he can lose because he doesn't really like liberal policies. How does that make any sense? Why would he stake a position on something he plans to lose? And of course, "losing" is defined as only getting most of what we want. While to many progressives, Obama would "win" if he got none of what he want, just as long as he didn't compromise on it. Huh? How does losing everything beat losing a few things?
Seriously, think about all this. How does the "Obama's a sell-out" argument even work?
As usual, the simplest explanation is probably the right one: He wanted to pass these policies because he knew they were good policies that would help America and make his job easier, but wasn't able to do it all. I'm open to suggestions as to how any other explanation makes sense, but it'd have to be one that didn't involve Obama being stupid and/or crazy. And if you think Obama purposefully hypes liberal policies in order to lose and get yelled at by the base, then you're assuming he wants the economy to suffer and wants to lose the next election. In other words, that Obama is stupid and crazy.
And that's the reason Obama's frustrated with progressives. It's not because he thinks they're liberal wackos who need to STFU. It's because he's trying to do the right thing, achieves many of these right things, but gets yelled at for it because he didn't get everything. And all the same, he only talked about them once during the press conference after having been asked about them repeatedly, and was still nice to them. And for that, he gets yelled at and I get yelled at for defending him. How odd.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Obama's Clear Liberal Voice
One of the knocks Obama's critics on the left have against Obama is that he spends too much time criticizing them and not enough time attacking Republicans. I myself have been accused of this, and it's somehow imagined that I'm attacking these people, even though I've only been expressing my disagreement with their political ideas and never insulted them or disagreed with their policy goals. Apparently, it's ok for them to call Obama a spineless sell-out, as well as calling me a conservative asshole; and it only proves that the labels are correct if we dare defend ourselves against them.
And one of the recent issues involving this is in regards to Obama's press conference last week when he announced his deal with Republicans which extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich in exchange for getting some liberal policies, as well as ending Republican's legislative blockaid, which would have prevented us from repealing DADT, passing the now-dead Omnibus spending bill, and other items Democrats are trying to finalize at year end.
And Obama's critics, including longtime reader John of the Dead, suggested that Obama spent more time attacking liberals than Republicans, which was apparently a sign of something; though he failed to say what that sign was. But I wanted to return to that press conference and see if that's what actually happened.
I'm going to start with his prepared speech, and move on to his Q&A in a separate post.
Tale of the Tape
Here are the second, third, and fourth paragraphs from his prepared speech:
We Cannot Afford To Extend the Taxcuts Any Longer
Here are a few random digs on Republicans from the prepared speech:
Political versus Policy Debates
But all the same, he laid out a clear liberal voice of what Republicans were doing and why he opposed them. You can actually read his entire speech and he explains things even better. Now, did he have a few subtle messages at the people on the left who wouldn't like the compromise? Of course. But he explained why he did what he did and I don't see any insults being hurled in their direction.
And it was quite clear that, while he disagreed with the politics of those on the left who wouldn't like what he did, he denounced both the politics and the policies of Republicans he was forced to compromise with; and spent more time on the Republicans. And that's exactly what I've been doing too. Democrats are having fights over political moves, not policy moves. Obama's leftwing critics insist that he could get more if he acted more boldly, and Obama disagrees. But he's not attacking them, disparaging their intentions, or disagreeing with their policy goals. It'd be nice if they treated him with the same respect.
Obama wants the same things we want; not because he's a liberal ideologue or because liberals are keeping his feet to the fire, but because liberal policies work and he'll take any policy that works. The only difference is that he's the guy responsible for getting these things, and we're not. It's not an enviable position, I'm sure. And who knows, maybe it is all just a sham and him and his Republican brethern are laughing at us behind the scenes. But he's still talking like a moderate-liberal and I see absolutely no reason to doubt his intentions.
Next, I'll address the things he said in the Q&A portion of the event.
And one of the recent issues involving this is in regards to Obama's press conference last week when he announced his deal with Republicans which extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich in exchange for getting some liberal policies, as well as ending Republican's legislative blockaid, which would have prevented us from repealing DADT, passing the now-dead Omnibus spending bill, and other items Democrats are trying to finalize at year end.
And Obama's critics, including longtime reader John of the Dead, suggested that Obama spent more time attacking liberals than Republicans, which was apparently a sign of something; though he failed to say what that sign was. But I wanted to return to that press conference and see if that's what actually happened.
I'm going to start with his prepared speech, and move on to his Q&A in a separate post.
Tale of the Tape
Here are the second, third, and fourth paragraphs from his prepared speech:
Now, there’s no doubt that the differences between the parties are real and they are profound. Ever since I started running for this office I've said that we should only extend the tax cuts for the middle class. These are the Americans who’ve taken the biggest hit not only from this recession but from nearly a decade of costs that have gone up while their paychecks have not. It would be a grave injustice to let taxes increase for these Americans right now. And it would deal a serious blow to our economic recovery.This is how he led off and I see nothing here that any good liberal would be offended with. Sure, some will argue that we shouldn't extend the taxcuts for the upper-middle-class or for anyone; but there's nothing here that should be offensive to liberals. He made his case of what he wants, and how the Republican plan is both expensive and useless. Sounds good so far.
Now, Republicans have a different view. They believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit. And economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy.
This is where the debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. And what is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost or impact on the deficit.
We Cannot Afford To Extend the Taxcuts Any Longer
Here are a few random digs on Republicans from the prepared speech:
"...if Republicans truly believe we shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone while our economy is still recovering from the recession, then surely we shouldn’t cut taxes for wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and students and small businesses."Now, did he slap them around? No, of course not. Because that's just not done. Similarly, you won't find speeches of Bush slapping around Democrats when he was president. That's not how presidents do things.
"In exchange, the Republicans have asked for more generous treatment of the estate tax than I think is wise or warranted. But we have insisted that that will be temporary."
"I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like. In fact, there are things in here that I don’t like -- namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I’m confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we’re going to have to make to secure our future and our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer."
Political versus Policy Debates
But all the same, he laid out a clear liberal voice of what Republicans were doing and why he opposed them. You can actually read his entire speech and he explains things even better. Now, did he have a few subtle messages at the people on the left who wouldn't like the compromise? Of course. But he explained why he did what he did and I don't see any insults being hurled in their direction.
And it was quite clear that, while he disagreed with the politics of those on the left who wouldn't like what he did, he denounced both the politics and the policies of Republicans he was forced to compromise with; and spent more time on the Republicans. And that's exactly what I've been doing too. Democrats are having fights over political moves, not policy moves. Obama's leftwing critics insist that he could get more if he acted more boldly, and Obama disagrees. But he's not attacking them, disparaging their intentions, or disagreeing with their policy goals. It'd be nice if they treated him with the same respect.
Obama wants the same things we want; not because he's a liberal ideologue or because liberals are keeping his feet to the fire, but because liberal policies work and he'll take any policy that works. The only difference is that he's the guy responsible for getting these things, and we're not. It's not an enviable position, I'm sure. And who knows, maybe it is all just a sham and him and his Republican brethern are laughing at us behind the scenes. But he's still talking like a moderate-liberal and I see absolutely no reason to doubt his intentions.
Next, I'll address the things he said in the Q&A portion of the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
