or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › A theory of politics in the Obama era
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A theory of politics in the Obama era

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
In the Obama era, Ds and Rs are following clear strategies that are clashing and creating the political situation that exists right now.

The Obama strategy is Moderation: On the major issues, find the position that has been endorsed by bipartisan groups and moderate Republicans, and make it the Obama plan.
The Republican strategy is Obstruction: Deny Obama any chance of enacting bipartisan policies by uniting Rs against what they otherwise would have supported.

Eaxmples:

On health reform, an individual mandate with subsidies was the moderate Republican alternative to the Clinton health care plan in the 1990s. It was the bipartisan plan endorsed by Bob Dole shortly after Obama took office. And it was the plan that 2008 Republican presidential runner-up Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 2006.

On the environment, cap and trade started as the Republican market-based plan for the environment, first implemented by the Bush I administration to deal with acid rain. Just a few months ago, cap and trade was the bipartisan plan for the environment.

On immigration, Obama has proposed the plan endorsed by the previous Republican president and the previous Republican presidential candidate, GW Bush and McCain.

In all of these cases and others, Obama adopted the moderate Republican and bipartisan plan, and Republicans decided to oppose it lest Obama be seen as bipartisan and therefore successful.

Either of these strategies alone would lead to equilibrium, but the two strategies together creates a clash. Policies that were in the center of American politics become, to Republicans, Nazi Stalinist Dr. Evil policies. This leads to a change in the center of gravity of American politics.

There are two consequences of this change in the center of political gravity. First, Obama is perceived as a partisan president despite supporting moderate policies. Polls show Obama losing any support he ever had from Republicans and conservative-leaning independents. This shows the Republican strategy working. But at the same time, Republicans are staking out more and more extreme positions, which cannot be good for Republicans in the long run.
post #2 of 57
It's a theory anyway.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 57
Thread Starter 
Well the alternative theory is that Obama and the Ds really are proposing extremist socialist Nazi Stalinist policies, as the Tea... I mean Republican party claims, and not moderate formerly bipartisan policies. Which is it?
post #4 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Well the alternative theory is that Obama and the Ds really are proposing extremist socialist Nazi Stalinist policies, as the Tea... I mean Republican party claims, and not moderate formerly bipartisan policies. Which is it?

Where have you been, dude? While we disagree on many things, we could at least debate rationally. That's more than I can say for certain posters who are 57 years old and from the West Coast.

Speaking of disagreement: That's an odd view you have there. Trying to characterize Obama's positions as "moderate" is to engage in exactly what Obama is doing now: Stating the patently unbelievable.

Now, specifically:

1) You can't compare what was a response in 1993 to "the Republican position" on healthcare. Even if you could, that was 17 years ago. That was without ramming the package down the country's throat with shady procedural tactics, etc. Different time, many different people, different fiscal situation. The list goes on.

2) You cannot compare emissions trading to stop acid rain to the current concept of cap and trade (tax). The former was a specific initiative designed to combat a specific and concrete problem about which there was little debate. The latter is a massive power play, designed to raise fossil fuel prices through the roof while "fixing" (read: not fixing) a "problem" that doesn't exist. The Earth is literally not warming, or at least not warming abnormally. And the last time I checked, the progressive-lite Lindsay Graham(nesty) didn't represent the majority of Republicans.

3) The Bush-McCain immigration plan was unpopular, especially among conservatives. Obama is going much further on this issue as well (suing Arizona and declaring that the border cannot be sealed, for example).


I realize what where you're trying to go here. The problem is that such an argument is purely academic. Obama is not moderate in any sense. He makes our last Democratic president look like Reagan by comparison. The man is a staunch ideological liberal---no, he's a progressive leftist. In his own words, he wants redistributive change. He wants "economic and social justice." He believes in "spread the wealth," saying so during the campaign. He does not want the United States to be a military and economic superpower...he has said so. He embraces greater government control of the private sector as evidenced by his record over the past 18 months.

A moderate? Seriously?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 57
Thread Starter 
Hi SDW. I always enjoyed our debates, but Political Outsider had been interfering with my real life, and when I saw that the adults were again going to be in charge of the US gov. for a while, I decided to cut back.

On health care: It wasn't just in 1993. Romney passed it in 2006 and still supports what he did, and it was the major bipartisan proposal (Rs Dole & Baker and Ds Daschle & Mitchell) in 2009. I provided the links above.

On cap and trade: It's not just Lindsey Graham, it's McCain/Palin's 2008 Republican presidential campaign. It has of course been taken down now but I found this screen shot of their campaign web site.



Quote:
John McCain and Sarah Palin will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy. They will work with our international partners to secure our energy future, create opportunities for American industry, and leave a better future for our children.

They have proposed a cap-and-trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while encouraging the development of low-cost compliance options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.

A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs,
and environmentalists around the common goal of reducing emissions.

On immigration - yes it was unpopular among conservatives even when it was a Republican plan, but that doesn't change the facts that 1) the leaders of the Republican party supported it just a couple years ago, 2) now Obama supports it, and 3) now the leaders of the Republican party all oppose it.

Yes, I know, Obama is a socialist racist leftist Nazi radical who hates America. But then why are his actual policies on the major issues always moderate Republican and bipartisan up until the time he comes out in support of them?
post #6 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

The Obama strategy is Moderation:

Have you ignored the entire Obama presidency so far? Bozo Obama has been the most radical president in history; moderation has no part of his administration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

TOn health reform, an individual mandate with subsidies was the ]moderate Republican alternative

Actually the Republicans favored health reform by cost cutting with no direct change in process and certainly they were not fans or advocates of an individual mandate - since most Americans like their health care with exception to its high cost. Thus the GOP proposed numerous process strategies in provider/health care cost savings, as opposed to the loony Democrats ObamaCare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Obama is perceived as a partisan president despite supporting moderate policies.

Bull... Obama's perceived as a loony radical because that is what he is. Just look at his fanatical czars... These folks are at the far end of the extreme left.And their boss is off the far left cliff... Moderation policies? That's a laugh...
post #7 of 57
Camp David, are you real? I'm calling troll.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Camp David, are you real? I'm calling troll.

Actually if you equate MODERATION with OBAMA you're the one that will likely inherit the troll label... hell everything Obama does is far left, overtly socialist, and against America...
post #9 of 57
You're the new guy who seems to have incredibly outlandish views even for a conservative. I'm calling troll.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 57
I do think it is reasonably fair to say that what one person considers "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate" or "outlandish" or "extremist" is, to a larger degree than most would like to admit, a matter of their own point of view.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

...The Obama strategy is Moderation: On the major issues, find the position that has been endorsed by bipartisan groups and moderate Republicans, and make it the Obama plan.
The Republican strategy is Obstruction: Deny Obama any chance of enacting bipartisan policies by uniting Rs against what they otherwise would have supported.

I hate to pan an interesting idea, but I'm afraid its not very accurate.

First, "moderation" has two meanings - one is that of a modest proposal, the other of modest implementation. Some health reform kicked around in GOP circles has included exchanges (Heritage Foundation) and other elements, and Dole supported a vague bi-partisan idea during the health care debates. The problem are the details, many of which made plans unworkable or unrealistic or too expensive - all of which can be said of the Democratic plan that passed.

Moreover, recall the Obama did not support moderation, his original plan and the one he wanted had the public option. In the end, he had to accept the Senate plan. This is hardly "finding" moderation, it was forced upon him. Even so, Bob Dole did not support it.

Second, cap and trade as a concept did not start as "Republican". It started as the idea of a graduate student in 1966, University of Wisconsin graduate student Thomas Crocker (and in 1968 by Dales). Inspired by the great insights of Ronald Coase's Theorem, "The Problem of Social Cost" (1960, 1991 Nobel Prize) Crocker designed it as a solution for environmental problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits that allow them to pollute within those limits. The complex mathematical framework was laid out by Montgomery in the 1970s.

In 1990 Bush applied this market idea to acid rain, and it seems to have worked. However, all three founders of cap and trade (Crocker, Dales, and Montgomery) believe cap and trade is fine for small discrete problems, where pollution is within one (or two) jurisdictions but inappropriate for carbon control. With so many sources and dependency on the honesty of so many different governments it becomes highly inefficient - especially so when you cannot calculate what damages carbon will cause (estimates vary widely). All three of these founders, like Nordhaus, support carbon taxes and are opposed to cap and trade on this level.

Additionally, I should remind you that only McCain and a few RINOS was hot on cap and trade and global climate change, most Republicans were not (including Bush II, who fought the idea that carbon dioxide emissions were even a pollutant). Moreover, one must distinguish between McCain's moderation in implementation and the current nonsense in Congress.

Third, most Republicans in the House and Senate opposed immigration reform with amnesty and without serious border control, including the GOP leadership of both chambers (McCain was not, at that point, a Republican leader). Bush II did not represent the party's wishes, he represented the chamber of commerce and a small minority in the Party.

Obama's "moderation" on this issue is as transparent as that of Ted Kennedy's, McCain's and Bush II - make token gestures of border control, provide amnesty and citizenship, and get ready to do it all over again in another decade or two - a policy that is virtually indistinguishable from most of the Left.

The current GOP is completely in line with the membership, and most of the prior GOP politicians. The difference is McCain has lost influence and many of his RINO allies (e.g. DeWine) were tossed out.
post #12 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

The Obama strategy is Moderation....

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa................ ......
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #13 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You're the new guy who seems to have incredibly outlandish views even for a conservative. I'm calling troll.

You're the poster that outlandishly equates the Obama strategy with Moderation; want to take a survey to see who is seen with outlandish views? Even most of Obama's supporters think the guy is extreme...
post #14 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Where have you been, dude? While we disagree on many things, we could at least debate rationally. That's more than I can say for certain posters who are 57 years old and from the West Coast.

Speaking of disagreement: That's an odd view you have there. Trying to characterize Obama's positions as "moderate" is to engage in exactly what Obama is doing now: Stating the patently unbelievable.

Now, specifically:

1) You can't compare what was a response in 1993 to "the Republican position" on healthcare. Even if you could, that was 17 years ago. That was without ramming the package down the country's throat with shady procedural tactics, etc. Different time, many different people, different fiscal situation. The list goes on.

2) You cannot compare emissions trading to stop acid rain to the current concept of cap and trade (tax). The former was a specific initiative designed to combat a specific and concrete problem about which there was little debate. The latter is a massive power play, designed to raise fossil fuel prices through the roof while "fixing" (read: not fixing) a "problem" that doesn't exist. The Earth is literally not warming, or at least not warming abnormally. And the last time I checked, the progressive-lite Lindsay Graham(nesty) didn't represent the majority of Republicans.

3) The Bush-McCain immigration plan was unpopular, especially among conservatives. Obama is going much further on this issue as well (suing Arizona and declaring that the border cannot be sealed, for example).


I realize what where you're trying to go here. The problem is that such an argument is purely academic. Obama is not moderate in any sense. He makes our last Democratic president look like Reagan by comparison. The man is a staunch ideological liberal---no, he's a progressive leftist. In his own words, he wants redistributive change. He wants "economic and social justice." He believes in "spread the wealth," saying so during the campaign. He does not want the United States to be a military and economic superpower...he has said so. He embraces greater government control of the private sector as evidenced by his record over the past 18 months.

A moderate? Seriously?

Quote:
That's more than I can say for certain posters who are 57 years old and from the West Coast.

It's funny that you have such a ossesion with me!

However he did paint a clear picture of what's going on. There's no point in trying to tell someone with such a bad case of PPD the truth.

Quote:
He does not want the United States to be a military and economic superpower...he has said so

Let's hear the quote and the context please.

Just hearing the Republicans talk about Financial Reform is laughable : " We think this will make it harder for some people to get credit ". Translation " We don't like it because it's proposed by Democrats. Really every time I hear you guys bleet about how Democrats are taking advantage of their majority positioin I'm reminded of 2000 through 06'.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #15 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You're the poster that outlandishly equates the Obama strategy with Moderation; want to take a survey to see who is seen with outlandish views? Even most of Obama's supporters think the guy is extreme...

Just hearing you say " Outlandishly " or " Extreme " is funny!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #16 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

In the Obama era, Ds and Rs are following clear strategies that are clashing and creating the political situation that exists right now.

The Obama strategy is Moderation: On the major issues, find the position that has been endorsed by bipartisan groups and moderate Republicans, and make it the Obama plan.
The Republican strategy is Obstruction: Deny Obama any chance of enacting bipartisan policies by uniting Rs against what they otherwise would have supported.

Eaxmples:

On health reform, an individual mandate with subsidies was the moderate Republican alternative to the Clinton health care plan in the 1990s. It was the bipartisan plan endorsed by Bob Dole shortly after Obama took office. And it was the plan that 2008 Republican presidential runner-up Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 2006.

On the environment, cap and trade started as the Republican market-based plan for the environment, first implemented by the Bush I administration to deal with acid rain. Just a few months ago, cap and trade was the bipartisan plan for the environment.

On immigration, Obama has proposed the plan endorsed by the previous Republican president and the previous Republican presidential candidate, GW Bush and McCain.

In all of these cases and others, Obama adopted the moderate Republican and bipartisan plan, and Republicans decided to oppose it lest Obama be seen as bipartisan and therefore successful.

Either of these strategies alone would lead to equilibrium, but the two strategies together creates a clash. Policies that were in the center of American politics become, to Republicans, Nazi Stalinist Dr. Evil policies. This leads to a change in the center of gravity of American politics.

There are two consequences of this change in the center of political gravity. First, Obama is perceived as a partisan president despite supporting moderate policies. Polls show Obama losing any support he ever had from Republicans and conservative-leaning independents. This shows the Republican strategy working. But at the same time, Republicans are staking out more and more extreme positions, which cannot be good for Republicans in the long run.

You raise some interesting points BRussell and I'd say that with regard to campaigns versus governing you are 100% dead on.

The difference comes in governing. Both moderate Republicans and Democrats know they can often tell constituents that they hold a position because often the fabled legislation that would test such a vote fails to come up or if it does it does so in such a slight manner that they can get over the hump and hold their moderate position. The real problem occurs when they are forced to take votes that expose these moderate positions for either lies or a harder partisan edge depending upon your viewpoint.

A good example of this was the health care debate and say... pro-life Democrats. Many of these Democrats had to tow the party line toward the end in order to get it passed and had to give up their "moderate" for the Democratic party position of pro-life for those votes. When they go back to voters in their districts or states, their credentials in those areas will have been compromised. In addition often "real" candidates with that position be it within the party or from the opposition party will rise up to challenge and raise funds based off those votes and the compromised position. This means that when a party is in power, their moderate wing is the part that often loses them their electoral advantage because they are forced off the moderate edge and into the partisan votes where they claim to be independent and "mavericky" from the party.

The Republican positions did change a bit as you note. However they had to due to the fact that it could be argued that the lost with all those moderate positions, not just a little but full control and likewise the campaign that Obama ran essentially beat up on them for being bad Republicans and that is a moderate Democrat he would help Republicans fix Republican excesses by out Republicaning Republicans in specific areas.

Obama ran against Neo-Con principles of being the cop of the world and claimed he would dramatically reduce our role there. This sounded very good to Paleo-cons like myself. He ran on a tax cut and limited taxes while claiming he would reduce earmarks and spending to close the massive budget hole of $250 billion a year that had doubled the deficit under Bush. He ran as someone who would increase the efficiency of Medicare and use the gains from the improvements there as well as the cost from being the troops home to start adding the uninsured to health rolls through minor changes to health care legislation often related to eligibility. (Example allow 150% of poverty level to apply as opposed to 100%)

On the Republican side with the winner take almost all primaries you had McCain lock up the vote early due to Thompson, Huckabee and Romney playing merry-go-round for first place from state to state with McCain coming in second and then McCain winning in many blue states. (primaries not elections) His winning basically left Republicans unenergized and felt very much like when the goold soldier and moderate Bob Dole ran in 1996. Bob Dole, like McCain was floundering and looked for a way to energize the base. He managed to improve his chances by selecting Jack Kemp and with that came a 15% tax cut which while Dole endorsed, was a complete reversal of his previous positions and thus rang hollow. McCain likewise picked Sarah Palin which thrilled the base but often the McCain speeches on true conservative positions rang hollow and the result in both cases were losses.

Now the Republicans have decided to obstruct but the issue there is two-fold. One they don't gain anything by helping the Democrats pass plans that, once they hit Congress became decidedly unmoderate. Two as we are now seeing on the Democratic side, moderate rhetoric with partisan votes = loss of fundraising cash, primary challenges and loss of credibility with the voter. Fiscally conservative Democrats and anti-war Democrats who have voted for trillion dollar deficits and have kept funding the war have a lot to lose this cycle. So Republicans have decided to run candidates that are unabashedly conservative and vote to support interests that are unabashedly conservative.

Romney hasn't won anything. Dole couldn't cross the finish line nor could McCain. Their positions might play a bit better with the media but they didn't cross the finish line and win. So the point becomes, if you are going to be a loser are you going to advocate for 50% of what you want, or 100% of what you want. The answer becomes 100% which from the perspective of Democrats sounds partisan and obstructionist. Of course we will see what song they are singing in 2012 when people are yelling, we voted for the war and health care and lost the House or perhaps something similar.

You noted that Obama as a candidate adopted very bipartisan positions. I'd say again you are right. However he has utterly failed with regard to enacting those positions. The Democratic numbers in Congress are so large that they could even rip off the moderate wings of their own parties and that is what the votes have reflected. The legislation itself has been extreme and has blue dogs voting against it. Those same candidates are likely to lose this year even if they did vote against it because people want stronger opposition to the extreme Democratic legislation.

Obama and the Democrats did not bring the troops home. There has been NO war savings to put into health care. The additional costs are going to be paid for now by taxing "premium" health care plans or limiting what other health care plans can cover in an attempt to limit the benefit individually but cover the group.

Obama and the Democrats did not get our financial house in order. Under the last two years of Bush, the $250 billion a year deficits became $400 billion a year deficits. These were blamed on Bush when he was in office. It was declared that Bush wouldn't allow minor reform due to his presidency and the remaining Republican strength in Congress. Paying to buy two sets of votes is more expensive and we were also told most of this was due to earmarks that Bush wouldn't reform since it allowed his minority party to still benefit their interests.

Obviously we have gone from $400 billion a year to trillion dollar a year deficits. The Democrats have gone insane with their spending. There hasn't been earmark reform and instead we don't even have a budget process in place. It doesn't really matter if Republicans did it too because it is part of why they were thrown out of office. The Democrats can't be me too when their platform is we will fix what is wrong. Being wrong too gets you tossed.

So this brings us to where we are at now. Why would a Republican want to help moderate lack of earmark reform, continuing wars, no budget control, a terrible health care reform, etc? It is better instead to be the outsider because the new insiders did not fix the problems as they promised. Politicos know the full story. They might know McCain's old positions and new positions and have they have altered when running against a Hayworth. When it comes to the election though the people who aren't often engaged though are going to see this narrative. Blame and solution and who is part of the blame and who is the new solution. Republicans gain nothing by being part of this problem and gain everything by being the outsiders who can solve this problem.

Just ask Barack Obama circa 2008.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I hate to pan an interesting idea, but I'm afraid its not very accurate.

First, let's make sure we keep separate the issue of how good a plan is and whether it's a Republican or Democratic one, because we'll never agree on that. For example, I believe that international comparisons show single-payer is the most rational system being used today, not mandate & subsidize. Very often the moderate plans are the worst. You provide another example with cap-and-trade, which I'll take your word on, but I could certainly believe that a carbon tax is better policy than cap and trade.

But I'm setting that aside right now. I'm simply asking people to look at where Obama's policies come from. Obama's health care plan comes from 1990s Republicans, Romney of 2006, and the four former senate R & D majority leaders in 2009. Obama's environmental plan comes from Bush I's acid rain plan and McCain-Palin's 2008 campaign platform. Obama's immigration plan comes from the previous Republican president and the 2006 Senate Republican immigration reform bill.

I also want to be clear that I'm not saying that all or the majority of Republicans would necessarily vote for these plans if introduced by a Republican president. For one thing, it's clear that today's Republicans never support any plan that reduces the deficit, and only support plans that increase the deficit. Over the past 30 years, there's an almost perfect relationship between Repubilcan support and deficit increasing.

There's just no way a plan with any positive fiscal impact would get Republican support. Instead, Republicans support plans like Bush's Medicare D, which was completely deficit-funded. I think it's very likely that if Bush had proposed a mandate & subsidize plan in, say, 2003, it would have had wide Republican support, but only it didn't have Obama's cost controls and deficit reduction. I bet the same is true of cap and trade: It would have had decent Republican support, but only if it increased the deficit.

Maybe immigration is different, because it's more of a hot-button social issue. But I think it's important to point out that the Senate bill that Obama now supports was co-sponsored by 6 Republicans (Specter, Hagel, Martinez, McCain, Graham, & Brownback) and 1 Democrat (Kennedy), and passed the senate with 62 votes.
post #18 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

But I'm setting that aside right now. I'm simply asking people to look at where Obama's policies come from..

I realize that any historical analysis of Obama might make liberals recoil in shock but you should do some on your own. If you do you would find quite a treasure trove of understanding of what he is trying to change the country to... as such Glen Beck (and many others) have examined and devoted quite a bit of time to the architecture of Obamaism and studied its history in detail. Chief among the finds are that Obama's policies come directly from Saul David Alinsky, a community organizer of the socialistic left.
post #19 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

I realize that any historical analysis of Obama might make liberals recoil in shock but you should do some on your own. If you do you would find quite a treasure trove of understanding of what he is trying to change the country to... as such Glen Beck (and many others) have examined and devoted quite a bit of time to the architecture of Obamaism and studied its history in detail. Chief among the finds are that Obama's policies come directly from Saul David Alinsky, a community organizer of the socialistic left.

Glen Beck?!?



Hmm.

Maybe you ARE a troll or liberal sock puppet after all.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #20 of 57

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #21 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post


Yeah, because, once again, tax cuts are spending... Just like benefits are...

There are cuts that need to be made, and it is not to my income in the form of more taxes.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #22 of 57
Unemployment benefits stimulate the economy far far far more than tax cuts for the wealthy. You can't on one hand complain that the economy sucks and then on the other NOT do one of the primary things to jump start a bad economy.

Unless of course the Republican party doesn't give a shit about the common person and would rather the country suffer enough so that they can win an election in November.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #23 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Unemployment benefits stimulate the economy far far far more than tax cuts for the wealthy. You can't on one hand complain that the economy sucks and then on the other NOT do one of the primary things to jump start a bad economy.

Spouting nonsense like this is why nobody trust the Democrats on economic issues anymore.
It's a grade school level grasp of economics at best.

The 'stimulus' that unemployment benefits provide the economy with are shallow, largely unproductive and extremely short term. It's all about feeding economic consumption (largely at Walmart and Target), rather than laying a solid economic foundation to a country's economy.

The reason that 'tax cuts for the wealthy', as you put it, are far better, is that they are largely spent on capital improvements, upgrades to plants, machinery and technology, debt repayment and increases in the national savings rate.

This is why Canada, which has a economist as Prime Minister, has introduced Tax Free Savings accounts, increased taxes on consumption and removed taxes on imported machinery and technological upgrades.

But I'm sure that the Obama admin's clumsy attempt to pour stimulus money far and wide while simultaneously managing the U.S. banking, automotive, real estate and health care sectors from the White House will work too. Any day now.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #24 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Spouting nonsense like this is why nobody trust the Democrats on economic issues anymore.
It's a grade school level grasp of economics at best.

And it's really only a "grade school level grasp of economics" if, by "grade school level grasp of economics" we me "no grasp of economics at all."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Unemployment benefits stimulate the economy far far far more than tax cuts for the wealthy.

Such asinine economic assessments trouble me greatly! Unemployment benefits simply drain our budget, add to deficit, and offer no economic benefit whatsoever. Conversely, tax cuts prompt private business to invest funds and thus hire Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You can't on one hand complain that the economy sucks and then on the other NOT do one of the primary things to jump start a bad economy.

Jump starting the economy can best be done through tax cuts; every prior recession in this nation was overcome with tax cuts, except the recession we are in now. Bozo Obama is too stupid to look at history as see how prior recessions were overcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Unless of course the Republican party doesn't give a shit about the common person and would rather the country suffer enough so that they can win an election in November.

The "common people" you mention are getting massively screwed by Obama and Co. through Obama's war against business and his attacks against capitalism. Small business is now afraid to invest thus small business is not hiring as it should. Best thing for Obama to do to help "common people" is a massive tax cut to spur private industry to invest (maintain the Bush tax cuts). These recession fighting measures, used before to bring recessions to an end, are in fact the measures the GOP has been advocating. The measures Obama and Co. have used and advocates, stimulus, government expansion, and welfare, have made the recession WORSE and kept unemployment at 10%...
post #26 of 57
You guys are a riot a minute.

There are economists with PhDs who support demand-side economics and there are and leaders of very successful governments who have used demand-side economics to successfully stimulate faltering economies, but you are so brainwashed and blinded that you don't hesitate to call perfectly valid theories, and ones that heve been debated for centuries labels like "asinine" and "not worthy of being called grade-school". That, my friends, is asinine.

For one to be able to debate economics is educated. What is "no grasp of economics at all" is the idea that the debate is over and supply-side has won. Especially when you look at the record of the post-Reagan attempts at macroeconomic management.
post #27 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You guys are a riot a minute.

There are economists with PhDs who support demand-side economics and there are and leaders of very successful governments who have used demand-side economics to successfully stimulate faltering economies, but you are so brainwashed and blinded that you don't hesitate to call perfectly valid theories, and ones that heve been debated for centuries labels like "asinine" and "not worthy of being called grade-school". That, my friends, is asinine.

For one to be able to debate economics is educated. What is "no grasp of economics at all" is the idea that the debate is over and supply-side has won. Especially when you look at the record of the post-Reagan attempts at macroeconomic management.

Quote:
What is "no grasp of economics at all" is the idea that the debate is over and supply-side has won. Especially when you look at the record of the post-Reagan attempts at macroeconomic management


You don't have to be an expert in economic theory to see that. Good post!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You guys are a riot a minute.

There are economists with PhDs who support demand-side economics and there are and leaders of very successful governments who have used demand-side economics to successfully stimulate faltering economies, but you are so brainwashed and blinded that you don't hesitate to call perfectly valid theories, and ones that heve been debated for centuries labels like "asinine" and "not worthy of being called grade-school". That, my friends, is asinine.

For one to be able to debate economics is educated. What is "no grasp of economics at all" is the idea that the debate is over and supply-side has won. Especially when you look at the record of the post-Reagan attempts at macroeconomic management.

You want to make this a demand-side vs. supply-side debate. You have a supply-side economics fixation. There are even more basic economic principles at play here that don't necessarily equate to these higher-level broad categorizations of theory (e.g., "demand-side" and "supply-side").

P.S. But just so we are clear, the demand-side guy do have it wrong and have some fatal flaws in their logic and reasoning.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

P.S. But just so we are clear, the demand-side guy do have it wrong and have some fatal flaws in their logic and reasoning.

History might have a thing or two to say about that assertion. Theories are theories until you put them in practice. Say what you want about the New Deal but whether it was the cause or not, the economy was stimulated after it was brought forward. JFK's economic policies were also hugely successful and contained both supply and demand stimulants. Meanwhile Reganomics has brought us nothing but a wider wealth gap and things like Enron, GS and AIG. And as I pointed out in the other thread, corporations with money are not spending. They are holding. The Bush tax cuts = FAIL.
post #30 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

History might have a thing or two to say about that assertion.

Then show the history. Show the data. Lay out the logic and reasoning.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Then show the history. Show the data. Lay out the logic and reasoning.

This demand from the person who started this argument with a one-sentence assertion that someone who believes empowering the consumer is worthwhile is "no grasp of economics at all".

All one has to do is to look at the current state of the economy and how it affects the middle class to realize that Reaganomics has failed.
post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This demand from the person who started this argument with a one-sentence assertion that someone who believes empowering the consumer is worthwhile is "no grasp of economics at all".

All one has to do is to look at the current state of the economy and how it affects the middle class to realize that Reaganomics has failed.

Exactly!!! Right on! Sometimes it's helpful to just look at the bottom line or result. Like I've said 20 out of 30 years of Whitehouse politics ( 2 to 3 ratio ). If the Republican economic view is so good how is it that we're so fucked up now? They've certainly had much more of a chance to steer the ship.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This demand from the person who started this argument with a one-sentence assertion that someone who believes empowering the consumer is worthwhile is "no grasp of economics at all".

All one has to do is to look at the current state of the economy and how it affects the middle class to realize that Reaganomics has failed.

No all one doesn't have to just do that...unless one wishes to have merely a superficial and uninformed understanding of economics and the current circumstances in particular. Again your Reaganomics/supply-side fixation rears its ugly head.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No all one doesn't have to just do that...unless one wishes to have merely a superficial and uninformed understanding of economics and the current circumstances in particular. Again your Reaganomics/supply-side fixation rears its ugly head.

Superficial or not, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

You can argue yourself out of the history of the last 30 years all you want, but all it achieves is the appearance that you fail to see the wood for the trees. You've read a bit to much and a bit too narrow and you no longer have the ability to see the big picture.
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Superficial or not, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Again, thank you for that deeply analytical and insightful economic analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You can argue yourself out of the history of the last 30 years all you want, but all it achieves is the appearance that you fail to see the wood for the trees. You've read a bit to much and a bit too narrow and you no longer have the ability to see the big picture.

Whatever.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #36 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You raise some interesting points BRussell and I'd say that with regard to campaigns versus governing you are 100% dead on.

One of my examples was health reform, and Democrats passed and Obama signed it into law. That's not a difference between campaign and governing. Immigration reform and cap and trade haven't been passed - and probably won't - but I don't see any difference between what they claimed and what they're actually trying to get through Congress now.

If anything, they know that the new rule that the Senate requires a supermajority for anyone to even take a piss means that they need to govern by catering to the Ben Nelsons and Oympia Snowes of the world. That means they always have to tamp down their expectations from what they proposed during the campaign.
post #37 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Spouting nonsense like this is why nobody trust the Democrats on economic issues anymore.
It's a grade school level grasp of economics at best.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. 1) There is a clear consensus among nonpartisan and mainstream Republican economists that unemployment insurance is a better stimulus than tax rate cuts. 2) Democrats make that their policy priority. 3) Conservatives and Republican politicians call it insane and extremist and oppose that policy.

Here's a list of links and quotes from a liberal website showing all of the Nobel-prize winning, nonpartisan, and/or mainstream Republican economists who say that unemployment insurance is one of the best economic stimulus policies, better than tax rate cuts. The only people who disagree with that are conservative commentators and politicians.

Furthermore, the contention that people don't trust Democrats on the economy is not true if you compare them to Republicans. From what I can see, on every single poll on the economy (from this page) people think the Democrats and Obama are better than Republicans, despite the constant media drumbeat against Democrats.

Quote:
Which administration do you think is more to blame for the economic problems the country faces today: the Bush administration or the Obama administration?
Bush: 61
Obama: 27

Quote:
In general, which political party do you trust more to handle the economic recovery: the Democrats or the Republicans?
Democrats: 43
Republicans: 39

Quote:
Do you think the Democrats or the Republicans are more responsible for the country's current economic problems?
Democrats: 28
Republicans: 41

Quote:
Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy: President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?
Obama: 45
Republicans: 36

That's not a selected sample, those are all of the current (last month or so) polls on Americans' comparative views of the parties' economic policies.
post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Furthermore, the contention that people don't trust Democrats on the economy is not true if you compare them to Republicans.

I suspect Frank777 probably should have said shouldn't instead of don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

From what I can see, on every single poll...

Again shouldn't would have been a better word. But then I don't know if the general American public gets high marks for its intellect and understanding of deeper and more involved subjects like economics. I'd argue they aren't terribly bright at all. After all, they elected Bush...twice, and Obama once (so far). This doesn't speak well to their intellect. Americans, by and large appear to be a group of people given to acting with superficial understanding of and emotional reactions to important topics. Furthermore they tend to have extraordinarily short memories.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 57
Thread Starter 
MJ - I agree completely.
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Here's a list of links and quotes from a liberal website showing all of the Nobel-prize winning, nonpartisan, and/or mainstream Republican economists who say that unemployment insurance is one of the best economic stimulus policies, better than tax rate cuts. The only people who disagree with that are conservative commentators and politicians.

I think we're going to need to see some quotes from that link.

This one, for example:

Quote:
CBO scores "increasing aid to the unemployed" as the highest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy.
In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated:

Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.

According to a table] in the report, CBO estimated that increasing aid to the unemployed would have the greatest effects on GDP per dollar of budgetary cost and the second highest cumulative effect on employment of the policy options considered.

and

Quote:
Elmendorf: Policies such as unemployment insurance "have a significant impact on GDP."
In January 2009, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified:

Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.
A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved.The nonbusiness tax cuts in H.R. 1 would reduce revenues much more in calendar year 2010 than in calendar year 2009 because much of the reduction in taxes would be realized by households when they filed their returns in 2010.

and


Quote:
Zandi estimated that extending unemployment insurance benefits provides significant stimulus.

In his July 24, 2008, House testimony, Mark Zandi, Moody's Economy.com chief economist and a former adviser to John McCain, rated "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck," defined as "One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending." "Extending UI Benefits" was the second-highest of 13 policy options, behind "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps." The Economic Policy Institute created the following graphic based on Zandi's figures:


and

Quote:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy."

From an April 16 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities document:

Temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits score high in "bang-for-the-buck" calculations of their economic impact as stimulus. The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy. As a result of such policies, local businesses are less apt to lay off workers and cut back on orders from their suppliers during a downturn; and in the early stages of a recovery, they are more apt to hire additional workers and step up their orders. Policymakers have always ended these emergency UI benefits once a strong and sustainable economic recovery is underway.

and

Quote:
Joseph Stiglitz: Stimulus "should begin by strengthening the unemployment insurance system."

In a January 23, 2008, op-ed, Nobel laureate [and Columbia economics professor] Joseph Stiglitz wrote that "America's economy is headed for a major slowdown" and that "[t]he country needs stimulus." Proceeding to describe the "optimal package," Stiglitz recommended: "We should begin by strengthening the unemployment insurance system, because money received by the unemployed would be spent immediately."


That's about half of what's at the link. I wonder if any of the parrots of Republican talking points can quote any economists (as opposed to politicians or political commentators) who disagree?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › A theory of politics in the Obama era