Who will take on Obama in 2012? [Archive] - Page 10

will.15

08-03-12, 08:40 PM

The Pain in Bain

Why Romney’s so afraid of talking about what he did at Bain.

By Jacob Weisberg (http://www.slate.com/authors.jacob_weisberg.html)|Posted Tuesday, July 17, 2012, at 5:26 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/07/romney_and_bain_capital_why_he_s_so_afraid_of_talking_about_what_he_did_at_bain_/148156342.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg
The Obama campaign wants what Mitt Romney did at Bain to stay front and center for as long as possible

Photograph by Eric Kayne/Getty Images.

Mitt Romney seems genuinely stunned that President Obama would question the value of his proudest accomplishment, founding and running Bain Capital for 15 years (or maybe a little bit more (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/07/romney_and_bain_1999_2002_his_retirement_is_just_another_flip_flop_.html)). To Romney and others who work in finance, it’s self-evident that what private equity firms like Bain do is beneficial to the economy. Private equity firms buy underperforming businesses and restructure them. With new management and investment, some of these firms thrive while others fail. As a result, investment is allocated more efficiently. This is creative destruction in its pure form and if you question it, they say, you must not believe in capitalism.

To Barack Obama and most liberals, it’s no less obvious that there’s something faulty about this model of financial capitalism as it has been practiced over the past 30 years. Leveraged buyouts, which are what private equity firms do, load companies with debt, extract value for middlemen, and displace workers. Heads-I-win, tails-you-lose practices in the financial sector, regulatory loopholes, and tax advantages produce runaway winners like Romney while middle-class workers lose ground. As the gap between economic victims and executioners grows, the resulting society becomes more unequal and unfair.

Both positions in this argument—that Obama doesn’t believe in capitalism, that Romney doesn’t care about workers—are distortions. But after a week of skirmishing, Obama has the upper hand for reasons that go beyond the campaign-season truism that when one guy wields the hammer, the other guy looks like a nail. Here are five reasons why the Obama campaign wants this subject—what Romney did at Bain, when he left, what he had for lunch when he worked there—to stay front and center for as long as possible.

1. Obama is more eager to make his case about Bain than Romney is. The president is comfortable attacking the negative consequences, if not the fundamental concept of free-market capitalism: outsourcing and offshoring, shuttered factories, cheap Asian imports, declining middle-class wages. These have been familiar resonant notes for Democratic candidates for the past 25 years (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-02/news/mn-305_1_ad-gephardt). Romney, on the other hand, doesn’t much want to defend creative destruction. He boasts about building Bain, but won’t discuss it in detail because it opens up a conversation about those same unattractive consequences: lost jobs, bankruptcies, private pensions dumped onto the federal government. In the case of China, Romney has tried to outhawk Obama, promising to launch what would amount to a trade war beginning his first day in office. When it comes to Detroit, Romney has backed away from his principled position that failed businesses should be allowed to fail. He’s in a corner, because he thinks it’s politically unsound to say what he really believes.

2. It’s not clear that private equity—like other forms of financial innovation—is good for America. You’d think that if private equity made businesses more efficient and valuable overall, there’d be clear evidence to support it, but there isn’t (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/amid-attacks-on-private-equity-efforts-to-study-its-value/). Private equity firms earn most of their money through financial engineering. A big share of their returns comes from “tax arbitrage”—figuring out how to exploit loopholes to pay less to the government. Because interest is a deductible business expense, debt financing means they often pay little or no corporate tax. Private equity’s reliance on leverage can also magnify short-term earnings without leaving the companies they manage more valuable overall. One legal but dubious practice that private equity firms engage in is paying large “special dividends” out of borrowed money. As Jim Surowiecki of the New Yorker has written (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki#ixzz20tcX7tZv), “These dividends created no economic value—they just redistributed money from the company to the private-equity investors.” There’s some anecdotal evidence that the well-regarded Bain has been a better owner than most. But there’s no real way to evaluate that either.

3. Bain shows how Wall Street is rigged in favor of the rich. Private equity firms, like hedge funds, earn their money through a 2-and-20 structure, which means investors pay a 2 percent annual management fee, and give away one-fifth of their profits. According to one study (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=996334&rec=1&srcabs=1194962), firms like Bain get two-thirds of of their earnings from fees charged to investors, rather than from the share of profits. According to another study, private equity firms managed to keep 70 percent of all investment profits for themselves (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d3b9614a-42f1-11e1-b756-00144feab49a.html), rather than paying them out. They’ve figured out how to be hugely profitable even if they aren’t successful, and even where firms they own go bankrupt. And because their gains come in the form of “carried interest,” private equity owners are taxed at 15 percent, rather than the top rate of 35 percent.

4. Romney’s Bain career is a story about rising inequality. It’s telling that George Romney, Mitt’s father, made around $200,000 through most of the years he ran American Motors Corporation. Doing work that clearly created jobs, the elder Romney paid an effective tax rate that averaged 37 percent. (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/24/147351064/from-george-romney-to-mitt-a-shrinking-tax-rate) His son made vastly more running a corporate chop shop in an industry that does not appear to create jobs overall (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/16/romney-bain-private-equity/). In 2010, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent on $21.7 million in investment income—around 14 times as much as his father in inflation-adjusted terms. This difference encapsulates the change from corporate titans who lived in the same world as the people who worked for them, in an America with real social mobility, to a financial overclass that makes its own separate rules and has choked off social mobility. The elder Romney wasn’t embarrassed to explain what he’d done as a businessman or to release his tax returns.

5. Bain reminds everybody how rich Romney is, how different that makes him from ordinary people, and how this kind of advantage perpetuates itself. Five years ago, according to disclosure statements, he was already worth between $190 and $250 million, not counting another $70-100 million in trusts for his children and grandchildren, and not counting real estate worth tens of millions more. It’s not clear how he turned a maximum contribution of $450,000 over 15 years at Bain into an IRA worth between $21 and $102 million (where it grows tax free). Here’s some informed speculation (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/the-secret-behind-romney-s-magical-ira.html). Once again, the details are mysterious even if his massive exploitation of a tax break meant to encourage middle class people to save more is not.

There’s no reason to think that Romney, in his heart of hearts, favors a version of capitalism that subsidizes financial engineering and ignores the victims of economic transformation. As governor of Massachusetts, he created a subsidized insurance system that filled the biggest hole in the safety net, and became the model of Obama’s health care plan. Take away the political context, and one can imagine the two of them agreeing about a lot else as well. But in the milieu of today’s GOP, Romney can never acknowledge the need for a better safety net. Without one, the vision of capitalism represented by Bain Capital becomes even less appealing.

AKA23

08-03-12, 09:34 PM

Yoda, while I haven't read all these posts, I think there's something to what Will is saying here. Some of the comments made on behalf of the Romney campaign have been troubling. John Sununu, a Romney surrogate, recently said that he "wished Obama would learn how to be an American." A recent poll came out that almost half the nation says that they don't know what religion Obama is, despite him repeatedly saying over and over again that he is a Christian. Why would people say they didn't know what religion he is, when it's been clear since he first started appearing in public life that he was a Christian? Why do people either not know this, or choose not to believe it? There's something insidious, and wrong, motivating that kind of mindset. There is a sector of the society that still questions whether Obama was born in this country. Newt Gingrich said that he had a "Kenyan anti-colonial mindset," and on and on. Glenn Beck said Obama "hates white people." There has been a repeated effort to paint Obama as un-American, as "not believing in American exceptionalism," of not being one of us. You have to admit that this is troubling, and either racist on its face, or designed, for political purposes, to appeal to the racists among us.

Yoda

08-03-12, 11:08 PM

*sighs, walks back on stage, picks up microphone*

Which is not what I said.
Yup, sure is. I asked this:

"So pointing out that Obama's economic policies haven't stopped the economy from sucking (even when he said they would) isn't a substantive critique?"
And you said this:

"No, it isn't, anymore than criticizing Romney's track record at Bain, which he used to brag about because he was going to apply what he did there when he was elected President."

The ad merely says conditions are bad in Florida while Obama was president. It doesn't specifically say what you did, which is not true. Conditions have improved. We are no longer in a recession. Unemployment is substantially less that it was at its peak. We are in recovery but it is a slow, stubborn one.
Yeah, see, this is exactly why I asked you in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=833372) what you think "substantive" means. Because if I don't ask those sorts of questions--or if you just don't answer them, which is the case here--the conversation goes in a pointless circle where you argue something based on your own definition of a word, rather than argue the point being made.

So let's try this yet again: the ad is substantive because it makes a meaningful claim based on a topic that affects the electorate. It claims that Obama's economic policies have failed. That's a substantive claim about a substantive issue. You can then argue with that claim, but the claim doesn't become superficial even if you think it's misleading. A claim is superficial if it's of dubious relevance and significance even if it is true.

And, frankly, you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on having just watched the one ad, too. The others aren't half as debatable. But they're all equally substantive. Most of Romney's campaign has been. Most of Obama's hasn't. You can spin your wheels all you want, but there's no serious way to argue otherwise.

Yoda

08-03-12, 11:08 PM

AKA23

08-03-12, 11:40 PM

Huh? Almost none of this has any relevance to what we've been talking about.

Serves me right for commenting without having read all these posts. From my cursory reading, it seemed to me like you were talking about the difference between substantive attacks and personal ones. A lot of these attacks, or questions, are very personal in nature, and not substantive. A lot of it is not coming from the Romney campaign, but some of it is. Sununu's comment, for one, and Romney and his surrogates repeatedly saying that Obama doesn't understand America, or it's greatness, etc.

Putting the argument with Will to the side for a moment, since it sounds like it doesn't directly relate, what do you think about my previous comments?

I do agree with you that talking about Obama's economic policies not having worked is substantive in nature, while talking about Romney's personal finances is less so. At the same time, if the way Romney conducts his personal finances is indicative of what he would like to continue to do as President, and is indicative of the kinds of policies he would seek to further, than I think that is substantive, so on the surface, I think you have a good point, though I do think there is a way to connect these things about Romney personally with his broader policies.

medusa2012

08-03-12, 11:44 PM

An Ally.

will.15

08-03-12, 11:58 PM

*sighs, walks back on stage, picks up microphone*

Yup, sure is. I asked this:
"So pointing out that Obama's economic policies haven't stopped the economy from sucking (even when he said they would) isn't a substantive critique?"
And you said this:
"No, it isn't, anymore than criticizing Romney's track record at Bain, which he used to brag about because he was going to apply what he did there when he was elected President."
Yeah, see, this is exactly why I asked you in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=833372) what you think "substantive" means. Because if I don't ask those sorts of questions--or if you just don't answer them, which is the case here--the conversation goes in a pointless circle where you argue something based on your own definition of a word, rather than argue the point being made.

So let's try this yet again: the ad is substantive because it makes a meaningful claim based on a topic that affects the electorate. It claims that Obama's economic policies have failed. That's a substantive claim about a substantive issue. You can then argue with that claim, but the claim doesn't become superficial even if you think it's misleading. A claim is superficial if it's of dubious relevance and significance even if it is true.

And, frankly, you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on having just watched the one ad, too. The others aren't half as debatable. But they're all equally substantive. Most of Romney's campaign has been. Most of Obama's hasn't. You can spin your wheels all you want, but there's no serious way to argue otherwise.
Let's go back eight years to get some perspective.

Remember George W?

Remember John Kerry?

John Kerry wanted to talk about Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, about if we were lied to about weapons of mass destruction, and other things focused on the Bush Administration.

And Bush and his supporters wanted to make Kerry the issue and he got swift boated, and questions were raised after he came back from the war what he said, and about his wife being so rich and why won't she release her tax returns, and we saw pictures of him falling off his snowboard which was used in ads against him.

When you are the incumbent, your opponent wants to zero in on the record and show why it is flawed.

And the incumbent wants to make the challenger the focus, to show why he is not qualified for the job.

Again I will say it, to have an ad about the economy doesn't create instant substance. Has Obama's economic policies actually failed? No. They have not been a total rip roaring triumph, but we are in recovery mode. The recession is over.

That ad says nothing substantive. Thirty second ads never are, but that one is just hot air sound bites. If Romney was to just repeat what was in that ad in a debate, if that is all he had to say about why not to vote for Obama, Obama would wipe his clock in rebuttal. Because the ads says nothing except economy bad, Obama president while economy bad, vote for Romney.

The anti Romney ads, again, are relevant because, how many times must I repeat this, Romney was running on his track record at Bain.

And lets make a full circle. This discussion started because your claim it wasn't a fair fight, the Democrats were playing dirty and Romney wasn't. and you said the Bain ads kept using the word "weird.' I'll take your word for it, I didn't notice it, but it is clear to me now Romney's people had a memo that said use Obama and unamerican, or he doesn't understand America in the same sentence, and that is certainly nothing to be proud of either, and Romney was participating in that as well, and that makes it worse, as I don't believe Obama was using weird and Romney in the same sentence. Now Romney is not a dumb guy so he understood how to do it properly and not go too far, but some of his other people were not so skilled and they went over the top like Sununu and the advisor who wouldn't go on the record in London. So you want to say the Democrats perhaps were using class warfare, while Republicans can be accused of injecting racism. Oh, yes, the Republicans, and specifically Romney's campaign certainly has taken the high road while the Dems are dirty fighters. It is not even close you said. What isn't close at this point is who has had more success attacking, and that is because of inherent problems with Mitt Romney. Obama has been President for four years and people know him. Really, at this point reminding people Obama is not white and smoked pot, the people who have a problem with that didn't vote for him four years ago and never were going to vote for him. Personal attacks against an incumbent don't work very well unless you have something new.

Yoda

08-04-12, 12:07 PM

Let's go back eight years to get some perspective.
If we're going back in time, can we stop by a week ago so I can tell myself not to even try to have this conversation?

Remember George W?

Remember John Kerry?

John Kerry wanted to talk about Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, about if we were lied to about weapons of mass destruction, and other things focused on the Bush Administration.
Yup. Kerry ran a fairly substantive campaign, if I recall correctly.

And Bush and his supporters wanted to make Kerry the issue and he got swift boated, and questions were raised after he came back from the war what he said, and about his wife being so rich and why won't she release her tax returns, and we saw pictures of him falling off his snowboard which was used in ads against him.
Yeah, notice how you sneak "and his supporters" in there. If you use that same filter on the other side, you get all sorts of crazy crap Kerry's "supporters" were flinging at Bush and his otherwise substantive campaign probably gets fairly diluted.

The swift boat ads were not campaign ads. But you know what? They weren't substantive ads, anyway.

When you are the incumbent, your opponent wants to zero in on the record and show why it is flawed.

And the incumbent wants to make the challenger the focus, to show why he is not qualified for the job.
Yes, challengers tend to run more substantive campaigns in general. But that doesn't absolve the incumbents of actually defending themselves, and there are degrees to both. And there's another distinction between attacking your opponent's ideas and policies, and just attacking the person.

Again I will say it, to have an ad about the economy doesn't create instant substance.
For the purposes of classifying it as substantive or superficial, yeah, of course it does. It's talking about an inarguably meaningful issue. Whether or not you think it makes a good argument is another question. Superficial ads are ones where whether or not the argument is good hardly even matters, because it's focusing on pin-pricking some emotional nerve that doesn't directly relate to the business of the nation.

You can't tie the quality of the argument into the classification of substantive, because eventually you can make some kind of argument against almost any ad. So unless there's literally no such thing as a substantive ad, it's a pretty crappy way to classify them. An ad is substantive if it's about something that clearly matters and affects the electorate. It's superficial if it's about something that creates a sub-rational emotional response that is of dubious significance to the electorate. Thus, "your economic policies failed" is substantive. "You're rich" is not.

Also, you're all still basing this on just the one ad, right? Would we even still be having this conversation if the first one had happened to be a little less arguable? Because there's lots of others. I put that list together in, like, five minutes. There are lots more.

Has Obama's economic policies actually failed? No. They have not been a total rip roaring triumph, but we are in recovery mode. The recession is over.
Dude, if you want to shift from arguing about the structure of the campaign to arguing about the economy, I will gladly do that. Because I'm just gonna come out and tell you: the quote above just isn't defensible. Obama's economic policies are a failure by his own definition of failure. QED, ball game over. They're also a failure based on even a moderate understanding of how recoveries work. I mean, I thought they were a bad idea from the start, and even I'm surprised by how badly they've failed.

That ad says nothing substantive. Thirty second ads never are, but that one is just hot air sound bites. If Romney was to just repeat what was in that ad in a debate, if that is all he had to say about why not to vote for Obama, Obama would wipe his clock in rebuttal. Because the ads says nothing except economy bad, Obama president while economy bad, vote for Romney.
Okay, but this isn't a debate, it's an ad, so...this comparison is irrelevant.

The anti Romney ads, again, are relevant because, how many times must I repeat this, Romney was running on his track record at Bain.
You have to repeat it as many times as you refuse to read and internalize the response I keep giving, which is: making Bain some kind of campaign issue is fine. And there are a million ways to do it--some being a lot more substantive, and some being pretty damn superficial.

And lets make a full circle. This discussion started because your claim it wasn't a fair fight, the Democrats were playing dirty and Romney wasn't.
No, I claimed the attack was superficial and cynical and ignorant. They're allowed to do it and Romney should try to rebut it because that's how these things go. But as a voter, I'm annoyed by what passes for a campaign issue sometimes, and insulted by how entire campaigns can be based around creating stock emotional responses. There's a degree to which this always ends up bugging me, but it's been cranked up to 11 over the last couple of months, and I think it's sad.

So you want to say the Democrats perhaps were using class warfare
Perhaps? You think campaign ads based around Romney's bank accounts could possibly be called anything else?

while Republicans can be accused of injecting racism.
If you want to start reading into campaign language, it's not the "American" stuff being code for racism, and the "weird" stuff being code for class warfare...the highly paranoid interpretation would have the "weird" stuff being code for religious bigotry, because of Romney's Mormonism.

Frankly, I don't think either is true. I don't think there's subterranean racism or religious bigotry coming from the campaigns proper. I think Romney is stilted, so it's easy to make him seem out of touch and "weird," and I think Obama's playing down of personal initiative and government-centered solutions leave him open to accusations that he doesn't really get the American notion of free enterprise. But, as I keep saying, it matters whether or not this sort of "sizzle" has an accompanying steak. If Obama really does think little of entrepreneurship and business, that has major policy implications that effect all of us. If Romney really is weird...uh...so what? It's not clear that matters at all.

Now, where the "American" stuff crosses the line is in those one or two instances in which it's become more cultural. That's superficial. But like I keep saying, we're talking about degrees. If you're just trying to drag together one or two examples so you can try to pretend it's all a wash, then you can rationalize otherwise very different campaigns. But that'd be pretty intellectually dishonest.

Oh, yes, the Republicans, and specifically Romney's campaign certainly has taken the high road while the Dems are dirty fighters. It is not even close you said.
I said it's not even close that they're running a far more substantive campaign. And it isn't.

What isn't close at this point is who has had more success attacking, and that is because of inherent problems with Mitt Romney. Obama has been President for four years and people know him. Really, at this point reminding people Obama is not white and smoked pot, the people who have a problem with that didn't vote for him four years ago and never were going to vote for him. Personal attacks against an incumbent don't work very well unless you have something new.
Like the economy being in terrible shape despite spending trillions of dollars on saving it and the results not resembling what you said they would even a little? Does that count as something "new"?

Yoda

08-04-12, 12:23 PM

Serves me right for commenting without having read all these posts. From my cursory reading, it seemed to me like you were talking about the difference between substantive attacks and personal ones.
We are. But we're talking about the types of campaign's they're running, not trying to count up the many, many things that people with no real ties to either campaign are just saying about the election. That stuff's always a mess, and full of hateful nonsense in every direction.

A lot of these attacks, or questions, are very personal in nature, and not substantive. A lot of it is not coming from the Romney campaign, but some of it is. Sununu's comment, for one, and Romney and his surrogates repeatedly saying that Obama doesn't understand America, or it's greatness, etc.
Sununu's comment was careless, but clearly not sanctioned by the campaign, which is why he had to apologize for it almost immediately. I'm increasingly in the habit of ignoring this sort of one-day story. If some random, unelected Obama surrogate comes out tomorrow and says something vaguely insulting about Mormonism, and then apologizes the next day, trust me, I'm not going be in here complaining about it. A lot of people work very hard on these campaigns, and sometimes they go too far. If it's not too too far, if it's fairly rare, and if they apologize, then I don't care about it.

Putting the argument with Will to the side for a moment, since it sounds like it doesn't directly relate, what do you think about my previous comments?
I think some are more troubling than others, but I think you can find troubling things about the opinions of the electorate in every election. I don't know how closely you followed the 2004 election, but some of accusations being flung at Bush (not from the campaigns, thankfully) were horrendous. Nazi, war criminal, stole the election with the help of his father because he used to be in the CIA. I heard multiple people laughably suggest, after he was reelected, that there was no way Bush would step down after two terms. Seriously! They thought he was going to change the 22nd Amendment! When their preferred party is out of power, some people lose their damn minds.

Regarding the poll on Obama's religion, I think it's a little overblown, for a few reasons. First, it's a dramatic improvement; three times as many people thought he was a Christian as thought he was a Muslim, and the only reason the poll's headline even sounds bad is that a third of respondents just said they don't know. It's easy for you or I to forgot, I think, that other people don't follow this stuff as closely (and sometimes I think they're smarter for it), so I think this sort of answer is probably just that they recall hearing something about some controversy in the cultural periphery, so they just say they're not sure or don't know.

Also, we never lack for crazy poll results on political matters, and it's got nothing to do with race or party. There was a poll in 2011 that suggested half of Democrats thought Bush likely knew about 9/11 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/More_than_half_of_Democrats_believed_Bush_knew.html) before it happened. That's a way more serious accusation than "I'm not sure I know your religion." Do you found this equally as "troubling" and "insidious"? Can't be about race, so what hateful bigotry is driving it?

I do agree with you that talking about Obama's economic policies not having worked is substantive in nature, while talking about Romney's personal finances is less so. At the same time, if the way Romney conducts his personal finances is indicative of what he would like to continue to do as President, and is indicative of the kinds of policies he would seek to further, than I think that is substantive, so on the surface, I think you have a good point, though I do think there is a way to connect these things about Romney personally with his broader policies.
Well, how would that work? That he's going to move the National Mint to the Cayman Islands? He's going to outsource his cabinet?

AKA23

08-04-12, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by AKA23
Putting the argument with Will to the side for a moment, since it sounds like it doesn't directly relate, what do you think about my previous comments?
I think some are more troubling than others, but I think you can find troubling things about the opinions of the electorate in every election. I don't know how closely you followed the 2004 election, but some of accusations being flung at Bush (not from the campaigns, thankfully) were horrendous. Nazi, war criminal, stole the election with the help of his father because he used to be in the CIA. I heard multiple people laughably suggest, after he was reelected, that there was no way Bush would step down after two terms. Seriously! They thought he was going to change the 22nd Amendment! When their preferred party is out of power, some people lose their damn minds.

I followed the campaign pretty closely, and I don't remember anyone ever suggesting Bush wouldn't step down after two terms. Who did you heard this from? Do you have a link to this? I find this hard to believe. As for being a Nazi, I do remember that, and I thought it was ridiculous at the time.

Regarding the poll on Obama's religion, I think it's a little overblown, for a few reasons. First, it's a dramatic improvement; three times as many people thought he was a Christian as thought he was a Muslim, and the only reason the poll's headline even sounds bad is that a third of respondents just said they don't know. It's easy for you or I to forgot, I think, that other people don't follow this stuff as closely (and sometimes I think they're smarter for it), so I think this sort of answer is probably just that they recall hearing something about some controversy in the cultural periphery, so they just say they're not sure or don't know.

It's troubling for many reasons. The fact that this perception is out there, and Obama continuously denies he's a Muslim, makes it seem like there's something wrong with being Muslim. Last time I checked, there were a billion Muslims in the world. Being a Muslim should not be mocked or used as a pejorative. The overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support what happened on 9/11, and are not terrorists. We are supposed to be a free country, and believe in democracy and human rights, but apparently that goes out the window when you're Muslim. You can't build a community center in New York City, or Tennessee. You're accused of allying against America and covertly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (Huma Abedin). This is very troubling stuff, and totally contrary to the values and principles our country was founded upon. Was there ever any other President who had their religion questioned in this fashion? I don't think so. The closest was Kennedy, but even that was nothing like this, and once Kennedy became President, the issue went away. This hasn't happened with Obama.

I think you're giving a lot of these people way too much credit. What about Donald Trump? Is he an idiot? He's a billionaire. Why does he keep peddling the nonsense that Obama was not born in the United States? He's a high-profile Romney surrogate. Does he get a free pass? Surely he's smart enough to know that this is nonsense, so why is he doing it, if not to appeal to closet racists, and why is Romney allowing him to do it?

Also, we never lack for crazy poll results on political matters, and it's got nothing to do with race or party. There was a poll in 2011 that suggested half of Democrats thought Bush likely knew about 9/11 before it happened. That's a way more serious accusation than "I'm not sure I know your religion." Do you found this equally as "troubling" and "insidious"? Can't be about race, so what hateful bigotry is driving it?

Yes, I think it is very troubling. There's no evidence that President Bush knew about 9/11, but this is not without precedent. Many believe Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened and allowed it to happen so that it could be used as a pretext to enter WWII. Do I believe that? No. As for what is driving it, I suspect it is due to Bush invading Iraq, which ended up killing more than a hundred thousand people, and destabilizing an entire society, on the basis of faulty intelligence, which never ended up materializing. I'd suspect that Bush is a Nazi is a proxy for Bush falsely invaded another country. The invasion resulted in tens of thousands of innocent people dying, if not more. This invasion accomplished no useful purpose. Calling Bush a war criminal is simply punchier. In addition, the fact that President Bush used the tragedy of 9/11 as part of his rationale for going to war also feeds into this narrative. He wanted 9/11 to happen so that he could use it as a pretext for his ridiculously naive foreign policy vision. Do I believe this? No, but I suspect that is what drove this rhetoric.

Originally Posted by AKA23
I do agree with you that talking about Obama's economic policies not having worked is substantive in nature, while talking about Romney's personal finances is less so. At the same time, if the way Romney conducts his personal finances is indicative of what he would like to continue to do as President, and is indicative of the kinds of policies he would seek to further, than I think that is substantive, so on the surface, I think you have a good point, though I do think there is a way to connect these things about Romney personally with his broader policies.
Well, how would that work? That he's going to move the National Mint to the Cayman Islands? He's going to outsource his cabinet?

If as President Romney is not going to crack down on these loopholes, and eliminate them from the tax code, and instead is going to cut these people's taxes even further, while at the same time cutting benefits to Social Security and Medicare, further increasing the burden of middle class families, that becomes relevant. The way he acts personally may be indicative of the types of policies he seeks to implement as President.

On the economic argument, you're again giving these people way too much credit. Clinton had exactly the same economic policies as Obama. He tried to push through a significantly more liberal healthcare reform bill. He raised taxes substantially on the wealthy, which despite his rhetoric, Obama has never actually done. Yet, I didn't recall hearing that Clinton didn't understand the greatness of America, didn't believe in American exceptionalism, and needed to learn how to be an American. I also don't recall a sitting member of Congress shouting "you lie" to Clinton during his State of the Union address. This stuff is new. This stuff is troubling, and this stuff shows a disrespect for Obama and the Office of the President that goes far beyond what we have seen before. Why do you think this is happening? And, if this is all about Obama's policies, why wasn't any of this stuff said about Clinton?

Yoda

08-04-12, 02:07 PM

I followed the campaign pretty closely, and I don't remember anyone ever suggesting Bush wouldn't step down after two terms. Who did you heard this from? Do you have a link to this? I find this hard to believe. As for being a Nazi, I do remember that, and I thought it was ridiculous at the time.
No, there's no link because I'm not talking about campaign surrogates or politicians or pundits, just people I literally talked to myself. The first time I just sort of chuckled, but then it came up several more times, and I realized "wow, some people actually believe this." I also heard a lot of people imply that Bush could catch Bin Laden whenever he wanted and was going to wait until right before the election.

The point being that, once you start talking about what random people believe, rather than the campaigns themselves, you'll always hear some pretty absurd stuff.

It's troubling for many reasons. The fact that this perception is out there, and Obama continuously denies he's a Muslim, makes it seem like there's something wrong with being Muslim. Last time I checked, there were a billion Muslims in the world. Being a Muslim should not be mocked or used as a pejorative. The overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support what happened on 9/11, and are not terrorists. We are supposed to be a free country, and believe in democracy and human rights, but apparently that goes out the window when you're Muslim. You can't build a community center in New York City, or Tennessee. You're accused of allying against America and covertly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (Huma Abedin). This is very troubling stuff, and totally contrary to the values and principles our country was founded upon. Was there ever any other President who had their religion questioned in this fashion? I don't think so. The closest was Kennedy, but even that was nothing like this, and once Kennedy became President, the issue went away. This hasn't happened with Obama.
The stuff with Huma is ugly and stupid, and if you look around, I think you'll notice that almost everybody is calling it ugly and stupid. It's important not to confuse coverage with breadth of belief. These things get coverage precisely because they're absurd, not because scads of people believe them.

As for religion; have you noticed certain Evangelical leaders calling Mormonism a "cult"? How about jokes about Mitt Romney's "magic underwear"? Lots of low-key teasing about how he must be boring and hate dancing because he's a Mormon, too. Plenty of mockery and pejoratives being thrown around there, and you don't even have to look beyond this election to find it.

People like to play the "was there any other President who X?" when trying to subtly imply that racism must explain it, but it's not really meaningful to ask if other Presidents have had this exact thing questioned. Many of them had something questioned that was unique to them. Bush had his legitimacy questioned all the time. Whoever the President is, and find cheap ways to try to question their legitimacy. This is a standard thing now. Only the "how" of it varies.

I think you're giving a lot of these people way too much credit. What about Donald Trump? Is he an idiot? He's a billionaire. Why does he keep peddling the nonsense that Obama was not born in the United States? He's a high-profile Romney surrogate. Does he get a free pass? Surely he's smart enough to know that this is nonsense, so why is he doing it, if not to appeal to closet racists, and why is Romney allowing him to do it?
"High-profile Romney surrogate"? I don't think he's even a surrogate, period. I don't think the campaign has once sent him to actually speak for them anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

And of course Donald Trump's an idiot. The fact that he's rich is why he gets away with it. As for why he's peddling this stuff: because he's an attention whore who'll do anything to promote himself. The guy pretended he was going to run for President for press coverage. He's a tool.

Yes, I think it is very troubling. There's no evidence that President Bush knew about 9/11, but this is not without precedent. Many believe Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened and allowed it to happen so that it could be used as a pretext to enter WWII. Do I believe that? No. As for what is driving it, I suspect it is due to Bush invading Iraq, which ended up killing more than a hundred thousand people, and destabilizing an entire society, on the basis of faulty intelligence, which never ended up materializing. I'd suspect that Bush is a Nazi is a proxy for Bush falsely invaded another country. The invasion resulted in tens of thousands of innocent people dying, if not more. This invasion accomplished no useful purpose. War criminal is simply punchier.
Your FDR example is perfect, because I think people believe that politics have gotten uglier or more cynical, etc. In a few ways this may be true, but Presidents have always had to put up with this stuff. Hell, there are even Eisehower birthers (https://www.google.com/search?q=eisenwhoer+birther&sugexp=chrome,mod=16&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=qlUdUJy-H5C30QHunIBA&ved=0CF8QvwUoAQ&q=eisenhower+birther&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=d4ac6612764e998&biw=1336&bih=882)!

If you want to guess that some of these Bush poll answers are just proxies for "I don't like Bush," you know what? I think that's totally plausible. But it's also plausible that a lot of the Obama stuff is just a proxy for "I don't like Obama."

If as President Romney is not going to crack down on these loopholes, and eliminate them from the tax code, and instead is going to cut these people's taxes even further, while at the same time cutting benefits to Social Security and Medicare, further increasing the burden of middle class families, that becomes relevant. The way he acts personally may be indicative of the types of policies he seeks to implement as President.
Well, you switched from talking about how his personal bank accounts are relevant to suddenly just talking about his economic policies in general, but the whole argument, you'll remember, was about whether or not the two had any connection to one another.

Re: "loopholes." I don't want to presume here, but...the overwhelming majority of the people who talk about corporate loopholes do not understand them, and usually end up referring to standard business deductions which, if removed, would have pretty far-reaching implications. We can get into this more if you'd like, but you'll have to get a whole lot more specific first. But words like "loopholes" and "subsidies" are usually used specifically because they're nice and vague. When we actually start talking about what to eliminate, it looks pretty different.

On the economic argument, you're again giving these people way too much credit. Clinton had exactly the same economic policies as Obama.
He did? Clinton cut capital gains taxes, reformed welfare (something Obama's partially undone recently, by the way), and kept spending at hugely lower levels than it is now. Their economic policies are wildly different. Every time someone (like Obama, in fact) argues about returning tax rates to Clinton era levels, ask them if they're willing to return to Clinton era spending, too. Most of them are already on record as calling cuts that wouldn't even get us to Clinton level spending as horribly draconian.

He raised taxes substantially on the wealthy, which despite his rhetoric, Obama has never actually done.
When was this? He raised taxes across the board, actually, including on the middle class (contrary to a campaign issue). He did this early on, in 1993. The huge boom at the end of his Presidency remarkably coincides with his 1997 legislation that cut capital gains, increased the estate tax exemption cap, credited a new child tax credit, and established IRAs. He was an economic moderate. Whether or not he was because he wanted to be, or because he thought he had to compromise, I don't know. But the actual policies were moderate.

Yet, I didn't recall hearing that Clinton didn't understand the greatness of America, didn't believe in American exceptionalism, and needed to learn how to be an American. I also don't recall a sitting member of Congress shouting "you lie" to Clinton during his State of the Union address. This stuff is new. This stuff is troubling, and this stuff shows a disrespect for Obama and the Office of the President that goes far beyond what we have seen before. Why do you think this is happening? And, if this is all about Obama's policies, why wasn't any of this stuff said about Clinton?
Because the ugly stuff said about any President has to play into existing stereotypes about them. With Clinton, it's that he was corrupt and sleazy and would lie to you. With Bush, it's that he was an evil puppet whose cronies steal elections. With Obama, it's that he's not really "one of us" because he was raised partially in other cultures and his father was foreign. These are different in method because personal attacks aren't effective if they're not tailored to the parts of each individual's history that are easy to exploit.

I think the idea that Obama gets some extra criticism is a very historically narrow view. He gets the same as every President, and like every President, it's tailored to him, specifically.

will.15

08-04-12, 02:12 PM

If we're going back in time, can we stop by a week ago so I can tell myself not to even try to have this conversation?

Yup. Kerry ran a fairly substantive campaign, if I recall correctly.

Yeah, notice how you sneak "and his supporters" in there. If you use that same filter on the other side, you get all sorts of crazy crap Kerry's "supporters" were flinging at Bush and his otherwise substantive campaign probably gets fairly diluted.

The swift boat ads were not campaign ads. But you know what? They weren't substantive ads, anyway.

The swift boat ads were campaign ads, but not directly from Bush. The other issues being raised I mentioned did come out of the Bush camp. I mixed them all together because you have been mixng them together. Harry Reid has nothing to do with the Obama campaign. He doesn't take marching orders from them. You made another recent crack about they are talking about Romney's horse. Well, Obama and his people are not talking about it. But another of those action committees says they are going to do ads making fun of it. And so on. You sure like to have it both ways. If it is eight years ago, make distinctions about what is coming from what camp. When it's a Republican instead of a Democrat, lump the attacks altogether. Was that ad you posted even a Romney ad? I didn't hear him say he approved the message.You weren't talking just about ads, but the general chatter, and eight years ago it got mighty personal against John Kerry and most of it came directly from Bush's people, Now Bush personally didn't mix it up too much, it is true, but he let his surrogates, his own people, do it plenty.

Yes, challengers tend to run more substantive campaigns in general. But that doesn't absolve the incumbents of actually defending themselves, and there are degrees to both. And there's another distinction between attacking your opponent's ideas and policies, and just attacking the person.

Again, you want to define what is personal and what isn't. Apparently, you think if a displaced Bain worker uses "weird" in a sentence that is getting personal. But if Romney himself keeps using sentences that keeps questioning Obama's Americanism, and his aides even get more overt about it, that isn't personal.

For the purposes of classifying it as substantive or superficial, yeah, of course it does. It's talking about an unarguably meaningful issue. Whether or not you think it makes a good argument is another question. Superficial ads are ones where whether or not the argument is good hardly even matters, because it's focusing on pin-pricking some emotional nerve that doesn't directly relate to the business of the nation.

And the Bain ads are taking about something substantive as well.

You can't tie the quality of the argument into the classification of substantive, because eventually you can make some kind of argument against almost any ad. So unless there's literally no such thing as a substantive ad, it's a pretty crappy way to classify them. An ad is substantive if it's about something that clearly matters and affects the electorate. It's superficial if it's about something that creates a sub-rational emotional response that is of dubious significance to the electorate. Thus, "your economic policies failed" is substantive. "You're rich" is not.

I said that, there is no such thing as a substantive ad. But let us use your definition. Romney is rich. He admits he is rich. He has been bragging he is rich. Nothing being wrong with being rich. He made most of his fortune at Bain. He was making his case that his experience at Bain was why he should be president. He knows how to create jobs. He did that at Bain. So ads that highlight what he did at Bain are substantive by your definition.

Also, you're all still basing this on just the one ad, right? Would we even still be having this conversation if the first one had happened to be a little less arguable? Because there's lots of others. I put that list together in, like, five minutes. There are lots more.

I have no intention watching a bunch of political ads. You know why I watched the first one? Because it was the first one. You said it was substantive so I assumed it was pretty much like the rest.

Dude, if you want to shift from arguing about the structure of the campaign to arguing about the economy, I will gladly do that. Because I'm just gonna come out and tell you: the quote above just isn't defensible. Obama's economic policies are a failure by his own definition of failure. QED, ball game over. They're also a failure based on even a moderate understanding of how recoveries work. I mean, I thought they were a bad idea from the start, and even I'm surprised by how badly they've failed.

No, they are not. That is not how you define failure. Failure would mean total failure, they had nothing to do with the current recovery and you can't prove that is the case, It is quite possible for us to still be in recession, to not be in recovery mode.

Okay, but this isn't a debate, it's an ad, so...this comparison is irrelevant.

If it isn't saying something that wouldn't be effective in a debate then it isn't substantive.

You have to repeat it as many times as you refuse to read and internalize the response I keep giving, which is: making Bain some kind of campaign issue is fine. And there are a million ways to do it--some being a lot more substantive, and some being pretty damn superficial.

You say they are superficial because of your ideological prism. Republicans for the most part felt that way when Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich made Bain an issue in the primary. But now the target is independents and they see things differently. Polls show they have been key to Romney losing support there. But that is today. They may decide in November it isn't as important to them. If it is superficial, why are they so effective? That is what the entire election is about. Who do you want running the country? You can say Obama is a failed president. And the other side can say Romney would be worse.

No, I claimed the attack was superficial and cynical and ignorant. They're allowed to do it and Romney should try to rebut it because that's how these things go. But as a voter, I'm annoyed by what passes for a campaign issue sometimes, and insulted by how entire campaigns can be based around creating stock emotional responses. There's a degree to which this always ends up bugging me, but it's been cranked up to 11 over the last couple of months, and I think it's sad.

Yes, it makes you sad when a president you don't like who should by most reasoning be down in the polls because of the bad economic numbers is currently pulling ahead of a terribly weak Republican candidate. But Democrats have had weak ones, too. I suspect the Bush campaign against Kerry didn't leave you sad.

Perhaps? You think campaign ads based around Romney's bank accounts could possibly be called anything else?

Yeah, I think having your money in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland to avoid taxes is a legitimate issue.

If you want to start reading into campaign language, it's not the "American" stuff being code for racism, and the "weird" stuff being code for class warfare...the highly paranoid interpretation would have the "weird" stuff being code for religious bigotry, because of Romney's Mormonism.

You are the one who made a big deal out of the word weird.

Frankly, I don't think either is true. I don't think there's subterranean racism or religious bigotry coming from the campaigns proper. I think Romney is stilted, so it's easy to make him seem out of touch and "weird," and I think Obama's playing down of personal initiative and government-centered solutions leave him open to accusations that he doesn't really get the American notion of free enterprise. But, as I keep saying, it matters whether or not this sort of "sizzle" has an accompanying steak. If Obama really does think little of entrepreneurship and business, that has major policy implications that effect all of us. If Romney really is weird...uh...so what? It's not clear that matters at all.

Well, weird in the context of the actual ads were about Romney is out-of-touch with ordinary Americans, he doesn't care about them, didn't care or understand how his decisions affected them. That is what they meant by weird, he didn't get it, it was weird.

Now, where the "American" stuff crosses the line is in those one or two instances in which it's become more cultural. That's superficial. But like I keep saying, we're talking about degrees. If you're just trying to drag together one or two examples so you can try to pretend it's all a wash, then you can rationalize otherwise very different campaigns. But that'd be pretty intellectually dishonest.

Yes, we are talking about degrees. And using weird in the bland way you cited doesn't have the deeper connotation you mentioned either, that Romney is a weird guy. That was you reading into it. Was it subtly meant to suggest to people Romney comes across as a weird guy? Maybe. And the same is true for repeated use of questioning Obama's understanding basic America values was code for he has a different color than us.

I said it's not even close that they're running a far more substantive campaign. And it isn't.

Because Romney wants to remind people the economy sucks and Obama wants to talk about Bain.

But where is Romney's solutions to these problems in these ads? What is his vison? Doesn't sound substantive to me at all.

Like the economy being in terrible shape despite spending trillions of dollars on saving it and the results not resembling what you said they would even a little? Does that count as something "new"?
Well, that is a better worded argument than what you said earlier. And he has an ad that specifically says that? The proper arena for thrashing this out are debates and not thirty second ads. Did you ever vote for an initiative based entirely on the ads or did you read the voter information that came through the mail first? Because those ads distort and lie to the point it is often impossible by just watching them to understand what the initiative is even about.

Yoda

08-05-12, 02:10 PM

The swift boat ads were campaign ads, but not directly from Bush.
The argument is about running substantive campaigns. That only includes things the campaigns control.

The other issues being raised I mentioned did come out of the Bush camp. I mixed them all together because you have been mixng them together. Harry Reid has nothing to do with the Obama campaign. He doesn't take marching orders from them. You made another recent crack about they are talking about Romney's horse. Well, Obama and his people are not talking about it. But another of those action committees says they are going to do ads making fun of it. And so on. You sure like to have it both ways. If it is eight years ago, make distinctions about what is coming from what camp. When it's a Republican instead of a Democrat, lump the attacks altogether. Was that ad you posted even a Romney ad? I didn't hear him say he approved the message.You weren't talking just about ads, but the general chatter, and eight years ago it got mighty personal against John Kerry and most of it came directly from Bush's people, Now Bush personally didn't mix it up too much, it is true, but he let his surrogates, his own people, do it plenty.
My comments about Harry Reid are not doubling as accusations about the campaign. They're just comments about Harry Reid and how frivolous the campaign season in general has been. Ditto for the horse comment. In addition to this, I'm saying the campaign itself hasn't been very substantive. Two different claims. They get mentioned together because they're two examples of a similar problem, not because I'm treating Reid as part of the campaign.

Again, you want to define what is personal and what isn't. Apparently, you think if a displaced Bain worker uses "weird" in a sentence that is getting personal. But if Romney himself keeps using sentences that keeps questioning Obama's Americanism, and his aides even get more overt about it, that isn't personal.
Er, no. The weird stuff is sort of personal, and the Americanism stuff is sort of personal. I mentioned the weird stuff off-handedly, but you seem to think it comprises the core of my argument.

And the Bain ads are taking about something substantive as well.
I don't think workers saying "Romney just likes to make money" is a substantive ad. I don't think "Romney has an account in the Cayman Islands" is substantive. I'm not sure how someone could pretend they are. Maybe there's some convoluted way you can try to tie it back to his policies...but they don't even try. They just state these things, and then the ad's over. There isn't even a clumsy token effort to explain how it apparently informs his policy proposals. If you can somehow convince yourself that that's substantive, then there's nothing to talk about here, because that's insane.

I said that, there is no such thing as a substantive ad. But let us use your definition. Romney is rich. He admits he is rich. He has been bragging he is rich. Nothing being wrong with being rich. He made most of his fortune at Bain. He was making his case that his experience at Bain was why he should be president. He knows how to create jobs. He did that at Bain. So ads that highlight what he did at Bain are substantive by your definition.
If they take on his actual claims about policy, perhaps. Not if they have random people who speculate as to his psychological state and personality. Not if they make absolutely no effort to tie it to anything he might do as President.

I have no intention watching a bunch of political ads. You know why I watched the first one? Because it was the first one. You said it was substantive so I assumed it was pretty much like the rest.
Well, it is, but the others are more direct and less easy to niggle over. But if you're writing off all ads as inherently insubstantive,

No, they are not. That is not how you define failure. Failure would mean total failure, they had nothing to do with the current recovery and you can't prove that is the case, It is quite possible for us to still be in recession, to not be in recovery mode.
The only failure is "total" failure? The policy is automatically a success because we're not technically in a recession? What a ridiculous low bar. You don't even factor cost into it? If we'd spent $5 trillion instead of $1 trillion, would that still not be a failure? How about $20 trillion? Your definition of "failure" is hopelessly myopic. And, hilariously, it's at odds with the President's own stipulation of what his policies were supposed to achieve. So you're positing a definition of success/failure that the President himself contradicts, and which somehow claims, with a straight face, that cost somehow doesn't even factor into it.

If it isn't saying something that wouldn't be effective in a debate then it isn't substantive.
Like I said, this means you think there's no such thing as a substantive ad. Which is a pretty meaningless statement, because all that means is that we have to judge ads by a different measure: is it more or less substantive for an ad? It should be really obvious that when you call an ad substantive, you're judging it against the medium it exists in. So once again we run around in circles because you want to argue some weirdly obtuse or overly literal definition rather than what is plainly meant by the claim. This is exactly why I keep asking you direct questions, to head off this sort of pointlessness. If you're going to be insanely pedantic, then I'll amend the argument to this: relative to how these things usually are, Romney is running a much more substantive campaign than Obama.

You say they are superficial because of your ideological prism. Republicans for the most part felt that way when Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich made Bain an issue in the primary.
Republicans fought among themselves tremendously when Perry and Gingrich did that. I recall at least one of them having to walk it back. Republicans weren't fine with it then. I sure wasn't.

If it is superficial, why are they so effective?
Uh, because sometimes superficial attacks work anyway. This is plainly obvious and we've already established it. So the question makes no sense.

You might remember I ran through this exact conversation earlier, too. That's because it's become really easy to spot the actual points of disagreement and the assumptions you're operating under very early in most of these discussions. So I ask direct questions and try to establish terms early on, to avoid wasting time and getting sucked into some pedantic circle. Which is why it'd probably be best if you sometimes answered those questions. Because when you don't, we end up with situations like this, where after 20 posts, you're still implying that every campaign tactic that is effective is automatically deemed not superficial.

Yes, it makes you sad when a president you don't like who should by most reasoning be down in the polls because of the bad economic numbers is currently pulling ahead of a terribly weak Republican candidate. But Democrats have had weak ones, too. I suspect the Bush campaign against Kerry didn't leave you sad.
Parts of it did. The parts that weren't substantive, mainly. Thankfully, that campaign had a much healthier mix of substantive ads to superficial ones.

Yeah, I think having your money in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland to avoid taxes is a legitimate issue.
That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not it's an example of "class warfare" to make an ad about that and basically nothing else.

You are the one who made a big deal out of the word weird.
Uh, yeah, here's me making a "big deal" of it:

"They're trying to portray him as weird and rich."

That's what I said that sparked all of this. Boy, looking back, I'm really ashamed that I let my emotions explode and made such a big deal of the issue by, er...mentioning it.

Because Romney wants to remind people the economy sucks and Obama wants to talk about Bain.
Yup, that's the "because." And the result of that "because" is one candidate talking a whole hell of a lot more about ideas and policies than the other. I'm not sure what you think this sentence is supposed to argue with.

But where is Romney's solutions to these problems in these ads? What is his vison? Doesn't sound substantive to me at all.
Oh, there are perfectly valid critiques of the Romney campaign. Some I would argue, and some I would agree with. But you seem to be making the mistake of thinking you can just swap them in and out. Romney's running a more substantive campaign. That's the claim. I don't think it's a seriously arguable claim. It doesn't mean you have to vote for him, and it doesn't mean there aren't other things you can criticize him for. It means exactly what it says. You can't argue with something else about Romney and then pretend that you can use that as an argument for some other claim. That's called changing the subject, and I'd notice you were doing it even if you were way, way defter at it.

Well, that is a better worded argument than what you said earlier. And he has an ad that specifically says that?
The second and third specifically contrast his claims about the stimulus "working" with economic statistics that illustrate how bad it is. The fifth is about what the stimulus was spent on. I can find more, I only spent a few minutes finding those ones, but almost all of Romney's ads are about contrasting Obama's rhetoric with the dire economic statistics.

The proper arena for thrashing this out are debates and not thirty second ads. Did you ever vote for an initiative based entirely on the ads or did you read the voter information that came through the mail first? Because those ads distort and lie to the point it is often impossible by just watching them to understand what the initiative is even about.
They sure can. But you're trying to pretend there's no such thing as a more or less substantive ad. They're all pretty superficial compared to an hour-long debate, but that's not a good comparison. A good comparison is how substantive it is compared to other ads, and compared to the limitations of the medium. This is why I'm not accusing any ads of being superficial based on merely being simplistic. I expect that. But I also expect them to be about things that matter, not things that are of dubious or indirect significance even if they're true.

will.15

08-05-12, 04:56 PM

The argument is about running substantive campaigns. That only includes things the campaigns control.

My comments about Harry Reid are not doubling as accusations about the campaign. They're just comments about Harry Reid and how frivolous the campaign season in general has been. Ditto for the horse comment. In addition to this, I'm saying the campaign itself hasn't been very substantive. Two different claims. They get mentioned together because they're two examples of a similar problem, not because I'm treating Reid as part of the campaign.

Er, no. The weird stuff is sort of personal, and the Americanism stuff is sort of personal. I mentioned the weird stuff off-handedly, but you seem to think it comprises the core of my argument.

I don't think workers saying "Romney just likes to make money" is a substantive ad. I don't think "Romney has an account in the Cayman Islands" is substantive. I'm not sure how someone could pretend they are. Maybe there's some convoluted way you can try to tie it back to his policies...but they don't even try. They just state these things, and then the ad's over. There isn't even a clumsy token effort to explain how it apparently informs his policy proposals. If you can somehow convince yourself that that's substantive, then there's nothing to talk about here, because that's insane.

If they take on his actual claims about policy, perhaps. Not if they have random people who speculate as to his psychological state and personality. Not if they make absolutely no effort to tie it to anything he might do as President.

Well, it is, but the others are more direct and less easy to niggle over. But if you're writing off all ads as inherently insubstantive,

The only failure is "total" failure? The policy is automatically a success because we're not technically in a recession? What a ridiculous low bar. You don't even factor cost into it? If we'd spent $5 trillion instead of $1 trillion, would that still not be a failure? How about $20 trillion? Your definition of "failure" is hopelessly myopic. And, hilariously, it's at odds with the President's own stipulation of what his policies were supposed to achieve. So you're positing a definition of success/failure that the President himself contradicts, and which somehow claims, with a straight face, that cost somehow doesn't even factor into it.

Like I said, this means you think there's no such thing as a substantive ad. Which is a pretty meaningless statement, because all that means is that we have to judge ads by a different measure: is it more or less substantive for an ad? It should be really obvious that when you call an ad substantive, you're judging it against the medium it exists in. So once again we run around in circles because you want to argue some weirdly obtuse or overly literal definition rather than what is plainly meant by the claim. This is exactly why I keep asking you direct questions, to head off this sort of pointlessness. If you're going to be insanely pedantic, then I'll amend the argument to this: relative to how these things usually are, Romney is running a much more substantive campaign than Obama.

Republicans fought among themselves tremendously when Perry and Gingrich did that. I recall at least one of them having to walk it back. Republicans weren't fine with it then. I sure wasn't.

Uh, because sometimes superficial attacks work anyway. This is plainly obvious and we've already established it. So the question makes no sense.

You might remember I ran through this exact conversation earlier, too. That's because it's become really easy to spot the actual points of disagreement and the assumptions you're operating under very early in most of these discussions. So I ask direct questions and try to establish terms early on, to avoid wasting time and getting sucked into some pedantic circle. Which is why it'd probably be best if you sometimes answered those questions. Because when you don't, we end up with situations like this, where after 20 posts, you're still implying that every campaign tactic that is effective is automatically deemed not superficial.

Parts of it did. The parts that weren't substantive, mainly. Thankfully, that campaign had a much healthier mix of substantive ads to superficial ones.

That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not it's an example of "class warfare" to make an ad about that and basically nothing else.

Uh, yeah, here's me making a "big deal" of it:
"They're trying to portray him as weird and rich."
That's what I said that sparked all of this. Boy, looking back, I'm really ashamed that I let my emotions explode and made such a big deal of the issue by, er...mentioning it.

Yup, that's the "because." And the result of that "because" is one candidate talking a whole hell of a lot more about ideas and policies than the other. I'm not sure what you think this sentence is supposed to argue with.

Oh, there are perfectly valid critiques of the Romney campaign. Some I would argue, and some I would agree with. But you seem to be making the mistake of thinking you can just swap them in and out. Romney's running a more substantive campaign. That's the claim. I don't think it's a seriously arguable claim. It doesn't mean you have to vote for him, and it doesn't mean there aren't other things you can criticize him for. It means exactly what it says. You can't argue with something else about Romney and then pretend that you can use that as an argument for some other claim. That's called changing the subject, and I'd notice you were doing it even if you were way, way defter at it.

The second and third specifically contrast his claims about the stimulus "working" with economic statistics that illustrate how bad it is. The fifth is about what the stimulus was spent on. I can find more, I only spent a few minutes finding those ones, but almost all of Romney's ads are about contrasting Obama's rhetoric with the dire economic statistics.

They sure can. But you're trying to pretend there's no such thing as a more or less substantive ad. They're all pretty superficial compared to an hour-long debate, but that's not a good comparison. A good comparison is how substantive it is compared to other ads, and compared to the limitations of the medium. This is why I'm not accusing any ads of being superficial based on merely being simplistic. I expect that. But I also expect them to be about things that matter, not things that are of dubious or indirect significance even if they're true.
The way you have mixed the two, complaining about the overall tone of the campaign and putting it all on the Democrats, it is impossible in reading your comments to see that you were making a meaningful distinction between who said what, and what was officially from Obama and elsewhere. Well, if you focus just what comes directly out of the Obama camp, i don't see that it is particularly personal. For every Obama surrogate that went too far, accusing Romney of committing a felony, we have Romney people making racist comments. As for having his money in foreign countries to avoid taxes, no politician I am aware of has tax returns that show that, certainly none that ran for president. It isn't class warfare to bring that up and criticize that. He isn't the only rich man to run for President. He is the only one with a Swiss bank account.

Your comments about the uses of weird wasn't a throwaway line. You wrote about it at length and seemed to think it was a terrible thing.Maybe now it has been pointed out the same word game was played by Romney people against Obama you are not so upset about it. Romney's character is also an issue, not just specific policy issues, and bringing it up in the proper way is legitimate.

will.15

08-05-12, 06:37 PM

And are you forgetting about how Mitt Romney slowed down Newt Gingrich's momentum? Personal attacks, not a discussion of policy differences. And it was certainly much nastier than the Obama ads against Romney.

FILMFREAK087

08-05-12, 09:09 PM

I like how people say that the Occupy movement didn't have a unifying message (breaking up the too big to fail banks and greater regulation on the markets, pretty simple really). Although I will say their means of executing these goals were less than great. when the Tea Party's message consisted of "keeping your government hands off my Medicare," Stopping socialized healthcare (which requires you to buy private insurance, which is inherently not Socialist but ironically Medicare is a social program) and complaining about corporate jet taxes. Don't get me wrong, as a Socialist I believe in a public option, but forcing people to buy insurance from for-profit entities doesn't really solve the problem of people getting the care they need. I'm not voting for Obama, his policies are generally corporate give-backs and coddling. I'm actually voting for a candidate I agree with, on the Socialist ticket. He won't win, but at least I'm sure he won't cow-tow to big business interests because of that.

will.15

08-05-12, 09:39 PM

will.15

08-06-12, 02:46 AM

July 29, 2012 09:00 AM How Uncle Sam Helped Mitt Romney Build His Fortune (http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/how-uncle-sam-helped-romney-build-his-fortune)

By Jon Perr

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/07/romney_build.jpg
At events across the country, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign is trying to convince voters that small business owners in fact build the roads and bridges (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-romney-obama-spar-over-you-didnt-build-that-small-businesses-add-context/2012/07/25/gJQA6IN79W_story.html) they use every day. Unfortunately, Romney's "We Did Build It" gatherings (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-camp-continues-you-didnt-build-that-attacks-with-swing-state-events/) have hit some potholes, with many participants revealed to be the recipients of government contracts and subsidies (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/25/584751/romneys-we-did-build-this-events-feature-businesses-built-with-government-subsidies-and-contracts/) and others unaware of the full context of President Obama's selectively edited remarks (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/romney-campaign-has) now under attack.
But Mitt Romney has another, much larger problem with his baseless contention (http://washingtonexaminer.com/romney-takes-you-didnt-build-that-to-nevada/article/2503193) that President Obama is "insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America." Because on his road to becoming a $250 million captain of private equity at Bain Capital, Mitt Romney had a lot of help from his uncle. Uncle Sam, that is. As it turns out, the U.S. tax code doesn't merely allow Romney to pay a lower rate than many middle class families. Without the public subsidy (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/private-equity-s-public-subsidy-is-a-tragedy-william-d-cohan.html) that is the corporate debt interest deduction (http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/MSUN-8QYU57?OpenDocument), there might not be a Bain Capital--or a private equity industry as we know it--at all.
Private equity owes its success in no small part to that uniquely American provision of the corporate tax code. The New York Times (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/for-corporations-u-s-tax-code-adds-to-debts-appeal/) recently helped explain why:
Companies can finance investment from either debt or equity. Companies can finance investment from either debt or equity. But profit on an investment financed with equity -- stock issued by the company -- is taxed. In contrast, if the project is financed with debt, then only the profit after interest payments are made is taxed. This means debt-financed investments are cheaper than equity.
And not just a little cheaper. As the Treasury Department (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf) recently explained, "The effective corporate marginal tax rate on new equity-financed investment in equipment is 37 percent in the United States. At the same time, the effective marginal tax rate on the same investment made with debt financing is minus 60 percent--a gap of 97 percentage points." The result:
This creates a bias by corporations toward debt.
Or, for the likes of Mitt Romney, a business model.
For the leveraged buyout (LBO) kings of the 1970's and 1980's, that was the pot of the gold at the end of the rainbow. Because the same interest deduction applied whether debt was taken on for a new factory or just to pay investors, Josh Kosman detailed in The Buyout of America (http://www.joshkosman.com/about-the-book), the early corporate raiders and their private equity successors could almost mint money as they bought firms for a fraction of the overall deal size:
Kohlberg saw a way to make debt far less onerous for the company being acquired. He would have the company treat its debt the way businesses handle capital expenditures--as operating expenses deduced from profits through the depreciation tax schedules, thereby greatly reducing taxes. With far less to pay the government, his companies could use the money that formerly went to Uncle Sam to retire these huge loans at an unusually fast rate. Bear's equity would rise with every dollar the companies paid back in debt, even if the value of the businesses only remained the same. The final step in the plan was to sell these companies, usually within four to six years.
In January, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21543545) explained how the perverse incentives work:
From 2004 to 2011 private-equity firms piled more debt onto their companies so they could take out $188 billion in dividends to pay themselves. The deals got bigger and bigger. The largest ever, in 2007, was the $44 billion purchase of TXU, an electricity company. The market worries the company will go under.
But though the private-equity people may have walked off with the loot, America's tax code was partly to blame, because it encourages this behaviour. The tax deductibility of interest payments on debt gives private-equity executives an incentive to pile extra debt onto the companies they buy, thereby risking the health of these firms for the sake of a tax benefit and the prospect of higher returns.
"Traditionally," Kosman noted in 2009 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B005DI8VK0/crooksandliar-20/ref=nosim/), "cash-rich public companies have paid dividends to lure and reward investors." But private equity firms, he explained, stand this process on its head. "Fourteen of the largest American private equity firms had more than 40 percent of the North American companies they bought from 2002 until September 2006 pay them dividends, "Kosman pointed out, adding, "In thirty-two of the eighty-three case, 38 percent, they took money out in the first year." And the innovator behind the business model? (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/mitt-romney-bain-capital-and-the-1-economy.html)
Mitt Romney was a pioneer of this strategy. His private equity firm, Bain Capital, was the first large PE firm to make a serious portion of its money not from selling its companies or listing them on the stock exchange, but rather by collecting distributions and dividends, which in this context is the exact opposite of reinvesting in a company. Bain Capital is notorious for failing to plow profits back into its businesses.
So much for candidate Mitt Romney's 2007 claim (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/politics/05cnd-transcript.html?pagewanted=12), "Don't forget that when companies earn profit, that money is supposed to be reinvested in growth."
During his tenure as CEO from 1984 to 1999, Bain invested in 40 companies in the U.S. While seven later went bankrupt, in June the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/us/politics/companies-ills-did-not-harm-romneys-firm.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) that "In some instances, hundreds of employees lost their jobs. In most of those cases, however, records and interviews suggest that Bain and its executives still found a way to make money." That mirrors a January 2012 analysis by the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html), which revealed:
Bain produced stellar returns for its investors--yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains.
Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble. Of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5036/7427150726_32c9ab57db_z.jpg (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html)
Put another way, Mitt Romney's investing was almost risk-free. He won when his portfolio companies won and often when they lost. Thanks in large part to the dangerous incentives unleashed by the U.S. tax code.
Which is why other countries like Denmark, the UK and Germany either don't offer--or are trying to limit--the "public subsidy" that William D. Cohan (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/private-equity-s-public-subsidy-is-a-tragedy-william-d-cohan.html) deemed "the mother's milk of a leveraged buyout". As Felix Salmon (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/23/how-to-reduce-the-deductibility-of-interest-payments/) noted, the United States could lower the rate at which debt interest can deducted or cap the amount of debt to which it applies. (The Obama administration is considering (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/for-corporations-u-s-tax-code-adds-to-debts-appeal/) those kinds of changes in its recently proposed "Framework for Business Tax Reform (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf).") In its January 30, 2012 editorial, the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/4c242d20-48e4-11e1-974a-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F4c242d20-48e4-11e1-974a-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcomment%2Feditorial) lamented:
"The system could be made fairer and more efficient by taxing debt and equity at the same rate...Most of [Romney's] money was made at Bain Capital, which, like all private equity groups, benefits from a federal debt subsidy. It should be eliminated."
Reflecting on his private equity career, Romney in 2007 sounded almost remorseful (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/us/politics/04bain.html?pagewanted=all) that the pain from Bain fell mainly on the plain:
"It is one thing that if I had a chance to go back I would be more sensitive to," Mr. Romney said. "It is always a balance. Great care has got to be taken not to take a dividend or a distribution from a company that puts that company at risk." He added that taking a big payment from a company that later failed "would make me sick, sick at heart."
Not so sick at heart, though, to make President Romney change the two key elements of the federal tax code that keep the American private equity gravy train running at full speed. The first is the tax deductibility of corporate debt. The second is the notorious "carried interest exemption (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/the-real-scandal-in-private-equity-its-the-taxes/251463/)" that allows him and fellow fund managers to pay only the 15 percent capital gains rate- and not the 35 percent rate on income- to Uncle Sam. It is that rule that allowed Mitt to pay a lower effective tax rate on his $45 million (much of it still from Bain Capital (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/us/politics/retirement-deal-keeps-bain-money-flowing-to-romney.html)) over the past two years, a rate below that of many middle class families (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334305/romney-buffett-rule-14-percent-tax-rate/).
As Alec McGillis (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/101381/team-romney-rallies-around-carried-interest) noted in the New Republic, even the likes of Stephen Moore and Pete Peterson have grudgingly come to the conclusion that it's time for the carried interest exemption, "which allows fund managers to have their compensation for investing other people's money taxed as capital gains, not earned income," to go. But what makes Congress' largesse to Mitt Romney's ilk so glaring is the historically low capital gains tax rate he and his gilded colleagues now pay.
In September, an analysis by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html) concluded that "capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy feed [the] growing gap between rich and poor." As the Post explained, for the very richest Americans the successive capital gains tax cuts from Presidents Clinton (from 28 to 20 percent) and Bush (from 20 to 15 percent) have been "better than any Christmas gift":
While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.
The tax rate on capital gains and dividend income used to be much higher. In the late 1970's, it reach 40 percent. Even as late as 1986 the IRS treated the top taxpayers' investment and earned income the same way. (It is worth noting that lower capital gains tax rates raise income inequality, not investment (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002387.htm).) This convenient chart tells the tale:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6140483413_3d6c58e2e9.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html)
All of which has--and continues--to work to the great advantage of the one Willard Mitt Romney. To be sure, other codicils of the United States tax code, like overseas tax havens (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48336575) and vagaries of the gift tax (http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/01/31/romneys-gift-from-congress/) have allowed Romney to, among other things, generate a $100 million IRA for his sons, tax-free. (Getting state tax breaks (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/06/495730/romney-local-subsidies/) or having the U.S. bail out the pension funds (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/06/399117/romney-bain-federal-bailout/) of firms he he acquired didn't hurt, either.) To be sure, Mitt Romney is very smart, very hard working and, to use his words, "extraordinarily successful (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-19/mitt-romney-candidate-or-motivational-poster-.html)." But without the policy choices of the United States government, Mitt Romney would not have gotten nearly as rich as he did at Bain Capital. The fact is he simply couldn't have built Bain Capital.
Not without help from his uncle. Uncle Sam, that is.

Yoda

08-07-12, 01:20 PM

The way you have mixed the two, complaining about the overall tone of the campaign and putting it all on the Democrats, it is impossible in reading your comments to see that you were making a meaningful distinction between who said what, and what was officially from Obama and elsewhere.
I can see how that would be confusing. Which is why I had/have no plans to chastise you for it. But now, I'm sure, my position is perfectly clear: sometimes I'm complaining about the superficialness of the campaign, and sometimes I'm complaining about how absurd the Democratic Senate Majority Leader is behaving. Both valid complaints.

Well, if you focus just what comes directly out of the Obama camp, i don't see that it is particularly personal. For every Obama surrogate that went too far, accusing Romney of committing a felony, we have Romney people making racist comments.
Except they actually suggested he committed a felony, whereas the supposedly "racist comments" are all highly indirect, and the "racist" part is conveniently inferred, right? Like saying he doesn't get the American spirit, or something similarly vague.

As for having his money in foreign countries to avoid taxes, no politician I am aware of has tax returns that show that, certainly none that ran for president. It isn't class warfare to bring that up and criticize that. He isn't the only rich man to run for President. He is the only one with a Swiss bank account.
So...what? This is exactly my point. People mention this and then stop talking, and just stand there blinking, as if they think they've made a point. They're so knee-deep in political perception games that they completely forget to ask themselves what argument they're actually supposed to be making underneath.

The idea that someone should be ashamed of finding perfectly legal ways to avoid taxes is tremendously goofy, to me. And frankly, it lays waste to the silly notion that you can tax the rich to pay for everything, anyway. The rich have options; burden them too much, and they'll just invest somewhere else. The irony of complaining about these sorts of legal tax maneuvers while simultaneously advocating all the top-heavy policies that incentivize them is, naturally, lost on the candidate, the campaign, and the supporters.

Your comments about the uses of weird wasn't a throwaway line. You wrote about it at length and seemed to think it was a terrible thing.Maybe now it has been pointed out the same word game was played by Romney people against Obama you are not so upset about it. Romney's character is also an issue, not just specific policy issues, and bringing it up in the proper way is legitimate.
Yeah, it kind of was a throwaway line. Show me where I "wrote about it at length," except in replying to what you said in reply. I didn't make a big deal about it, and I'm not sure why you think I did.

Yoda

08-07-12, 01:23 PM

I tried to find some anti Newt ads FROM ROMNEY, BUT THE ONLY TWO I FOUND ON YOUTUBE was from a group not officially tied in to Romney. But we know this idea of real independence is a fiction. Certainly Romney didn't even pretend to repudiate the ads. One of the ads was particularly nasty and filled with distortions far worse than any ad I recall seeing from the Dems against Romney.
I don't know what you classify as "real independence." I think they avoid collaborating, but it's just really easy to figure out how they can best help a candidate.

Anyway, you don't need to find a bunch of ads to convince me that he bombarded Newt with negative advertising. I know he did. And I didn't like it. Again, you try to argue something other than the point you pretend you're arguing. I'm not saying that, in the vast multiverse, there is no conception of Mitt Romney that is not willing to run negative ads (as I keep saying, negative ads aren't what bother me, in and of themselves), nor that he's such a great dude and therefore incapable of resorting to superficial ads if he thinks he needs them. Maybe he'd do the same thing in Obama's position; who knows? None of that changes the point, which is: Mitt Romney is running a far more substantive campaign than Barack Obama. That's been the argument, and though you act like you're arguing back, you're really arguing all sorts of other points. Probably because it's not a very arguable point.

Speaking of which, anyone see the ad featuring a laid off worker that accuses Mitt Romney of indirectly helping his wife to die from cancer? Classy stuff. Not at all desperate.

will.15

08-07-12, 01:41 PM

I don't know what you classify as "real independence." I think they avoid collaborating, but it's just really easy to figure out how they can best help a candidate.

Anyway, you don't need to find a bunch of ads to convince me that he bombarded Newt with negative advertising. I know he did. And I didn't like it. Again, you try to argue something other than the point you pretend you're arguing. I'm not saying that, in the vast multiverse, there is no conception of Mitt Romney that is not willing to run negative ads (as I keep saying, negative ads aren't what bother me, in and of themselves), nor that he's such a great dude and therefore incapable of resorting to superficial ads if he thinks he needs them. Maybe he'd do the same thing in Obama's position; who knows? None of that changes the point, which is: Mitt Romney is running a far more substantive campaign than Barack Obama. That's been the argument, and though you act like you're arguing back, you're really arguing all sorts of other points. Probably because it's not a very arguable point.

And my point is what you are saying doesn't mean much because traditionally incumbents attack their opponent because of their background and incumbents focus on their track record as President. That doesn't make one side more substantive than the other, just their focus is different.

Speaking of which, anyone see the ad featuring a laid off worker that accuses Mitt Romney of indirectly helping his wife to die from cancer? Classy stuff. Not at all desperate.
I just heard about that, and it is not an Obama ad, so from your standards you shouldn't be complaining about it.

How Romney’s Tax Plan Could Raise Middle-Class Taxes

[/URL][URL="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#"] (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#)
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#) http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/politics/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gifEmail (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#) http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/politics/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gif (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#) 26 (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#comments) Smaller Font (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#) Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#) Larger Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#) | Print (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/#)

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/gty_mitt_romney_jp_120803_wblog.jpg Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Mitt Romney’s campaign is hitting back (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-campaign-defends-tax-plan-calls-critical-study-joke/V8GTn1448ZbXWbEpSeDykI/story.html) against a study released this week showing the GOP candidate’s tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class while slashing the tax burden for millionaires, calling the report “biased” and “a joke.”
“My plan is very clear,” Romney told reporters after an event in North Las Vegas on Friday. “I will not raise taxes on the American people. I will not raise taxes on middle income Americans.”
The study was developed by the centrist Tax Policy Center and authored (http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tax-plan-helps-rich-most-tax-group-130529619.html)by economists who have worked under both the Obama and Bush administrations.
It concluded that Romney’s proposed tax cuts (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/tax-plan-showdown-98-percent/story?id=16750398) – which include reducing all personal income taxes rates by 20 percent, eliminating the estate tax and zeroing-out taxes on investment income for couples earning less than $200,000 per year – would slash $360 billion in federal revenues in 2015 and will have to increases taxes on the middle class to pay for those losses.
Get more pure politics at ABC News.com/Politics (http://abcnews.go.com/politics)and a lighter take on the news at OTUS News.com (http://otusnews.com/)
Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom was less diplomatic Thursday, calling the study “a joke” and its authors “biased” because one, Adam Looney, worked for the Obama Administration and other has visited the Obama White House a dozen times.
In order to make up for the tax cuts, Romney said he would “limit deductions and exemptions” although he has not specified which loopholes he would close or how he would amend the tax code so that more people pay income taxes. Only 47 percent of Americans paid income taxes (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/fact-check-pastor-rick-warren-tweets-half-of-america-pays-no-taxes/) in 2010.
But because Romney’s proposed tax cuts are so large, according to the study, he would have to slice 65 percent of all the loopholes and deductions that are feasible to cut, such as the mortgage interest deduction, child credit, deductions for charitable contributions and exclusions for employer-provided health insurance.
“You’re kind of not left with very much to work with,” said Looney, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Policy Center, formed as a nonpartisan venture by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.
“The purpose of that paper was to scale back people’s expectations for what could actually be reduced in a tax reform,” Looney continued, “to establish what’s really feasible and what’s on the table.”
Romney disagreed with this analysis, telling reporters outside his event in Nevada Friday that if his plan was assessed “properly” it would not “in any way” raise taxes on the middle class.
“I want to limit deductions and exemptions for high income people, but high income people, when you finish going through my plan, and we score it properly, I will not have a plan that lowers the share paid by high income folks or that in any way raises taxes on middle income Americans,” Romney said.
Under Romney’s plan, the Tax Policy Center estimates that high-income earners would get the largest tax cut. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romneys-tax-proposal-targets-higher-income-earners/story?id=16152137) A family that makes between $200,000 and $500,000 would pay about 6 percent less per year under his plan while families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 would get a 2 percent cut.
The cuts for high-income earners are so large that eliminating every feasible tax deduction and loophole and exemption for people making more than $200,000 would not pay for tax cuts they would receive, the study finds. So among people who earn more than $200,000 per year, it would not be possible to pay for Romney’s proposed tax cuts by reducing the exemptions and deductions that group receives.
“Turns out there are not enough of those tax breaks that benefit high income taxpayers to make it rev neutral just within that group,” Looney said. “That’s not a judgment, it’s a mathematical fact of life.”
So in order to make sure his plan would not add to the deficit, Romney would have to pay for $86 billion worth of high-income tax cuts by cutting deductions that benefit middle- and low-income earners, according the Tax Policy Center study.
If his plan is to be revenue neutral, as Romney has said it would be, the study shows he would have to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans – families earning less than $200,000 – by an average of $500 per year. Millionaires will still get an $87,000 tax cut.
“They [tax plans like Romney's] seem to be discussed in a way that I’m going to have really big cuts in tax rates, but the tax system is going to be just as progressive as it was before, that the impact on tax revenue or on the budget is going to be the same and I’m going to maintain all of your treasured deductions,” Looney said. “At some point, the math just doesn't add up.
“That’s what we were aiming to show,” he added.
In order to avoid such middle-class tax hikes, Looney said, Romney has three options: change the plan he has already laid out so it does not give such large tax breaks to the wealthy, drop the revenue-neutral requirement so that the tax cuts are not offset with revenue increases but instead add to the deficit, or make up for the lost revenue from his tax cuts by slashing spending.
Romney’s campaign has argued that his plan to cut tax rates would spur economic growth. And as the economy grows, allowing more people pay more taxes, his plan would be virtually paid for by those increased revenues.
Looney said the Tax Policy Center ran its study again using the economic-growth scenario laid out by Romney’s economic advisers that estimates his plan would add 12 million jobs and increase GDP growth by 1 percent, which Looney said was “an implausibly large estimate.”
Romney’s proposed economic growth would offset 15 percent of the tax cuts, but would still leave the GOP candidate with $307 billion less in revenues.
“Even in that case, there’s still a shift in the tax burden from high-income taxpayers to low -and or middle-income taxpayers,” Looney said. “It’s smaller, but it would require a net tax increase on the middle class.”

Yoda

08-07-12, 01:53 PM

And my point is what you are saying doesn't mean much because traditionally incumbents attack their opponent because of their background and incumbents focus on their track record as President. That doesn't make one side more substantive than the other, just their focus is different.
Yeah, it does make one side more substantive than the other, even if you think the primary driving force is mere incumbency. To argue cause is not to argue the conclusion, first of all.

And, again, the issue is not the mere idea of "attacking" your opponent. You keep confusing negative with superficial. It would be typical for a relatively unpopular incumbent like Obama to attack his opponent. It would not be typical for those attacks to be almost entirely about superficial things, and to make up almost all of his campaign. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this until you start making the distinction.

I just heard about that, and it is not an Obama ad, so from your standards you shouldn't be complaining about it.
Er, no, I just finished telling you that some of my complaints are about the campaign, and some aren't.

Also, are you under the impression that all this haphazard posting of editorials is adding up to some kind of cohesive point? If they're just supposed to be examples of more substantive things Obama could make his ads about, then great. Wanna be he will?

will.15

08-07-12, 02:08 PM

That wasn't an editorial, it was a news report. And the latest Obama ad about that report by your standards is substantive.

Yes, a relatively unpopular president would try to make his opponent himself the focus rather than his record. Bush did that also against Kerry. The point is, to convince voters the other guy would be worse.

Well, this stuff about whose ad is whose, you make that distinction more explicit when it is coming from the Romney camp than from Obama.

One of the reasons the anti Obama ads don't get too personal is because in the past they have not been very effective. But they keep stumbling around for something personal that works so the messages about Obama isn't American in his thinking.

Yoda

08-07-12, 02:16 PM

That wasn't an editorial, it was a news report. And the latest Obama ad about that report by your standards is substantive.
Cool. How often do you think we'll see it compared to the barrage of superficial ones?

Yes, a relatively unpopular president would try to make his opponent himself the focus rather than his record. Bush did that also against Kerry. The point is, to convince voters the other guy would be worse.
And you can convince the voters the other guy is worse by talking about his policies and ideas, or his bank accounts and how he likes to make money..

Seriously, am I talking to a wall? Negative is not a synonym for superficial. If I had the power to, I'd tell you to write that 100 times in a notebook. I don't inherently have a problem with negative campaigning. The only way it's generally bad is that it probably (but not necessarily) means the incumbent doesn't have a great record to run on. But my problem is silly, superficial issues, not negative vs. positive. I think people who complain about negative ads are generally being pretty silly. Trivial ads are a much bigger problems. Ads that work not on a coherent argument, but by trigger emotional responses to stereotypes, are much bigger problems. Partially because they work sometimes.

Well, this stuff about whose ad is whose, you make that distinction more explicit when it is coming from the Romney camp than from Obama.
I do? When? How? I'll bet the degree to which I make this distinction is the degree to which I'm responding to you mentioning them as some (apparent) counterpoint.

One of the reasons the anti Obama ads don't get too personal is because in the past they have not been very effective. But they keep stumbling around for something personal that works so the messages about Obama isn't American in his thinking.
Could be. Maybe if they were more effective Romney'd be running just as many superficial ads as Obama. And in that alternative universe, I wouldn't make my claim in the first place. But in this universe, I said it, and it's true.

will.15

08-07-12, 02:28 PM

And you can convince the voters the other guy is worse by talking about his policies and ideas, or his bank accounts and how he likes to make money.

Romney has emphasized his experience in the private sector as being the primary reason he would be a good president. He knows how to create jobs. He did that at Bain. So there is nothing wrong with ads about what he did at Bain. It is part of Romney's record, just as the last four years as president is Obama's. Putting money in foreign bank accounts is also a fair issue to campaign on coming from a candidate who wants to talk about his opponent doesn't understand America, doesn't have confidence in American values.

And apparently we are going to get a lot more ads from Romney about what a great job he did at Bain once he has actually been nominated.

Yoda

08-07-12, 02:48 PM

Romney has emphasized his experience in the private sector as being the primary reason he would be a good president. He knows how to create jobs. He did that at Bain. So there is nothing wrong with ads about what he did at Bain.
And as I've said, like, four times: there's nothing wrong with the mere idea of arguing that his time at Bain doesn't bestow him magical job-granting powers as a President. Totally fine. But the ads don't do that. They're just "Mitt Romney only wants to make money" and "Mitt Romney has a bank account overseas." They don't even make an attempt--not even a clumsy one!--to tie it to anything substantive. At all.

You keep defending vague ideas, rather than the content of the ads themselves. As if attacking your opponent being okay means that any attack is substantive, or as if the idea of critiquing his time at Bain therefore means any manner in which it does is substantive. It isn't, and they aren't.

Putting money in foreign bank accounts is also a fair issue to campaign on coming from a candidate who wants to talk about his opponent doesn't understand America, doesn't have confidence in American values.
Huh? How does not wanting to pay more in taxes mean he doesn't have "confidence in American values"? Is not liking money an American value?

Seems to me he understands America pretty damn well: the more you soak the rich, the more they'll just move their wealth elsewhere. Again, the irony is lost on people who simultaneously complain about this, and think taxing the rich is the solution to all their problems.

And apparently we are going to get a lot more ads from Romney about what a great job he did at Bain once he has actually been nominated.
And twice as many from Obama about how he's a big rich mean guy who doesn't care about all the little folks, I'm sure.

Yoda

08-07-12, 02:55 PM

OBAMA 2012: You should care more about what Romney does with his money than what we do with yours.

will.15

08-07-12, 03:14 PM

And as I've said, like, four times: there's nothing wrong with the mere idea of arguing that his time at Bain doesn't bestow him magical job-granting powers as a President. Totally fine. But the ads don't do that. They're just "Mitt Romney only wants to make money" and "Mitt Romney has a bank account overseas." They don't even make an attempt--not even a clumsy one!--to tie it to anything substantive. At all.

Well, you're wrong. The ads do exactly what I said, certainly the one where he sings.

You keep defending vague ideas, rather than the content of the ads themselves. As if attacking your opponent being okay means that any attack is substantive, or as if the idea of critiquing his time at Bain therefore means any manner in which it does is substantive. It isn't, and they aren't.

Well, that is your opinion, what is and isn't substantive criticism. You think it is okay for an ad where a guy is complaining he lost his car dealership because of the auto bailout, but one where a worker complains his company went under and he lost his job after Bain took it over isn't.

Huh? How does not wanting to pay more in taxes mean he doesn't have "confidence in American values"? Is not liking money an American value?

Because he shipped his money overseas, something no candidate for President has ever done based on their tax returns. Not even Ross Perot who was much wealthier apparently did that.

Seems to me he understands America pretty damn well: the more you soak the rich, the more they'll just move their wealth elsewhere. Again, the irony is lost on people who simultaneously complain about this, and think taxing the rich is the solution to all their problems.

Except only some do, what percentage I don't know, and Mitt Romney isn't getting soaked even by American income tax standards as he isn't taxed at the highest rate because of the source of the income. His rate is actually substantially lower than most Americans.

And twice as many from Obama about how he's a big rich mean guy who doesn't care about all the little folks, I'm sure.
Most of the ads are not the interviews with employees anymore, so no, the focus is no longer he is a rich mean guy who likes to fire people (which Mitt said he likes to do)

Yoda

08-07-12, 03:27 PM

Well, you're wrong. The ads do exactly what I said, certainly the one where he sings.
How? How does saying he has a foreign bank account critique his claim that working at Bain makes him better on economic issues, or understand business?

Well, that is your opinion, what is and isn't substantive criticism.
I'm starting to realize that this--"it's just your opinion"--is literally your entire argument.

The fact that you kept trying to fall back on this is exactly why I started asking you what was substantive. And that led to the hilarious reductio ad absurdum where you tried to make out that critiquing a President based on their economic record and campaign promises was somehow not substantive. And then argued that no ads are ever substantive, compared to debates, or something. It was sort of a train wreck.

Wait, wait, don't tell me: it's just my opinion that it's a train wreck.

You think it is okay for an ad where a guy is complaining he lost his car dealership because of the auto bailout, but one where a worker complains his company went under and he lost his job after Bain took it over isn't.
I already answered this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=833330):

"Given that Obama likes to go around saying he "saved" the industry, and leaving out all the layoffs and union giveaways that apparently entails, it seems pretty substantive to me. Romney hasn't pretended to be that kind of savior; he often mentions that plenty of businesses failed under Bain."
You responded by just glossing over the difference and pretending they were the same, even though one contradicts Obama's campaign talking point, and the other doesn't contradict Romney's, who never said he "saved" manufacturing.

Because he shipped his money overseas, something no candidate for President has ever done based on their tax returns. Not even Ross Perot who was much wealthier apparently did that.
Uh, I asked you how it demonstrates that he "doesn't have confidence in American values," and all you're saying here is that other candidates haven't done it. You're not even remotely answering the question.

Except only some do, what percentage I don't know, and Mitt Romney isn't getting soaked even by American income tax standards as he isn't taxed at the highest rate because of the source of the income. His rate is actually substantially lower than most Americans.
None of which has anything to do with the point I just made regarding irony and the ability of wealthy people to dodge the raise-taxes-on-the-rich catch-all solution.

Most of the ads are not the interviews with employees anymore, so no, the focus is no longer he is a rich mean guy who likes to fire people (which Mitt said he likes to do)
Actually, he said he likes to be able to. You misquoted him before, and I corrected you before, and here you are repeating it again. Also, I notice your demand for "context" has evaporated.

will.15

08-07-12, 04:24 PM

How? How does saying he has a foreign bank account critique his claim that working at Bain makes him better on economic issues, or understand business?
He understands how to game the system by using tax laws that enable him to make money even as his companies belly up, so there is not always an incentive to grow the companies, but use them as a source of income by borrowing on them, creating more debt than they can sustain, and taking a large chunk of that out and not back into the company, for as long as he can. It isn't just the workers that are hurt, who you don't seem to have much sympathy for, but also loan holders and other creditors. The last line of the ad IS ROMNEY ISN'T PART OF THE SOLUTION. HE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, AND IT IS NOT
AN UNFAIR PERONAL ATTACK to make that point.

I'm starting to realize that this--"it's just your opinion"--is literally your entire argument.

The fact that you kept trying to fall back on this is exactly why I started asking you what was substantive. And that led to the hilarious reductio ad absurdum where you tried to make out that critiquing a President based on their economic record and campaign promises was somehow not substantive. And then argued that no ads are ever substantive, compared to debates, or something. It was sort of a train wreck.

And when we get down to specifics, you see every Romney argument that is an equivalent of an Obama argument as substantive, but the Obama argument not. So, yes, I would definitely say your arguments about what is and isn't substantive is your opinion.

I already answered this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=833330):
"Given that Obama likes to go around saying he "saved" the industry, and leaving out all the layoffs and union giveaways that apparently entails, it seems pretty substantive to me. Romney hasn't pretended to be that kind of savior; he often mentions that plenty of businesses failed under Bain."
You responded by just glossing over the difference and pretending they were the same, even though one contradicts Obama's campaign talking point, and the other doesn't contradict Romney's, who never said he "saved" manufacturing.

For all extent and purposes, they are the same, trying to make a point with someone in an ad complaining they lost their job or business because of what someone did. The fact you are trying to defend one and condemn the other, shows bias on your part.

Uh, I asked you how it demonstrates that he "doesn't have confidence in American values," and all you're saying here is that other candidates haven't done it. You're not even remotely answering the question.

Of course I am. He is a hypocrite. He sings a flag waving song about how great America is and he is sticking his money in Swiss bank accounts and in the Cayman Islands.

None of which has anything to do with the point I just made regarding irony and the ability of wealthy people to dodge the raise-taxes-on-the-rich catch-all solution.

I would think it had everything to do with your point. He is not getting soaked. He doesn't pay anywhere near the top bracket. And he is still sticking money overseas to pay even less.

Actually, he said he likes to be able to. You misquoted him before, and I corrected you before, and here you are repeating it again. Also, I notice your demand for "context" has evaporated.
Yeah, I know what he said, and the distinction you are making doesn't amount to much.

Yoda

08-07-12, 04:53 PM

He understands how to game the system by using tax laws that enable him to make money even as his companies belly up, so there is not always an incentive to grow the companies, but use them as a source of income by borrowing on them, creating more debt than they can sustain, and taking a large chunk of that out and not back into the company, for as long as he can. It isn't just the workers that are hurt, who you don't seem to have much sympathy for, but also loan holders and other creditors. The last line of the ad IS ROMNEY ISN'T PART OF THE SOLUTION. HE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, AND IT IS NOT AN UNFAIR PERONAL ATTACK to make that point.
You were supposed to be describing how this shows Romney doesn't understand the economy. What you're actually saying is that he understands the system well enough to "game" it. Even leaving aside the loaded phrasing (care to list the specific deductions or laws that you think are so unfair? Do you even know what they are?), this makes the opposite of your point. Unless you think his plan is to become President, reduce our debt by selling Lake Erie to Canada, and then bail.

Remember, I said the complaints about him were about his personality, and asked you to show me why he doesn't understand business. So you just responded by showing me how he clearly does understand business, but you think he's not a nice guy about it...which perfectly demonstrates exactly what I was saying. Bravo.

We can also argue about the incredibly silly notion that any of these worked are served by how much "sympathy" you exhibit (rather than the quality of the policies we implement in response), but for now I just want to bask in the ironic marvel of this response.

And when we get down to specifics, you see every Romney argument that is an equivalent of an Obama argument as substantive, but the Obama argument not. So, yes, I would definitely say your arguments about what is and isn't substantive is your opinion.
The problem is, I know it's my opinion. It's not a secret that it's my opinion. I'm arguing an opinion. So argue back. Stopping to say "it's your opinion" is utterly pointless. It's like stopping to say "it's debatable" rather than actually debating it.

I said all this before, by the way. It's amazing how often you ditch some line of argumentation and then just repeat it later, as if the previous iteration never happened.

For all extent and purposes, they are the same, trying to make a point with someone in an ad complaining they lost their job or business because of what someone did. The fact you are trying to defend one and condemn the other, shows bias on your part.
And again, you completely gloss over the difference: Obama says he "saved" the industry. Romney doesn't say he "saved" manufacturing; he says sometimes the business recovered and sometimes it didn't. Thus, Romney's ad directly addresses what Obama said, but not vice-versa. Simple. Well, simple unless you're trying really hard to metaphorically squint your eyes to fuzzy the differences, at least.

Of course I am. He is a hypocrite. He sings a flag waving song about how great America is and he is sticking his money in Swiss bank accounts and in the Cayman Islands.
Why do you equate thinking America is great with wanting to pay more in taxes? What's the connection there? Is it patriotic to pay more in taxes? What are the "American values" he doesn't have confidence in, and why are someone's taxes direct surrogates for them?

I know, from past experience, that you seem to think only in terms of political perception, and are often caught completely off-guard when you have to translate campaign strategy into a real argument, but that's what I'm asking you to do, and you're not doing it. What makes for good political fodder is not necessarily what makes for a good argument, and vice-versa.

I would think it had everything to do with your point. He is not getting soaked. He doesn't pay anywhere near the top bracket. And he is still sticking money overseas to pay even less.
I don't think you're really following at all. The point is about incentivizing something, then being upset that people do more of it. Whether or not Romney makes for a particularly good example of this idea is beside the point. The point is that the rich can easily avoid these things, which makes Obama's one-size-fits-all solution of taxing them more highly dubious. And mildly hysterical, given that he's trying to express outrage about both the thing that's happening and proposing a policy that makes more of it happen.

Yeah, I know what he said, and the distinction you are making doesn't amount to much.
Seeing as how everybody likes having the ability to fire people who provide them with bad services, and only an ******* would enjoy the actual process of it, it seems like quite a big difference. And if it isn't, why do you keep misquoting it?

will.15

08-07-12, 08:29 PM

You were supposed to be describing how this shows Romney doesn't understand the economy. What you're actually saying is that he understands the system well enough to "game" it. Even leaving aside the loaded phrasing (care to list the specific deductions or laws that you think are so unfair? Do you even know what they are?), this makes the opposite of your point. Unless you think his plan is to become President, reduce our debt by selling Lake Erie to Canada, and then bail.

Romney's point was not just that he understood the economy, but his record at Bain was a good one, it created jobs, and showed he has the kind of skills to fix the economy. He is going to do for America what he did at Bain. And instead it just shows he is good at making money, which sometimes added jobs, and sometimes destroyed companies. As for what tax deductions does this, one of my paste jobs covered this in detail. He is rather vague on what exactly he would do to fix the economy except what a great job he did at Bain.

Remember, I said the complaints about him were about his personality, and asked you to show me why he doesn't understand business. So you just responded by showing me how he clearly does understand business, but you think he's not a nice guy about it...which perfectly demonstrates exactly what I was saying. Bravo.

No, the complaint wasn't he didn't understand business. It was his business experience wasn't the sort that means he had the understanding and experience to fix the economy, as he used to say practically every time he opened his mouth. And I never said anything about him being a nice guy. But, yes, there are plenty of people who made a ton of money and didn't do it the way Romney did. Leveraged buyout experts are not the same as CEOS who come in and save troubled companies or entrepreneurs who create successful companies.

We can also argue about the incredibly silly notion that any of these worked are served by how much "sympathy" you exhibit (rather than the quality of the policies we implement in response), but for now I just want to bask in the ironic marvel of this response.

Don't follow your point.

The problem is, I know it's my opinion. It's not a secret that it's my opinion. I'm arguing an opinion. So argue back. Stopping to say "it's your opinion" is utterly pointless. It's like stopping to say "it's debatable" rather than actually debating it.

I said all this before, by the way. It's amazing how often you ditch some line of argumentation and then just repeat it later, as if the previous iteration never happened.

But it makes your argument meaningless about what is and isn't substantive when you see similar arguments differently based on what side is making it and minute differences in wording. An Obama ad shows a worker complaining about Romney and that is not substantive. A Romney ad showing a businessman complaining about Obama is and your distinction is Obama was president and that is the difference. Your earlier point was what the worker had to say was irrelevant. But your real distinction seems to be Romney's record while in business doesn't matter, the focus should entirely be on Obama. Nobody but you thinks you get to set up the ground rules for a political campaign that makes the challengers record in the private sector, which he has been campaigning on, irrelevant.

And again, you completely gloss over the difference: Obama says he "saved" the industry. Romney doesn't say he "saved" manufacturing; he says sometimes the business recovered and sometimes it didn't. Thus, Romney's ad directly addresses what Obama said, but not vice-versa. Simple. Well, simple unless you're trying really hard to metaphorically squint your eyes to fuzzy the differences, at least.

Well, no you are again making distinctions that are not about substance, just using criteria that justifies one side doing the same thing the other does and condemning one side. And you show me the Romney ad that says sometimes he saved manufacturing and sometimes he didn't. I will bet you won't find it.

Why do you equate thinking America is great with wanting to pay more in taxes? What's the connection there? Is it patriotic to pay more in taxes? What are the "American values" he doesn't have confidence in, and why are some one's taxes direct surrogates for them?

It isn't patriotic to put your money overseas to avoid paying taxes.
That goes way beyond taking advantage of tax deductions in this country. And if we ever see his tax returns and rumors before he decided to run for president show he once had a substantial amount of his money parked in overseas accounts, he will feel a lot of heat and criticism from it.

I know, from past experience, that you seem to think only in terms of political perception, and are often caught completely off-guard when you have to translate campaign strategy into a real argument, but that's what I'm asking you to do, and you're not doing it. What makes for good political fodder is not necessarily what makes for a good argument, and vice-versa.

If you actually think it is a good argument on your part that Romney avoiding American taxes by pulling them out of America shouldn't be an issue, I don't agree.

I don't think you're really following at all. The point is about incentivizing something, then being upset that people do more of it. Whether or not Romney makes for a particularly good example of this idea is beside the point. The point is that the rich can easily avoid these things, which makes Obama's one-size-fits-all solution of taxing them more highly dubious. And mildly hysterical, given that he's trying to express outrage about both the thing that's happening and proposing a policy that makes more of it happen.

And the specific point wasn't what Obama proposes, but what Romney is currently doing, when he is in a lower tax bracket because most of his income is taxed differently.

Seeing as how everybody likes having the ability to fire people who provide them with bad services, and only an ******* would enjoy the actual process of it, it seems like quite a big difference. And if it isn't, why do you keep misquoting it?
Well, again, you are making a distinction not in that quote. And some rich people actually have said they do like to fire people including one who keeps teasing us about running.

will.15

08-08-12, 02:15 AM

Well, well...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/

According to this, it isn't even close who is the bigger liar.

Yoda

08-08-12, 10:21 AM

Ugh. Browser ate my reply. I'll keep this simple:

Romney's point was not just that he understood the economy, but his record at Bain was a good one, it created jobs, and showed he has the kind of skills to fix the economy. He is going to do for America what he did at Bain. And instead it just shows he is good at making money, which sometimes added jobs, and sometimes destroyed companies. As for what tax deductions does this, one of my paste jobs covered this in detail. He is rather vague on what exactly he would do to fix the economy except what a great job he did at Bain.
The article you pasted described tax deductions and credits; which are you against, and why? I mean, surely you have an informed, well thought out opinion already, since you've been talking about it so much. Surely you'd never just carelessly paste some article if you weren't already capable of answering follow-up questions already.

No, the complaint wasn't he didn't understand business. It was his business experience wasn't the sort that means he had the understanding and experience to fix the economy, as he used to say practically every time he opened his mouth. And I never said anything about him being a nice guy. But, yes, there are plenty of people who made a ton of money and didn't do it the way Romney did. Leveraged buyout experts are not the same as CEOS who come in and save troubled companies or entrepreneurs who create successful companies.
Okay, then make that point. Explain to me why other types of business bestow economy-understanding experience on you, and this type doesn't. You're not doing that.

Simply put: you need to complete these thoughts. You can't just raise some issue and expect other people connect all the wires so they create an argument on the other end of the circuit. Something sounding good or bad is not an argument, no matter how habitually you may think that way.

But it makes your argument meaningless about what is and isn't substantive when you see similar arguments differently based on what side is making it and minute differences in wording. An Obama ad shows a worker complaining about Romney and that is not substantive. A Romney ad showing a businessman complaining about Obama is and your distinction is Obama was president and that is the difference. Your earlier point was what the worker had to say was irrelevant. But your real distinction seems to be Romney's record while in business doesn't matter, the focus should entirely be on Obama.
Er, no, I've told you my distinction. Three times now, in fact: it's that Romney's ad specifically contradicts Obama's narrative of "I saved this industry." Now, follow the logic with me, okay? Because Romney made no corresponding claim about "saving" manufacturing, therefore Obama's ad doesn't address his claims in the same way. See?

You probably shouldn't keep replying to this until you've formulated some kind of meaningful response. You have to acknowledge the distinction and incorporate it, either through changing your position somehow, or by explaining why the distinction doesn't matter. And protip: saying it doesn't matter over and over again is not the same thing as explaining why it doesn't.

Nobody but you thinks you get to set up the ground rules for a political campaign that makes the challengers record in the private sector, which he has been campaigning on, irrelevant.
Actually, everybody thinks they get to do this. That's what you keep saying: voters decide what does and does not matter them. And hey, check this out--I'm a voter! And I decide what I think matters. Then, I come on here and I say why I think it matters and I argue for my position. That's how this whole thing--arguments, I mean--works, guy. So for the love of God, please stop wasting my time by saying "It's debatable" instead of debating it, and "It's arguable" instead of arguing it.

Also, for the billionth time: I'm not saying his record at Bain is off limits, I'm saying they're not making substantive ads about it. This is not a complicated distinction to grasp. And even if you disagree (shocker), you don't get to pretend I'm saying something I'm not. Sorry.

Well, no you are again making distinctions that are not about substance, just using criteria that justifies one side doing the same thing the other does and condemning one side. And you show me the Romney ad that says sometimes he saved manufacturing and sometimes he didn't. I will bet you won't find it.
It's adorable that you think you can shift the burden of proof to me like this. If you want to argue that the ads are the same, you need to show me Romney campaigning on being the savior of manufacturing. When you can't, you need to man up and admit you were wrong.

By the by, Romney doesn't really say anything either way in his ads, as far as I can see, at least. He did, however, say it a lot on the campaign trail, particularly in the debates. But, again, if you want to make the claim, you have to provide the evidence.

It isn't patriotic to put your money overseas to avoid paying taxes.
Not what I said. I asked if it was more patriotic to pay more in taxes, not if it was patriotic to pay less.

That goes way beyond taking advantage of tax deductions in this country. And if we ever see his tax returns and rumors before he decided to run for president show he once had a substantial amount of his money parked in overseas accounts, he will feel a lot of heat and criticism from it.
Yup, just as I thought: no argument. It's amazing how stymied you are by simple challenges like this. I ask you to explain your accusation, explain why something is actually bad, and all you've got is that it looks bad, or that other people haven't done it, or that if it comes out he'll feel "heat." You literally have no idea how to answer the question. Presumably because you don't ask yourself questions like this. So when I do, you're almost comically unprepared for it.

If you actually think it is a good argument on your part that Romney avoiding American taxes by pulling them out of America shouldn't be an issue, I don't agree.
And if I ask you why, will I get more hilarious scrambling and grasping for reasons? Because I like to play the Benny Hill theme while I read those.

And the specific point wasn't what Obama proposes, but what Romney is currently doing, when he is in a lower tax bracket because most of his income is taxed differently.
Huh? I have no idea what you're saying here, nor what it has to do with the simple thing contradiction in Obama's positions that I've mentioned.

Well, again, you are making a distinction not in that quote.
Wrong. Actual quote: "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.'"

Your quote (twice): "I like being able to fire people."

And some rich people actually have said they do like to fire people including one who keeps teasing us about running.
Which makes Donald Trump an *******. So why does that explain or excuse your repeated misquoting of Romney, exactly?

Yoda

08-08-12, 10:24 AM

Well, well...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/

According to this, it isn't even close who is the bigger liar.
You really need to look at the individual fact checks. They're not something you can trust in aggregate. The other day, Romney said Obama hadn't visited Israel as President. You know what? Obama hasn't visited Israel as President. A fact checker rated the statement as "Half True." Seriously.

I can find you another half-dozen examples inside of five minutes of stuff like this. Fact checkers are useful insofar as they do research to find background for things. They usually do a very good job of that. But their topline ratings--how they interpret the facts--are absolutely absurd. I can give you scads of examples of it.

Yoda

08-08-12, 10:35 AM

Oh, this is beautiful. 30 different examples (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-30-months-of-excusing-bad-jobs-numbers/article/2501485) of the White House, after a poor jobs report, saying some variation of "it's important not to read too much into a lone jobs report."

Brilliant.

But I guess it's just, you know, like, my opinion, that rampant unemployment is one of the most important issues of the campaign.

will.15

08-08-12, 12:46 PM

You really need to look at the individual fact checks. They're not something you can trust in aggregate. The other day, Romney said Obama hadn't visited Israel as President. You know what? Obama hasn't visited Israel as President. A fact checker rated the statement as "Half True." Seriously.

I can find you another half-dozen examples inside of five minutes of stuff like this. Fact checkers are useful insofar as they do research to find background for things. They usually do a very good job of that. But their topline ratings--how they interpret the facts--are absolutely absurd. I can give you scads of examples of it.
But this fact checker said it was true. And you are the one that have been citing fact checkers to show according to you Obama's campaign have been lying about Romney. So if you don't find the fact checkers credible, then what are you arguing about? Oh, your opinion, not facts.

Yoda

08-08-12, 01:23 PM

But this fact checker said it was true. And you are the one that have been citing fact checkers to show according to you Obama's campaign have been lying about Romney. So if you don't find the fact checkers credible, then what are you arguing about? Oh, your opinion, not facts.
Yeah, see, it was entirely predictable that you'd say this, which is why you should have actually read my response, because I already answered it preemptively. Remember this part?

"Fact checkers are useful insofar as they do research to find background for things. They usually do a very good job of that. But their topline ratings--how they interpret the facts--are absolutely absurd. I can give you scads of examples of it."

Fact checkers are like Wikipedia; useful for finding sources. Their topline judgments, however, are considerably less reliable, especially when you're just aggregating them together. Some are downright laughable, in fact, but still contain useful research.

I think you'll find, if you actually pay attention to what I say, that I almost always anticipate these things ahead of time and ask the correct questions in advance to stave off pointless argumentative wandering. That's why I said the above before you made the argument, and that's why I started asking you to define "substantive" long before you started making arguments about what it meant. If you bother to answer the really simple questions I ask and actually read what I say, we'll get to the point a whole hell of a lot quicker.

But then, if the idea is not to get to the point, or to draw out assumptions and disagreements, but just to sort of run around in circles and kick up dust and make sure that everything gets some sort of response (even if it's not a refutation), then hey, don't change a thing.

Yoda

08-08-12, 01:36 PM

Also, for the billionth time: of course it's my opinion. I am arguing about my opinion. That has never been under dispute. Facts and opinions are not mutually exclusive; we have opinions about facts. Very little of the argument is the questioning of facts.

Say "your opinion" again. Say. It. Again. Say it. I dare you. I double dare-you motherf**ker. Say "your opinion" one more g***amn time!

http://i2.listal.com/image/1893917/500full.jpg

will.15

08-08-12, 02:21 PM

Ugh. Browser ate my reply. I'll keep this simple:

The article you pasted described tax deductions and credits; which are you against, and why? I mean, surely you have an informed, well thought out opinion already, since you've been talking about it so much. Surely you'd never just carelessly paste some article if you weren't already capable of answering follow-up questions already.

No, I am not getting into a discussion of it because that is how these things drift away from the original topic.

The point of that article was it was rebutting Romney regarding his criticism of Obama regarding you didn't build that.

Okay, then make that point. Explain to me why other types of business bestow economy-understanding experience on you, and this type doesn't. You're not doing that.

Well, I am not saying that either. Even then you would have to look at their record and determine what they did. Herman Cain was a good CEO, revitalizing a struggling pizza chain, but is that skill instantly applicable to fixing the economy? But there is certainly not much to criticize, which is not the case of Romney's more mixed and different record at Bain.

But Herman Cain never said he was going to do for America as president what he did at Godfather's.

Simply put: you need to complete these thoughts. You can't just raise some issue and expect other people connect all the wires so they create an argument on the other end of the circuit. Something sounding good or bad is not an argument, no matter how habitually you may think that way.

I did complete my thought. And you ignored it and want to change the argument into something else. i went back and looked at my original comment and what you said has nothing to do with what I said.

Er, no, I've told you my distinction. Three times now, in fact: it's that Romney's ad specifically contradicts Obama's narrative of "I saved this industry." Now, follow the logic with me, okay? Because Romney made no corresponding claim about "saving" manufacturing, therefore Obama's ad doesn't address his claims in the same way. See?

The problem is he did it by doing exactly the same thing Obama did, dragging out the regular Joe who relates a personal story. It is an appeal to emotions, not fact. The entire point of your initial complaint was to complain Obama was bringing these people out in these ads to criticize Romney. And Romney does the same thing to Obama. He could have refuted the ad by not doing that. If they are both doing the same thing, then your attempt to rationalise your guy doing the same thing as okay, but when the other guy does it it is wrong, as absurd.

You probably shouldn't keep replying to this until you've formulated some kind of meaningful response. You have to acknowledge the distinction and incorporate it, either through changing your position somehow, or by explaining why the distinction doesn't matter. And protip: saying it doesn't matter over and over again is not the same thing as explaining why it doesn't.

I find your entire argument about why one ad is okay and the other isn't as not even worthy of discussion because the initial complaint was the nature of the ad. i lost my job because of Romney. Boo-hoo. And the Romney ad is the same thing. I lost my car dealership because of Obama. Woe! The distinction you are trying to make to justify using the same tactics by one candidate over another is semantics, and certainly not a substantive argument.

Actually, everybody thinks they get to do this. That's what you keep saying: voters decide what does and does not matter them. And hey, check this out--I'm a voter! And I decide what I think matters. Then, I come on here and I say why I think it matters and I argue for my position. That's how this whole thing--arguments, I mean--works, guy. So for the love of God, please stop wasting my time by saying "It's debatable" instead of debating it, and "It's arguable" instead of arguing it.

You as a voter get to decide whatever you want, but the ground rules for a campaign are not set by you. Nobody but you are making these particular distinctions and using this criteria to determine what is a relevant argument.

Also, for the billionth time: I'm not saying his record at Bain is off limits, I'm saying they're not making substantive ads about it. This is not a complicated distinction to grasp. And even if you disagree (shocker), you don't get to pretend I'm saying something I'm not. Sorry.

Yeah, you keep saying that his record is not off limits, and then you say stuff like they are saying Romney is a bad guy because he was a good businessman, which is hardly the point they are making.

It's adorable that you think you can shift the burden of proof to me like this. If you want to argue that the ads are the same, you need to show me Romney campaigning on being the savior of manufacturing. When you can't, you need to man up and admit you were wrong.

No, you have to admit you are wrong because it doesn't matter if Obama made the claim you are making or not, which I doubt. Because your initial point was to criticize Obama for the nature of the ad, the tactics being used, the appeal to emotion. You are the one that changed the argument, not me, and changed the burden of proof.

By the by, Romney doesn't really say anything either way in his ads, as far as I can see, at least. He did, however, say it a lot on the campaign trail, particularly in the debates. But, again, if you want to make the claim, you have to provide the evidence.

As I have already said, this distinction you are making is pulling hairs and proof your real complaint isn't about whose ads are more substantive, but more like you are pissed off the Obama ads are considered for the moment by the pundits and possibly by swing voters to be more effective.

Not what I said. I asked if it was more patriotic to pay more in taxes, not if it was patriotic to pay less.

And what does that have to do with having bank accounts in foreign countries, which the was what the original discussion was about? It is fine to pay as little as the tax code allows, but shipping your money overseas isn't consistent with a man who claims to love America so much.

Yup, just as I thought: no argument. It's amazing how stymied you are by simple challenges like this. I ask you to explain your accusation, explain why something is actually bad, and all you've got is that it looks bad, or that other people haven't done it, or that if it comes out he'll feel "heat." You literally have no idea how to answer the question. Presumably because you don't ask yourself questions like this. So when I do, you're almost comically unprepared for it.

What exactly is your point? It is a good thing he ships his money overseas to avoid taxes?

And if I ask you why, will I get more hilarious scrambling and grasping for reasons? Because I like to play the Benny Hill theme while I read those.

Why don't you explain why Romney shipping taxes overseas is something he should be proud of?

Huh? I have no idea what you're saying here, nor what it has to do with the simple thing contradiction in Obama's positions that I've mentioned.

The point you seemed to be making Romney was doing this because his taxes was too high, when actually he doesn't pay anything close to the top bracket, his tax rate is less than most middle class Americans.

Wrong. Actual quote: "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.'"

The distinction I was referring to was you saying he doesn't actually like to fire people, which is not what he said. The real distinction is not what he likes to do, which is meaningless, but who in that statement he was talking about firing, health providers and not employees. But who except Mitt Romney thinks in those terms, that by changing health providers you are firing "people"? The health provider is not an unemployment statistic if you switch plans. He still said he likes to be able to fire people and didn't say anything about not liking the process of actually firing them.

Your quote (twice): "I like being able to fire people."

Which makes Donald Trump an *******. So why does that explain or excuse your repeated misquoting of Romney, exactly?
And Donald Trump is a big Romney supporter these days and Romney seems to be real happy about it.

will.15

08-08-12, 02:39 PM

Yeah, see, it was entirely predictable that you'd say this, which is why you should have actually read my response, because I already answered it preemptively. Remember this part?
"Fact checkers are useful insofar as they do research to find background for things. They usually do a very good job of that. But their topline ratings--how they interpret the facts--are absolutely absurd. I can give you scads of examples of it."
Fact checkers are like Wikipedia; useful for finding sources. Their topline judgments, however, are considerably less reliable, especially when you're just aggregating them together. Some are downright laughable, in fact, but still contain useful research.

I think you'll find, if you actually pay attention to what I say, that I almost always anticipate these things ahead of time and ask the correct questions in advance to stave off pointless argumentative wandering. That's why I said the above before you made the argument, and that's why I started asking you to define "substantive" long before you started making arguments about what it meant. If you bother to answer the really simple questions I ask and actually read what I say, we'll get to the point a whole hell of a lot quicker.

Well, you said the fact checkers said they found the statement Romney shipped jobs overseas as not true, that was their conclusion, you didn't cite their analysis. So you are shifting gears here.

But then, if the idea is not to get to the point, or to draw out assumptions and disagreements, but just to sort of run around in circles and kick up dust and make sure that everything gets some sort of response (even if it's not a refutation), then hey, don't change a thing.
Which is what I would say applies to you.

will.15

08-08-12, 02:41 PM

ManOf1000Faces

08-08-12, 02:57 PM

I'm going to be the President :)

Yoda

08-08-12, 03:07 PM

No, I am not getting into a discussion of it because that is how these things drift away from the original topic.
Not when you specifically invoke it to argue one of your points, it isn't. If you use it to defend a point, then you're obligated to defend your usage, too.

Here's what I think: I think you (and lots of people on the left in general) have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when they make reference to loopholes and tax credits. I think they see the result and think it's unacceptable, but would be very hard pressed to detail and defend the elimination of most of the specific deductions that exist.

But that's just, you know, my opinion.

The point of that article was it was rebutting Romney regarding his criticism of Obama regarding you didn't build that.
If so, it doesn't do a very good job of it. Saying he made more money than he would have otherwise isn't really a defense of the idea that his business owes a big chunk of its success to government, especially when the benefits in question are not things provided, but merely things not taken away in the first place. And the things that are provided, Romney still pays for far more than your average citizen.

Also--and this is all that's really needed to shoot the article's premise as a "rebuttal" down--Obama wasn't making these arguments to sell the repeal of those tax deductions. He made them to support higher total tax rates.

Well, I am not saying that either. Even then you would have to look at their record and determine what they did. Herman Cain was a good CEO, revitalizing a struggling pizza chain, but is that skill instantly applicable to fixing the economy? But there is certainly not much to criticize, which is not the case of Romney's more mixed and different record at Bain.
Well, wait, if you're not saying that, then what are you saying? Is his record at Bain evidence that he understands how the economy (and business) works, or not? Please try to limit yourself to answering that specific question, not some much broader question about whether or not you think it looks good or is the same as some other hypothetical candidate or CEO.

But Herman Cain never said he was going to do for America as president what he did at Godfather's.
Out of curiosity (this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one, because I don't recall either way), did Mitt Romney say he would do for America what he did for Bain? Or did he just say he learned things from his time at Bain and understands the economy? Because those are two very different statements.

I did complete my thought. And you ignored it and want to change the argument into something else. i went back and looked at my original comment and what you said has nothing to do with what I said.
Show me. Put 'em side by side, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

The part of your thought you didn't complete is how businesses sometimes failing at Bain means his time there doesn't teach him anything about the economy. You described what they did, and pointed out that it sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, but you never went on from there to explain why you should be drawing a specific conclusion from those facts.

The problem is he did it by doing exactly the same thing Obama did, dragging out the regular Joe who relates a personal story. It is an appeal to emotions, not fact. The entire point of your initial complaint was to complain Obama was bringing these people out in these ads to criticize Romney. And Romney does the same thing to Obama. He could have refuted the ad by not doing that. If they are both doing the same thing, then your attempt to rationalise your guy doing the same thing as okay, but when the other guy does it it is wrong, as absurd.
So...still ignoring the distinction, huh? Okay. Let's try this another way.

The fact that the ads are similar in nature is poetic justice, but it doesn't make them the same, because--and get ready to have some serious logic dropped on you right now--the claims they're meant to address are not the same. Mind = blown, right?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002071027/neo-whoa-53101744307_xlarge.jpeg

If both candidates make an ad that say "tax cuts cost too much money," and the ads are IDENTICAL, but only one of the candidates is proposing those tax cuts...guess what? The ad is only relevant to that candidate, even though the ads are identical.

So, even if the ads are similar (and they might be deliberately similar in style and structure, because the symmetry makes the counterpunch even more effective, narrative-wise), the things they're responding to are not, which is what determines how substantive they are. This is so obvious that I feel kinda dumb even pointing it out.

I find your entire argument about why one ad is okay and the other isn't as not even worthy of discussion because the initial complaint was the nature of the ad. i lost my job because of Romney. Boo-hoo. And the Romney ad is the same thing. I lost my car dealership because of Obama. Woe! The distinction you are trying to make to justify using the same tactics by one candidate over another is semantics, and certainly not a substantive argument.
I spot the problem here right away: it's in the first sentence, where you say the initial complaint was the "nature" of the ad." The initial complaint was the substance of the ad. Its content and relevancy. Not it's feel or tone or structure, which is how you appear to be using "nature" there.

In other words, it's yet another reply that purports to argue with what I said by changing what I said.

You as a voter get to decide whatever you want, but the ground rules for a campaign are not set by you.
Gee, thanks. This explains a lot. I keep trying to unilaterally restructure the world as I see it in my mind, and it never works! And now I know why.

Nobody but you are making these particular distinctions and using this criteria to determine what is a relevant argument.
Yeah, I don't think it's even remotely true that "nobody" else feels this way, nor do I think you'd have any way of knowing. But maybe quite a lot don't. So what? Lots of people think lots of things, and lots of them are superficial. That's why you argue about it.

Yeah, you keep saying that his record is not off limits, and then you say stuff like they are saying Romney is a bad guy because he was a good businessman, which is hardly the point they are making.
Really? You think there's a lot of supper hidden nuance in "the point was to make money" and people talking about how they thought Romney thought about something? You don't think the point of those little anecdotes is to make him sound like an unsympathetic jerk?

No, you have to admit you are wrong because it doesn't matter if Obama made the claim you are making or not, which I doubt.
Wait, what? You doubt that he claims to have saved the industry?

Because your initial point was to criticize Obama for the nature of the ad, the tactics being used, the appeal to emotion. You are the one that changed the argument, not me, and changed the burden of proof.
Is there any simple distinction that won't trip you up? Recap:

1) The ad is superficial and not about policy. It's not substantive.

2) Obama's claim to have saved the industry is not relevant to point #1, but it is relevant for determining whether or not the ad in point #1 is meaningfully different from Romney's bailout ad.

Again, simple.

As I have already said, this distinction you are making is pulling hairs and proof your real complaint isn't about whose ads are more substantive, but more like you are pissed off the Obama ads are considered for the moment by the pundits and possibly by swing voters to be more effective.
News to me. But these two things aren't mutually exclusive. They can be both effective and superficial. Plenty of ads are. I made this exact point at the beginning of this conversation and asked a few very direct questions about it, too.

And what does that have to do with having bank accounts in foreign countries, which the was what the original discussion was about?
That's exactly my question. What does patriotism have to do with tax rates? Ask yourself:

"He is a hypocrite. He sings a flag waving song about how great America is and he is sticking his money in Swiss bank accounts and in the Cayman Islands."

It is fine to pay as little as the tax code allows, but shipping your money overseas isn't consistent with a man who claims to love America so much.
Because when you love America, you want to pay more in taxes?

What exactly is your point? It is a good thing he ships his money overseas to avoid taxes?
My point--which I don't think I've been at all unclear about, but I'll repeat it anyway--is that you can't actually explain to me why Romney having foreign bank accounts has anything to do with his "faith in American values," or relates to any actual meaningful policy difference. It just looks bad from a shallow, jingoistic perspective. Good political fodder, but not a coherent argument.

Why don't you explain why Romney shipping taxes overseas is something he should be proud of?
Because I didn't say he should be proud of it. You, on the other hand, have clearly implied it is shameful and significant, and I keep asking why.

The point you seemed to be making Romney was doing this because his taxes was too high, when actually he doesn't pay anything close to the top bracket, his tax rate is less than most middle class Americans.
Nope, the point was (and is, and always has been) that you can't pin wealthy Americans down with higher taxes rates. They can avoid things. This is true whether you think they pay too little or not, and whether they currently pay a lot or not. Nobody wants to pay taxes, and raising taxes on them gives them more incentive to do more things like this. Romney paying a low net tax rate doesn't change this point in the slightest.

The distinction I was referring to was you saying he doesn't actually like to fire people, which is not what he said.
Oh Good lord. I didn't say you said that. How can you possibly get this confused so quickly? Here's the logic:

1) Saying you like to be able to fire people is pretty much a truism, even if most people don't use the word "fire."

2) Saying you like to fire people makes you an ******* and/or Donald Trump.

3) Romney said the first, and you've repeatedly misquoted him as saying the second.
Therefore, you misquoted him in a way that meaningfully changes what he said.

And Donald Trump is a big Romney supporter these days and Romney seems to be real happy about it.
And via some made up political transitive property, Donald Trump liking to fire people therefore means it's okay for you to misquote Mitt Romney? What?

You misquote the guy. You misquote him in a way that turns a benign statement into an assholish one. You shouldn't do that. What's to argue about?

Yoda

08-08-12, 03:14 PM

Well, you said the fact checkers said they found the statement Romney shipped jobs overseas as not true, that was their conclusion, you didn't cite their analysis. So you are shifting gears here.
Nope, totally wrong. I didn't cite their conclusion, or anything specifically. I only said it had been "corrected by multiple fact check organizations." This statement contains no opinion about the reliability of fact checking in general, nor any comment about overall conclusions versus specific research.

You were trying to make your opinion more than that by citing the fact checkers.
I cited them to demonstrate that Romney left Bain in 1999; no more, and no less. I didn't endow them with quasi-theistic power over truth and falsity.

Yoda

08-08-12, 05:26 PM

Quick update on the "Mitt Romney is responsible for my wife dying" ad. It was picked apart pretty quickly; the layoffs in question took place after Romney was no longer making day-to-day operational decisions, they still had health insurance at points afterwards, and the whole thing happened five years later. So on top of being really cheap just in general, it's not really accurate, either. But, of course, it's not a campaign ad.

Now, the campaign refuses to condemn it, which is slightly disappointing but not outright shocking. They gave the standard "we're not involved with them" line. Whatever. But they also said they weren't familiar with the man or his story. Which is true, except for the part where they aren't familiar with the man or his story. Their Deputy Campaign Manager (#2 on the campaign, essentially) had him on one of their official campaign conference calls to tell the same story. It's already on YouTube. But wait, it gets worse: he's actually in one of their official campaign ads, too.

They insist there was no coordination, and maybe there wasn't, though if you're generally suspicious of this sort of thing, it doesn't get more suspicious than this. They haven't answered questions about when their footage was shot to allow for any comparisons. But whether anything illegal happened or not, at bare minimum they didn't tell the truth about their distance from it.

Whatever the specifics, it's just really ugly stuff. Maybe even uglier than the "Paul Ryan wants to push your grandmother off a cliff" ads last year.

will.15

08-08-12, 07:05 PM

Yoda

08-08-12, 07:13 PM

Prove it. Show me a single example of me applying a different standard.

If you're referring to Super PAC coordination, then you should read the post more carefully. I'm not accusing them of coordinating illegally, because I don't know. But I do know that if you tend to think this sort of thing is happening behind the scenes (which you've suggested in the past), this would have to be a particularly blatant example of it.

Nor am I implying that the campaign is responsible for the ad. They're not. But they are responsible for exploiting his story in the exact same way in their conference calls, and then failing to tell the truth about whether or not they had any dealings with him.

will.15

08-08-12, 07:37 PM

It is no different than Bush taking advantage of the Kerry ads, which had people responsible for making them formerly working directly for Bush and financed by people who previously gave him money, as if there is no informal contact between the two groups. None of these ads are independent because if the candidate actually repudiates them as McCain did they disappear.

Yoda

08-08-12, 07:48 PM

Okay, none of the ads are independent underneath the superficial legality. That is a perfectly legitimate position to take. I'd mostly agree with you, anyway, at least in spirit. Technically I think it stays pretty well within the bounds of the law; it's just that it isn't a very effective law. But that's a quibbling difference.

That still doesn't an equation make, however, because of the other things mentioned. The ad could be brushed off a little before because it was coming from one of the PACs, which are notoriously more brutal in the kinds of attacks they'll unleash and which both campaigns take no responsibility for. But now we see the campaign is willing to use the same story to whip people up, albeit on a smaller scale, and won't even admit to having any dealings with the guy when asked about it.

will.15

08-08-12, 08:02 PM

The reason the law isn't effective is because of a Supreme Court ruling that watered down the law and said it was a free speech violation to not allow the so called independent PACS. And they can't actually do pro candidate ads that say vote for.., that is still illegal, so what the PACS supporting a candidate mostly do is negative ads against the guy they don't support.

AKA23

08-10-12, 06:52 PM

A few days ago, Priorities USA, a Super-Pac supporting President Barack Obama, ran an ad which told the story of Mr. Soptic, a former-employee of a company run by Bain Capitol, whose wife contracted cancer, and later died, after she lost her health insurance. This ad goes on to explain that Mr. Soptic "doesn't think that Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and that he "does not think that Mitt Romney is concerned." This ad strongly implies that Mitt Romney is responsible for Mr. Soptic's wife dying of cancer. This ad is dishonest. These are the facts. Mr. Soptic lost his job in 2001, when Bain closed the plant where he worked. His wife did not lose her health insurance at this time. She still had health insurance from her employer. She didn't lose her health care coverage when Bain closed the plant. She lost her health care coverage in 2003 when she left her own job. She died of cancer in 2006, a full 5 years after Bain Capital closed the plant where her husband worked. To say that Mr. Soptic's wife ended up dying of cancer because of Mitt Romney's management of Bain Capitol is a blatant personal attack which has very little, if any, evidence to support it. For Priorities USA to say that Mitt Romney is "not concerned" about his wife losing her healthcare and dying of cancer is an outrageous and shameless charge. If Mitt Romney were not concerned about people lacking health care, he would not have instituted a universal healthcare law as Governor of Massachusetts in his own state. People of conscience and conviction have plenty of reasons to vote against Mitt Romney without resorting to lying about his record and impugning his personal character. President Obama and his allies should be able to conduct a campaign that is worthy of the Office he holds. This ad is beneath the dignity of the President of the United States. Everyone involved with this ad should be ashamed of themselves, and President Obama should call for this ad to be stopped immediately. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj70XqOxptU

will.15

08-10-12, 08:12 PM

If so, it doesn't do a very good job of it. Saying he made more money than he would have otherwise isn't really a defense of the idea that his business owes a big chunk of its success to government, especially when the benefits in question are not things provided, but merely things not taken away in the first place. And the things that are provided, Romney still pays for far more than your average citizen.

Well,no, it is something that is provided for, because the tax rate was substantially lowered for that type of thing relatively recently.

And the article was about how his ability to make a profit at Bain is directly tied in to the lower tax rate he pays and Bain pays because it is taxed differently because it is viewed as an investment rather than income.

Also--and this is all that's really needed to shoot the article's premise as a "rebuttal" down--Obama wasn't making these arguments to sell the repeal of those tax deductions. He made them to support higher total tax rates.

So what? He was also proposing raising the tax rate for those deductions?

Well, wait, if you're not saying that, then what are you saying? Is his record at Bain evidence that he understands how the economy (and business) works, or not? Please try to limit yourself to answering that specific question, not some much broader question about whether or not you think it looks good or is the same as some other hypothetical candidate or CEO.

I never said what you want me to say. I made my position clear. And Romney never said what you want him to say either. his comment wasn't just that he understands business. Why would anybody vote for him just based on that? it was bragging about the jobs he created in the private sector, which the same fact check organizations you cite all debunked, that he created a hugely inflated number of jobs in the private sector

Out of curiosity (this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one, because I don't recall either way), did Mitt Romney say he would do for America what he did for Bain? Or did he just say he learned things from his time at Bain and understands the economy? Because those are two very different statements.

Did he specifically say he would do for the country what he did at Bain? Well, I don't know, but that was the implication bragging about his job creator record. His comments certainly went far beyond the modest implications in your second question.

Show me. Put 'em side by side, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

That makes two of us, not understanding what your point is in response to my initial remarks.

The part of your thought you didn't complete is how businesses sometimes failing at Bain means his time there doesn't teach him anything about the economy. You described what they did, and pointed out that it sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, but you never went on from there to explain why you should be drawing a specific conclusion from those facts.

So...still ignoring the distinction, huh? Okay. Let's try this another way.

The fact that the ads are similar in nature is poetic justice, but it doesn't make them the same, because--and get ready to have some serious logic dropped on you right now--the claims they're meant to address are not the same. Mind = blown, right?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002071027/neo-whoa-53101744307_xlarge.jpeg

If both candidates make an ad that say "tax cuts cost too much money," and the ads are IDENTICAL, but only one of the candidates is proposing those tax cuts...guess what? The ad is only relevant to that candidate, even though the ads are identical.

So, even if the ads are similar (and they might be deliberately similar in style and structure, because the symmetry makes the counterpunch even more effective, narrative-wise), the things they're responding to are not, which is what determines how substantive they are. This is so obvious that I feel kinda dumb even pointing it out.

There is no substance in the Romney ad. The guy lost his car dealership. Without Obama's intervention he would have lost it anyway. But now the industry is still here and thriving with more jobs. so how is it more substantive?

I spot the problem here right away: it's in the first sentence, where you say the initial complaint was the "nature" of the ad." The initial complaint was the substance of the ad. Its content and relevancy. Not it's feel or tone or structure, which is how you appear to be using "nature" there.

You were complaining it was an appeal to the emotions. It was. So is the Romney ad with the auto dealer. These are the same kind of ads. You are splitting hairs trying to argue one is more substantive than the other.

Gee, thanks. This explains a lot. I keep trying to unilaterally restructure the world as I see it in my mind, and it never works! And now I know why.

Yeah, I don't think it's even remotely true that "nobody" else feels this way, nor do I think you'd have any way of knowing. But maybe quite a lot don't. So what? Lots of people think lots of things, and lots of them are superficial. That's why you argue about it.

No political pundit, commentator, analyst, or what not has said what you are saying there. That there might be a yahoo down the street who agrees doesn't change what I said.

Really? You think there's a lot of supper hidden nuance in "the point was to make money" and people talking about how they thought Romney thought about something? You don't think the point of those little anecdotes is to make him sound like an unsympathetic jerk?
Unsympathetic, yes,

Wait, what? You doubt that he claims to have saved the industry?

That is not what you said previously, that he saved the auto industry. Yeah, he takes credit for that. you said he was bragging he saved manufacturing, which is broader than the auto industry and he never said that. Yes, he made sure General Motors got a little smaller and some jobs were lost, and they would have gotten a lot smaller if they declared bankruptcy and most economists believe without the bailout they wouldn't have survived at all. They are now doing well during a slow recovery. Not all manufacturing, just the auto industry.

Is there any simple distinction that won't trip you up? Recap:

1) The ad is superficial and not about policy. It's not substantive.

2) Obama's claim to have saved the industry is not relevant to point #1, but it is relevant for determining whether or not the ad in point #1 is meaningfully different from Romney's bailout ad.

Again, simple.

The ads are so similar in style what you argue is meaningless. The Romney ad is not making any argument that can be regarded as substantive, the whole point is to throw out the same kind ad that was thrown at them.

News to me. But these two things aren't mutually exclusive. They can be both effective and superficial. Plenty of ads are. I made this exact point at the beginning of this conversation and asked a few very direct questions about it, too.

That's exactly my question. What does patriotism have to do with tax rates? Ask yourself:
"He is a hypocrite. He sings a flag waving song about how great America is and he is sticking his money in Swiss bank accounts and in the Cayman Islands."

Because when you love America, you want to pay more in taxes?

You don''t understand the difference between taking advantage of tax laws in this country and sticking your money in foreign banks where it isn't being invested in the America you claim to believe in? You are in a minority not understanding this. I think even most Republicans would have a problem with a candidate if it was shown he put most of his money in foreign banks. Romney gets a bit of a pass here, because it wasn't a lot of his money there, but there are reports he had a lot more there before he decided to run. It would be much more controversial if he had.

My point--which I don't think I've been at all unclear about, but I'll repeat it anyway--is that you can't actually explain to me why Romney having foreign bank accounts has anything to do with his "faith in American values," or relates to any actual meaningful policy difference. It just looks bad from a shallow, jingoistic perspective. Good political fodder, but not a coherent argument.

Jingoistic? From a politician who bashes China (and proposes remedies he won't do if elected) and immigrants?

Because I didn't say he should be proud of it. You, on the other hand, have clearly implied it is shameful and significant, and I keep asking why.

Well, if it isn't something he should be proud of, we are spitting hairs about if it is shameful or not. It is significant enough to bring up. Be the sole issue? No, but in a political ad where it is brought up along with other things, it is a valid campaign issue.

Nope, the point was (and is, and always has been) that you can't pin wealthy Americans down with higher taxes rates. They can avoid things. This is true whether you think they pay too little or not, and whether they currently pay a lot or not. Nobody wants to pay taxes, and raising taxes on them gives them more incentive to do more things like this. Romney paying a low net tax rate doesn't change this point in the slightest.

But it wasn't about what we were talking about. We were talking about Romney shipping his money overseas, not Obama's tax proposal.

Oh Good lord. I didn't say you said that. How can you possibly get this confused so quickly? Here's the logic:
1) Saying you like to be able to fire people is pretty much a truism, even if most people don't use the word "fire."

2) Saying you like to fire people makes you an ******* and/or Donald Trump.

3) Romney said the first, and you've repeatedly misquoted him as saying the second.
Therefore, you misquoted him in a way that meaningfully changes what he said.

And via some made up political transitive property, Donald Trump liking to fire people therefore means it's okay for you to misquote Mitt Romney? What?

You misquote the guy. You misquote him in a way that turns a benign statement into an assholish one. You shouldn't do that. What's to argue about?
You think it is benign, I don't. He chose to say it in a way nobody thinks. He is firing people if he changes health insurers. He made it personal. He is firing people.

Yoda

08-10-12, 09:48 PM

Well,no, it is something that is provided for, because the tax rate was substantially lowered for that type of thing relatively recently.
How recently it was lowered has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

And the article was about how his ability to make a profit at Bain is directly tied in to the lower tax rate he pays and Bain pays because it is taxed differently because it is viewed as an investment rather than income.
No, the article is about how he benefits from lower tax rates. That doesn't refute...let me check...yeah, that doesn't refute anything I'm saying.

Also, if you're saying it's about Romney Bain, and also that it was only recently lowered, then you've contradicted yourself. It can't be both.

So what? He was also proposing raising the tax rate for those deductions?
"So what?" So it doesn't work as a rebuttal. And which deductions, and where has he proposed changing them? Do you have any idea if this is true, or is that no longer a prerequisite for making a claim?

And Romney never said what you want him to say either. his comment wasn't just that he understands business. Why would anybody vote for him just based on that? it was bragging about the jobs he created in the private sector, which the same fact check organizations you cite all debunked, that he created a hugely inflated number of jobs in the private sector
Is this even a serious question? The implication of understanding business is that you know what's required to facilitate it as President. I don't get terribly excited by the claim, but it's a pretty common claim among candidates with business experience, so I'm not sure why you'd be so confused by it.

Did he specifically say he would do for the country what he did at Bain? Well, I don't know, but that was the implication bragging about his job creator record.
This is becoming an absolute mess. You contrasted Romney with other CEOs. You compared him to Herman Cain in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=834535), and concluded with "But Herman Cain never said he was going to do for America as president what he did at Godfather's." So I asked you if Romney actually said he'd do for American what he did for Bain...and your answer is that you don't know? What?

And no, the implication of bragging about job creation is not that you're going to run the country the same way you ran the business. It's that you know what businesses need to help them make jobs.

There is no substance in the Romney ad. The guy lost his car dealership. Without Obama's intervention he would have lost it anyway. But now the industry is still here and thriving with more jobs. so how is it more substantive?
So...does this mean you've abandoned the incredibly facile argument that, because both ads have to do with layoffs, they must therefore be identical in terms of substance? If so, i'm going to call that progress, albeit against my better judgment.

But to answer this (completely and utterly new) argument: you don't get to pretend you saved an industry when big chunks of the industry weren't saved at all. Especially when the ones given priority happen to be your political allies (my, what a stunning coincidence). There's even more evidence about that favoritism out now, by the way.

And on top of all that, you sure don't get to start running ads criticizing your opponent for instituting private layoffs for failing businesses when you did the same thing with taxpayer money. The word "chutzpah" doesn't even really cover it.

It's amazing that you you even had to ask, but that's your freakin' difference. And anyone who can't see it is a truly hopeless partisan.

You were complaining it was an appeal to the emotions. It was. So is the Romney ad with the auto dealer. These are the same kind of ads. You are splitting hairs trying to argue one is more substantive than the other.
I was complaining that it wasn't substantive. I don't much care for appeals to emotion, either, but that's a separate metric; ads can be appeals to emotion independent of whether or not they contain substance.

No political pundit, commentator, analyst, or what not has said what you are saying there. That there might be a yahoo down the street who agrees doesn't change what I said.
The fact that you constantly find yourself appealing to what you think most people believe (not that you're a reliable arbiter of such things, anyway) is a dead giveaway that you're unprepared to be arguing about a subject.

Unsympathetic, yes,
Then my point's made. I assume I once again have to remind you of what we were arguing about, because you always seem to lose track. Here's what you said:

"...you say stuff like they are saying Romney is a bad guy because he was a good businessman, which is hardly the point they are making."
So that means your argument is apparently that they weren't saying he was a "bad guy," just that he wasn't sympathetic enough? In the same post you accuse me of hair-splitting? Yikes.

That is not what you said previously, that he saved the auto industry. Yeah, he takes credit for that. you said he was
bragging he saved manufacturing, which is broader than the auto industry and he never said that.
Nope, I never said that. I said the auto industry. The only time I mentioned manufacturing in this context was to point out that Romney never claimed to save manufacturing in general.

Go ahead and check. And when you find out you're wrong, I'm sure I can expect you to come back, admit the error with dignity, and make a good faith effort to be more careful about how you argue in the future, yes?

:laugh: Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Yes, he made sure General Motors got a little smaller and some jobs were lost and they would have gotten a lot smaller if they declared bankruptcy and most economists believe without the bailout they wouldn't have survived at all. They are now doing well during a slow recovery. Not all manufacturing, just the auto industry.
We both know if I ask you who "most economists" are, you won't have any idea. And when I ask you specific questions about what might have happened otherwise, you'll end up just pulling generalizations and guesses out of the ether. And when I start delving into some meaningful economic theory, you'll check out completely.

The ads are so similar in style
In style. STYLE. Not substance. You still don't get this?

The Romney ad is not making any argument that can be regarded as substantive
So when Obama says he saved the auto industry, it's not substantive to show the ways in which he totally didn't? That's the position you want to defend?

You don''t understand the difference between taking advantage of tax laws in this country and sticking your money in foreign banks where it isn't being invested in the America you claim to believe in? You are in a minority not understanding this. I think even most Republicans would have a problem with a candidate if it was shown he put most of his money in foreign banks. Romney gets a bit of a pass here, because it wasn't a lot of his money there, but there are reports he had a lot more there before he decided to run. It would be much more controversial if he had.
Sure, I understand the difference, but I'm not entirely sure you do. The difference is that one looks bad, politically. And...that's pretty much it. It's bad just because it's bad, apparently. As evidence of this, observe that I've now asked you several times to explain why it's bad, and whether or not paying taxes is more patriotic, and how it says anything about his "faith in American values"...and you've got absolutely nothing. You just keep saying it's obviously bad, and that most people would think it's bad.

Seriousyl, when are you going to get that "people agree with me" is not an argument?

Jingoistic? From a politician who bashes China (and proposes remedies he won't do if elected) and immigrants?
None of which is an answer. Yes, Romney says jingoistic things. I never suggested otherwise. And harping on about his bank accounts is jingoistic, too. It's a shallow, nationalist argument. These two things are not mutually exclusive. And you don't achieve an argumentative stalemate on the issue by pointing out that Romney's jingoistic sometimes, either. That's immaterial to the argument, which is about whether or not the foreign bank accounts are jingoism disguised as a relevant campaign issue.

Well, if it isn't something he should be proud of, we are spitting hairs about if it is shameful or not.
No we aren't. It just means the act is neutral. I wouldn't say I should be proud that I had a soda earlier, but it's not shameful, either.

It is significant enough to bring up. Be the sole issue? No, but in a political ad where it is brought up along with other things, it is a valid campaign issue.
So you keep saying. And when I ask why, you sputter for ahwile and eventually just settle one "lots of people agree with me." Which, as we all know, is a common placeholder when you don't know what to say.

But it wasn't about what we were talking about. We were talking about Romney shipping his money overseas, not Obama's tax proposal.
Nope; I said raising the issue was ironic given Obama's positions. Again, go back and check. I think you'd be genuinely shocked at how often your memory of these sorts of things is wrong.

You think it is benign, I don't. He chose to say it in a way nobody thinks. He is firing people if he changes health insurers. He made it personal. He is firing people.
Yeah, you've got nothing here. No, he didn't make it personal. The people he talked about "firing" were "insurance companies," not random individuals.

You are really working overtime to admit messing up on this one.

DexterRiley

08-10-12, 09:51 PM

So has Romney released his tax returns yet?

will.15

08-10-12, 11:40 PM

How recently it was lowered has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

No, the article is about how he benefits from lower tax rates. That doesn't refute...let me check...yeah, that doesn't refute anything I'm saying.

Also, if you're saying it's about Romney Bain, and also that it was only recently lowered, then you've contradicted yourself. It can't be both.

No, I didn't contradict myself because one has nothing to do with the other. The first statement had to do with you making a distinction that doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with the other statement.

"So what?" So it doesn't work as a rebuttal. And which deductions, and where has he proposed changing them? Do you have any idea if this is true, or is that no longer a prerequisite for making a claim?

It is so what because you once again are trying to expand the discussion to beyond whose ads are substantive and more fair. We weren't debating Obama's tax plan, which was not related to what was being discussed.

Is this even a serious question? The implication of understanding business is that you know what's required to facilitate it as President. I don't get terribly excited by the claim, but it's a pretty common claim among candidates with business experience, so I'm not sure why you'd be so confused by it.

Well, point me out a candidate that says I understand business, but doesn't try to connect it to his accomplishments in the private sector if that is his background. Nobody is going to vote for a candidate who brags he understands business because he was a businessman, but actually was a lousy failed businessman. Well, hardly nobody.

This is becoming an absolute mess. You contrasted Romney with other CEOs. You compared him to Herman Cain in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=834535), and concluded with "But Herman Cain never said he was going to do for America as president what he did at Godfather's." So I asked you if Romney actually said he'd do for American what he did for Bain...and your answer is that you don't know? What?

Jesus, I already answered that. I said he was boasting about his business accomplishments and pretty much using it as a reason to vote for him. Did he specifically say vote for me so i can do for America what i did at Bain? Can't say, but that was his point, even if he didn't use those exact words. Herman Cain never said anything like that, never implied that. It was probably closer to understanding business, and nothing more than that, complaining about government regulations creating a burden on business, which was never Romney's focus. Because if he did, he would have to explain how those regulations prevented him from being more successful. That was his big point he was trying to make. he was a great businessman. he didn't want to talk about his tenure as governor.

And no, the implication of bragging about job creation is not that you're going to run the country the same way you ran the business. It's that you know what businesses need to help them make jobs.

How, if the way he did it is not applicable?

So...does this mean you've abandoned the incredibly facile argument that, because both ads have to do with layoffs, they must therefore be identical in terms of substance? If so, i'm going to call that progress, albeit against my better judgment.

I never said one ad was more substantive. i also said earlier I never cared for those type of ads where you have Joe Blow talking about how a candidate personally affected them. You were making the ridiculous claim the Romney ad is more substantive when it is the same type ad. It doesn't matter their points are somewhat different. They are not substantive ads.

But to answer this (completely and utterly new) argument: you don't get to pretend you saved an industry when big chunks of the industry weren't saved at all. Especially when the ones given priority happen to be your political allies (my, what a stunning coincidence). There's even more evidence about that favoritism out now, by the way.

The focus, for crying out loud, was on the auto manufacturers, not the auto dealerships. There are no auto dealerships without an auto company they are affiliated with. Yeah, they showed favoritism for the auto manufacturers themselves over the dealerships. And most of the dealerships were saved. The companies themselves also shut down plants and workers. They downsized also at the time. Your argument here is getting steadily substantive..

And it isn't a new argument. You made a false statement.

And on top of all that, you sure don't get to start running ads criticizing your opponent for instituting private layoffs for failing businesses when you did the same thing with taxpayer money. The word "chutzpah" doesn't even really cover it.

The criticism was how he did it, by taking excessive money out of the companies, which Romney himself now says he regrets, by borrowing heavily and creating more debt than the business could sustain, but making a profit anyway when they went bust. So, uh, he did at Bain what he accuses Obama of doing to the country. But he made money, and it was only displaced workers and creditors who were screwed so that's okay.

It's amazing that you you even had to ask, but that's your freaking' difference. And anyone who can't see it is a truly hopeless partisan.

Again, it is the other way around. Your focus is so narrow you always spin Romney ads as being substantive and Obama ads as evil incarnate. i am the one saying they both do the same crap.

I was complaining that it wasn't substantive. I don't much care for appeals to emotion, either, but that's a separate metric; ads can be appeals to emotion independent of whether or not they contain substance.

Probably not. But the Romney ad isn't saying anything that matters as a valid argument. It is just, oh, the poor guy, he lost his business.

The fact that you constantly find yourself appealing to what you think most people believe (not that you're a reliable arbiter of such things, anyway) is a dead giveaway that you're unprepared to be arguing about a subject.

I forgot now exactly what you said that prompted that response, but nobody that puts their words on paper where a sizable audience reads it,, or appears in the media, ever said anything like it.

Then my point's made. I assume I once again have to remind you of what we were arguing about, because you always seem to lose track. Here's what you said:
"...you say stuff like they are saying Romney is a bad guy because he was a good businessman, which is hardly the point they are making."
So that means your argument is apparently that they weren't saying he was a "bad guy," just that he wasn't sympathetic enough? In the same post you accuse me of hair-splitting? Yikes.

Well, unsympathetic and jerk are not synonyms, nor is unsympathetic a synonym for bad guy. That is not splitting hairs.

Nope, I never said that. I said the auto industry. The only time I mentioned manufacturing in this context was to point out that Romney never claimed to save manufacturing in general.

Well, that was the implication, wasn't it? Romney never claimed to save the manufacturing industry, but Obama did. Otherwise, the statement makes no sense.

:laugh: Sorry, I couldn't resist.

We both know if I ask you who "most economists" are, you won't have any idea. And when I ask you specific questions about what might have happened otherwise, you'll end up just pulling generalizations and guesses out of the ether. And when I start delving into some meaningful economic theory, you'll check out completely.

The auto industry would have been toast without the bailout. I notice you didn't actually cite an economist who argues they could have survived without it. The general argument among the more conservative economists is who needs them, an auto industry if they can't survive on their own. And that is usually your argument also.

In style. STYLE. Not substance. You still don't get this?

And substance. Again, there is no real point to the ad, it is just, hey, they zinged me with a certain type ad, back at you, fella.

So when Obama says he saved the auto industry, it's not substantive to show the ways in which he totally didn't? That's the position you want to defend?

He did save it. They are thriving during a slow recovery. It is a remarkable success. Was every single job or business saved in the process? Well, no. That would have been impossible. It is not substantive to make that an attack issue. And, oh, by the way, my understanding is it didn't go over that well. Are they still running it?

Sure, I understand the difference, but I'm not entirely sure you do. The difference is that one looks bad, politically. And...that's pretty much it. It's bad just because it's bad, apparently. As evidence of this, observe that I've now asked you several times to explain why it's bad, and whether or not paying taxes is more patriotic, and how it says anything about his "faith in American values"...and you've got absolutely nothing. You just keep saying it's obviously bad, and that most people would think it's bad.

I have answered this and you keep ignoring the answer. The issue isn't paying as little in taxes that you legally can. It is shipping your money to far off lands.

None of which is an answer. Yes, Romney says jingoistic things. I never suggested otherwise. And harping on about his bank accounts is jingoistic, too. It's a shallow, nationalist argument. These two things are not mutually exclusive. And you don't achieve an argumentative stalemate on the issue by pointing out that Romney's jingoistic sometimes, either. That's immaterial to the argument, which is about whether or not the foreign bank accounts are jingoism disguised as a relevant campaign issue.

Well, consistency, which Romney has a problem with, is relevant.

No we aren't. It just means the act is neutral. I wouldn't say I should be proud that I had a soda earlier, but it's not shameful, either.

I think parking your money in Switzerland to avoid taxes is a bigger deal than drinking soda.

So you keep saying. And when I ask why, you sputter for a while and eventually just settle one "lots of people agree with me." Which, as we all know, is a common placeholder when you don't know what to say. W

Well, I can't think of anyone other than you who argues that this an issue that should be off the table. There may be disagreement about the focus, but to suggest it has no relevancy at all puts you in a very tiny room of like minds.

Nope; I said raising the issue was ironic given Obama's positions. Again, go back and check. I think you'd be genuinely shocked at how often your memory of these sorts of things is wrong.

Your irony is too subtle for me.

Yeah, you've got nothing here. No, he didn't make it personal. The people he talked about "firing" were "insurance companies," not random individuals.

You are really working overtime to admit messing up on this one.
But he said fire. He put it in those terms. If you move to a different city, are you firing the police department of your former residence? It shows how he thinks. he likes to be able to fire people. Nobody told him to use the word "fire" in that context. It was his own idea.

Yoda

08-11-12, 12:56 AM

No, I didn't contradict myself because one has nothing to do with the other. The first statement had to do with you making a distinction that doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with the other statement.
You said the piece is a rebuttal to Romney, about how his success is owed (at least partially) to government. Then you said the deductions in question were recent. These two statements cannot both be true.

It is so what because you once again are trying to expand the discussion to beyond whose ads are substantive and more fair. We weren't debating Obama's tax plan, which was not related to what was being discussed.
Except for the little fact that you brought it up. You posted the article and then referred back to when I asked you about something else. In case you haven't noticed, I'm usually the guy trying to herd you back on topic.

Well, point me out a candidate that says I understand business, but doesn't try to connect it to his accomplishments in the private sector if that is his background. Nobody is going to vote for a candidate who brags he understands business because he was a businessman, but actually was a lousy failed businessman. Well, hardly nobody.
Of course they connect it to their business experience. People who run on their business experience believe it gives them an understanding that others don't have. This is not a new (or even controversial) idea.

How, if the way he did it is not applicable?
I'm amazed this has to be asked, but okay:

Running a successful business means you'll naturally have an appreciation for what kind of things stop (or help) businesses to thrive. Taking on any challenge helps you to understand it, in both success and failure. You'll know what makes it harder for them to thrive because you'll know what the challenges to your own were. You'll know what would be conducive to them because you know what was (or would have been) conducive to your own success then.

I think this is all true, and pretty hard to argue with, but you know what? I mostly consider it a positive simply because someone who's run a business is probably a whole hell of a lot less likely to denigrate others who do so, or propose something generally ignorant of how business works. Whether or not it's valuable because it confers all sorts of special executive powers, or just because it stops politicians from making certain kinds of mistakes that only those foreign to business would make, I'm not sure, but the latter is all I need to consider it a boon.

There are no auto dealerships without an auto company they are affiliated with. Yeah, they showed favoritism for the auto manufacturers themselves over the dealerships.
Nice try. It was not favoritism for manufacturers over dealerships, it was favoritism for union manufacturers' over non-union ones. Union and non-union employees working for the very same third-party manufacturer, in one case (Delphi), were treated differently. Last I heard they were suing over it, in fact.

And it isn't a new argument. You made a false statement.
Sure it is. Before, you argued that the ad was the same because it was about the same subject. This time, you argued that it wasn't substantive because the guy would have lost his dealership without the bailout. You went from making a facile argument about the style of the ad, to making an actual argument for once. So I was responding to this highly unexpected turn of events, which I presume appears at roughly the same frequency as Haley's Comet.

The criticism was how he did it, by taking excessive money out of the companies, which Romney himself now says he regrets, by borrowing heavily and creating more debt than the business could sustain, but making a profit anyway when they went bust. So, uh, he did at Bain what he accuses Obama of doing to the country. But he made money, and it was only displaced workers and creditors who were screwed so that's okay.
Leaving aside the INCREDIBLY MASSIVE difference of doing it with your own money and resources, as opposed to taxpayer money, you need to start being specific. What business are you referring to? Was it going out of business anyway? Because in some of the examples where people complain about being laid off, the business' failure was imminent, and Bain ended up prolonging its life and the employment therein, even if it went under eventually anyway. So start being specific. Start dealing in facts. You get far too much mileage out of general impressions and making vague claims.

Again, it is the other way around. Your focus is so narrow you always spin Romney ads as being substantive and Obama ads as evil incarnate.
Ah, hyperbole. The last gasp of a dying argument.

No, Romney's ads are not ALL substantive. And Obama's ads aren't evil. The claim--as it has been the entire time--is that Romney's running a largely substantive campaign, and Obama a largely superficial one. I've been pretty clear on this point, so save your silly exaggerations.

Probably not. But the Romney ad isn't saying anything that matters as a valid argument. It is just, oh, the poor guy, he lost his business.
Except that an audit of the TARP money specifically found that the White House pushed for more cuts (and faster cuts) than the automakers were originally asking for. This guy's fate is not purely incidental, or a necessary part of some larger process.

Also, you seem to be leaning very heavily on anecdotal evidence. My argument is about ads in general; not every single one is substantive, and some are only mildly so (the one we're talking about I find moderately substantive, for the record). I posted half a dozen before, and I can post a half a dozen more in another 5 minutes, and whether or not you think this one isn't as substantive doesn't change the point I was making.

I'll ask a simple question: is it substantive to make an ad that contrasts President Obama's claims about his economic policies with the actual results of those policies? Yes or no?

I forgot now exactly what you said that prompted that response, but nobody that puts their words on paper where a sizable audience reads it,, or appears in the media, ever said anything like it.
Yeah...I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about here. It's easy to pontificate like this when there's no way to quantify it.

Not that it matters. If something is wrong, tell me why, don't regale me with your random guesses about how commonplace the thought is. If you can't, then you should have the sense not to try to argue with it in the first place.

Well, unsympathetic and jerk are not synonyms, nor is unsympathetic a synonym for bad guy. That is not splitting hairs.
So this is what your argument's been reduced to? Making a pointless distinction between "this ad says Romney's a bad guy" and "this ad says Romney isn't sympathetic enough to this worker"? I dunno what you think "bad guy" entails, but that's clearly a "Romney's a bad guy" ad.

Well, that was the implication, wasn't it? Romney never claimed to save the manufacturing industry, but Obama did. Otherwise, the statement makes no sense.
No, the statement makes sense as a hypothetical because the anti-Bain ads are about manufacturing.

The auto industry would have been toast without the bailout. I notice you didn't actually cite an economist who argues they could have survived without it.
Matt Slaughter. Russ Roberts. Dan Mitchell. Don Boudreaux. Steve Conover. Mark Perry. Need more? Give me a number.

I didn't cite any before because I know there's no number I can list that will convince you. You know why? Because your opinion isn't based on data or any understanding of economics. If you're willing to have an opinion even when you don't really know what you're talking about, why would you respond to any serious argument?

Maybe you find economics boring. Maybe you can't get your head around it. Maybe you're just kind of lazy about trying to understand it. I won't pretend to know why you're not too keen on the topic, I just know that you aren't. Which is just fine and dandy, except for the part where you keep making arguments about it. If you keep doing that, I'm just going to keep calling your bluff.

The general argument among the more conservative economists is who needs them, an auto industry if they can't survive on their own. And that is usually your argument also.
Nope. The closest thing I ever said to this was that the auto industry is not a special, crucial industry that must exist in its current state in the United States. The most common conservative argument against it is not that we don't need it at all, but that it should be allowed to go through a structured bankruptcy.

He did save it. They are thriving during a slow recovery. It is a remarkable success.
It's adorable that you still believe this. I can run through all the many, many reasons this is total bull again, if you like. Or link you back to the two or three previous instances we've discussed it, each of which ended with you trying so very hard to avoid admitting that it was a blatant union giveaway, among other things.

And, oh, by the way, my understanding is it didn't go over that well. Are they still running it?
I have absolutely no idea if it's running, or how successful it's been. You know why? Because I'm arguing about what makes sense, not what's popular. That's a point I've been trying to drum into your head for a long time, and it just won't take. In every discussion of even moderate length, you inevitably end up falling back on some reference to the popularity of an idea. It's an argumentative crutch that you bust out when you don't have anything to say.

I have answered this and you keep ignoring the answer. The issue isn't paying as little in taxes that you legally can. It is shipping your money to far off lands.
No, I'm asking why it's an issue. That's the thing you haven't answered. Just saying it's "The issue" isn't an answer. Explain why how much you pay in taxes is a reflection of your Patriotism. Explain what this has to do with someone's "faith in American values." For example, what values are those, and how are they flaunted by this?

If you can't answer these questions, then your accusation is invalid.

Well, consistency, which Romney has a problem with, is relevant.
Sure, in general. But this is a specific argument, which was: the tax haven stuff is jingoistic and shallow. You haven't countered that at all, you're just trying to deflect it.

I think parking your money in Switzerland to avoid taxes is a bigger deal than drinking soda.
Irrelevant. The example illustrates that just because something isn't something to be proud of, it doesn't follow that it's therefore something to be ashamed of. It can simply be neutral.

Well, I can't think of anyone other than you who argues that this an issue that should be off the table. There may be disagreement about the focus, but to suggest it has no relevancy at all puts you in a very tiny room of like minds.
Yeah, again, I have no faith whatsoever in your powers of ideological summarization. And I also don't care. If you can't make an argument against something that consists of more than "I don't think a lot of people think that way," then you shouldn't be arguing.

Your irony is too subtle for me.
I think it's more that you're just constantly losing track of what it is you're arguing, which explains a lot of the contradictions.

The irony was: complaining about overseas tax shelters while simultaneously advocating policies that incentivize people to utilize them.

But he said fire. He put it in those terms. If you move to a different city, are you firing the police department of your former residence? It shows how he thinks. he likes to be able to fire people. Nobody told him to use the word "fire" in that context. It was his own idea.
I didn't ask you if you thought he used a weird word. That has no bearing. The distinction is about liking it, and liking to be able to do it. EVERYONE has the latter in common, but only utter tools actually enjoy it for its own sake. I said this three posts ago, at which point you tried to avoid admitting the mistake by inexplicably acting like the word "fire" was the issue.

Yoda

08-11-12, 01:00 AM

By the by, Romney's apparently going to announce his VP pick tomorrow morning. And the rumors are strongly suggesting that it could be Paul Ryan, which would be interesting.

I'm sure we'll go on into full-blown "Mediscare" mode at some point if this is the case, but a number of Republican candidates have already effectively fought back against that silliness. Not sure if he'd be the best choice or not, but I know this: he embodies the central financial struggle of this generation, and it'd be fun to watch him utterly dismantle Joe Biden in the VP debate.

AKA23

08-11-12, 01:13 AM

If I were Romney, I'd pick Ryan. He's a serious thinker and is very conservative. He will help shore up his conservative base, who may still be skeptical of his flexibility on issues. He has a great deal of policy experience, and has established relationships on the Hill. He's someone who has tackled tough issues, and presented a bold conservative vision. I don't agree with that vision. I don't think it's the right way to take this country, and I'm skeptical of conservative's troubling tendency to refuse to gut defense while taking a hatchet to programs that help the poor and those who are struggling, but I'm not a conservative. If you're a conservative, you want Ryan. Ryan's the man for the job.

will.15

08-11-12, 01:38 AM

Prediction.

Risk adverse Romney won't pick Ryan.

He wants to talk about the economy, not Medicare.

Powderfinger

08-11-12, 01:41 AM

He wants to talk about the economy, not Medicare.

Will, be honest! Do reckon Medicare is a bad idea for America? You know I'm an Aussie, so either way I really don't care what happens, I care about our troops.

will.15

08-11-12, 01:43 AM

What?

Powderfinger

08-11-12, 01:48 AM

I'm trying to be elegant in my writing and it's no hope! ;)

Is Medicare good for America? That's as plain it gets!

Powderfinger

08-11-12, 02:14 AM

Thanks will! :p Bloody non believers! :D

Proximity

08-11-12, 02:14 AM

I'm new here, but when Yoda posts, it appears he posts hard. Gnome sane, braj?

Powderfinger

08-11-12, 02:57 AM

I'm new here, but when Yoda posts, it appears he posts hard. Gnome sane, braj?

With Religion and Politics that's my impression :D Yoda, isn't Catholic also..;) lol!

stevo3001

08-11-12, 10:31 AM

Ryan has the intellectual consistency Romney lacks, and his selection helps lock in the campaign's position on the hard right (how can Romney tack back to the centre now, if he ever wanted to?). That will appeal to some conservatives, but I don't think abandoning the centre to Obama is a gamble the Republicans can afford to take. Neither 'Money Man' (to use the Onion's simple name) nor the Randian purist seems to have the appeal to overcome a positioning this far from the centre. Lots of Democrats hoped for this pick; let's see whether they're right about how Ryan's plan will look under the fullest glare of publicity.

I never thought it very likely that Romney would win (despite the advantage the economic situation offers him, I think he is a much lower calibre of politician than Obama), nothing in this campaign has done much to change that, and I think Romney naming Ryan as his running mate makes it less likely still.

Of course, there could be a game-changing disaster between now and November. At this point there pretty much needs to be one in order for Romney to win. Less than three months to go.

Yoda

08-11-12, 10:39 AM

These days, the only thing it takes to be called hard right is an understanding of math.

DexterRiley

08-11-12, 11:26 AM

Thought this made for interesting reading this mornen.

"Mitt Romney will name Paul Ryan as his VP. Here’s what that means.
Posted by Ezra Klein on August 11, 2012 at 2:26 am

Well, this is going to be interesting. (Photo: AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)

1. Both Democrats and conservatives are going to get the exact debate they wanted. I’m not so sure about Republicans.

2. This is an admission of fear from the Romney campaign. You don’t make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals favor your candidate. You make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals don’t favor your candidate. And, right now, the numbers don’t look good for Romney: Obama leads in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by more than four percentage points — his largest lead since April.

3. Related point: Two of the top contenders in the Romney campaign’s veepstakes were Ohio’s Rob Portman and Florida’s Marco Rubio. Given that there’s fairly good evidence that vice presidential candidates are worth at least a point or two in their home states, the Romney campaign’s decision to pick Ryan is evidence that they feel they need to change the national dynamic, not just pick off a battleground state.

4. Romney’s original intention was to make the 2012 election a referendum on President Obama’s management of the economy. Ryan makes it a choice between two competing plans for deficit reduction. This election increasingly resembles the Obama campaign’s strategy rather than the Romney campaign’s strategy.

5. It’s worth recalling how Ryan became a semi-household name. It wasn’t a Republican strategy to put him forward. As Ryan Lizza recounts in his New Yorker profile of Ryan, it was a Democratic strategy to put Ryan forward. Ryan, he writes, “was caught between the demands of the Republican leaders, who wanted nothing to do with his Roadmap, and his own belief that the Party had to offer a sweeping alternative vision to Obama’s. Ryan soon had an unlikely ally, in Obama himself.” While Republicans were trying to keep Ryan quiet, the Obama administration was trying to make him famous. They saw his plans as the clearest distillation of the GOP’s governing philosophy — and they thought it would drive voters towards the Democrats. We’ll know in November whether that was a genius strategy or an epic miscalculation.

6. Consider the case for Romney until today: He’s a relatively moderate businessman running because his experience in the private-sector gives him crucial insight into how to manage the economy. Now consider Ryan: He’s worked in politics his entire life, beginning as an aide to Sen. Bob Kasten, then working for Sen. Sam Brownback and as a speechwriter to Rep. Jack Kemp. He’s known as a relatively ideological politician who has put forward a detailed policy plan to remake the federal government. It’s a rather different message about what’s important. And how does Romney say the problem with Barack Obama is that he’s “never spent a day in the private sector” and then put Ryan a heartbeat away from the presidency?

7. Ryan upends Romney’s whole strategy. Until now, Romney’s play has been very simple: Don’t get specific. In picking Ryan, he has yoked himself to each and every one of Ryan’s specifics. And some of those specifics are quite…surprising. For instance: Ryan has told the Congressional Budget Office that his budget will bring all federal spending outside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050. That means defense, infrastructure, education, food safety, basic research, and food stamps — to name just a few — will be less than four percent of GDP in 2050. To get a sense for how unrealistic that is, Congress has never permitted defense spending to fall below three percent of GDP, and Romney has pledged that he’ll never let defense spending fall beneath four percent of GDP. It will be interesting to hear him explain away the difference.

8. It’s not just that Romney now has to defend Ryan’s budget. To some degree, that was always going to be true. What he will now have to defend is everything else Ryan has proposed. Ryan was, for instance, the key House backer of Social Security privatization. His bill, The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005, was so aggressive that it was rejected by the Bush administration. Now it’s Romney’s bill to defend. In Florida.

9. Joe Biden has a lot of debate prep ahead of him. I’ve interviewed Ryan three times. Twice on health care (here and here), and once on economics (here). He’s very quick on his feet, and he’s got a lot of experience explaining his plans to skeptical audiences. He’s also a likable and, while I don’t know him very well personally, decent-seeming guy. He’s repeatedly won reelection in a moderate district. Democrats underestimate his political skills at their peril.

10. Everyone always says they want an election focused on the issues. For better or worse, we’ve got one."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...at-that-means/

will.15

08-11-12, 02:43 PM

I don't understand how Paul Ryan was a good pick for him.

I think he gave Obama a gift.

Not because Ryan himself is a bad politician.

But now issues Romney was vague on are now on the table.

I thought he wanted to talk about the economy.

But now the Democrats get to do commercials about Ryancare.

Yoda is about to get his wish.

The anti Bain commercials will disappear.

Obama doesn't need them anymore.

How does swinging to the hard right help Romney in Florida and Ohio?

AKA23

08-11-12, 04:01 PM

I don't understand how Paul Ryan was a good pick for him.

I think he gave Obama a gift.

Hopefully his selection of Paul Ryan as his VP means that this campaign will actually be about issues, and the very different visions Obama and Romney have for the future of this country, and that we can stop talking incessantly about Obama not understanding America, or Mitt Romney's phantom involvement in giving former employee's wives cancer. Well played, Governor Romney..well played!

Yoda

08-11-12, 06:15 PM

will.15

08-11-12, 06:48 PM

"Swinging to the hard right" = completing a multiplication problem on entitlements and daring to say the answer out loud.

Nobody can actually claim that entitlements are sustainable. So that means we have two types of politicians: those who tell us there's a problem and start talking about remedies, and those who attack them for doing it. Paul Ryan's in that first group.
With a hard right solution.

I still thought with all his problems Romney had a 50/50 chance of winning. Unless something dramatic happens until now and November, he looks like toast.

Yoda

08-11-12, 06:50 PM

With a hard right solution.
And what would a moderate solution look like, I wonder? Please, enlighten me with your solution for making the program solvent in a way that doesn't involve significant cuts (which is, presumably, the "hard right" part).

And while you're at it, why don't you detail Obama's solution? Go ahead, I'll wait.

will.15

08-11-12, 06:58 PM

He also advocates raising defense spending, which means entitlements have to be slashed even more so I guess that requires replacing Medicare with a stipend that covers less than half of the current plan.

And cutting taxes for the rich.

But requiring people who don't currently pay income taxes to pay some.

So, yeah, he is hard right and his approach is hard right.

But he seems like a pleasant young man.

Yoda

08-11-12, 06:59 PM

You didn't answer either question. And I think we both know why.

will.15

08-11-12, 07:28 PM

I am not getting into that discussion because we already had it.

But it also doesn't matter.

No matter what you argue, it doesn't change the fact those are hard right positions.

And if you want to make that the centerpiece of a presidential election campaign, be my guest.

Yoda

08-11-12, 07:32 PM

I am not getting into that discussion because we already had it.
Oh? When was that? When did we have a discussion where you explained how to solve Medicaid's funding problems without major cuts, or where you detailed Obama's plan to save it? Please show me.

No matter what you argue, it doesn't change the fact those are hard right positions.
If a program promises more money than it can feasibly deliver and we have to cut it, that's not called being "hard right," that's called math.

10

Yoda

08-11-12, 07:36 PM

Also "hard right": the forward arrow of time.

The fact that we age is right-wing extremism.

Gravity is fascist.

will.15

08-11-12, 07:44 PM

I meant hard right consrvative.

Not harder right than that.

Dismantling long term entitlement programs is hard right.

DexterRiley

08-11-12, 07:51 PM

"Swinging to the hard right" = completing a multiplication problem on entitlements and daring to say the answer out loud.

Nobody can actually claim that entitlements are sustainable. So that means we have two types of politicians: those who tell us there's a problem and start talking about remedies, and those who attack them for doing it. Paul Ryan's in that first group.

Of course they are sustainable. Well so long as Government officials stop borrowing from the kitty to fund nonsense like illegal wars and tax cuts for the elitiest of the financial elite anyway.

from 2010 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKJWHqCH76M

The United States of Amnesia indeed.

will.15

08-11-12, 07:53 PM

Oh? When was that? When did we have a discussion where you explained how to solve Medicaid's funding problems without major cuts, or where you detailed Obama's plan to save it? Please show me.

If a program promises more money than it can feasibly deliver and we have to cut it, that's not called being "hard right," that's called math.

10
Replacing a long time popular program with a voucher that covers less than half the cost of the current program is a hard right position.

You want to argue it is just math, fine. You go to Florida and argue that.

ManOf1000Faces

08-11-12, 07:54 PM

Wow that's crap. Rommney will just give money to the rich and he will make it a goal to kill the middle class.

Yoda

08-11-12, 07:54 PM

Of course they are sustainable. Well so long as Government officials stop borrowing from the kitty to fund nonsense like illegal wars and tax cuts for the elitiest of the financial elite anyway.
Nope. If you taxed the wealthy at 100%, it would cover something like this year's deficit, and that's it. It wouldn't even touch long-term entitlements. Ditto for war costs, which as high as they are, are one-shots that pale in comparison to compounding entitlements. It's not even close, actually.

Yoda

08-11-12, 08:06 PM

Dismantling long term entitlement programs is hard right.
And how do you fix the problem without major reforms (IE: "dismantling")? Stop ducking the question.

You want to argue it is just math, fine. You go to Florida and argue that.
So your response is that you don't have a solution, and neither does Obama, but that the financial reality won't poll well.

Now all you have to do is explain why not polling well will cause the situation to magically fix itself, and your argument will be complete.

will.15

08-11-12, 08:24 PM

Even if you want to argue dismantling the program is the only solution, that doesn't change the fact, dismantling a long term popular entitlement programs is a hard right position.

Yoda

08-11-12, 08:25 PM

What the crap do you think "hard right" means if you can use it to describe an action that has no alternative? Is reality hard right?

ManOf1000Faces

08-11-12, 08:31 PM

Obama is doing nothing to the conservative's POV. all he tries is to make buddies with the republicans but sorry Obama there is a flaw. They will never be buddies with you Liberals, why? all those high and rich conservatives making their speeches like they are the best man in the world but making more lies than truth. Romney said he would help the middle class and to me that is crap. It's only about money in Romney's eyes and Obama actually cares about the people. Obama will get nowhere with the constant complaints and hatred against this man. Why is every Democrat seen as the bad guy? Bill Clinton and the sex scandal and other crap he ''did'' wrong. Obama was tested by people if he was a Muslim because he has a middle name that is Hussein. All these Republicans will just find any dirt on them to get ignorant people to say ''No to OBAMA". It's pitiful and it's like 5 year old's complaining about who is the King Of The Kingdom. Republicans should just actually make real political arguments instead of name calling.

will.15

08-11-12, 08:40 PM

What the crap do you think "hard right" means if you can use it to describe an action that has no alternative? Is reality hard right?
Again, it doesn't matter if you think that is the only solution. Dismantling Medicare has long been the desire of the hard right. The fact that ecconomic conditions give then a stronger argument for doing it, doesn't change the fact dismantling it is a hard right position.

will.15

08-11-12, 08:41 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/obama-ad-paul-ryan_n_1767498.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

ManOf1000Faces

08-11-12, 08:45 PM

you know what Medicare is? a good idea but in the pockets of Conservatives they are saying ''I'm wasting my money!?" what if they can't afford health insurance and they are suffering from a skin infection or a heart attack? know what? they will be in debt because they are scared of wasting money.

Yoda

08-11-12, 08:55 PM

Again, it doesn't matter if you think that is the only solution. Dismantling Medicare has long been the desire of the hard right. The fact that ecconomic conditions give then a stronger argument for doing it, doesn't change the fact dismantling it is a hard right position.
Let me make sure I have this straight: Republicans wanted to do all this stuff before, and now financial reality has made it inevitable? Gee, that doesn't really sound like a criticism at all. That kinda sounds like they've been proven right by that fascist bastard: multiplication.

The problem is in the phrasing. If you said this was a "conservative idea," that'd be just fine. But saying it's "hard right" has a connotation of criticism to it that only makes sense if there's a viable alternative. If there isn't, then what's it hard right compared to, exactly? Things that have already failed? Alternatives you can't produce? Hard right is a relative term to describe situations with different options that can be more moderate, or to the left. But when it's describing an inevitable financial reality, it's not "hard right," it's the hard truth.

will.15

08-11-12, 09:03 PM

Making radical changes are hard right or hard left positions.

Arguing it is the right thing to do is irrelevant.

The side that advocates for radical change always thinks it is the right thing to do.

AKA23

08-11-12, 09:06 PM

ManOf1000Faces

08-11-12, 09:07 PM

Let me make sure I have this straight: Republicans wanted to do all this stuff before, and now financial reality has made it inevitable? Gee, that doesn't really sound like a criticism at all. That kinda sounds like they've been proven right by that fascist bastard: multiplication.

The problem is in the phrasing. If you said this was a "conservative idea," that'd be just fine. But saying it's "hard right" has a connotation of criticism to it that only makes sense if there's a viable alternative. If there isn't, then what's it hard right compared to, exactly? Things that have already failed? Alternatives you can't produce? Hard right is a relative term to describe situations with different options that can be more moderate, or to the left. But when it's describing an inevitable financial reality, it's not "hard right," it's the hard truth.

The budgeting and other conservative ideas about anything that comes out of their mouths is not hard right nor hard truth, it's lies and to the conservatives the democrats are killing the economy with Obamacare and other liberal endorsed ideas. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. It's called ''opinion'' or basic knowledge about political or economics. the conservatives are the devils in my eyes but in conservatives eyes democrats are devils. It's like a battle or a dispute over something that nobody can fix in a second.

Yoda

08-11-12, 09:10 PM

Making radical changes are hard right or hard left positions.
Is a radical change in Medicare necessary, will?

Arguing it is the right thing to do is irrelevant.
The fact that you think this is a real big problem.

I don't know what you think these conversations are really about if they're not about which ideas are the right ones.

Yoda

08-11-12, 09:17 PM

I think there is an alternative to what Ryan is proposing. Firstly, raise the retirement age to 67. Secondly, raise the payroll tax cap up from $108K. Thirdly, means test Social Security so we are not giving multi-millionaires money that they don't need to survive. Raising the retirement age, raising the payroll tax, and means-testing Social Security for high earners will go a long way towards making Social Security solvent, all without privatizing Social Security, and forcing those on fixed incomes to pay far more than they can afford.
That would be a very good start. I'd be pretty thrilled if we could do all this. Not because it'd be enough (I don't think it'd be near enough), but because it'd show that we had the political will to start down that path and reform as necessary, which we haven't yet exhibited.

That said, has it been your experience that it's possible to talk about things like raising the retirement age without getting bombarded with negative ads about how you're going to force old people to eat cat food? Can a conservative hope to come out for these kinds of reforms without being denounced as a heartless extremist? Experience seems to suggests not.

If more money is needed, cut the defense budget. The amount of money we spend is unnecessary to safeguard our society from terrorism, and stop spending money trying to "spread democracy" to countries which don't have the structures and institutions in place to support it.
You may be right; reasonable people can differ on how big our defense budget should be. But this, too, is a pretty small amount of money relative to the total problem; we're still looking at dramatic reforms, dramatic cuts, or both, at some point.

Those seem to be pretty simple proposals. What makes you so convinced that the Ryan proposal, which is far outside the mainstream, is the only solution?
It isn't, specifically. But a) it's the only one to really address the problem AND gain some actual political traction, and b) something like it, that transforms the system and/or makes significant cuts, inevitably has to be part of any meaningful reform package. It doesn't have to be exactly the way it is, but the parts people are inevitably going to object to are generally the most unavoidable parts.

However, I should note that I'm referring to Medicare here at the end, and not SS, because that's far more likely to be a campaign issue (the SS bill from years ago isn't likely to come up much at all, I wouldn't think). And in Medicare, Ryan does some of the things I imagine you'd like, like means testing. You might be pleasantly surprised by it, given your more pragmatic tendencies on issues like this.

will.15

08-11-12, 09:21 PM

Right or wrong, from your political perspective, doesn't change the political stripe of the proposed change.

Like I said before, I don't see the point of arguing about what is the best way to reform Medicare. But your position the Ryan Plan is the only proposal out there is false.

It is now a campaign issue and in representative government, voters will decide if the Ryan Plan is the right thing to do.

Yoda

08-11-12, 09:34 PM

Right or wrong, from your political perspective, doesn't change the political stripe of the proposed change.
Which means when simple reality makes a conservative idea suddenly inevitable, conservatives should get credit for being right all along. Great point!

Like I said before, I don't see the point of arguing about what is the best way to reform Medicare.
So...you have no argument about this? You just thought you'd remind everyone that this is something conservatives have been saying we should do for a long time? Cool, thanks.

But your position the Ryan Plan is the only proposal out there is false.
That's not my position. My position is that you can't fix the problem without transforming (sorry, "dismantling") the system somehow. I keep asking for some other way, and you don't seem to know of any.

It is now a campaign issue and in representative government, voters will decide if the Ryan Plan is the right thing to do.
And the financial reality, stubborn right-wing jerk that it is, will remain unchanged regardless of whether or not they decide to address the problem.

DexterRiley

08-11-12, 09:47 PM

I think maybe the military needs to be downsized/streamlined much in the same way GM was. Pontiac was redundant in much the same way the Marines and Airforce is.

I mean all the planes are being launched off of carriers anyway, merge the navy and air force and the army and the marines.

that ought be done before programs that citizens pay into their entire working lives get scrapped imo.

will.15

08-12-12, 01:10 PM

If Obama is re-elected, this will be the year a lot of nonsense is debunked, like South Carolina always votes in the primary for the eventual Republican candidate, and no president has been re-elected with high unemployment since FDR. The last claim was particularly silly because the stats they were using was only applicable to two presidents.

Yoda

08-12-12, 01:15 PM

Aye, Presidential lore is full of these sorts of "rules." That's what happens when you spend so much time thinking about very few data points spread out over long periods.

DexterRiley

08-12-12, 01:19 PM

Obama is guilty of mass murder with the drone strikes and hardly anyone is talking about it.

Why is Romney not making hay on this?

wintertriangles

08-12-12, 01:20 PM

Obama is guilty of mass murder with the drone strikes and hardly anyone is talking about it.

Why is Romney not making hay on this?I've been wondering the same exact thing, but my conclusion is that Romney doesn't even think that's a problem.

DexterRiley

08-12-12, 01:42 PM

killing is a growth industry, and business is booming.

that ought to give one pause, considering what they are choosing to demonize is the healing of citizens on the domestic front.

but then again im not American so i guess im not supposed to make sense of it.

Yoda

08-12-12, 01:47 PM

Well, you can still try to make sense of it. But the attempt to tie it back into healthcare is kind of a force fit. It's not better or worse depending on someone's position on health care; each idea has merits (or detriments) wholly unrelated to the other. And, as always, even if you think someone's a hypocrite (and a lot of them are; they are politicians, after all), that doesn't make them wrong.

Anyway, I think wt might have it right. I'm not sure Romney's position on drone strikes is much different. But the silence on the left about this is positively deafening.

TheUsualSuspect

08-12-12, 01:51 PM

Obama is guilty of mass murder with the drone strikes and hardly anyone is talking about it.

Seems like almost every President is guilty of this.

AKA23

08-12-12, 01:53 PM

However, I should note that I'm referring to Medicare here at the end, and not SS, because that's far more likely to be a campaign issue (the SS bill from years ago isn't likely to come up much at all, I wouldn't think). And in Medicare, Ryan does some of the things I imagine you'd like, like means testing. You might be pleasantly surprised by it, given your more pragmatic tendencies on issues like this.

I haven't read all the back and forth between you and Will in this thread, so I didn't know which programs specifically you were talking about. Reading all those conversations is sometimes exhausting for me ;)

As for Ryan's Medicare "reforms," the thing about them that most concerns me is that Ryan wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program, and essentially seeks to privatize it. He calls it "premium support," but he can call it whatever he wants, it doesn't change the fact that his program will bring about the most radical change in the social safety net since Medicare was created in the 1960's. Given that half of Medicare recipients live on $28K a year, my concern with this is who exactly is going to pay for these increased costs? When the "premium support" isn't, well, enough, to "support" those who seek to pay rising healthcare costs, what are the individuals who live on Medicare going to do? How are they going to pay these increased costs?

I don't think we should be asking people on fixed incomes to sacrifice when they already cannot afford to live. That's what Ryan's budget does. It asks those on food stamps, those on Medicare, those seeking to pay for college, to pay more, when many are already struggling, while at the same time affording those who are already wealthy, who are already doing quite well, with huge tax cuts. Why are the wealthy the only ones who don't have to sacrifice under the Ryan budget? What about the defense department? Why are they exempt too? How can we possibly ask those who are struggling to pay more when those who have everything get to make even more than they already do? Do you really think that's fair?

If you really want to reform Medicare, raise the eligibility age for it, pay for end-of-life counseling, instead of calling providing it a "death panel," incentivize prevention of life-threatening diseases, and seek to rein in the cost for out-of-control, often totally futile, end of life care. Two thirds of Medicare spending is spent in the last few months of life, when treatment is almost always never curative, and more often than not, completely wasteful. Stop paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on people who are already dying and cannot be saved. Stop paying for cancer treatment for a terminally ill patient who will likely only live another couple of months with a "new" treatment. If you want to reform Medicare, do those things, then if we need more, we can discuss what else to do. The Ryan budget doesn't do any of those things. The Ryan budget doesn't tackle the huge cost overruns of our healthcare system. It doesn't fix what's broken. It merely transfers those burdens to states that are already cash-strapped, and individuals, who in most cases, cannot afford to pay more.

Instead of sharing the sacrifice, and asking those who can most afford it to pay a little bit more, the Ryan budget gives those who already have all their basic necessities taken care of huge tax cuts, so they can buy another vacation home or a new car. That is wrong. That is not the America I believe in. Ryan's budget seeks to implement a vision that tells those of our citizens who need help that they are on their own. That it isn't the government's job to help them. That it isn't the government's job to ensure that they have Social Security, that they have healthcare, that they are able to live and thrive. It isn't the government's job. These services should be taken care of by the individual, and should be dictated by the market. When the individual cannot afford to bear these increased burdens, it is not the government's job to bail them out. These should be decisions driven by the market. A market that isn't driven by altruism, or a concern for the welfare of our citizens, but by an insatiable drive to make more and more profits and give less and less care. I could get behind a program that involved cuts, even if those cuts were painful, but I can't get behind a program that asks the least among us to sacrifice while at the same time giving huge tax breaks to millionaires who don't need them so they can buy another yacht. The wealthy get even more. The poor and the middle class do with less. That just isn't a vision I can support.

DexterRiley

08-12-12, 02:33 PM

Anyway, I think wt might have it right. I'm not sure Romney's position on drone strikes is much different. But the silence on the left about this is positively deafening.

huh

this is from last week :

(unfortunate tagline title of the vid. chose it only because its the entire segment with proper context)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiUgXDwdnjY

The problem is it isnt being repeated in the news cycle across all networks, so if you dont watch MSNBC, or read Jeremy Schahill on the regular, i can see why you might think that.

(Scahill is the guy that blew the lid off of Blackwater 8 or 9 years ago. Pulling his punches isnt his forte)

"Weighing in on President Obama's targeted drone strikes in the Middle East, journalist Jeremy Scahill did not mince words. During his appearance on MSNBC's "Up With Chris Hayes" Saturday morning, Scahill repeatedly said that such attacks, when they killed innocent civilians, amounted to "murder." Asked by Hayes why he would use such a "loaded" word to describe the strikes, Scahill responded at length.

"If someone goes into a shopping mall in pursuit of one of their enemies and opens fire on a crowd of people and guns down a bunch of innocent people in a shopping mall, they've murdered those people. When the Obama administration sets a policy where patterns of life are enough of a green light to drop missiles on people or to send in AC130s to spray them down..." "But that wasn't the case here," interrupted retired colonel Jack Jacobs. "You're talking about a targeted person here." Scahill continued:

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."

Scahill is the national security correspondent for The Nation, and the author of the book "Blackwater: The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army." He was part of a panel discussion that centered around a lengthy New York Timesarticle published on Tuesday, which disclosed that the Obama administration maintains a "kill list" of wanted terrorists. Obama personally signs off on the killing-by-drone of many suspects, taking into account the circumstances of a possible attack, including possible civilian casualties.The article says that Obama tries to avoid any loss of innocent life, but that he considers any male in the area a combatant. Civilian deaths in drone attacks have become a flashpoint in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.
"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/jeremy-scahill-says-drone-strikes-murders_n_1565441.html

Yoda

08-12-12, 02:50 PM

AKA23

08-12-12, 09:54 PM

Yeah, I'm not saying there's literally nobody on the left criticizing him for it. There just aren't many of them, and even fewer if you restrict the criteria to elected Democrats or regularly prominent pundits.

Kudos to those that actually apply their distrust of executive war powers consistently, but let's face it: a whole lot of them are looking the other way on this.

I think the problem with opposing the drone strikes is what is the alternative? We clearly have a problem with terrorism, and we need to be doing things to confront it so that we lessen the chance of facing these problems here at home. The left is against virtually every anti-terror method that former President Bush put in place. While I disagree with much of what President Bush promoted in the national security arena, much of it has been continued by President Obama. If all of these were bad ideas, I don't think a much more liberal Democratic President would be continuing them. He ran against them when he was a candidate, but as soon as he got into office, he continued the very things he railed against. I think that speaks to the essential nature of some of these programs. If you aren't going to do wiretapping of suspected terrorists, if you aren't going to allow racial profiling at airports, if you aren't going to support invading countries and toppling their leadership, then what else is left but drone strikes? I think there are a lot of problems with them, and that there should be a more humane way to deal with this threat, but I don't know what that is. The problem with the position of the left on these issues is that they may have well-considered and thoughtful moral objections to a lot of these policies, but I haven't seen them offer alternative programs to address the threat which we face. If you don't support these programs, what is it that we should do to protect ourselves? How do we ensure that we safeguard our nation from what are very real, and very credible, threats?

wintertriangles

08-12-12, 10:21 PM

I think the problem with opposing the drone strikes is what is the alternative? I find it funny that your replies are often a page long but when you ask questions like these you should be stopped in your tracks

will.15

08-12-12, 10:32 PM

AKA23

08-12-12, 10:55 PM

I find it funny that your replies are often a page long but when you ask questions like these you should be stopped in your tracks

Originally posted by AKA23:

If you don't support these programs, what is it that we should do to protect ourselves? How do we ensure that we safeguard our nation from what are very real, and very credible, threats?

And the alternative that you are proposing is......

wintertriangles

08-12-12, 11:06 PM

And the alternative that you are proposing is......Well the first step would be stop asking ridiculous questions like this:

If you don't support these programs, what is it that we should do to protect ourselves? How do we ensure that we safeguard our nation from what are very real, and very credible, threats?
because we don't need to protect ourselves from anyone but our government who are lying to us about these "very real, oh so credible" threats.

DexterRiley

08-13-12, 12:06 AM

I think the problem with opposing the drone strikes is what is the alternative? We clearly have a problem with terrorism

poppycock and balderdash.

DexterRiley

08-13-12, 12:09 AM

I think the problem with opposing the drone strikes is what is the alternative? We clearly have a problem with terrorism, and we need to be doing things to confront it so that we lessen the chance of facing these problems here at home. The left is against virtually every anti-terror method that former President Bush put in place. While I disagree with much of what President Bush promoted in the national security arena, much of it has been continued by President Obama. If all of these were bad ideas, I don't think a much more liberal Democratic President would be continuing them. He ran against them when he was a candidate, but as soon as he got into office, he continued the very things he railed against. I think that speaks to the essential nature of some of these programs. If you aren't going to do wiretapping of suspected terrorists, if you aren't going to allow racial profiling at airports, if you aren't going to support invading countries and toppling their leadership, then what else is left but drone strikes? I think there are a lot of problems with them, and that there should be a more humane way to deal with this threat, but I don't know what that is. The problem with the position of the left on these issues is that they may have well-considered and thoughtful moral objections to a lot of these policies, but I haven't seen them offer alternative programs to address the threat which we face. If you don't support these programs, what is it that we should do to protect ourselves? How do we ensure that we safeguard our nation from what are very real, and very credible, threats?

Here is the alternative plan. Stay the F*ck out of the middle east, remove all your bases, apologize to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There problem solved.

AKA23

08-13-12, 02:43 PM

Well the first step would be stop asking ridiculous questions like this:

because we don't need to protect ourselves from anyone but our government who are lying to us about these "very real, oh so credible" threats.

Okay, so let me get this straight. We don't need to protect ourselves from terrorist threats because they don't exist. Is that seriously your answer? On one side, we have 9/11, and numerous terrorist plots that have been foiled since, and on the other side we have, well, your opinion. Do I have that about right? No thanks. If this is your answer to the terrorist problem, I think I'll stick with the drone strikes ;)

wintertriangles

08-13-12, 03:06 PM

Okay, so let me get this straight. We don't need to protect ourselves from terrorist threats because they don't exist. Is that seriously your answer?You're not paying attention. We are just as much of terrorists as the people the country is after. We used to be friends with Saddam, we give North Korea money, we side with Syria in secrecy while they commit atrocities, and so on. We've been involved in our "enemies'" business for near a hundred years, and acting like any acts against us are completely out of the blue is foolish.

..and numerous terrorist plots that have been foiled since, and on the other side we have, well, your opinion. Do I have that about right? No thanks. If this is your answer to the terrorist problem, I think I'll stick with the drone strikes ;)The FBI creates terrorist threats for one. For two, you prefer drone strikes where the casualties are 95% citizens either trying to survive during the war on their land or at funerals? You're a horrible person. What happens when the drones come here and we've lost all our rights to do anything about it? With people like you thinking that things like drone strikes aka massacres are hunky dory, that's where things will go.

AKA23

08-13-12, 03:19 PM

You're not paying attention. We are just as much of terrorists as the people the country is after. We used to be friends with Saddam, we give North Korea money, we side with Syria in secrecy while they commit atrocities, and so on. We've been involved in our "enemies'" business for near a hundred years, and acting like any acts against us are completely out of the blue is foolish.

The FBI creates terrorist threats for one. For two, you prefer drone strikes where the casualties are 95% citizens either trying to survive during the war on their land or at funerals? You're a horrible person. What happens when the drones come here and we've lost all our rights to do anything about it? With people like you thinking that things like drone strikes aka massacres are hunky dory, that's where things will go.

Let's tone down the rhetoric here. Calling me a horrible person because you don't like an opinion I express on a movie forum is going a little too far, don't you think? I never said that I thought drone strikes were "hunky dory." I said that if your alternative to them was to do nothing, and act like the threat doesn't exist, than I would prefer drone strikes to that. I'm an Arab, so I understand everything that you're saying, and I do think that our own policies in the Middle East are often counterproductive. I support changing them, and feel there is more that we can do to do that, but I also acknowledge that the threat is real, and that even if we did everything you and Dexter Riley suggest, there are still going to be people who want to come here and kill us. We do need to address that problem, and I don't think that doing nothing is a credible alternative.

wintertriangles

08-13-12, 03:24 PM

Let's tone down the rhetoric here. Calling me a horrible person because you don't like an opinion I express on a movie forum is going a little too far, don't you think? I never said that I thought drone strikes were "hunky dory." I said that if your alternative to them was to do nothing, and act like the threat doesn't exist, than I would prefer drone strikes to that.The fact that you prefer drone strikes at all is appalling. That's why I don't think I'm merely having a "disagreement of opinion." I'm an Arab, so I understand everything that you're saying, and I do think that our own policies in the Middle East are often counterproductive. I support changing them, and feel there is more that we can do to do that, but I also acknowledge that the threat is real, and that even if we did everything you and Dexter Riley suggest, there are still going to be people who want to come here and kill us. We do need to address that problem, and I don't think that doing nothing is a credible alternative.I don't care what nationality you are, but why do you interpret the responses as "do nothing" when it clearly is saying get out of their land? They wouldn't have the motivation or technology to terrorize us if we weren't fist deep up their political rectums. If it was happening to this country you would have a completely different view than you do right now.

AKA23

08-13-12, 04:16 PM

Your original post said that the government was lying and that the terrorist threat was a figment of our imagination. I said that believing that was not a credible alternative to what the government is currently doing. I stand by that view. I did not say that changing our foreign policy would be doing nothing, or that there were not other things that we could do that would be helpful. I said that pretending the threat didn't exist was doing nothing, and that I didn't support that.

As for drone strikes, again, I ask, what is alternative that you propose? Air strikes would kill even more innocent people, as would a ground invasion. So, if your position is that we should do nothing militarily to seek out terrorists, and either capture or kill them so that they don't kill us, I have to disagree with you. If there are other offensive strategies you would propose that you feel would kill less innocent people, I'm willing to listen and keep an open mind.

wintertriangles

08-13-12, 04:45 PM

Your original post said that the government was lying and that the terrorist threat was a figment of our imagination. I said that believing that was not a credible alternative to what the government is currently doing. I stand by that view. I did not say that changing our foreign policy would be doing nothing, or that there were not other things that we could do that would be helpful. I said that pretending the threat didn't exist was doing nothing, and that I didn't support that.No one said pretend anything. I merely mentioned that there is far less of a threat than the media wants you to believe. The government is using war as a manipulation tool and it's clearly working on you.

As for drone strikes, again, I ask, what is alternative that you propose? Air strikes would kill even more innocent people, as would a ground invasion. So, if your position is that we should do nothing militarily to seek out terrorists, and either capture or kill them so that they don't kill us, I have to disagree with you. If there are other offensive strategies you would propose that you feel would kill less innocent people, I'm willing to listen and keep an open mind.Oh my one track mind...no offense is going to help ANYTHING. That's the point, but w/e you aren't listening

Yoda

08-13-12, 04:57 PM

Yoda

08-13-12, 05:00 PM

we give North Korea money
You mean the food we send over to stop their citizens from starving?

We are just as much of terrorists as the people the country is after.
The fact that we ally with the wrong people and try to undermine/overthrow dictators (however foolish that may be) makes us as bad as people who deliberately murder innocent civilians to spread fear throughout a population? Seriously?

What is it about isolationism that apparently requires this kind of hyperbole? Where are the sane, moderate, arguments for it? Why aren't there any arguments about it that don't devolve into this sort of forced equivocation, and the facile idea that the solution is so utterly simple and everyone who thinks otherwise is just an idiot?

will.15

08-13-12, 05:03 PM

And we only give them that because of some kind of nuclear arms deal they are probably breaking.

wintertriangles

08-13-12, 05:16 PM

You mean the food we send over to stop their citizens from starving?You mean the food that isn't given to the citizens?

The fact that we ally with the wrong people and try to undermine/overthrow dictators (however foolish that may be) makes us as bad as people who deliberately murder innocent civilians to spread fear throughout a population? Seriously?Well you're forgetting the part where we do do those things as well, granted on a lesser scale.

What is it about isolationism that apparently requires this kind of hyperbole? Where are the sane, moderate, arguments for it? Why aren't there any arguments about it that don't devolve into this sort of forced equivocation, and the facile idea that the solution is so utterly simple and everyone who thinks otherwise is just an idiot?I'm not talking isolationism, I'm talking about manifest destiny world style. The only simple thing I'm talking about is not being so involved in other country's business when we can't afford to, when it inspires blowback etc, plus it makes us look like hypocrites when we go to some middle eastern place to "save the people" but we totally leave other places like N. Korea alone. It's not THE solution, it's part of one. Stepping stone to another.

will.15

08-13-12, 05:24 PM

We never went to a Middle Eastern country to save the people.

Even when we say we did.

Yoda

08-13-12, 05:33 PM

You mean the food that isn't given to the citizens?
They're surely getting some of it, or they'd probably be starving en masse. And seeing as how there's very little risk in giving our enemies something as benign as food, I think a lot of waste on this front is tolerable.

Regardless, how do you get from "we give them food and I don't think much of it gets to the people" to "we give North Korea money"? That's a hilariously disingenuous way of describing the situation.

Well you're forgetting the part where we do do those things as well.
We deliberately target and murder civilians to inspire terror? Let me guess: if I ask you for evidence, you're going to point to some country that does this that we don't reprimand sufficiently, or have some sort of ties to, right? Not us actually, you know, doing it.

I'm not talking isolationism, I'm talking about manifest destiny world style.
This distinction completely breaks down in reality. Take Bin Laden. He issued a fatwa denouncing America back in the 90s. He did it because we had sanctions on Iraq (that was the "containment" strategy with Saddam that all the Iraq War critics say was "working" before we had to go mess it up, by the way), and because we had troops in Saudi Arabia...which Saudi Arabia specifically invited there. So the only way we avoid Al Qaeda's wrath is to let Saddam rape and pillage Kuwait without reprieve and refuse Saudi Arabia's request for troops. And maybe not even then, given how furious the Middle East in general gets if we provide any sort of support to Israel. So I guess we can't be their ally, either. I hope you can see how this is starting to look a little more nuanced than has been suggested.

Any involvement can potentially lead to this sort of thing. There is no half-measure here. The only way to reliably avoid these things is to be almost completely isolationist.

The only simple thing I'm talking about is not being so involved in other country's business when we can't afford to, when it inspires blowback etc, plus it makes us look like hypocrites when we go to some middle eastern place to "save the people" but we totally leave other places like N. Korea alone. It's not THE solution, it's part of one. Stepping stone to another.
Being less involved and being more careful of our involvement is a perfectly fine, sane thing to argue, and I think even a lot of former neocons are coming around on it. So why don't you say that? How do you go from this to "we're terrorists, too" and reductionist arguments about how we apparently just need to mind our own business?

wintertriangles

08-13-12, 05:51 PM

Regardless, how do you get from "we give them food and I don't think much of it gets to the people" to "we give North Korea money"? That's a hilariously disingenuous way of describing the situation.This (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/06/29/what-obama-fights-for-giving-9-55-billion-to-north-korea-to-spend-on-nukes/) is one example of it happening. I've definitely heard of other times.

We deliberately target and murder civilians to inspire terror? Let me guess: if I ask you for evidence, you're going to point to some country that does this that we don't reprimand sufficiently, or have some sort of ties to, right? Not us actually, you know, doing it.Besides videos of Blackwater running over women in the street, almost every journalistic newspaper has run stories of the many civilians dying from the drone strikes, which are performed with the least care I can think of when they target funerals and any area with a man who might be related to someone else who may know a suspected terrorist. And every civilian, which is most of the body count, is just collateral. Nope, that's not terrorism at all. Plus, the concentration camps for Japanese citizens during WWII. We've bombed over 50 countries since then as well, and I doubt that half can be justified.

To be continued

Yoda

08-13-12, 06:02 PM

This (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/06/29/what-obama-fights-for-giving-9-55-billion-to-north-korea-to-spend-on-nukes/) is one example of it happening. I've definitely heard of other times.
Yeah, again: I'm not saying it isn't necessarily a problem. Maybe it's not even a good idea. I'm saying it's disingenuous to make no distinction between backing a country and trying to give it aid so its people won't starve. This may be a bad idea, but it isn't a careless or malicious one.

This is particularly important given that your claim ("we give North Korea money") was sandwiched between two examples of allies (or past allies). But there's really no comparison between allying with someone and sending their citizenry aid. That's not an endorsement. We don't remotely endorse what North Korea does.

Besides videos of Blackwater running over women in the street, almost every journalistic newspaper has run stories of the many civilians dying from the drone strikes, which are performed with the least care I can think of when they target funerals and any area with a man who might be related to someone else who may know a suspected terrorist. And every civilian, which is most of the body count, is just collateral. Nope, that's not terrorism at all. Plus, the concentration camps for Japanese citizens during WWII. We've bombed over 50 countries since then as well, and I doubt that half can be justified.
I know you were being sarcastic, but no, that isn't terrorism. And for the record, I'm very uneasy with the increasing use of drone strikes and (particularly) the loose combat designations that they operate under.

But just like it's important to acknowledge the difference between "we give them aid to try to help their citizens" and "we give them money," a similar distinction needs to be made between "we're being reckless" and "we're terrorists."

Terrorism has the special connotation it does because of how deliberate it is. Because killing civilians is the entire point. The things you're talking about can be done without those sorts of actions--and very often, they are. Every day, military actions take place where no soldier goes off the reservation and abuses their power, and a drone strike hits its target and no one else, etc. But there is no version of terrorism that can have that kind of atrocity stripped from it. The atrocity is the entire point. That's why it gets its own category, and that's why it is highly counterproductive to start lumping all foreign policy error (even the major ones) under that single word.

Argue how you want, but I'm just telling you: you and people who feel the way you do (and on the right issues, I might even be one of them) will have far more success if you stop trying to mash all this together and erase these stark moral differences. "Our methods are too reckless" is ten times as powerful as hyperbole like "we're terrorists, too," which people will (rightly) tune out.

honeykid

08-13-12, 06:16 PM

You mean the food we send over to stop their citizens from starving?
I don't think you've done that for a few years now.

They're surely getting some of it, or they'd probably be starving en masse.
They are staving en masse.

Yoda

08-13-12, 06:22 PM

By the way, I want to sort of underline that whole last paragraph. I'm with you on the drone strikes; that's a very dangerous precedent, for both direct reasons (like combatant definitions), and more arguable, indirect ones that may or may not be a problem (further emotional distance from combat leading to desensitization).

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm mostly just disappointed. I'm disappointed that, on an issue where I might have some common ground with lots of people skeptical of the war effort, that so many of them fly off the handle and vastly overstate their case. It undermines what could be a valuable part of the conversation. And I'm not concern-trolling here, because I agree with a lot of it.

It matters whether a death in war is incidental, or the target. It matters if we do things simply because we feel we like an alternative. It matters if something is an incidental part of a larger defensive effort, and not the entire point of the action to begin with. That matters. And I don't think it serves any side of the debate when we muddy that water and start treating all these things as if they were morally identical.

Yoda

08-13-12, 06:24 PM

I don't think you've done that for a few years now.
Whether or not we do it or did it is immaterial to the point.

They are staving en masse.
Obviously, we're talking about a counterfactual here; the idea is that there's less starvation than their would have been, not that we're eliminating it. Which is going to be true unless you think literally none of it gets to the citizenry. Also, starvation peaked a year after we started, so if you're implying that we didn't make any difference, I don't think that's supported by what (admittedly sketchy) information we have.

Maybe it's a good idea, and maybe it's a terrible idea. But it's a well-meaning idea, and not an endorsement of anything else North Korea does.

will.15

08-13-12, 06:35 PM

I'm all for unmanned drone attacks.

I think they're cool.

DexterRiley

08-13-12, 08:28 PM

Okay, so let me get this straight. We don't need to protect ourselves from terrorist threats because they don't exist. Is that seriously your answer? On one side, we have 9/11, and numerous terrorist plots that have been foiled since, and on the other side we have, well, your opinion. Do I have that about right? No thanks. If this is your answer to the terrorist problem, I think I'll stick with the drone strikes ;)

Do you know how a country can protect itself from terrorism?

its a trick question, as you can't.

Just ask the citizens of Yemen that are getting waxed by drone strikes.

DexterRiley

08-13-12, 08:40 PM

I'm sorry, but this is some really simplistic stuff being thrown around. I can't take anyone seriously when they try to tell me that all we have to do is "leave everyone alone," and our foreign policy problems will be solved.

There are some very strong arguments to be made that we should be much more selective about our interactions with the rest of the world. Very strong. But nobody in this thread is making them.

Many problems have rather simple solutions.

I mean for all teh war drum beating i hear about Iran, i hardly every hear Americans acknowledge that a democratically elected Mossadegh was ousted in favour of the USA preferred Authoritarian regime.

According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[15] Between 300[16] and 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict.[2] Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[17][18][19] Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
That is literally the exact opposite of the pablum that the people are fed as to why its necessary to send troops in.

Amurrica F#ck yeah

Yoda

08-14-12, 12:44 PM

Many problems have rather simple solutions.
True enough. But are you a total isolationist? And if not, please note my earlier response to WT about Bin Laden's history. Does that sound like a simple situation to you that is cured by anything other than total isolationism?

I mean for all teh war drum beating i hear about Iran, i hardly every hear Americans acknowledge that a democratically elected Mossadegh was ousted in favour of the USA preferred Authoritarian regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
That is literally the exact opposite of the pablum that the people are fed as to why its necessary to send troops in.
It also happened in 1953, so none of the people involved in that decision are making any of these decisions. Why is it significant that completely different people at different time periods would think different things? If that's the new standard, then I've got a bone to pick with you guys over the War of 1812.

Also, I've noticed in this discussion, the gun control thread, and a few others, that we end up going through this same process a lot: you don't seem to actually be interested in arguing about the topic, you just want to argue against America in toto. But whether or not you like our laws about marijuana or TSA pat-downs has nothing to do with gun crime, and whether or not you think our foreign policy has been consistent over a 60 (!) year period has nothing to do with which foreign policy is actually best.

It feels as if the idea isn't to argue a point or defend a position, but just to have some kind of (sort of?) pithy anti-American response ready. This isn't a boxing match where any hit--no matter what direction it comes from--scores you a point.

Yoda

08-14-12, 12:52 PM

First off, AKA: I have not forgotten your Medicare reply. There's a lot to address there, but I left the text at home, so I'll get to it later today. But for now:

I think the problem with opposing the drone strikes is what is the alternative? We clearly have a problem with terrorism, and we need to be doing things to confront it so that we lessen the chance of facing these problems here at home. The left is against virtually every anti-terror method that former President Bush put in place. While I disagree with much of what President Bush promoted in the national security arena, much of it has been continued by President Obama. If all of these were bad ideas, I don't think a much more liberal Democratic President would be continuing them. He ran against them when he was a candidate, but as soon as he got into office, he continued the very things he railed against. I think that speaks to the essential nature of some of these programs. If you aren't going to do wiretapping of suspected terrorists, if you aren't going to allow racial profiling at airports, if you aren't going to support invading countries and toppling their leadership, then what else is left but drone strikes? I think there are a lot of problems with them, and that there should be a more humane way to deal with this threat, but I don't know what that is. The problem with the position of the left on these issues is that they may have well-considered and thoughtful moral objections to a lot of these policies, but I haven't seen them offer alternative programs to address the threat which we face. If you don't support these programs, what is it that we should do to protect ourselves? How do we ensure that we safeguard our nation from what are very real, and very credible, threats?
There are two arguments, I think, about drone strikes.

The first is nebulous: it's a scary precedent that we can further remove the human element from killing, and make it more distant and detached than it already is. The fear is that this will desensitize us to the consequences of our actions. This is a genuinely tough, abstract question. On some levels it might be better for our leaders to be detached; any number of sound, difficult, necessary military decisions could be hamstrung if the horrors of war loom large in our minds at all times, because those horrors exist in even the most inarguably necessary actions. On the other hand, you can't lose site of the human cost. So clearly, there's some balance here. But it's a fair question to ask.

The second is a good deal less nebulous: even if you're fine with drones as a method, that doesn't mean they're being employed responsibly. I'm still reading about this, but it sounds as if part of the problem is that they designate an overly broad group of people as enemy combatants when they're near a target. For example, I've heard it said that any young male can be said to qualify. I'm not sure if this is true, but if it is--or if something similar to it is true--then that's a potentially dangerous definition.

I am sensitive, of course, to the idea that the rules of war have to allow for civilian casualties, because the alternative is to get the most cowardly terrorists (those who hide among civilians) near total immunity from retribution as long as they're willing to put some innocent human shield between them and us. But we can't paint with too broad a brush. It's one thing to say these things are inevitable, and it's quite another to become casual and careless about that fact. We maintain our difference from these enemies insofar as we continue to make serious efforts to make these deaths incidental and as unavoidable as possible, and I worry that the rules the drone strikes authorize don't make a serious enough effort on this front.

There's also something deeply troubling, no matter who you are, about an American citizen being killed abroad this way, which has already happened. That's a lot of power to have.

So, basically, the idea isn't usually that the mere idea of drone technology is abhorrent (though it bears monitoring), it's more that the usage is not sufficiently cautious. Make sense?

wintertriangles

08-14-12, 02:17 PM

This distinction completely breaks down in reality. Take Bin Laden. He issued a fatwa denouncing America back in the 90s. He did it because we had sanctions on Iraq (that was the "containment" strategy with Saddam that all the Iraq War critics say was "working" before we had to go mess it up, by the way), and because we had troops in Saudi Arabia...which Saudi Arabia specifically invited there. So the only way we avoid Al Qaeda's wrath is to let Saddam rape and pillage Kuwait without reprieve and refuse Saudi Arabia's request for troops. And maybe not even then, given how furious the Middle East in general gets if we provide any sort of support to Israel. So I guess we can't be their ally, either. I hope you can see how this is starting to look a little more nuanced than has been suggested.It's one thing to pick off one guy like Saddam, it's another to have our troops there for years doing similar things while we take their resources, confuse the political systems, and just leave it for them to figure out. I don't know much about Saudi Arabia but Israel is far too involved in what we're doing there, and because of that it's scary to even be there in the first place because, as you said, the Middle East is getting more and more turbulent.

Any involvement can potentially lead to this sort of thing. There is no half-measure here. The only way to reliably avoid these things is to be almost completely isolationist.I'm aware of that but why is grey area so hard to recognize? You can be both respective of other countries' politics and way of living, short of genocides, to provide some sort of mutual coexistence.

Being less involved and being more careful of our involvement is a perfectly fine, sane thing to argue, and I think even a lot of former neocons are coming around on it. So why don't you say that? How do you go from this to "we're terrorists, too" and reductionist arguments about how we apparently just need to mind our own business?I'm merely speaking against digging roots into other countries, yet apparently that's hogwash because the polar opposite of that is allegedly the only other option? You were complaining about the wrong ideas being brought up but then failed to include any of them, and then within the bounds of a topic we're not too displaced in, you exaggerate my ideas into complete isolationism.

This is particularly important given that your claim ("we give North Korea money") was sandwiched between two examples of allies (or past allies). But there's really no comparison between allying with someone and sending their citizenry aid. That's not an endorsement. We don't remotely endorse what North Korea does.Well I'll word it more carefully next time but I never meant to imply it was an endorsement. I brought it up because it's a hypocritical situation.

I know you were being sarcastic, but no, that isn't terrorism. And for the record, I'm very uneasy with the increasing use of drone strikes and (particularly) the loose combat designations that they operate under.

Terrorism has the special connotation it does because of how deliberate it is. Because killing civilians is the entire point. The things you're talking about can be done without those sorts of actions--and very often, they are. Every day, military actions take place where no soldier goes off the reservation and abuses their power, and a drone strike hits its target and no one else, etc. But there is no version of terrorism that can have that kind of atrocity stripped from it. The atrocity is the entire point. That's why it gets its own category, and that's why it is highly counterproductive to start lumping all foreign policy error (even the major ones) under that single word.

Argue how you want, but I'm just telling you: you and people who feel the way you do (and on the right issues, I might even be one of them) will have far more success if you stop trying to mash all this together and erase these stark moral differences. "Our methods are too reckless" is ten times as powerful as hyperbole like "we're terrorists, too," which people will (rightly) tune out.Well, as you mentioned in the post just above, yes all males are officially designated as military personnel, so I don't think we're going to agree on the word "terrorism" because, besides that vast non-distinction, I would never label what we're doing as merely "reckless." Reckless is when you break a window on accident. Funeral bombings are far beyond reckless. Even if the drone kills a target, we generally have the vaguest assumptions of his connections, and in the process killed another 20 civilians just because. I don't care if there's motivation to inspire terror, but it does inspire terror. In case you forgot, most of the citizens have no clue why we're there. If I was on a pulpit I wouldn't jump right in with "terrorist" but even someone as smart as you should recognize that "reckless" is completely watering it down.

7thson

08-14-12, 03:34 PM

It's one thing to pick off one guy like Saddam, it's another to have our troops there for years doing similar things while we take their resources, confuse the political systems, and just leave it for them to figure out. I don't know much about Saudi Arabia but Israel is far too involved in what we're doing there, and because of that it's scary to even be there in the first place because, as you said, the Middle East is getting more and more turbulent.

Like saying "hey, lets pick off that cherry called Hitler."

Watch_Tower

08-14-12, 08:08 PM

re93animator

08-14-12, 09:30 PM

I'm gona go slightly off topic and this is mostly a question for the Americans here. What do you all think of Obama, years after his election and now that the whole, "I love Obama" band wagon has died down. Is he loved in the States like he was originally (I know the polls haven't been favourable to him in recent times) ? What have you thought of his foreign policy through his first time? And finally how has he benefited the United States over the last few years, lasting legacy?

Could be a thread of it's own maybe.
I think disappointment is the word that comes to most people's minds. From my perspective, not much has been improved economically since the recession, and the bandwagon has definitely dwindled. He seems to have a charismatic edge over Romney though, which does count for more than given credit for.

Foreign policy is the place I personally would be the most critical of. I know there's a drone discussion going on in this thread, and it seems that the fundamental arguments from both sides have been brought up. But, it also seems like every couple of months there are reports surfacing about collateral deaths from drone strikes, inciting more insurgence. I'm not against drone strikes, but they should be very carefully plotted. Not where anyone who happens to be in the area of suspected terrorists are terrorists by association, including women and children. That's the sort of thing that causes innocent deaths, retrogressing the situation, and making the real terrorists look like the good guys in comparison. And I think that the number of drone strikes have gone up substantially under Obama.

Though I'll be the first to admit, I'm no expert on the subject.

Yoda

08-14-12, 09:31 PM

@winter

Re: isolationism. No no, I'm not saying you're a total isolationist: I'm saying I don't know if the ideological compromise you want to make between isolationism and the status quo is actually plausible. At least, not consistently. Even a moderate, prudent level of involvement in foreign affairs has the potential to drag us into larger conflicts, much like our aiding Saudi Arabia or allying with Israel has. It's not arrogant and nation-buildy of us to do either of those things, yet both have led to our current situation. And I think if we take a lot of situations that look hopelessly muddled now, they can be traced back to some pretty understandable decisions, followed by a lot of other at least somewhat escalations. There are genuine bungles in foreign policy, to be sure, but I think most mistakes look a little more understandable when you go step by step.

Re: Saddam. Well, what one decision in that process do you think got us into this situation? Because the point I'm making is about the gradual nature of foreign policy, and how even a very measured amount of involvement can snowball. It's easy to say that we shouldn't let it go too far, but identifying that line isn't all that easy.

You see what I'm on about, I'm sure.

will.15

08-14-12, 10:19 PM

Here are the Republican arguments why Ryan was a great pick, while the growing consensus is it was probably a mistake, mainly because of Florida. I must say I don't find the arguments convincing.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/campaignselections/a/dems-happy-paul-ryan.htm

Ultimate

08-14-12, 10:22 PM

who knows

DexterRiley

08-14-12, 10:34 PM

True enough. But are you a total isolationist? And if not, please note my earlier response to WT about Bin Laden's history. Does that sound like a simple situation to you that is cured by anything other than total isolationism?

It also happened in 1953, so none of the people involved in that decision are making any of these decisions. Why is it significant that completely different people at different time periods would think different things? If that's the new standard, then I've got a bone to pick with you guys over the War of 1812.

Also, I've noticed in this discussion, the gun control thread, and a few others, that we end up going through this same process a lot: you don't seem to actually be interested in arguing about the topic, you just want to argue against America in toto. But whether or not you like our laws about marijuana or TSA pat-downs has nothing to do with gun crime, and whether or not you think our foreign policy has been consistent over a 60 (!) year period has nothing to do with which foreign policy is actually best.

It feels as if the idea isn't to argue a point or defend a position, but just to have some kind of (sort of?) pithy anti-American response ready. This isn't a boxing match where any hit--no matter what direction it comes from--scores you a point.

The point Chris, is the playbook hasnt changed in 60 years.

because, it works.

Watch_Tower

08-15-12, 09:22 AM

I think disappointment is the word that comes to most people's minds. From my perspective, not much has been improved economically since the recession, and the bandwagon has definitely dwindled. He seems to have a charismatic edge over Romney though, which does count for more than given credit for.

Foreign policy is the place I personally would be the most critical of. I know there's a drone discussion going on in this thread, and it seems that the fundamental arguments from both sides have been brought up. But, it also seems like every couple of months there are reports surfacing about collateral deaths from drone strikes, inciting more insurgence. I'm not against drone strikes, but they should be very carefully plotted. Not where anyone who happens to be in the area of suspected terrorists are terrorists by association, including women and children. That's the sort of thing that causes innocent deaths, retrogressing the situation, and making the real terrorists look like the good guys in comparison. And I think that the number of drone strikes have gone up substantially under Obama.

Though I'll be the first to admit, I'm no expert on the subject.

I think that's how the outside world views it too. Obama came to power and a man who would bring genuine change, not just within America but to their foreign policy and the international image of a nation which has become tainted with unjust wars and international meddling.

What Obama has become is sad to see, he is a man of broken promises and outright lies. He said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, which later changed to "after 100 days" and yet, with his first term in office almost at an end, the concentration camp, and make no bones about it, that's what it is, is still open.

Having said that I'm sure he will be re-elected because the Republicans do not have anyone who can match his charisma or mass support, both national and international. Which is sad, because there really should be a third option for the American people, this 2 party politics has sent the country into a deep spiral.

Yoda

08-15-12, 11:20 AM

The point Chris, is the playbook hasnt changed in 60 years.

because, it works.
You said you hardly ever hear people "acknowledge" the 1953 coup, though. What does that mean? Also, are you equating the overthrow of a democratically elected government with overthrowing a brutal dictator to create a democratically elected government? Because completely reversing those two things seems like a pretty big change in the "playbook" to me. You can't get more different than, ya' know, opposite.

will.15

08-15-12, 03:52 PM

It is getting mean and personal on both ends, but Romney is sounding particularly shrill.

http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/9924971.html

Yoda

08-15-12, 03:56 PM

BREAKING NEWS: will thinks both candidates do something, but the Republican candidate does it worse! Again!

I love that your takeaway from one guy invoking slave imagery and the other calling him angry for it is that the second guy is being "shrill."

will.15

08-15-12, 04:08 PM

Obama didn't do it, Biden did,

And quite frankly, the way Republicans get all bent out of shape when they accuse Democrats of using the race card is hilarious. From the party that gave us the Willie Horton ads.

And, yes, Romney sounds like he is having a meltdown. Gee, he is not a principled John McCain sort. He will do any attacks that he thinks will work (he did a good hatchet job on Gingrich), and it sounds more like he is pissed he is losing the pissy war.

Yoda

08-15-12, 04:47 PM

Obama didn't do it, Biden did,
Hence my use of the word "candidates." I'm careful about what I say, guy. And even so, the Obama campaign says they have no problem with the remark.

And quite frankly, the way Republicans get all bent out of shape when they accuse Democrats of using the race card is hilarious. From the party that gave us the Willie Horton ads.
This paragraph is so, so much fail. Let me count the ways:

1) Saying "from the party of" is a common trick that seeks to associate completely different people together so as to imply a contradiction that doesn't necessarily exist. Counterexample: Republicans are race-baiters? You're saying this about the party of Abraham Lincoln?

2) The Willie Horton ad's "race card" is that it has a picture of the criminal it's talking about, and he's black. That's it.

3) What you just said is exactly why Republicans "get all bent out of shape" over the race card: because it invariably involves goofy extrapolations and false equivocation. Case in point: you just compared a campaign ad that has a picture of a black guy in it to someone telling people they're going to be put in chains. Hi, I'm Perspective. I don't think we've met.

And, yes, Romney sounds like he is having a meltdown. Gee, he is not a principled John McCain sort. He will do any attacks that he thinks will work (he did a good hatchet job on Gingrich), and it sounds more like he is pissed he is losing the pissy war.
So your position is that even though Romney isn't being as personal and negative, he totally would if he felt he had to, therefore there's no difference? Bwahahahaha.

Yoda

08-15-12, 04:52 PM

Also, you ignored what I was getting at, which was the sheer predictability that your interpretation of absolutely everything you post is that it's great news for your guys. So answer these questions, if you please:

1) You have 823 posts in this thread. Can you point me to a single example of you posting something that you thought was bad news for Obama or Democrats that I didn't drag out of you on cross-examination?

2) In the 16 months this thread has been up, has anything happened in the last year that's been bad news for Obama or Democrats?

3) If you answer the above questions as "no" and "yes," respectively, does that not prove that you make a concerted effort to only post things that you think make your preferred party look good? And if so, how can you pretend to be more than a partisan shill?

will.15

08-15-12, 06:42 PM

Lee Atwater apologized for the Willie Horton ad before his death. He also said this:

Atwater on the Southern Strategy
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis (http://www.movieforums.com/w/index.php?title=Alexander_P._Lamis&action=edit&redlink=1). Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Bob_Herbert) reported on the interview in the 6 October 2005 edition of the New York Times (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/New_York_Times). Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Southern_Strategy) and Ronald Reagan (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Ronald_Reagan)'s version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Harry_S._Dent,_Sr.) and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act) would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism), balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/George_Wallace) voter and to the racist (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Racism) side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Food_stamps)?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "****** (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/******), ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Forced_busing), states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******
EDIT
Filter deleted the n word

will.15

08-15-12, 06:47 PM

Romney with his the president doesn't understand America and he will do anything to hold on to power ( a hysterical claim) is getting mighty personal also and more directly nasty. He has less opportunities for personal attacks because what was tried four years ago is old and not very effective.

AKA23

08-15-12, 06:58 PM

I don't have a whole lot of interest in this part of the debate, but I am looking forward to that Medicare reply, Yoda :)

will.15

08-15-12, 06:59 PM

[quote=Yoda;836482]Also, you ignored what I was getting at, which was the sheer predictability that your interpretation of absolutely everything you post is that it's great news for your guys. So answer these questions, if you please:
1) You have 823 posts in this thread. Can you point me to a single example of you posting something that you thought was bad news for Obama or Democrats that I didn't drag out of you on cross-examination?

I said repeatedly the economy was bad and the Republicans could defeat him and I was kinder to Romney earlier in the thread, but the more I see of him, the less impressed I am.

2) In the 16 months this thread has been up, has anything happened in the last year that's been bad news for Obama or Democrats?

Yeah, the economy.

3) If you answer the above questions as "no" and "yes," respectively, does that not prove that you make a concerted effort to only post things that you think make your preferred party look good? And if so, how can you pretend to be more than a partisan shill?

Are you saying you are not a political shill?

I think anyone reading both our posts would see I concede more ground than you do, with your absurd attempts to see Democrat strategy as bad, but the same technique employed by Republicans as different and good. The incredible justification for the Willie Horton ad is a typical exampe.

I say they both do it. You seem to say it is only bad when the Democrats do it.

The bumbling attempt by Romney and his people to remind people Obama isn't white was a blatant racial appeal.

So getting all upset about what Biden said isn't very impressive.

Yoda

08-15-12, 07:13 PM

Lee Atwater apologized for the Willie Horton ad bewfore his death.
Doesn't matter. It was an independent ad, for one, and for another: all the other reasons I already gave you, that you seem to have skipped right over. Sou're still comparing talking about putting people in chains with just having an African-American in an ad. And you're still using the "from the party of" silliness, which is a total non-sequitur. Try again.

will.15

08-15-12, 07:21 PM

Putting people in chains...so what?

It is rhetoric, Did he mean it literally? No.

Again, another example of what you choose to get alarmed about.

And again, yes, the Horton ad was from an independent committee, that the Bush people never denounced, just as the cancer ad you were trying to lump in with the Obama campaign was from an independent committee as well. It doesn't matter where the ads come from if the President and his people won't denounce the ads. In the case of the Wiillie Horton ad, well, the issue originated with Atwater directly working for Bush, they had less inflammatory ads that also brought Horten up, so the actual ad in question's actual source is unimportant.

Powderfinger

08-15-12, 07:24 PM

"Putting people in chains" I heard that this morning on the news.

Obama's Vice President, I forgot his name? Anyway, he's an idiot and does a lot of gaffs...lol! :D

Yoda

08-15-12, 07:25 PM

I said repeatedly the economy was bad and the Republicans could defeat him and I was kinder to Romney earlier in the thread, but the more I see of him, the less impressed I am.
Yeah, the economy.
Nyet. You don't post jobs data, or GDP, or personal income, or anything. You make passing references to how the economy might make things difficult, but it's never a critique, and it's usually in the context criticizing Republicans in comparison. And even that is usually in response to questioning.

You often come in here to post a link and/or react to a news item, gaffe, whatever. Can you show me any instance in which you did that, and concluded it was bad news for Obama or Democrats in general?

Are you saying you are not a political shill?
Yep. Because by "partisan shill," I don't mean "partisan" or "someone who has an ideology." I mean someone who thinks everything that happens is somehow great for whatever I believe in, like a campaign spokesperson.

I think anyone reading both our posts would see I concede more ground than you do, with your absurd attempts to see Democrat strategy as bad, but the same technique employed by Republicans as different and good. The incredible justification for the Willie Horton ad is a typical exampe.
You concede more ground because you make lots of indefensible claims, there, Chester. I barely even have the opportunity to do this sort of thing, because almost all of my posts are just replies to whatever goofy thing you've posted most recently.

It also helps that I generally don't start arguing about something until I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. I highly recommend that, by the way.

I say they both do it.
But Republicans do it a little worse, or a little more, right? That sure seems to be the pattern.

Name something bad that Democrats do significantly more than Republicans. I'll just take for granted that you haven't mentioned anything like this in the thread (if you have, show me), and see if you can manage to name one now, at least.

The bumbling attempt by Romney and his people to remind people Obama isn't white was a blatant racial appeal.
They reminded people Obama wasn't white? What?

So getting all upset about what Biden said isn't very impressive.
Yeah, but as we've established, you manage to be not-impressed with the other side pretty roughly 100% of the time, so that might not be a great gauge.

Can you show me an example of you criticizing Obama's campaign strategy, rather than explaining away his mistakes as not-such-a-big-deal? Can you show me an example of you praising a Romney campaign strategy as being shrewd or effective?

Yoda

08-15-12, 07:34 PM

Putting people in chains...so what?
Yeah! So what? What possible connection could there be between people in chains and slavery.

Again, another example of what you choose to get alarmed about.
I'm not particularly alarmed by the quote itself. I'm alarmed that some people are apparently capable of thinking that Romney is sending super subtle racially charged messages, and that talking about people literally being in chains apparently has no such connotation. And I'm also alarmed at people who, even if they see the connotation, think the two things are roughly equal in their race-baiting and want to call it a wash. If Romney said something like that, there'd be a full-fledged freak out.

And again, yes, the Horton ad was from an independent committee, that the Bush people never denounced, just as the cancer ad you were trying to lump in with the Obama campaign was from an independent committee as well.
Nope. I didn't lump it in with them; I just said it was bad and ugly. But even if I had, I also pointed out that they used the same guy in one of their ads, had him tell the same story on their campaign conference call, and then lied about not knowing who he was.

I already said all this, by the way.

Yoda

08-15-12, 07:47 PM

As for Ryan's Medicare "reforms," the thing about them that most concerns me is that Ryan wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program, and essentially seeks to privatize it.
Voucher yes (sort of), privatize no. A program that gives out thousands of dollars to citizens simply because they can't afford healthcare is not "privatization." That's a welfare program, and an entitlement. And neither of those facts change under Ryan-Wyden.

He calls it "premium support," but he can call it whatever he wants, it doesn't change the fact that his program will bring about the most radical change in the social safety net since Medicare was created in the 1960's.
You know what else will bring the most radical change in the social safety net since the 1960s? The linear nature of time.

Given that half of Medicare recipients live on $28K a year, my concern with this is who exactly is going to pay for these increased costs? When the "premium support" isn't, well, enough, to "support" those who seek to pay rising healthcare costs, what are the individuals who live on Medicare going to do? How are they going to pay these increased costs?
Ryan's plan addresses that pretty well (more on that below). But for now, it suffices to point out that you can address this question to any one. It's not a question for Ryan, it's a question that applies to any attempt to fix the program.

I don't think we should be asking people on fixed incomes to sacrifice when they already cannot afford to live. That's what Ryan's budget does. It asks those on food stamps, those on Medicare, those seeking to pay for college, to pay more, when many are already struggling, while at the same time affording those who are already wealthy, who are already doing quite well, with huge tax cuts. Why are the wealthy the only ones who don't have to sacrifice under the Ryan budget? What about the defense department? Why are they exempt too? How can we possibly ask those who are struggling to pay more when those who have everything get to make even more than they already do? Do you really think that's fair?
I think it's a diversion. Cutting the defense budget--even dramatically--won't make Medicare solvent. Neither will raising taxes on the wealthy--even dramatically. And that's even if you think both things are good ideas to begin with! Entitlements dwarf everything else in our budget. It is not close. You can say you think we should do these things, too, but they won't fix the problem. It's not as if Democrats are going to support the plan if it's combined with defense cuts, either. That might sound good, but a) it's not a solution, and b) it's not why people object to the plan. There is zero chance of the Democrats backing this thing even with defense cuts included.

We've established that you don't like the Ryan plan, but all the reasons you give for not liking it are sacrifices that are inevitably going to be part of any plan to save it. So what do you want to do? The status quo is a bigger threat to Medicare as we know it than anything Ryan's proposing. So present an alternative. I'll bet anything that any alternative that actually makes the program solvent will be open to the same demagoguery about cuts and "radical change" as Ryan's plan, because marginal changes aren't going to get the job done.

If you really want to reform Medicare, raise the eligibility age for it, pay for end-of-life counseling, instead of calling providing it a "death panel,"
As I mentioned in the Obamacare thread, the "death panels" are not references to end-of-life counseling. They're references to an unelected panel that has the authority (actually, the obligation) to withhold care from people to keep costs down.

incentivize prevention of life-threatening diseases, and seek to rein in the cost for out-of-control, often totally futile, end of life care. Two thirds of Medicare spending is spent in the last few months of life, when treatment is almost always never curative, and more often than not, completely wasteful. Stop paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on people who are already dying and cannot be saved. Stop paying for cancer treatment for a terminally ill patient who will likely only live another couple of months with a "new" treatment.
This is where the argument gets weird. You can't say that Paul Ryan's plan is going to hurt seniors...and then say that your alternative is to to talk them into letting themselves die earlier. "Die earlier" is not a health care plan, as I've heard many Democrats sarcastically and erroneously say to Republicans over the last few years nearly every time they advocate any market-based reforms.

But putting the ethical issues aside for a moment, what makes you think this is going to work pragmatically? What if people refuse to just lay down and die? Do you think they'll all go quietly for the good of the system's financial solvency because you showed them some statistics?

If you want to reform Medicare, do those things, then if we need more, we can discuss what else to do. The Ryan budget doesn't do any of those things. The Ryan budget doesn't tackle the huge cost overruns of our healthcare system. It doesn't fix what's broken. It merely transfers those burdens to states that are already cash-strapped, and individuals, who in most cases, cannot afford to pay more.
The Ryan plan includes any number of ways to try to bend the cost curve down. It allows private insurers to bid on providing minimum coverage, for example. Maybe you're unimpressed by these measures, but it's simply false to say that it only shifts the funding without trying to address cost.

Also, your proposed alternative (talk people into going quietly) doesn't really address cost or avoid shifting the burden, either. It just decides that "the burden" should consist of dying sooner, rather than paying more.

Instead of sharing the sacrifice, and asking those who can most afford it to pay a little bit more
Sorry, we have to stop mid-sentence. :) There is no way to save Medicare by asking the wealthy to "pay a little bit more." You can't even save it by asking them to pay a lot more.

the Ryan budget gives those who already have all their basic necessities taken care of huge tax cuts, so they can buy another vacation home or a new car. That is wrong. That is not the America I believe in.
But you believe in an America where we talk old people into giving up on life when it's not cost effective? How is that any better? You express horror at the thought that someone would die or have to limit their care because of cost, but that magically becomes okay when it's government that's doing the limiting?

Ryan's budget seeks to implement a vision that tells those of our citizens who need help that they are on their own.
Er, except for the fact where it provides citizens with free money when they can't pay for health care, and has other provisions to help more if they still can't afford it. You really might want to take a closer look at the plan; it's not the pure lassez-faire solution that you seem to think it is. The standard anti-market rhetoric playbook isn't going to work here. Ryan's actually a pretty pragmatic guy in practice; he's tweaked his budget and Medicare proposals more than once to respond to critiques. They are evolving proposals that have been very responsive to criticism. Ryan-Wyden is the third version, I think.

The more you read about Ryan's Medicare plan, the more it becomes evident that it's really well thought out. You might not like parts of it, but it's not some intellectually lazy "let the market figure it out" plan. There have been, however, a lot of intellectually lazy criticisms of it that simply assume that's what it is.

Here's a great place to start reading up exactly how the plan works (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313757/grasping-medicare-distortion-yuval-levin). I think you'll be surprised at what's actually in it. There's a ton of misinformation out there about it, no doubt exacerbated by the fact that people don't always take the time to distinguish between Ryan-Wyden and earlier versions of the proposal.

That it isn't the government's job to help them. That it isn't the government's job to ensure that they have Social Security, that they have healthcare, that they are able to live and thrive. It isn't the government's job.
Ryan's plan still treats Medicare like an entitlement. It just makes far more realistic promises and allows for direct competition within the system.

These should be decisions driven by the market. A market that isn't driven by altruism, or a concern for the welfare of our citizens, but by an insatiable drive to make more and more profits and give less and less care.
Show me someone whose health problems are cured by some sort of sympathy vaccine, and we'll have ourselves an argument. Otherwise, we should be arguing about outcomes and results, not which program sounds more altruistic than another.

If you really care about people, you look at what's going to actually help them, and not what's going to make us feel generous or good about ourselves. In fact, here's a highly relevant video of that Paul Ryan guy articulating the same basic idea (you can hear it in the first 30 seconds or so):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuC3n5Wx0R4

I could get behind a program that involved cuts, even if those cuts were painful
Well, as I asked before: do you think it's realistic that anyone can come out for this sort of program without being accused of threatening seniors? Are you aware of any Democatic proposals that do this? Because all I see are Republicans proposing solutions, and Democrats savaging them for it.

but I can't get behind a program that asks the least among us to sacrifice while at the same time giving huge tax breaks to millionaires who don't need them so they can buy another yacht. The wealthy get even more. The poor and the middle class do with less. That just isn't a vision I can support.
Buy another yacht, huh? What, was "Diamond-Studded Croquet Mallet Factory" too cartoonish? ;)

But I'll play along just to make a quick point. Who do you think builds that yacht? Millionaire factory workers? Who services the engine? Millionaire mechanics? I don't want to get off on a whole thing about economics here, but when people start talking about how the wealthy spend money, I can't help myself.

will.15

08-15-12, 08:03 PM

Nyet. You don't post jobs data, or GDP, or personal income, or anything. You make passing references to how the economy might make things difficult, but it's never a critique, and it's usually in the context criticizing Republicans in comparison. And even that is usually in response to questioning.

Now why should I do that? Did you ever do that when Bush was in power to show the war was going badly? This thread was about who will challenge Obama, not about how bad THE ECONOMY IS.

You often come in here to post a link and/or react to a news item, gaffe, whatever. Can you show me any instance in which you did that, and concluded it was bad news for Obama or Democrats in general?

Again, the focus is who will replace Obama? Have you seen me praising Obama much or at all except in the context I think he is a better communicator than the guys trying to defeat him?

Yep. Because by "partisan shill," I don't mean "partisan" or "someone who has an ideology." I mean someone who thinks everything that happens is somehow great for whatever I believe in, like a campaign spokesperson.

Well, the way I have been looking at is who has been doing a better job of campaigning, and my opinion reflects the current polls, Obama has been more effective and Romney the last month or so particularly has been on the ropes. You want me to argue Romney has been making a brilliant effective point when nobody that matters thinks it?

You concede more ground because you make lots of indefensible claims, there, Chester. I barely even have the opportunity to do this sort of thing, because almost all of my posts are just replies to whatever goofy thing you've posted most recently.

No, I concede more ground because I am less partisan and you rarely give any ground, making silly claims Romney was justified for claiming he created 100,000 jobs that happened long after he left Bain and even after the companies were sold, but shouldn't by that logic be responsible for job losses after he left Bain.

It also helps that I generally don't start arguing about something until I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. I highly recommend that, by the way.

See above for an example that refutes that.

But Republicans do it a little worse, or a little more, right? That sure seems to be the pattern.

Traditionally, Repubs have been more effective with the neg ads than Dems, but they are stumbling this year because they have a candidate with more vulnerabilities than usual that are ripe for exploitation.

Name something bad that Democrats do significantly more than Republicans.

You go first since you brought it up,

They reminded people Obama wasn't white? What?

If you don't understand what that is about, reminding people Obama isn't white, saying I am the one being partisan is a joke.

Yeah, but as we've established, you manage to be not-impressed with the other side pretty roughly 100% of the time, so that might not be a great gauge.

And you have been impressed with the opposition...like when?

I never claimed I was a neutral observer. I am not a reporter. I said i was a registered Democrat. I have been down on Democrat Presidents in the past. i have nothing nice to say about Jimmy Carter, the second worst president of the twentieth century. Again, I think anyone reading your posts and mine would see I am fairer to the opposition overall than you. But this was a year when Republicans embraced the hard right agenda of the Tea Party and took a confrontational approach, and the Republican Party had the weakest bunch of presidential candidates in memory. What positive was there to say about them?

Can you show me an example of you criticizing Obama's campaign strategy, rather than explaining away his mistakes as not-such-a-big-deal? Can you show me an example of you praising a Romney campaign strategy as being shrewd or effective?
Romney has not been making any shrewd campaign strategy. If he was, he wouldn't be so behind when you look at the electoral college map.

I could tell you what he should have done, but you probably wouldn't agree with it.

Yoda

08-15-12, 08:45 PM

Now why should I do that? Did you ever do that when Bush was in power to show the war was going badly? This thread was about who will challenge Obama, not about how bad THE ECONOMY IS.
Oh, for goodness' sake. It has very often been about the race in general, and it hasn't been about who's going to challenge him for a long time now. You yourself have talked about special elections, for example. The idea that you don't do this because it would be off-topic is crazy talk.

Anyway, I take it from this answer that you can't produce any examples, right? So every time you post a news item, your opinion is that it's good for Democrats.

So, my follow-up question, since it's clear that some news is bad for Democrats sometimes, is: do you just skip over that kind of news when you find it, or do you restrict yourself to news sources where you never have to see those sorts of news items to begin with?

Again, the focus is who will replace Obama? Have you seen me praising Obama much or at all except in the context I think he is a better communicator than the guys trying to defeat him?
Nope. I have never accused you of being a wide-eyed Obama disciple. You just conspicuously avoid (and invariably play-down) all of his mistakes.

How about this? Can you name some sort of Obama mistake or gaffe that you think was as bad as portrayed, or worse? Because my memory of pretty much instance is that, if you admit it's a mistake at all, you always suggest it's not a big deal, Romney's done worse, yadda yadda yadda.

Well, the way I have been looking at is who has been doing a better job of campaigning, and my opinion reflects the current polls, Obama has been more effective and Romney the last month or so particularly has been on the ropes. You want me to argue Romney has been making a brilliant effective point when nobody that matters thinks it?
In general? No. I'm asking for a single example of it. Because whatever you think of any candidate, they don't make nothing but bad decisions. They don't have nothing but bad days/weeks.

No, I concede more ground because I am less partisan
There's, like, 150 unanswered posts full of arguments that beg to differ. But you can think what you want. And I'll keep asking questions and that number'll just get bigger and bigger.

and you rarely give any ground, making silly claims Romney was justified for claiming he created 100,000 jobs that happened long after he left Bain and even after the companies were sold, but shouldn't by that logic be responsible for job losses after he left Bain.
Where did I say he was justified in claiming he created 100,000 jobs? Show me.

You mentioned it a long time ago, and I don't think I argued with you at all. It does look like an inflated number. I don't think his rhetoric has to change much if you say he gets credit for, say, 65,000. But I don't have any issue with the idea that he's spinning that number a bit higher than it should be.

You go first since you brought it up,
Uh, if we're going to start using Schoolyard Rules, don't they usually say "I asked you first"?

Also, the whole point here is that I'm not the one going out of my way to post cherry-picked news articles and "reacting" to them in utterly predictable ways. 99% of the time I'm just replying to what someone else says. I don't generally control the discussion, nor do I try to; I pretty much just audit what's said. So when I agree with something, I don't argue with it. That's how my approval manifests itself here. That doesn't work in reverse, obviously, because your approval of something manifests itself by you posting it.

If you don't understand what that is about, reminding people Obama isn't white, saying I am the one being partisan is a joke.
Uh-huh. Or I just don't know what you're talking about and I'm asking you to explain it. Please don't tell me this is the "doesn't get America" stuff. If you think "doesn't get America" is racially charged, let alone to the point where you can say it's reminding people of his race and equate it with talking about people in freakin' chains, then you are beyond the reach of any argument.

And you have been impressed with the opposition...like when?
I was very impressed with Obama's response to the Bin Laden raid, particularly his "we don't spike the football" comment. I thought that was exceptionally Presidential. I'd have to check, but I think I said so, too.

Is your response to every one of these questions going to be just repeating them back, by the way?

Again, I think anyone reading your posts and mine would see I am fairer to the opposition overall than you.
Oh, I have no doubt that you think this.

What positive was there to say about them?
That they're running on issues that matter. That they're smart to nominate a relatively moderate candidate rather than the "hard right" Tea Party types you're always referring to. That they're the only party actually tackling our entitlement problems.

If you broaden it to issues of campaign strategy itself, you could include their rhetoric on taxes ("now's not a good time to be raising taxes on anybody") and Obamacare. There are plenty of things they've done and said as a whole that are politically shrewd, even if you don't agree with the underlying positions.

But, mainly, I'm simply taking for granted that they've made some good arguments and some good decisions, which is all that's necessary, given that you can't produce any examples of you saying this, and scads of examples of you saying the opposite. You even tried to play up the significance of a special election they lost, and play down the significance of two they won. It's been pretty shameless.

Romney has not been making any shrewd campaign strategy. If he was, he wouldn't be so behind when you look at the electoral college map.
There you have it. Romney hasn't made any shrewd campaign decisions. Not one! Amazing. Gotta be the first candidate in history to make zero good decisions. Why, it's amazing he's still in the race at all.

will.15

08-15-12, 08:53 PM

Yeah! So what? What possible connection could there be between people in chains and slavery.

See? You selectively edited my comment. You do that when it suits your purpose. I rarely do that, and only when the comment is in a separate sentence and I didn't realize it was part of the same point and I already posted my comment. Yeah, so what, like I said, he didn't mean it literally.

I'm not particularly alarmed by the quote itself. I'm alarmed that some people are apparently capable of thinking that Romney is sending super subtle racially charged messages, and that talking about people literally being in chains apparently has no such connotation. And I'm also alarmed at people who, even if they see the connotation, think the two things are roughly equal in their race-baiting and want to call it a wash. If Romney said something like that, there'd be a full-fledged freak out.

Well, the Romney comments were not so subtle because his surrogates stumbled and the message became not so subtle. The message was he is not the same color as you, he doesn't think like you, he is the president of those cheating welfare blacks and gang bangers, he doesn't care about white middle class America. But his campaign couldn't come out and say that straight out. So go ahead and get all worked up about blacks in chains because that is so much worse.

Nope. I didn't lump it in with them; I just said it was bad and ugly. But even if I had, I also pointed out that they used the same guy in one of their ads, had him tell the same story on their campaign conference call, and then lied about not knowing who he was.

I already said all this, by the way.
Well, you can characterize it anyway you want, but I think most people reading the comments would think you were indeed linking it to the Obama campaign and you made a big point they didn't denounce the ads, when you never got upset when the Kerry ads were distanced from, as was the case here, but not denounced.

Yoda

08-15-12, 09:00 PM

See? You selectively edited my comment. You do that when it suits your purpose. I rarely do that, and only when the comment is in a separate sentence and I didn't realize it was part of the same point and I already posted my comment. Yeah, so what, like I said, he didn't mean it literally.
Oh, for goodness' sake. It makes no difference, because I agree that he didn't mean it literally. This is about race-baiting, about racially charged statements. It doesn't have to be literal. Not being literal is the only way anyone can conceivably say it.

The message was he is not the same color as you, he doesn't think like you, he is the president of those cheating welfare blacks and gang bangers, he doesn't care about white middle class America. But his campaign couldn't come out and say that straight out.
Uh, yeah. In fact, "he doesn't think like you" was literally the only one of those things they said at all. The rest is you filling in the blanks with things way, way beyond what they actually said.

There's no point in arguing about what a candidate said if you're willing to just make a bunch of sh*t up that you somehow know they really think.

So go ahead and get all worked up about blacks in chains because that is so much worse.
Yes, will: saying someone's going to put you in chains is more racially charged than someone saying you don't get America. Of course it is.

Well, you can characterize it anyway you want, but I think most people reading the comments would think you were indeed linking it to the Obama campaign and you made a big point they didn't denounce the ads, when you never got upset when the Kerry ads were distanced from, as was the case here, but not denounced.
Bush denounced all 527 ads, and specifically contradicted the Kerry ad. As far as I know Obama hasn't even distanced himself from it, contradicted it, or anything; the campaign just says they have nothing to do with it. There's no comparison between the two.

And even that's being generous, seeing as how--again, I point out--they had the guy in their own ad and specifically asked him to tell the same story for their campaign call. If you keep saying I shouldn't be linking the two, I'm going to keep pointing out that a) I didn't, and b) there's actually a pretty good reason to do so, anyway. Your answer to the first, apparently, is some vagueness about how you think "most people" would think I was (except, you know, I didn't), and I don't think you've every really acknowledged the second at all, even though I've said it 3-4 times.

AKA23

08-15-12, 09:39 PM

Voucher yes (sort of), privatize no. A program that gives out thousands of dollars to citizens simply because they can't afford healthcare is not "privatization." That's a welfare program, and an entitlement. And neither of those facts change under Ryan-Wyden.

Currently the Medicare system is a single payer healthcare system, with the only payer in Medicare being the government. The Ryan plan seeks to fundamentally alter the idea that when you become old, your health declines, and the cost increases for caring for your health, the government will be responsible for your care. This is a basic social contract that has been existence since Medicare was founded decades ago. The Ryan, and presumably, Romney plans, severely undermine and compromise that social contract. It does help in the form of offering a voucher to help purchase healthcare in the private marketplace, but the payer of the services shifts from the government to the individual. Under this plan, who will pay the difference between the modest voucher allotment and the cost of care? It is the individual. The Ryan devotees say that costs will decrease under this new approach, and the healthcare system will become more affordable, but if that doesn't happen, or these cost projections prove too optimistic, how will the individual, who is on a fixed income, bear the burden of these increased costs? Under the current system, they don't have to. With the Ryan plan, they do.

This is where the argument gets weird. You can't say that Paul Ryan's plan is going to hurt seniors...and then say that your alternative is to to talk them into letting themselves die earlier. "Die earlier" is not a health care plan, as I've heard many Democrats sarcastically and erroneously say to Republicans over the last few years nearly every time they advocate any market-based reforms.

My proposal is not to talk the elderly into dying earlier. It's to stop paying for completely useless end-of life care that is not curative, needlessly extends suffering of those who are terminally ill, and is cost-prohibitive.

You may not be aware of the extraordinary amounts of money that are spent at the end of life. Half of Medicare spending is spent on beneficiaries who die within two months. 10% of Medicare beneficiaries account for 70% of Medicare spending. This is staggering. To address the insolvency of healthcare in this country, you have to do two things. One, incentivize prevention so we can dramatically reduce the amount of people diagnosed with expensive and often completely preventable chronic diseases. It's much cheaper to pay for yearly physicals, cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar screenings, and counseling to incentivize healthier lifestyle choices, than it is to pay for bypass surgery, heart transplants, prescription drugs, and the innumerable follow up appointments necessary to monitor these very expensive, and difficult to treat, chronic conditions.

Secondly, you have to ration care. Cost has to be a part of the conversation. If we are spending half of Medicare dollars in the last two months of life, logic, and medical evidence, dictate that a large proportion of that spending is totally useless, unnecessary, and in many cases, harmful. It's not just the huge burden these costs place on our healthcare system. It's also prolonging suffering needlessly, and leading to more pain, disability, and discomfort for those who are already dying. Rather than spending 50% of our Medicare dollars in the last two months of life, we need to simply acknowledge that when treatment is not curative, and someone is very ill and near death, that treatment should not be given. Treatment at this point should shift to pain management only. Neither of these things, incentivizing prevention, and taking measures to achieve a healthier society, or acknowledging reality by refusing to continue to treat patients who are already dying, require us to radically transform Medicare from a single payer system to one that shifts the burdens to the individual who must try their luck on the private market.

Also, your proposed alternative (talk people into going quietly) doesn't really address cost or avoid shifting the burden, either. It just decides that "the burden" should consist of dying sooner, rather than paying more.

Incentivizing prevention and stopping treatment that is not medically advisable or curative will bend the cost curve dramatically. Those two things will go along way to making Medicare, as currently constituted, solvent. In fact, doing these two things alone may arguably be the solution to Medicare insolvency entirely.

But you believe in an America where we talk old people into giving up on life when it's not cost effective? How is that any better? You express horror at the thought that someone would die or have to limit their care because of cost, but that magically becomes okay when it's government that's doing the limiting?

Because the healthcare system doesn't have unlimited resources, and the resources that it does have are very expensive, rationing does need to occur. Do you acknowledge this? If you do acknowledge this, then is not age, health history, and the likelihood of benefiting from treatment good criteria to use in making the decision of how to allocate care? As for the difference between terminating futile end of life care when someone is terminal and denying care because of cost, the difference is pretty clear. Everyone will get old. Everyone will die. Barring dying very young from accident or disease, which is not the norm, everyone will be in this position at one point or another. Suggesting that we treat everyone the same who is of a certain age and has a certain health history is a consistent, and fair, standard. Denying care because someone cannot pay for that care is not. People with money will always be able to get care. People who don't have it won't. Everyone doesn't have the same potential to become wealthy enough to pay for this care. Some do, and some don't. It's not a consistent standard, and it is not universally applicable. Using age and health history to ration care is a universally applicable standard. Everyone is treated the same.

The more you read about Ryan's Medicare plan, the more it becomes evident that it's really well thought out. You might not like parts of it, but it's not some intellectually lazy "let the market figure it out" plan. There have been, however, a lot of intellectually lazy criticisms of it that simply assume that's what it is.

I agree that the Ryan plan is a serious effort, and that Ryan should be given credit for seeking to tackle a very important problem. At the same time, I fundamentally disagree with the manner in which he seeks to do it in large measure because the reforms he is proposing are not going to address the two major problems with our healthcare system. First, that we are a very sick society, and that our healthcare system does not incentivize people to become healthier. The things that do, like taxing unhealthy foods, and subsidizing things like gym memberships, conservatives don't support. Secondly, Ryan's reforms do nothing to address the huge waste in the healthcare system, and do nothing to address the real problem in healthcare spending, which is expensive, medically unnecessary, and often completely futile end of life care that makes Medicare insolvent and needly extends the suffering of patients.

Not only this, the Ryan plan puts the increased costs not on people who can afford them, but on those who can least afford to do so. Ryan pays for his programs by slashing spending for programs that the poor depend on, and pushes through huge tax cuts for the wealthy. If Ryan is so concerned about the deficit, why does he not support ending the Bush tax cuts for every American? Instead, he wants to make those tax cuts permanent, which will lead to more and more deficits. His plan doesn't even really fully address the problem. It would be courageous to say, as I do, that the Bush tax cuts should expire for everyone because we simply cannot afford them. Ryan isn't doing that. Instead, he's increasing the deficit by trillions of dollars to preserve tax cuts that the wealthy don't even need while at the same time taking a hatchet to programs which help the most vulnerable.

Well, as I asked before: do you think it's realistic that anyone can come out for this sort of program without being accused of threatening seniors? Are you aware of any Democatic proposals that do this? Because all I see are Republicans proposing solutions, and Democrats savaging them for it.

No, I don't think rationing care is something that is going to be politically popular, and if a Democrat or Republican were to do it, they probably would have a difficult time garnering support. It is, however, the only solution, and it will happen. The only question is do we want that rationing of care to be applied consistently and fairly based on age and health history, or do we want it to be done based on ability to pay. Our current system rations care based on ability to pay. That just simply isn't fair. It isn't just, and it isn't humane.

I do, however, think incentivizing prevention, which is one of the two main problems contributing to the insolvency of our healthcare system could, if explained articulately, be politically palatable. But I'm not addressing whether or not the solutions to our healthcare insolvency would be politically popular. I'm addressing the wisdom of those solutions.

I'm looking forward to your reply.

will.15

08-15-12, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=836559#post836559)
Romney has not been making any shrewd campaign strategy. If he was, he wouldn't be so behind when you look at the electoral college map.
There you have it. Romney hasn't made any shrewd campaign decisions. Not one! Amazing. Gotta be the first candidate in history to make zero good decisions. Why, it's amazing he's still in the race at all.

Well, obviously he did because he won the nomination, but what has he done fight since then?

His mistakes:

Running strictly on his business record. He was governor of Massachusetts for four years and did a decent job and could have had a second term if he wanted to. But he made this all about what a wonderful job he did at Bain and incredibly forgot about what Teddy Kennedy did to that record and it was brought up in the primary by his Republican opponents. Why wasn't he better prepared for the Obama attacks? Did he think it no longer mattered because Republicans in the primaries didn't care as much?

That Democrats are waging class warfare stuff as a defense against the Bain attacks is lame, And that comment about not caring about poor people was a big mistake, not just because of the words, but the strategy behind it. As a wealthy man especially, he has to talk about poor people and explain how his policies will help them more than Obama's solutions. A rich white Republican has to talk more about helping the poor and minorities, even if the solutions are traditional Republican ones. You are not going to win a general election with just the middle class white male vote.

Romney is not really a moderate. He is the candidate who doesn't want to be too specific, which is not the same thing. He wanted to run a safe campaign. He assumed because the economy was bad, if he kept reminding the voters of that and he wasn't the incumbent, that would be enough to win. When it became clear that wasn't working, he picked Paul Ryan, but still doesn't seem to understand the implications of that. He doesn't understand he has embraced Ryan's budget. He wants to have it both ways, have some of that party enthusiasm of Ryan rub off on him, but not completely embrace the agenda, even though his own alternative proposals are vague. As long as that is the case, the Ryan Plan is his de facto plan.

All the indications were Romney wanted a safe VP choice. He was looking for no harm, not a potential game changer. Then when he decided he needed a potential exciting VP he picked the wrong one. Rubio isn't as sharp as Ryan, but he is articulate and attractive enough, and probably would have given Romney Florida. Ryan makes Florida harder for Romney.

Romney got the nomination because he made the other guys look less attractive. He got it by going negative, not by creating any enthusiasm for himself. That was his strategy also against Obama. He went negative early by emphasizing the bad economy, but not by offering specific solutions. Obama did to Romney what Romney did to Gingrich and Santorum. He didn't follow the Reagan playbook because that requires some political guts, taking a stand that might be risky politically, be a gambler, and that is not the Romney way. Out of desperation he is gambling now by picking Ryan, but his instinct is still to play it safe so he is bumbling the gamble by still trying to play it both ways. He picked Ryan. He needs to embrace Ryan, not pretend his Medicare Plan is substantially different or might maybe be different if he ever got aound to saying what exactly it is. He has to sell Ryan's Plan.

He should have released his tax returns early and taken his lumps, just flat out apologize if nesessary if need be for some of it. Yeah, I shouldn't have listened to my tax man and put that money in the Cayman Islands. Now it is too late. He let his taxes become an issue.

Americans like rich people, the right kind. The self made ones or the silver spoons with some empathy for the poor or with a common touch. Ross Perot was self made. The Kennedys had empathy for the poor. Bush Junior and Nelson Rockerfeller had the common touch. Romney has none of that and needed to work on it, at least talk about the poor. Whining that the Democrats and Obama are picking on him because he is rich was the worst thing he could have done.

Yoda

08-15-12, 10:11 PM

I asked you a whole mess of questions, and I could've sworn none of them were "could you please give me a list of all the mistakes you think Mitt Romney has made?"

will.15

08-15-12, 10:31 PM

I asked you a whole mess of questions, and I could've sworn none of them were "could you please give me a list of all the mistakes you think Mitt Romney has made?"
I don't have time right now to answer them all and with my shaky connection in hot weather I run the risk of losing a long reply so it is better to pick a question at a time.

will.15

08-15-12, 10:32 PM

Bush denounced all 527 ads, and specifically contradicted the Kerry ad. As far as I know Obama hasn't even distanced himself from it, contradicted it, or anything; the campaign just says they have nothing to do with it. There's no comparison between the two.

And even that's being generous, seeing as how--again, I point out--they had the guy in their own ad and specifically asked him to tell the same story for their campaign call. If you keep saying I shouldn't be linking the two, I'm going to keep pointing out that a) I didn't, and b) there's actually a pretty good reason to do so, anyway. Your answer to the first, apparently, is some vagueness about how you think "most people" would think I was (except, you know, I didn't), and I don't think you've every really acknowledged the second at all, even though I've said it 3-4 times.[/quote]
No, again, you are not being accurate. Bush did not denounce the ads. Not at all. He distanced himself from the ads' message. And he didn't do that right away. He distanced himself from them when directly asked at I believe a press conference. You are right Obama has not distanced himself from the cancer ad. I also don't think he has answered a direct question about it.

will.15

08-15-12, 11:21 PM

will.15

08-15-12, 11:35 PM

Oh, look, what is coming. They are going to try to swift boat Obama. This will be a lead balloon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/opsec-special-forces_n_1777538.html

Yoda

08-16-12, 11:27 AM

I don't have time right now to answer them all and with my shaky connection in hot weather I run the risk of losing a long reply so it is better to pick a question at a time.
I'm not going to give someone crap for having a bad connection (though why not just copy it into a text file? Fixes both problems). However, it wasn't that you answered one (nobody asked you to list his mistakes), and it wasn't that it had to be short (it was quite long). If you write long replies to questions nobody asks, then yeah, I would imagine it would be quite hard to find time for the ones people are.

Yoda

08-16-12, 11:35 AM

No, again, you are not being accurate. Bush did not denounce the ads. Not at all.
"President Bush on Monday called for the so-called 527 groups to stop airing political ads"

That's from an article you posted. He opposed all 527 ads (he said they were "bad for the system") and specifically contradicted the content of the Swift Boat Ads, saying Kerry served honorably.

I don't know if you think they have to use the word "denounce" to make it official or something, but this seems pretty clear to me. Even if you want to slice it up and say he has to use that magic word, you sure don't get to say he didn't do it "at all." And, of course, Obama hasn't done it under any definition, and that was the point of comparison, remember?

You are right Obama has not distanced himself from the cancer ad. I also don't think he has answered a direct question about it.
That, of course, is by design. And his Press Secretary and Deputy Campaign Manager have both answered direct questions about it. Sometimes by, you know, lying about their involvement with the guy.

Yoda

08-16-12, 11:38 AM

Well, it turns out the clarifying comments and the actual context makes the chains comment much more innoculous than you were making it out to be. Again, you are very concerned about context when it is a Romney comment, but see the worst if it is coming from the Dem camp.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/joe-biden-chains-remark_n_1776463.html
Ugh. No, dude. You're totally not getting this: I am not offended by Joe Biden's comments. They were stupid and careless, yes, but 99% of the time I don't care about silly little gaffes like this. And 90% of the time I don't think things are racially charged. My point is that you can't possibly think Romney's giving off apparently super-indirect secret decoder ring racist dog whistle code to please his base, and somehow not think Biden's doing something much more overt and racially charged.

I think anything short of actual statements is pointless and silly. But if you're going to do it, it'd be absolutely absurd to try to muddy the difference between what Romney's doing and the much more overt things Biden's saying. By all means, ignore them both; both are distractions from real issues. But you don't get to play the race card selectively. And you sure don't get to take the absurd position that saying someone doesn't get America is race-baiting, but saying people will be put in chains isn't, or is the same level of it. That's insanity.

will.15

08-16-12, 02:17 PM

Yoda

08-16-12, 02:29 PM

I'm looking forward to your reply.
Look forward no more! It is here.

Currently the Medicare system is a single payer healthcare system, with the only payer in Medicare being the government. The Ryan plan seeks to fundamentally alter the idea that when you become old, your health declines, and the cost increases for caring for your health, the government will be responsible for your care.
This isn't true; under Ryan-Wyden, the government is still responsible for ensuring a minimum level of care, just as they are now, and for paying for it, just as they are now. The guarantee does not change; just the mechanism for providing it.

It does help in the form of offering a voucher to help purchase healthcare in the private marketplace, but the payer of the services shifts from the government to the individual. Under this plan, who will pay the difference between the modest voucher allotment and the cost of care?
The government pays the difference. The government's voucher is not a fixed amount across time; it grows, for one (at exactly the same rate as Obamacare, by the way), and it's automatically set at an amount higher than the lowest bid for those minimum services, which means it's literally impossible for it to fail to pay for the minimum amount of coverage.

The bet is that this element of competition--and the direct line it gives taxpayers to their insurance companies, which gets rid of those layers of abstraction we've talked about and agreed about before--will lower costs. If this competition lowers prices, we're golden and the program is a success. And even if it doesn't lower prices--even if it fails--that only means the government will be on the hook for the costs. Which it already is right now, under the current system.

Put another way: there's no scenario under Ryan-Wyden where individuals just get left holding the bag, even though this is what even generally informed people like yourself seem to think. This is why I keep telling people to actually look at it. If you want to skip over a lot of the stuff I linked to before, just read page 2 of the article I posted before (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313757/grasping-medicare-distortion-yuval-levin?pg=2).

My proposal is not to talk the elderly into dying earlier. It's to stop paying for completely useless end-of life care that is not curative, needlessly extends suffering of those who are terminally ill, and is cost-prohibitive.
Well, I was being generous. Your proposal is to let them die whether they're talked into it or not.

You may not be aware of the extraordinary amounts of money that are spent at the end of life. Half of Medicare spending is spent on beneficiaries who die within two months. 10% of Medicare beneficiaries account for 70% of Medicare spending. This is staggering.
You don't need to convince me. Even if the numbers are a little lower (and I have no specific reason to doubt the ones you cite), the point is the same: it costs a lot. I'm not disputing the idea.

Incentivizing prevention and stopping treatment that is not medically advisable or curative will bend the cost curve dramatically. Those two things will go along way to making Medicare, as currently constituted, solvent. In fact, doing these two things alone may arguably be the solution to Medicare insolvency entirely.
Well, yeah, probably. But then, lots of problems can be "solved" if we're willing to start letting people die to keep costs down. You can probably reduce crime if you just start napalming bad neighborhoods, too. I don't mean for that to sound quite so smarmy, but you get the idea: solving the problem is not the be all and end all. We need to solve it in a way that doesn't just trade one form of indignity and abandonment for another. You don't die with more dignity when government says "sorry, you're not worth it to us" than you do when you yourself have to say "I'm not going to blow my children's inheritance trying to squeeze another year out of life." If anything, I think you lose dignity, because it's far more out of your control than anything in a free market system. The loss goes from incidental to society-wise and deliberate.

I mean, you're basically talking about an insitutionalized form of putting your elderly out on ice floes.

Because the healthcare system doesn't have unlimited resources, and the resources that it does have are very expensive, rationing does need to occur. Do you acknowledge this?
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that it's obviously finite. No in the sense that it's only "rationing" if you have control over the supply. We don't "ration" food, for example, even though there's a finite amount of it.

Suggesting that we treat everyone the same who is of a certain age and has a certain health history is a consistent, and fair, standard. Denying care because someone cannot pay for that care is not. People with money will always be able to get care. People who don't have it won't. Everyone doesn't have the same potential to become wealthy enough to pay for this care. Some do, and some don't. It's not a consistent standard, and it is not universally applicable. Using age and health history to ration care is a universally applicable standard. Everyone is treated the same.
We could ask everyone to die at 55 and that would be consistent, too. As I mentioned in the Obamacare thread, I'm not sure why consistency is inherently a virtue, let alone the highest one when it comes to healthcare.

Let me ask you a question, if I may: if costs are still too high, wouldn't that require that we keep moving that line? If costs keep going up, won't we just have to deny more and more people care at earlier ages, and with tighter standards about who's "worth" saving?

At the same time, I fundamentally disagree with the manner in which he seeks to do it in large measure because the reforms he is proposing are not going to address the two major problems with our healthcare system. First, that we are a very sick society, and that our healthcare system does not incentivize people to become healthier. The things that do, like taxing unhealthy foods, and subsidizing things like gym memberships, conservatives don't support.
Most Democrats don't support these things, either. Subsidizing gym memberships? Yikes.

It's pretty much a universal principle that, when you bear the brunt of a difficulty, you work harder to alleviate it. You take better care of your own car than a rental. You take better care of your own house than a hotel room. Yet when we get into healthcare, we suddenly decide they don't apply? That the best way to create incentive for being healthy is to make them the party ultimately responsible for the results?

Secondly, Ryan's reforms do nothing to address the huge waste in the healthcare system, and do nothing to address the real problem in healthcare spending, which is expensive, medically unnecessary, and often completely futile end of life care that makes Medicare insolvent and needly extends the suffering of patients.
Making something more market-oriented, and giving people more control over their outcomes, almost invariably reduce waste. As I said before, you can say you don't think it'll work (though a lot of evidence suggests it will), but you can't say he "does nothing to address" it.

Also, it's worth pointing out that what you call "waste," another person calls a couple more years with their grandchildren. I'm not going to hang my entire argument on this kind of emotional appeal, but it's important to remember that the implication of what you're talking about is literally a handful of bureaucrats deciding whose lives are more valuable. That's a question with no answer, which is why free societies usually have the good sense not to try to answer it for others in the first place.

Not only this, the Ryan plan puts the increased costs not on people who can afford them, but on those who can least afford to do so.
No, it doesn't. :)

Ryan pays for his programs by slashing spending for programs that the poor depend on, and pushes through huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
C'mon. Now you're just stringing talking points together. For one, it's not tax cuts for the wealthy; it's a refusal to raise taxes on them. EDIT: it occurs to me you might have stopped talking about the Bush tax cuts and started talking about capital gains taxes. Please clarify. :) END OF EDIT. I don't know if you'd call these cuts "huge" or not, but they're sure not huge compared to Medicare spending, as I keep pointing out. And this is still beside the point, because the argument is that it leads to higher economic growth.

As for "slashing spending." It's important to point out that when a politician says someone is going to "cut" something, it almost never means actually cutting it. It usually means cutting the rate at which it's already set to grow. And that's the case with Ryan's apparently draconian "cuts." I can be more specific, but only if you specify precisely which ones you're talking about.

If Ryan is so concerned about the deficit, why does he not support ending the Bush tax cuts for every American?
Because he's also concerned about tax rates. If he'd rolled them back, you'd be saying the opposite: if he's so concerned about keeping taxes low, why did he raise them to combat the deficit?

Sometimes, you have to balance competing interests. And something like $58 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities takes precedence over even short-term deficit reduction. It's depressing that this is the choice, but it is.

It would be courageous to say, as I do, that the Bush tax cuts should expire for everyone because we simply cannot afford them. Ryan isn't doing that.
It would be courageous, yes. But I don't think it would be wise. And, again, absolutely nobody is saying this. It's important to note that, when you describe what you think we should do, you're no longer criticizing Ryan: you're criticizing pretty much every politician in the Federal government, including the President.

Instead, he's increasing the deficit by trillions of dollars to preserve tax cuts that the wealthy don't even need while at the same time taking a hatchet to programs which help the most vulnerable.
"Taking a hatchet to" = growing at a slower rate than before.

I'm not sure I see the signifiance of "tax cuts that the wealthy don't need," unless your proposed governing principle is that we set tax rates based on what we think people "need." Is it? Also, I would simply refer you back to my question about how it gets spent, anyway. Underneath this claim is the unstated (and unsupportable) assumption that the rich spend their money in less beneficial ways than other people. As well as the understated assumption that rich people do nothing with their money but buy silly things.

And if your problem is with the buying of frivolous things, then you must be just fine and dandy with a capital gains tax cut, right? Because that only benefits people who invest, not just those buying those much-maligned yachts.

The only question is do we want that rationing of care to be applied consistently and fairly based on age and health history, or do we want it to be done based on ability to pay. Our current system rations care based on ability to pay. That just simply isn't fair. It isn't just, and it isn't humane.
But saying "sorry, you're 70, you're on your own" is humane?

I really can't get my head around the idea that it "isn't humane" that some people would not have enough money to afford care...but that it's totally fine if they don't get it because society as a whole can't afford it, or has collectively decided to ignore them. Either way, people are dying in old age because of cost, right? It sounds no more humane to me when it happens because of government rationing than because someone can't afford something. Consistent misery isn't any better. And it's probably worse, because at least in an open system you retain a higher amount of control over your outcomes.

I do, however, think incentivizing prevention, which is one of the two main problems contributing to the insolvency of our healthcare system could, if explained articulately, be politically palatable. But I'm not addressing whether or not the solutions to our healthcare insolvency would be politically popular. I'm addressing the wisdom of those solutions.
Good. :) I think it's great that you're taking this posture and I wish more people would focus on the wisdom of solutions, rather than waste time trying to peg their position on the ideological spectrum. I ask about it only to point out that all the things being tossed at Ryan would be tossed at your proposed solution, as well, but probably with a great deal more fervor.

There is no serious reform that doesn't involve major sacrifices. And that means there is no serious reform that Democrats won't lob demagogic hand grenades at.

Yoda

08-16-12, 02:34 PM

Well. we all know Biden doesn't do a lot of thinking when he opens his mouth. The comment was directly about Wall Street so it wasn't like he was literally saying the Republican Party wanted to enslave blacks again. And I hadn't heard about the circumstances and assumed it was an exclusively black crowd and it wasn't. He was responding to language Ryan used with the word unshackled. So it doesn't appear to be as big a deal as you and Romney are making it out to be.
I wasn't making it out to be a big deal. Please read this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=836703) again. My problem is with the severe cognitive dissonance that sees racial coding in Romney's statements, but is strangely oblivious to Biden's much, much more direct example of the same.

Personally, I think they're both non-issues, but the mental gymnastics required to think Romney's using racial code and Biden isn't--or even that they're on the same level in terms of their overtness--is pretty astounding.

But the Romney comments about Obama are different. Romney and his people were clearly following a decision by the campaign to use that Obama doesn't understand America or he is foreign in his outlook or whatever as much as possible as a talking point. Even before Sununu's comments made the news reporters noticed the use of the language by Romney and commented on it. Romney understood how to be subtle about it, but some of his people aren't as politically adept.
Yeah, like I said: there's no point in arguing this if you're willing to take something like "doesn't understand America" and extrapolate all sorts of other things from it. You can read all sorts of silliness between the lines, if you want. But you don't get to treat the notes you scrawl in the margins as quotes.

will.15

08-16-12, 02:35 PM

"President Bush on Monday called for the so-called 527 groups to stop airing political ads"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth

The article says Bush did not denounce the ads and shows there is circumstancial evidence it was not an entirely separate organization.

That's from an article you posted. He opposed all 527 ads (he said they were "bad for the system") and specifically contradicted the content of the Swift Boat Ads, saying Kerry served honorably.

I didn't know the reference to 527 ads was to all the independent ads from both parties and that is hardly a condemnation of the specific ads. And his comment meant nothing. How could that comment bring an end to all supposed independent political ads? It is absurd you keep arguing this.

I don't know if you think they have to use the word "denounce" to make it official or something, but this seems pretty clear to me. Even if you want to slice it up and say he has to use that magic word, you sure don't get to say he didn't do it "at all." And, of course, Obama hasn't done it under any definition, and that was the point of comparison, remember?

That is right. Obama has not done it at all. But Bush, again, was playing a dance, and did not come close to denouncing the ads. John McCain did. Bush did not as the link makes clear.

That, of course, is by design. And his Press Secretary and Deputy Campaign Manager have both answered direct questions about it. Sometimes by, you know, lying about their involvement with the guy.
Well, lying is a serious charge. It is more likely they were not aware they used him when the comment was made. Again, another example of your bias because you would have surely made that observation if this controversy was politically reversed.

Yoda

08-16-12, 02:58 PM

The article says Bush did not denounce the ads and shows there is circumstancial evidence it was not an entirely separate organization.
Yeah, again: you seem to thinking it's not denouncing unless you literally use the word "denounce." Take a look at the definition of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denounce). Seems to describe his actions pretty well.

I didn't know the reference to 527 ads was to all the independent ads from both parties and that is hardly a condemnation of the specific ads. And his comment meant nothing. How could that comment bring an end to all supposed independent political ads? It is absurd you keep arguing this.
It's absurd that I have to.

He said he was against all the ads, and they should all be taken off the air. He said Kerry served honorably, which directly contradicts the ad. That's it, dude. That ends the argument, even though you seem not to realize it.

And by the by, this would end the argument even if we were arguing about whether or not he "denounced" it (because, as you've made clear, you think "denounce" is a magic word). But when compared to your actual claim that he didn't do it "at all"? There's nowhere to hide there. That's patently false.

That is right. Obama has not done it at all.
And that was my point the whole time: the two situations are not equivalent. Bush rejected all such ads and disagreed with its content, Obama said nothing. Not even close to comparable.

Well, lying is a serious charge. It is more likely they were not aware they used him when the comment was made. Again, another example of your bias because you would have surely made that observation if this controversy was politically reversed.
Lying is a serious charge, indeed. And I didn't make that charge at first, because I didn't think it at first. But I kinda do now, given that they interacted with the guy twice, and it wasn't very long ago, and they kept stonewalling even as this stuff came out, so it doesn't look so good now.

And the idea that they just issued some kneejerk denial without any regard for whether or not it's true isn't really a big step up from lying, anyway. Best case scenario, they were utterly casual with the truth and didn't sufficiently care if what they said was true.

AKA23

08-16-12, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by AKA23
Currently the Medicare system is a single payer healthcare system, with the only payer in Medicare being the government. The Ryan plan seeks to fundamentally alter the idea that when you become old, your health declines, and the cost increases for caring for your health, the government will be responsible for your care.
This isn't true; under Ryan-Wyden, the government is still responsible for ensuring a minimum level of care, just as they are now, and for paying for it, just as they are now. The guarantee does not change; just the mechanism for providing it.

This isn't accurate. The government is still responsible with being the payer for the one government run plan, which is one option. The government will be responsible for providing a premium support to help cover the cost of the lowest cost plan, but the payer shifts in the private plans to the individual and the private insurance companies. This is not what happens under Medicare today. The only way in which the Ryan plan maintains the current system is in the government sponsored option. In the other plans, if the cost of those other plans exceed the premium support offered, the individual is responsible for covering the difference. Since healthcare costs continue to rise, and will continue to do so in the future, it is very likely that the premium support will not cover the full cost of these private plans, and that the individual will be responsible for paying a large amount out-of pocket. In many cases, this out of pocket expense will be something the individual cannot afford. In addition, although the Ryan plan does preserve Medicare as an option, which is a change from his original plan, there is a good chance that the healthy people will choose lower cost, private plans. The sicker people will be left with Medicare, because they will not be able to afford any of the other private plans. This may leave Medicare with a mostly elderly, sick population which will lead to huge increases in cost as compared with private plans. Over time, there is a significant likelihood that Medicare will not be able to compete with the cost of the private plans, and will end up dying out in the end. I think this is the true intent of many of those who support Ryan's plan, but it is politically unpopular to admit this, so they don't.

The bet is that this element of competition--and the direct line it gives taxpayers to their insurance companies, which gets rid of those layers of abstraction we've talked about and agreed about before--will lower costs. If this competition lowers prices, we're golden and the program is a success. And even if it doesn't lower prices--even if it fails--that only means the government will be on the hook for the costs. Which it already is right now, under the current system.

Healthcare cost projections are always wrong. They always cost significantly more and the savings are always significantly less. This is very similar to the construction industry. Any time you build anything, it always takes far more time than they tell you it will and costs significantly more. This idea that competition is going to magically bring healthcare costs in line is nice in theory, but really doesn't have much to support it. If these cost projections don't end up working, if the government plan dies out, as I outlined earlier, the individual will be at the mercy of the private insurance system. In the link you referenced, even under their presumably overly optimistic projections, healthcare spending would decrease by 9%. Even those who support this plan seem to acknowledge that this is not a solution to the healthcare cost crisis in this country. 9% would help to be sure, but much more would still need to be done.

Put another way: there's no scenario under Ryan-Wyden where individuals just get left holding the bag, even though this is what even generally informed people like yourself seem to think. This is why I keep telling people to actually look at it. If you want to skip over a lot of the stuff I linked to before, just read page 2 of the article I posted before.

If the Ryan plan is exactly as that article describes (and I read the whole article, not just page 2), then why would anyone on Earth be against it? If everything is going to remain exactly the same in the system, and seniors will get the same level of care at the same cost, and have everything taken care of by the government, why is there so much opposition to it? The fact that there is so much opposition seems to lend credence to the fact that everything about the program is not being fully outlined in that article. Other than politics, which can't explain all the opposition, what is the reason this plan doesn't have widespread support?

Originally Posted by AKA23
Incentivizing prevention and stopping treatment that is not medically advisable or curative will bend the cost curve dramatically. Those two things will go along way to making Medicare, as currently constituted, solvent. In fact, doing these two things alone may arguably be the solution to Medicare insolvency entirely.
Well, yeah, probably. But then, lots of problems can be "solved" if we're willing to start letting people die to keep costs down. You can probably reduce crime if you just start napalming bad neighborhoods, too. I don't mean for that to sound quite so smarmy, but you get the idea: solving the problem is not the be all and end all. We need to solve it in a way that doesn't just trade one form of indignity and abandonment for another..I mean, you're basically talking about an insitutionalized form of putting your elderly out on ice floes.

You are demagoguing my position with these comments. I never said that age should be the only consideration about whether care should or should not be given. I said age should be one consideration, along with health history, along with cost. The bottom line is that if 50% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in the last two months of life, a lot of this spending is totally unnecessary, medically futile, and cost prohibitive. I don't see why this is such a controversial idea. I'm not saying that if you're 75, and you have cancer, that we should just refuse to treat you regardless of your health history, just because of cost, and just because of your age. What I am saying is that if you are 75 years old, and you have stage 4 cancer, and the likelihood of you living more than a few months, even with treatment, is very remote, that we probably should not treat you, at least not on the taxpayer's dime. I am saying that if you are in the last two months of life, that we probably shouldn't be pulling out all the stops in the hopes that you'll be that one in a million that could survive, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am saying that if your quality of life when you survive is going to consist of you being in and out of the hospital with virtually no chance of having any kind of normal existence, than it's better to acknowledge reality and die gracefully, and peacefully, than to have your final few weeks of life be taken up by treatments that aren't going to cure you and that only prolong your suffering. What is wrong with that? I fail to see why this is so controversial. ,

Originally Posted by AKA23
Because the healthcare system doesn't have unlimited resources, and the resources that it does have are very expensive, rationing does need to occur. Do you acknowledge this?
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that it's obviously finite. No in the sense that it's only "rationing" if you have control over the supply. We don't "ration" food, for example, even though there's a finite amount of it.

This is a semantic difference, not an actual one. Firstly, there is enough food to feed everyone in the world, so your analogy is flawed. The reason that it doesn't feed everyone in the world is not because there is not enough food to go around. Secondly, yes or no, the resources are finite. Thirdly, yes or no, we cannot give everyone every treatment because there aren't enough treatments available. Fourthly, yes or no, we cannot afford to give everyone who needs treatment every possible treatment. If you are honest, and I think you are, you can't possibly say no to any of those. If the answers to all of these are yes, than how would you propose we make decisions about how to use these finite, and very expensive, resources?

Let me ask you a question, if I may: if costs are still too high, wouldn't that require that we keep moving that line? If costs keep going up, won't we just have to deny more and more people care at earlier ages, and with tighter standards about who's "worth" saving?

We are nowhere near this point when it comes to healthcare. First, let's address the huge issues we already have rather than seeking to worry about hypothetical problems which nobody is seeking to address. If there does come a time where we have made the necessary changes, and we now need to worry about this, we can have that conversation.

Originally Posted by AKA23
At the same time, I fundamentally disagree with the manner in which he seeks to do it in large measure because the reforms he is proposing are not going to address the two major problems with our healthcare system. First, that we are a very sick society, and that our healthcare system does not incentivize people to become healthier. The things that do, like taxing unhealthy foods, and subsidizing things like gym memberships, conservatives don't support.
Most Democrats don't support these things, either. Subsidizing gym memberships? Yikes.

Gym memberships may be a bit much, but you get the idea, and all the available evidence does indicate that taxes on unhealthy foods leads to less consumption of those foods. Less consumption of those foods leads to less people being overweight. Less people being overweight leads to much lower rates of chronic health conditions, like high blood pressure and diabetes, that are very expensive to treat, and lead to a very sick society. All of this is highly relevant, and all of this is far more important, and integral to the problems our system faces, than seeking to privatize Medicare or introduce so much competition into the system that over time it ceases to exist.

It's pretty much a universal principle that, when you bear the brunt of a difficulty, you work harder to alleviate it. You take better care of your own car than a rental. You take better care of your own house than a hotel room. Yet when we get into healthcare, we suddenly decide they don't apply? That the best way to create incentive for being healthy is to make them the party ultimately responsible for the results?

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by AKA23
Not only this, the Ryan plan puts the increased costs not on people who can afford them, but on those who can least afford to do so.
No, it doesn't.

Of course it does. The wealthy get huge tax cuts, while the poor have Food stamps cut. Ryan wants to completely eliminate capital gains taxes, so people like Mitt Romney, who have a $250 million net worth, can pay 0% in taxes. Do you think that's fair, or just? I understand that a lot of people invest, and they aren't all wealthy, but seriously, do you really think that someone who has a $250 million net work should pay nothing in taxes? Ryan does! How is this not putting the burden of these changes on the poor?

Originally Posted by AKA23
It would be courageous to say, as I do, that the Bush tax cuts should expire for everyone because we simply cannot afford them. Ryan isn't doing that.
It would be courageous, yes. But I don't think it would be wise. And, again, absolutely nobody is saying this. It's important to note that, when you describe what you think we should do, you're no longer criticizing Ryan: you're criticizing pretty much every politician in the Federal government, including the President.

People are saying this. I'm saying it. Bill Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and Alan Greenspan are saying it too. The only people who aren't saying it are the people who are trying to pander to their constituents in order to get elected. It is pretty clear to most economists that tax rates need to go up, and they very likely will.

I'm not sure I see the signifiance of "tax cuts that the wealthy don't need," unless your proposed governing principle is that we set tax rates based on what we think people "need." Is it? Also, I would simply refer you back to my question about how it gets spent, anyway. Underneath this claim is the unstated (and unsupportable) assumption that the rich spend their money in less beneficial ways than other people. As well as the understated assumption that rich people do nothing with their money but buy silly things.

The significance is this: If it is true that we are in a debt crisis, and that we need to dramatically reduce our spending in order to resolve it, we should start by raising tax rates on those who can afford to pay before we cut food stamps, or slow the rate of growth, of these programs, during the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The poor shouldn't have to sacrifice more than the wealthy do. The poor shouldn't have to have their food stamps reduced while we at the same time give the wealthy even more. Here's another guiding principle. The poor and middle class spend the overwhelming majority of their income on basic necessities. The wealthy spend most of their money on investment or the attainment of luxury goods. Therefore, taking more from the wealthy doesn't mean the same as taking from the poor. The wealthy have a lot of extra income to spend, the poor do not. Therefore, raising tax rates on the wealthy will not result in them not having enough money to pay for their necessities. Cutting food stamps and other assistance to the poor and middle class will. Do you understand this difference now, and why this issue is important?

will.15

08-16-12, 05:36 PM

Yeah, again: you seem to thinking it's not denouncing unless you literally use the word "denounce." Take a look at the definition of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denounce). Seems to describe his actions pretty well.

Again, you are wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28470-2004Aug24.html

It's absurd that I have to.

He said he was against all the ads, and they should all be taken off the air. He said Kerry served honorably, which directly contradicts the ad. That's it, dude. That ends the argument, even though you seem not to realize it.

He is against all ads, all the independent ads from both camps, take them all off the air, that is entirely different from renouncing specific ads making specific claims. Saying he served honoroubly is very generic and does not necessarily contradict claims in the ads. Again, you sound pretty silly making this claim Bush renounced the ads, look at what McCain said for the differnece.

And by the by, this would end the argument even if we were arguing about whether or not he "denounced" it (because, as you've made clear, you think "denounce" is a magic word). But when compared to your actual claim that he didn't do it "at all"? There's nowhere to hide there. That's patently false.

He didn't denounce them. He was asked a question at a press conference if he denounced the ads and wouldn't answer the question. Saying none of the ads independent of the campaign should exist is changing the subject.

And that was my point the whole time: the two situations are not equivalent. Bush rejected all such ads and disagreed with its content, Obama said nothing. Not even close to comparable.

Bush said all independent ads from both sides should be off the air, but had no control of enforcing that even if Kerry agreed with him. It was an empty gesture and was BS because at the same time his avoidance of a spefic condemnation was so the ads would continue. if he specifically renounced the ads the way McCain had the ads would have lost their effectiveness and would have been pulled.

Lying is a serious charge, indeed. And I didn't make that charge at first, because I didn't think it at first. But I kinda do now, given that they interacted with the guy twice, and it wasn't very long ago, and they kept stonewalling even as this stuff came out, so it doesn't look so good now.

And the spokesperson who made the initial comment was aware there was contact with that person when they made it?

And the idea that they just issued some kneejerk denial without any regard for whether or not it's true isn't really a big step up from lying, anyway. Best case scenario, they were utterly casual with the truth and didn't sufficiently care if what they said was true.
Which is differnt from the Bush campaign never saying flat out the swift boat claims were lies?

Yoda

08-16-12, 06:04 PM

Again, you are wrong.
Uh, no. Read the link you posted; it doesn't dispute a single thing I said. Seriously, not a thing.

You really need to stop treating people who agree with you like they're evidence of something. It's hilarious how often you post a link as if it contains some kind of smoking gun, and there's absolutely nothing on it that introduces anything new into the discussion.

He is against all ads, all the independent ads from both camps, take them all off the air, that is entirely different from renouncing specific ads making specific claims.
Er, no, it's not entirely different. It's slightly different, because it's not specific. And guess what? It doesn't even matter, because your position iss that he didn't do it "at all." That's clearly false.

Saying he served honoroubly is very generic and does not necessarily contradict claims in the ads.
Ad: "He dishonored his country."

Bush: "He served admirably."

Those two statements are contradictory. You can't serve admirably and dishonor your country.

Bush said all independent ads from both sides should be off the air, but had no control of enforcing that even if Kerry agreed with him. It was an empty gesture and was BS because at the same time his avoidance of a spefic condemnation was so the ads would continue. if he specifically renounced the ads the way McCain had the ads would have lost their effectiveness and would have been pulled.
Uh, you were replying to a paragraph where I reminded you that Obama hasn't said anything, and therefore there was no comparison (that was the WHOLE point of this, remember?). You're completely ignoring that.

And the spokesperson who made the initial comment was aware there was contact with that person when they made it?
We'll never know. As is usually the case when people get caught tossing out bullsh*t, it's very difficult to prove they definitely knew otherwise. But we know that, at best, they gave a kneejerk defensive response and didn't really care if it was true or not.

Which is differnt from the Bush campaign never saying flat out the swift boat claims were lies?
Are you kidding? Yes, of course it's different! In one case you have the campaign actively saying something that is false, and in the other they're just not condemning or disagreeing specifically enough for you. Even if Bush were completely silent about the Swift Boat ads, it would be different. This isn't even a question.

Yoda

08-16-12, 06:10 PM

By the way, it's worth noting that, the last time we discussed this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=808533), it started because you said Bush had "tacitly endorsed" the ads by not condemning them strongly enough. That was--and is--a pretty silly position. But based on that logic, Obama has "tacitly endorsed" the cancer ad, right?

Yoda

08-16-12, 06:17 PM

Hmmm, come to think of it, did Obama ever denounce the ad where Paul Ryan throws a grandmother off a cliff? If not, he tacitly endorsed that one, too, right?

will.15

08-16-12, 06:19 PM

Ryan did throw a grandmother off a cliff.

will.15

08-16-12, 06:37 PM

Uh, no. Read the link you posted; it doesn't dispute a single thing I said. Seriously, not a thing.

You really need to stop treating people who agree with you like they're evidence of something. It's hilarious how often you post a link as if it contains some kind of smoking gun, and there's absolutely nothing on it that introduces anything new into the discussion.

Yes, it does refute what you said.

Er, no, it's not entirely different. It's slightly different, because it's not specific. And guess what? It doesn't even matter, because your position iss that he didn't do it "at all." That's clearly false.

No, it is not slightly different. He is denouncing all independent ads regardless of the message. He is denouncing the concept of independent ads. He is not denouncing the specific claims of spefic ads. Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference?

Ad: "He dishonored his country."

Bush: "He served admirably."

Those two statements are contradictory. You can't serve admirably and dishonor your country.

And the ads were also mostly specifically about if he exaggerated his war record and if the medals were deserved. Bush was not asked specifically about the statement you quoted, which could be in a different context. Usually that was a reference to anti war statements he made after he returned.

Uh, you were replying to a paragraph where I reminded you that Obama hasn't said anything, and therefore there was no comparison (that was the WHOLE point of this, remember?). You're completely ignoring that.

Yes, Obama hasn't said anything and I said ealier has he been asked about it yet in a press conference, which was when Bush gave his response quite a while after it had become an issue.

We'll never know. As is usually the case when people get caught tossing out bullsh*t, it's very difficult to prove they definitely knew otherwise. But we know that, at best, they gave a kneejerk defensive response and didn't really care if it was true or not.

Which is what both sides normally do in cases like that.

Are you kidding? Yes, of course it's different! In one case you have the campaign actively saying something that is false, and in the other they're just not condemning or disagreeing specifically enough for you. Even if Bush were completely silent about the Swift Boat ads, it would be different. This isn't even a question.
Tne Bush camp never said the ads were false nor did Bush. You can keep saying his bland comment Kerry served with honor is, but it isn't. It would be like if Obama said Romney is a decent man who I have clear political differences with. Oh, he did say that.

Yoda

08-16-12, 06:52 PM

Yes, it does refute what you said.
Nope. I'd say "show me," but I ask you to do that a lot, and you pretty much never do it. It says he said all ads should be taken off, same as what I said. There's not a single fact in there that contradicts anything I said.

I think you're confusing the fact that that guy agrees with you for an actual fact/argument that demonstrates it. It disagrees with what I said, it doesn't refute it.

No, it is not slightly different. He is denouncing all independent ads regardless of the message. He is denounding the concept of independent ads. He is not denouncing the specific claims of spefic ads. Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference?
If he just did that, there'd be some meaningful difference, sure. But he also contradicted the ad, which is specifically about the ad's messages, so that part's covered, as well.

Also, as I pointed out, you were defending the position that he didn't do it "at all." Yet when I point this out, you defend the (less ridiculous) position that he just didn't do it strongly enough, which is a good deal less extreme than what you actually said, I'm afraid.

And the ads were also mostly specifically about if he exaggerated his war record and if the medals were deserved. Bush was not asked specifically about the statement you quoted, which could be in a different context. Usually that was a reference to anti war statements he made after he returned.
Yeah, you're just sort of skipping over the point. True or false: it's impossible for the Swift Boat ads AND Bush's statement to be true? It's impossible to accept the Swift Boat ads as accurate and true and still think Kerry served "admirably," right? Therefore, Bush contradicted the ads. Yay logic.

Yes, Obama hasn't said anything and I said ealier has he been asked about it yet in a press conference, which was when Bush gave his response quite a while after it had become an issue.
Great. So you concede the point I was making all along: that the two situations are not comparable, because Obama hasn't made a peep about it.

Which is what both sides normally do in cases like that.
Yes on the kneejerk defensive part. They all do that. They don't all issue denials and defensive statements without any regard for whether or not it's true, though.

Tne Bush camp never said the ads were false nor did Bush. You can keep saying his bland comment Kerry served with honor is, but it isn't. It would be like if Obama said Romney is a decent man who I have clear political differences with. Oh, he did say that.
I posted this a long time ago, but it's worth repeating, because you didn't really reply to it back then, either:

"...doing something is worse than being okay with something, which is worse than being silent about something, which is worse than expressing merely "perfunctory" disapproval. And expressing perfunctory disapproval is nowhere near actually doing the thing yourself. :facepalm:"

This seems like pretty basic sense to me. Nobody else has a problem recognizing that there are different degrees of culpability, and that almost nothing approaches the culpability of actually doing something yourself.

Yoda

08-17-12, 11:12 AM

Ryan did throw a grandmother off a cliff.
I don't know if this an attempt at humor, or what, but the question bears repeating: according to your logic, Obama has expressed "tacit approval" of both the Romney-killed-my-wife and Ryan-wants-to-kill-your-grandma ads, right?

will.15

08-17-12, 04:51 PM

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/16/paul-ryan-budget-plan-average-american-family/

will.15

08-17-12, 05:00 PM

I don't know if this an attempt at humor, or what, but the question bears repeating: according to your logic, Obama has expressed "tacit approval" of both the Romney-killed-my-wife and Ryan-wants-to-kill-your-grandma ads, right?
The ad didn't even get on the air and despite what you want to claim those swift boat ads ran with Bush's tacit approval as well. He made damn sure he didn't make the type of comments that would have made them ineffective as McCain would have done. And they were on the air for a long time before he answered a question about them at a press conference. Maybe Obama at some point will comment on the ad.

will.15

08-17-12, 05:09 PM

I posted this a long time ago, but it's worth repeating, because you didn't really reply to it back then, either:
"...doing something is worse than being okay with something, which is worse than being silent about something, which is worse than expressing merely "perfunctory" disapproval. And expressing perfunctory disapproval is nowhere near actually doing the thing yourself. :facepalm:"
This seems like pretty basic sense to me. Nobody else has a problem recognizing that there are different degrees of culpability, and that almost nothing approaches the culpability of actually doing something yourself.[/quote]

Which sounds like you are trying to change the subject again because the current discussion was about the cancer ads, which are not directly connected to Obama's campaign, the same situation with the swift boat ads, so your distinctions here are meaningless.

Yoda

08-17-12, 05:13 PM

Which sounds like you are trying to change the subject again because the current discussion was about the cancer ads, which are not directly connected to Obama's campaign, the same situation with the swift boat ads, so your distinctions here are meaningless.
You're pretty damn confused. You raised the Swift Boat comparison. And I'm reminding you of the basic hierarchy or culpability, just as I had to back then.

will.15

08-17-12, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=836814#post836814)
Which is what both sides normally do in cases like that.

Yes on the kneejerk defensive part. They all do that. They don't all issue denials and defensive statements without any regard for whether or not it's true, though.

I would say, yes, they do.

Yoda

08-17-12, 05:13 PM

The ad didn't even get on the air and despite what you want to claim those swift boat ads ran with Bush's tacit approval as well. He made damn sure he didn't make the type of comments that would have made them ineffective as McCain would have done. And they were on the air for a long time before he answered a question about them at a press conference. Maybe Obama at some point will comment on the ad.
You didn't answer the question: according to your definition, Obama's given tacit approval to both ads. True or false?

will.15

08-17-12, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=836814#post836814)
Yes, Obama hasn't said anything and I said ealier has he been asked about it yet in a press conference, which was when Bush gave his response quite a while after it had become an issue.

Great. So you concede the point I was making all along: that the two situations are not comparable, because Obama hasn't made a peep about it.

I already said that. Obama hasn't said anything. But the larger point was Bush didn't rush out to comment on the swift boat ads. It was out there for quite a time until he answered a question about it at a press conference. Those SB ads kept coming out. Has Obama taken questions from reporters about it? The ad i suspect may not even be running anymore.

will.15

08-17-12, 05:24 PM

You didn't answer the question: according to your definition, Obama's given tacit approval to both ads. True or false? If he doesn't explicitly condemn the ads they have his tacit approval, just as the SB ads had Bush's approval, and there might be ads coming out from a group claiming Obama lied when he took credit for killing Obama, and if Romney doesn't denounce that ad it will have his tacit approval.

And I did answer the question the first time.

Yoda

08-18-12, 07:26 PM

If he doesn't explicitly condemn the ads they have his tacit approval, just as the SB ads had Bush's approval, and there might be ads coming out from a group claiming Obama lied when he took credit for killing Obama, and if Romney doesn't denounce that ad it will have his tacit approval.
Okay, but that's pretty weird. That means every modern campaign is full of candidates "tacitly approving" of all sorts of things they've never said anything about. Seems like it'd be a lot easier to just admit it's a really crappy standard, but whatever. We're left with: Obama tacitly approves of some really terrible ads. Apparently.

And I did answer the question the first time.
I hate to harp on this, but...no, not even close. The first time I asked you said "Ryan did throw a grandmother off a cliff." Which I guess was a joke, but certainly wasn't an answer. Then I asked again and you talked about Bush and McCain and how that situation differed, but still didn't answer. Now, the third time, you've answered. So...thanks, I guess.

will.15

08-18-12, 07:46 PM

Okay, but that's pretty weird. That means every modern campaign is full of candidates "tacitly approving" of all sorts of things they've never said anything about. Seems like it'd be a lot easier to just admit it's a really crappy standard, but whatever. We're left with: Obama tacitly approves of some really terrible ads. Apparently.

Obviously, they don't have to renounce every comment made by someone on Fox News or talk radio. But it is presumed by most people an ad that comes out attacking a candidate is an ad supporting the other guy, and if the ad creates a big stink, and says something that becomes controversial, it is presumed the ad has the candidate's approval if he doesn't speak out against it.

I hate to harp on this, but...no, not even close. The first time I asked you said "Ryan did throw a grandmother off a cliff." Which I guess was a joke, but certainly wasn't an answer. Then I asked again and you talked about Bush and McCain and how that situation differed, but still didn't answer. Now, the third time, you've answered. So...thanks, I guess.
At the time I didn't even know there was an actual ad that showed grandma being thrown off a cliff. Pretty funny, but it was going a little too far. Would have been better a skit on Saturdy Night Live.

wintertriangles

08-20-12, 06:36 PM

Yoda, nothing to worry about now. He says all his attacks are totally kosher.

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-defends-campaigns-tone-184543824--abc-news-politics.html

will.15

08-20-12, 08:03 PM

That's basically what he said and he did a better of job than Bush at separating himself from an ad that did not come directly from his campaign.

Yoda

08-22-12, 03:10 PM

This isn't accurate. The government is still responsible with being the payer for the one government run plan, which is one option. The government will be responsible for providing a premium support to help cover the cost of the lowest cost plan, but the payer shifts in the private plans to the individual and the private insurance companies. This is not what happens under Medicare today.
Okay, but the only difference here is almost completely technical: whether or not the government pays it, or gives you the money to pay it. In both instances the government a) specifices a minimum level of care and b) pays for it. Nothing magical takes place when the government gives the individual control, as opposed to just paying for it directly, because they're bearing the cost either way.

The only difference, really, is that this way you can put that voucher towards more than the minimum care if you want to, or you can go with something cheaper and pocket the difference. But the government is still giving you the coverage, and still paying for it.

And on top of all that, under the latest version of the plan, people can skip this and stick with "traditional" Medicare, anyway! Like I said: it's a really well thought-out plan.

Since healthcare costs continue to rise, and will continue to do so in the future, it is very likely that the premium support will not cover the full cost of these private plans, and that the individual will be responsible for paying a large amount out-of pocket.
No, again, this is literally impossible. The government dictates a minimum level of care and the amount given to each person is always for the second-lowest bid submitted, which means by definition it will always be enough for two different options that both meet the minimum care requirements.

In many cases, this out of pocket expense will be something the individual cannot afford. In addition, although the Ryan plan does preserve Medicare as an option, which is a change from his original plan, there is a good chance that the healthy people will choose lower cost, private plans. The sicker people will be left with Medicare, because they will not be able to afford any of the other private plans. This may leave Medicare with a mostly elderly, sick population which will lead to huge increases in cost as compared with private plans. Over time, there is a significant likelihood that Medicare will not be able to compete with the cost of the private plans, and will end up dying out in the end. I think this is the true intent of many of those who support Ryan's plan, but it is politically unpopular to admit this, so they don't.
Well, first off, if Medicare can't compete with private plans, then that means an overhaul is both necessary and inevitable, anyway. But even in that scenario, Medicare won't be dead, it'll just distribute care by different mechanisms.

Our options are, under ANY scenario or ideology you might have, to either dramatically cut benefits (even for people who've already paid in), or else change the mechnisms that distribute care. The latter is what's being proposed, and it's making the choice optional for people closer to retirement, and still paying for a minimum level of care. That's a pretty moderate way to reforming the system, given the scale of its problems.

Healthcare cost projections are always wrong. They always cost significantly more and the savings are always significantly less. This is very similar to the construction industry. Any time you build anything, it always takes far more time than they tell you it will and costs significantly more.
This is a fine thing to be skeptical about it, but I don't see how you can think all this and then somehow support Obamacare, which is way more reliant on these sorts of cost projections, and in fact requires them to work at all, whereas the Medicare plan, at worst, just leaves the government on the hook for the extra money...which it already is.

This idea that competition is going to magically bring healthcare costs in line is nice in theory, but really doesn't have much to support it.
Sure it does: it has the fact that competition has brought down costs in every industry, ever. That isn't "magic." It involves a lot of hard work by a lot of people more incentivized to do it.

If these cost projections don't end up working, if the government plan dies out, as I outlined earlier, the individual will be at the mercy of the private insurance system. In the link you referenced, even under their presumably overly optimistic projections, healthcare spending would decrease by 9%. Even those who support this plan seem to acknowledge that this is not a solution to the healthcare cost crisis in this country. 9% would help to be sure, but much more would still need to be done.
You're half-right. There was a study (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1273025), and it did find that Ryan's plan would've saved 9% last year, but that was using Medicare Advantage data, and the competition in that program is much more muted than what Ryan's proposing. So if anything, that probably understates the possible savings.

But of course, note the shift in the discussion already: is Ryan's plan really some terrible form of Social Darwinism that won't work, or is the argument that it'll save "only" 9%, compared to now, where it's not saving at all, but in fact growing rapidly and wildly? It seems to me there's going to be a criticism either way: either there are too many market-based reforms (which makes the plan more radical and idealistic and naive, etc.) or those reforms are watered down (largely to make the bill more politically acceptable, I imagine) until you see decreased savings compared to what more market-based reforms would likely yield.

And again: if it doesn't reduce costs, then the government (not the individual) is on the hook for the extra. Which is where we basically are now already.

If the Ryan plan is exactly as that article describes (and I read the whole article, not just page 2), then why would anyone on Earth be against it?
Exactly.

If everything is going to remain exactly the same in the system, and seniors will get the same level of care at the same cost, and have everything taken care of by the government, why is there so much opposition to it? The fact that there is so much opposition seems to lend credence to the fact that everything about the program is not being fully outlined in that article. Other than politics, which can't explain all the opposition, what is the reason this plan doesn't have widespread support?
Okay, I'll give a serious answer. :) While it's not a great argument to say "that can't be true, because if it were fewer people would disagree with you," I'll still grant that it's at least reasonable to ask this. I think there are several reasons people are still against:

1) Simple ignorance. Look at all the misinformation floating around. This is an election year, so all the incentives exist to make the plan look as bad as possible. We already know Obama has criticized an outdated version of the plan (
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/fact-check-obama-campaign-running-against-outdated-ryan-medicare-plan/) on the campaign trail. When the President is actively misrepresenting something on the campaign trail, it should come as no surprise that it can meet with plenty of opposition despite being so well thought out.

2) Multiple versions. This is a big one. Obviously, some people will just spin and mislead others about Ryan's plan. But there are enough people out there who oppose it to conclude that a lot of them aren't doing so maliciously. A lot of that can probably be explained by genuine error and confusion about which Ryan plan we're talking about. A ton of the accusations about it are out of date. Obama's said a number of things about his plan that simply aren't accurate any more. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones (!) had to point this out (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/programming-note-ryan-2013-not-ryan-2012) to his readers recently. They lambasted him for saying it's "not that bad," by the way.

3) Fear. Change is scary. Ryan's plan is a change. The natural human tendency is to allow change to happen through crisis brought on by inaction. That's easier than proactively spotting the problem in advance and tackling it now.
If you think I'm misrepresenting the legislation at all, by all means, please show me how and where. But I'm pretty sure you'll find that almost all the serious criticisms of it are about earlier versions, which the plan has changed and evolved to meet the concerns of.

You are demagoguing my position with these comments. I never said that age should be the only consideration about whether care should or should not be given. I said age should be one consideration, along with health history, along with cost.
I certainly take you at your word there, but I think it'll be pretty much impossible not to use age as the primary factor, in practice. For example, if it's really just about health history, what of children with very difficult lives their first few years? Right now, we tend to take an "all hands on deck" approach to save them. That would have to be abandoned under your proposal, too, wouldn't it?

If you mainly use age, then my ice floes example is pretty close to reality. If you mainly use health, then that means a lot of very sick young people being left to die. And if you use both, then you'll have cases of both. The point being: we're talking about the government systematically deciding who lives or dies. And that's better than what we have now simply because it's horrifying in a consistent way, rather than in a way that emphasizes free choices?

The bottom line is that if 50% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in the last two months of life, a lot of this spending is totally unnecessary, medically futile, and cost prohibitive. I don't see why this is such a controversial idea. I'm not saying that if you're 75, and you have cancer, that we should just refuse to treat you regardless of your health history, just because of cost, and just because of your age. What I am saying is that if you are 75 years old, and you have stage 4 cancer, and the likelihood of you living more than a few months, even with treatment, is very remote, that we probably should not treat you, at least not on the taxpayer's dime. I am saying that if you are in the last two months of life, that we probably shouldn't be pulling out all the stops in the hopes that you'll be that one in a million that could survive, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am saying that if your quality of life when you survive is going to consist of you being in and out of the hospital with virtually no chance of having any kind of normal existence, than it's better to acknowledge reality and die gracefully, and peacefully, than to have your final few weeks of life be taken up by treatments that aren't going to cure you and that only prolong your suffering. What is wrong with that? I fail to see why this is so controversial.
I can understand why you think this is all necessary, but I find it hard to believe you don't understand why it's controversial. There are lots of things that would be "better." But it's another thing entirely to force it to happen through law.

Also, it's worth pointing out (as I did in the Obamacare thread when we discussed basically the same issues) that this stuff sounds a lot better if you can posit extreme examples, like very old, very sick people with virtually no chance of survival. Reality is filled with far less obvious examples. How do you weigh a grandfather with a very high chance of survival against a teenage junkie with a lower one? If there's such a thing as playing God, surely this is an example of it.

This is a semantic difference, not an actual one. Firstly, there is enough food to feed everyone in the world, so your analogy is flawed. The reason that it doesn't feed everyone in the world is not because there is not enough food to go around.
Ah, but surely you see what this implies? Food is more crucial to our survival than even health care, yet it exists in a wide open market...and we have tons of it. Health care exists in a heavily regulated market, and we never seem to have enough.

I'm not going to suggest that there will ever be such a thing as "enough" health care, because it is constantly improving (and thus, people demand a higher and higher minimum standard). But the analogy is useful in that it shows that our attempts to deal with scarcity often make it worse. It does not automatically follow that something being important means it ought to be more heavily regulated. Often, the best case scenario when we do this is that we distribute things a bit more equitably, but at the price of producing much less overall.

Secondly, yes or no, the resources are finite. Thirdly, yes or no, we cannot give everyone every treatment because there aren't enough treatments available. Fourthly, yes or no, we cannot afford to give everyone who needs treatment every possible treatment. If you are honest, and I think you are, you can't possibly say no to any of those. If the answers to all of these are yes, than how would you propose we make decisions about how to use these finite, and very expensive, resources?
Correct: my answer to all of these is yes. I have a few problems with the underlying assumptions, though, but I'll restrict myself to one to keep these posts shorter: I have a problem with the idea that we should be more concerned with how to divvy them up than with how to increase them as a whole.

Hypothetical question: if we all had more EQUAL health care, but health care was worse overall...would that be good? I recognize you may not think the former leads to the latter, but I do. And it's useful in these discussions to draw out the underlying assumptions about what has the most value and priority.

We are nowhere near this point when it comes to healthcare. First, let's address the huge issues we already have rather than seeking to worry about hypothetical problems which nobody is seeking to address. If there does come a time where we have made the necessary changes, and we now need to worry about this, we can have that conversation.
Well, you just got done telling me that health care projections are always wrong. And we have examples in other countries where rationing is increasing over time. And we have Massachusetts coming in at twice its projected cost and putting together a panel to reign in costs already, just a decade later! So this isn't some unfathomable what-if. There's plenty of reason to believe it'll happen, and these are the kinds of things we need to ask BEFORE we enact reform, no?

Of course it does. The wealthy get huge tax cuts, while the poor have Food stamps cut. Ryan wants to completely eliminate capital gains taxes, so people like Mitt Romney, who have a $250 million net worth, can pay 0% in taxes. Do you think that's fair, or just? I understand that a lot of people invest, and they aren't all wealthy, but seriously, do you really think that someone who has a $250 million net work should pay nothing in taxes? Ryan does! How is this not putting the burden of these changes on the poor?
I got a little muddled: when you said the "Ryan plan," I assumed you were still talking about Medicare, not his entire budget plan.

Re: "nothing in taxes." This isn't literally true; we're talking about federal income taxes, for one, and the only reason they'd be so low is because almost all of Romney's income is from capital gains. When people talk about tax rates and "loopholes," they like to quote shocking numbers, but when you start asking what specific rates they want to raise, or what specific loopholes they want to close, that's another story.

Lowering capital gains taxes should not be a particularly shocking idea. First, because we want to encourage more investment. Second, because most people who pay capital gains taxes are the elderly, who have less to fund their retirements. And third, because that money's already being taxed earlier in the process: it's taxed as regular income when you obtain it for investment, and the business is taxed when it spends the investment money. It hardly seems unfair to suggest that maybe that's enough, and the gain on investment (which is a good thing we want to encourage) should not also be taxed, or else not taxed at more than a very modest rate.

Clinton cut capital gains taxes, by the way.

The significance is this: If it is true that we are in a debt crisis, and that we need to dramatically reduce our spending in order to resolve it, we should start by raising tax rates on those who can afford to pay before we cut food stamps, or slow the rate of growth, of these programs, during the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The poor shouldn't have to sacrifice more than the wealthy do. The poor shouldn't have to have their food stamps reduced while we at the same time give the wealthy even more.
There are so very many assumptions embedded here, and they need to be brought out into the light.

You say they shouldn't "sacrifice more." But look at the linguistic twisting going on: we're talking about taking somewhat less in taxes from the group that already funds all these programs, and giving more (but not quite as much more as we first planned!) to the other group, and somehow this has become "sacrificing more" and "[giving] the wealthy even more"? The poor are sacrificing by just getting even more assistance, rather than even more than more? And the rich are being "given" money by having less of it taken away? This is a particularly blatant (though maybe not entirely deliberate or conscious) example of trying to make something sound more reasonable through the sheer force of the rhetoric used to describe it.

Here's another guiding principle. The poor and middle class spend the overwhelming majority of their income on basic necessities. The wealthy spend most of their money on investment or the attainment of luxury goods. Therefore, taking more from the wealthy doesn't mean the same as taking from the poor. The wealthy have a lot of extra income to spend, the poor do not. Therefore, raising tax rates on the wealthy will not result in them not having enough money to pay for their necessities. Cutting food stamps and other assistance to the poor and middle class will. Do you understand this difference now, and why this issue is important? [/B]
Of course. But the correlation to this is, if you spend much of your income on basic necessites, you're not hiring anyone with it, either. Buying food is necessary, but it doesn't spur much innovation and economic growth.

That, in case people don't realize, is why conservatives favor this sort of thing. It's not because we hate poor people (generally, I am poor people), it's because we believe that the best way to combat poverty is to encourage growth so that we're constantly upwardly revising what it means to be poor. It's because we think even well-meaning efforts to alleviate this sort of suffering through simple aid is often counterproductive, and certainly less productive than the freer alternatives.

You may disagree with this, but what purpose can possibly be served by ignoring the claim, and acting as if wealth is a never-changing finite pie that needs to be distributed equitably, rather than a fluctuating standard that goes up or down depending on what we do to encourage or discourage growth?

At some point every progressive needs to ask themselves if they're about making these things better, or just about doing things that seem generous, or seem like they should make things better. If well-meaning aid really does limit growth and wealth, and increase dependency, is it still a good idea simply because it feels charitable to advocate it? Or are we actually discussing how to alleviate poverty and increase people's standard of living? Because if it's the latter, then we should be having a very different argument than the one we're currently having, which seems almost entirely about formulating policy based on what sounds the most generous, with little talk of actual results.

Powderfinger

08-22-12, 03:54 PM

Most Presidential campaigns are full of scuddle but! Though, I believe with is going to be the worst. This is what we get in Australia what's happening in the U.S.

will.15

08-22-12, 05:26 PM

All we have been getting is one side whining because their negative ads aren't working as well.

Republicans usually win the negative ads war so they become suddenly unfair when they are on the losing end.

Powderfinger

08-22-12, 05:36 PM

Some people are more concerned about Paul Ryan fitness than his politics...lol! I wouldn't care if our Prime Minister was fat, as long he/she was good for the country!

AKA23

08-24-12, 01:45 PM

Okay, but the only difference here is almost completely technical: whether or not the government pays it, or gives you the money to pay it. In both instances the government a) specifices a minimum level of care and b) pays for it. Nothing magical takes place when the government gives the individual control, as opposed to just paying for it directly, because they're bearing the cost either way.

The only difference, really, is that this way you can put that voucher towards more than the minimum care if you want to, or you can go with something cheaper and pocket the difference. But the government is still giving you the coverage, and still paying for it.

I talked with my Dad, who is an oncologist, about Ryan's Medicare proposals. Like myself, my Dad does lean liberal but is an independent-minded guy. He voted for Bush in 2000, Dole in 1996, and Perot in 1992. He says that Ryan's plan is the wrong way to go. He says that it's true that the premium support payment will pay for the lower cost levels of care, but that the premium support payment offered is not currently anywhere near enough to get most seniors care on the private market today. Because we live in an unhealthy society, seniors are very expensive to insure, and the voucher system Ryan offers, according to my Dad, whose patients are mostly Medicare-eligible, will not be able to get the care they need under the lower cost options. He said it's not like seniors are all 25 and never need to go to the doctor. Seniors have chronic medical conditions. These conditions are very expensive to treat, and very expensive to insure against. According to him, seniors will be the ones who have to incur the extra costs, not the government, because in practice, the lowest cost options will not be enough to pay for the services that seniors need. As he's a medical professional who treats mostly Medicare-eligible patients, I trust his judgment on this.

Originally Posted by AKA23
This idea that competition is going to magically bring healthcare costs in line is nice in theory, but really doesn't have much to support it.
Sure it does: it has the fact that competition has brought down costs in every industry, ever. That isn't "magic." It involves a lot of hard work by a lot of people more incentivized to do it.

You're acting like quasi-privatizing Medicare is the only way to bring down costs. Another way to bring down costs is to do what I've outlined. Firstly, incentivize prevention. Secondly, reduce unnecessary and wasteful end of life costs. Thirdly, coordinate care. Fourthly, change the incentive structure from a fee for service system to one that is outcome oriented. If we had something like a Kaiser system, where hospitals insured doctors, and where doctors had incentive to lower costs, and give better care, and if we incentivized doctors to do lifestyle interventions instead of only paying them to write prescriptions and do surgeries, all of this would lower costs as well. As my Dad says, under the current system, there is no incentive for doctors to cut costs. We don't have medical malpractice reform, so defensive medicine is rampant, and doctors get paid more the more tests they run and the more treatments they give, regardless of whether any of these treatments are effective, needed, or cost-efficient. We need to change all of this in order to have a better, less costly system. All of this can be done. None of it requires turning Medicare into a voucher program.

But of course, note the shift in the discussion already: is Ryan's plan really some terrible form of Social Darwinism that won't work, or is the argument that it'll save "only" 9%, compared to now, where it's not saving at all, but in fact growing rapidly and wildly? It seems to me there's going to be a criticism either way: either there are too many market-based reforms (which makes the plan more radical and idealistic and naive, etc.) or those reforms are watered down (largely to make the bill more politically acceptable, I imagine) until you see decreased savings compared to what more market-based reforms would likely yield.

And again: if it doesn't reduce costs, then the government (not the individual) is on the hook for the extra. Which is where we basically are now already.

9% is a worthwhile reduction, but Ryan is acting like this is the solution to making Medicare solvent. Keep in mind that this is a pretty radical restructuring of Medicare, so the bar would have to be set pretty high, in my mind, for this to be justifiable and advisable. Saving only 9% isn't going to save a system that is projected to encompass the entire budget in a few decades. If we're going to reform Medicare, and make it solvent for the future, we need to do a lot better than that. If Ryan's proposal is a radical restructuring of Medicare, and it is, if it is going to result in higher out of pocket costs for seniors, which it almost certainly will, then if it only results in a 9% savings, is it really worth doing? It seems to me that some of the other things I outlined would result in a much higher cost savings, and wouldn't require the same kind of radical restructuring of Medicare that Ryan outlines.

Originally Posted by AKA23
You are demagoguing my position with these comments. I never said that age should be the only consideration about whether care should or should not be given. I said age should be one consideration, along with health history, along with cost.
I certainly take you at your word there, but I think it'll be pretty much impossible not to use age as the primary factor, in practice. For example, if it's really just about health history, what of children with very difficult lives their first few years? Right now, we tend to take an "all hands on deck" approach to save them. That would have to be abandoned under your proposal, too, wouldn't it?

I think that if you want to cut costs, which we have to do to save the system, and avoid bankrupting our country, you have to cut down on treatments with very low likelihoods of success. If you are elderly, and you are in your last two to three months of life, and you have 10 other chronic conditions that will likely kill you shortly even if the one condition we're treating you for does improve, than I think we have to look at whether or not we can afford to give these treatments. I think the answer is no. I note that I haven't heard you say that the answer is yes, just that you philosophically disagree with doing this, but if you don't have another solution, and I don't think there is any other solution out there, than this is what we have to do. Using age and health history are good barometers to use. If you are within your first few years of life, and you are expensive to treat, but the likelihood of you surviving with a decent quality of life is good, than I think we should continue to do those treatments. If, however, you are in the first few years of your life, and your likelihood of surviving and having a good quality of life is very remote, even with the best treatments, than I think we need to look at cutting those costs as well. Treatments that are unlikely to be successful need to be cut.

If you mainly use age, then my ice floes example is pretty close to reality. If you mainly use health, then that means a lot of very sick young people being left to die. And if you use both, then you'll have cases of both. The point being: we're talking about the government systematically deciding who lives or dies. And that's better than what we have now simply because it's horrifying in a consistent way, rather than in a way that emphasizes free choices?

What other alternative do you have? Privatizing Medicare isn't going to make these choices disappear. It's not going to make these choices any less expensive. It isn't going to make these treatments any less likely to succeed. We have to face this issue, rather than continuing to avoid it. We have no other choice. Have you talked to any doctors about end of life care and what they feel are the main drivers of cost in our healthcare system? I have. Many times. This is what they say. I'm not making this stuff up.

Originally Posted by AKA23
The bottom line is that if 50% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in the last two months of life, a lot of this spending is totally unnecessary, medically futile, and cost prohibitive. I don't see why this is such a controversial idea. I'm not saying that if you're 75, and you have cancer, that we should just refuse to treat you regardless of your health history, just because of cost, and just because of your age. What I am saying is that if you are 75 years old, and you have stage 4 cancer, and the likelihood of you living more than a few months, even with treatment, is very remote, that we probably should not treat you, at least not on the taxpayer's dime. I am saying that if you are in the last two months of life, that we probably shouldn't be pulling out all the stops in the hopes that you'll be that one in a million that could survive, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am saying that if your quality of life when you survive is going to consist of you being in and out of the hospital with virtually no chance of having any kind of normal existence, than it's better to acknowledge reality and die gracefully, and peacefully, than to have your final few weeks of life be taken up by treatments that aren't going to cure you and that only prolong your suffering. What is wrong with that? I fail to see why this is so controversial.
I can understand why you think this is all necessary, but I find it hard to believe you don't understand why it's controversial. There are lots of things that would be "better." But it's another thing entirely to force it to happen through law.

Okay. What do you think? True or False: This is necessary. If true, why are you fighting me on it? Do you have a better solution that addresses these problems? If so, what is it?

Also, it's worth pointing out (as I did in the Obamacare thread when we discussed basically the same issues) that this stuff sounds a lot better if you can posit extreme examples, like very old, very sick people with virtually no chance of survival. Reality is filled with far less obvious examples. How do you weigh a grandfather with a very high chance of survival against a teenage junkie with a lower one? If there's such a thing as playing God, surely this is an example of it.

If the teenage junkie is going to continue to use drugs and destroy his body, I wouldn't be giving him very expensive treatments. If the teenage junkie wants help and is willing to quit, that's a different conversation. Under the scenario you outlined, I'd give it to the grandfather, who is more likely to benefit from these treatments. This is why we don't give transplants to drug users or people who are very sick. They are unlikely to benefit from the treatments, and we don't have enough resources to give to everyone who might theoretically need them but aren't able or willing to stop their self-destructive behavior. Would you be giving expensive chemotherapy to someone with lung cancer who refuses to quit smoking? I wouldn't. My Dad won't even treat these patients.

Hypothetical question: if we all had more EQUAL health care, but health care was worse overall...would that be good? I recognize you may not think the former leads to the latter, but I do. And it's useful in these discussions to draw out the underlying assumptions about what has the most value and priority.

If we had more equal care and quality declined slightly, I'd support that. I think it's far more important for everyone to have a minimum level of quality, affordable care than it is to maintain a two-tiered system with very high levels of quality that only few can afford and benefit from.

At some point every progressive needs to ask themselves if they're about making these things better, or just about doing things that seem generous, or seem like they should make things better. If well-meaning aid really does limit growth and wealth, and increase dependency, is it still a good idea simply because it feels charitable to advocate it? Or are we actually discussing how to alleviate poverty and increase people's standard of living? Because if it's the latter, then we should be having a very different argument than the one we're currently having, which seems almost entirely about formulating policy based on what sounds the most generous, with little talk of actual results.

This is an interesting question, as are the earlier points which you made, but before we address this issue, I think it would be best to continue our focused discussion on healthcare. If you're still interested, we can come back to this later.

Yoda

08-24-12, 08:16 PM

I talked with my Dad, who is an oncologist, about Ryan's Medicare proposals. Like myself, my Dad does lean liberal but is an independent-minded guy. He voted for Bush in 2000, Dole in 1996, and Perot in 1992. He says that Ryan's plan is the wrong way to go. He says that it's true that the premium support payment will pay for the lower cost levels of care, but that the premium support payment offered is not currently anywhere near enough to get most seniors care on the private market today. Because we live in an unhealthy society, seniors are very expensive to insure, and the voucher system Ryan offers, according to my Dad, whose patients are mostly Medicare-eligible, will not be able to get the care they need under the lower cost options. He said it's not like seniors are all 25 and never need to go to the doctor. Seniors have chronic medical conditions. These conditions are very expensive to treat, and very expensive to insure against. According to him, seniors will be the ones who have to incur the extra costs, not the government, because in practice, the lowest cost options will not be enough to pay for the services that seniors need.
Again, by definition, the payment has to be enough. It's not a set amount that they then take out into the marketplace to spend on the best option they can find for that amount. That characterization is out of date. The payment is determined by the bids, and the bids have to provide a minimum level of coverage.

So what's the argument? That the minimum coverage will be inadequate? If so, what evidence is there of that, and does it account for the fact that Medicare's minimum coverage is going to change no matter what?

As he's a medical professional who treats mostly Medicare-eligible patients, I trust his judgment on this.
Well, that's fine, and potentially interesting, but that doesn't exactly qualify as evidence, particularly when it's so vague. What of the studies that suggest that doctors thing Obamacare will fail to reduce costs? What happens if/when (let's be honest: when) I find a doctor who feels differently? This is a pretty clear-cut example of an Appeal to Authority, no?

You're acting like quasi-privatizing Medicare is the only way to bring down costs. Another way to bring down costs is to do what I've outlined. Firstly, incentivize prevention. Secondly, reduce unnecessary and wasteful end of life costs. Thirdly, coordinate care. Fourthly, change the incentive structure from a fee for service system to one that is outcome oriented. If we had something like a Kaiser system, where hospitals insured doctors, and where doctors had incentive to lower costs, and give better care, and if we incentivized doctors to do lifestyle interventions instead of only paying them to write prescriptions and do surgeries, all of this would lower costs as well. As my Dad says, under the current system, there is no incentive for doctors to cut costs. We don't have medical malpractice reform, so defensive medicine is rampant, and doctors get paid more the more tests they run and the more treatments they give, regardless of whether any of these treatments are effective, needed, or cost-efficient. We need to change all of this in order to have a better, less costly system. All of this can be done. None of it requires turning Medicare into a voucher program.
I agree with all of this except the second idea. But is there any reason to think this is really going to control costs effectively? Preventive care is great, but it's not going to save us tens of trillions of dollars, not if the figures you cite about end-of-life care are even close to true. This means the only real way this list saves Medicare is by deciding to collectively abandon the sickest people.

And that, I'd argue, is far more radical than anything Paul Ryan could ever dream up. All of his proposals take for granted the central idea of Medicare, which is that society should pay for the health care of those most in need. His proposals change the method of providing it, but preserves that core assumption. But your proposed alternative--that we should let people die if they are too sick or too old--seems to directly contradict it. The idea that Medicare is no longer necessarily about helping the people most in need seems like a far more significant departure from the program's philosophical reason for existing than a series of moderate market-based reforms. It seems to me that the most important thing about Medicare is not its structure, but its mission. Ryan's plan would change the former. Yours would change the latter.

9% is a worthwhile reduction, but Ryan is acting like this is the solution to making Medicare solvent.
Not at all; he's acting like we're going to get more than 9%, for the reasons I already described. 9% is the number we'd get for one year under the much milder market reforms of Medicare Advantage. It's not some sort of ceiling on savings, as you seem to be treating it. It's more like the floor.

Keep in mind that this is a pretty radical restructuring of Medicare, so the bar would have to be set pretty high, in my mind, for this to be justifiable and advisable. Saving only 9% isn't going to save a system that is projected to encompass the entire budget in a few decades. If we're going to reform Medicare, and make it solvent for the future, we need to do a lot better than that. If Ryan's proposal is a radical restructuring of Medicare, and it is, if it is going to result in higher out of pocket costs for seniors, which it almost certainly will, then if it only results in a 9% savings, is it really worth doing? It seems to me that some of the other things I outlined would result in a much higher cost savings, and wouldn't require the same kind of radical restructuring of Medicare that Ryan outlines.
Radical compared to what? Certainly not any of the alternatives. Categoricaly stating that it is now the policy of the government to ration care and let people die based on statistical likelihoods to save money would be far, far more "radical" than introducing a small, controlled element of competition into the system.

Besides, the radicalness of any restructuring is going to be a direct reflection of the severity of the problem. And really, no argument is made by talking about how "radical" this is, especially when done so out of the context of the alternatives. We should spend more time talking about facts than adjectives. The "radical" part of the equation is already a given.

And that, frankly, is the central rhetorical sleight of hand found in almost every Democratic talking point, media appearance, or campaign ad on the topic: that they compare Ryan's Medicare reform not to other reform proposals, but to the unsustainable status quo. It is a fundamentally dishonest, asymmetric argument. And while I appreciate your alternative ideas and am quite happy to discuss whether or not they would be both effective and acceptable, it's worth pointing out that nothing of the sort is being suggested by Democrats. They're just throwing rocks from the sidelines on this issue. How do you feel about this? Are you disappointed in them?

I think that if you want to cut costs, which we have to do to save the system, and avoid bankrupting our country, you have to cut down on treatments with very low likelihoods of success. If you are elderly, and you are in your last two to three months of life, and you have 10 other chronic conditions that will likely kill you shortly even if the one condition we're treating you for does improve, than I think we have to look at whether or not we can afford to give these treatments. I think the answer is no. I note that I haven't heard you say that the answer is yes, just that you philosophically disagree with doing this, but if you don't have another solution, and I don't think there is any other solution out there, than this is what we have to do. Using age and health history are good barometers to use. If you are within your first few years of life, and you are expensive to treat, but the likelihood of you surviving with a decent quality of life is good, than I think we should continue to do those treatments. If, however, you are in the first few years of your life, and your likelihood of surviving and having a good quality of life is very remote, even with the best treatments, than I think we need to look at cutting those costs as well. Treatments that are unlikely to be successful need to be cut.
You're right, I have a core philosophical disagreement with this idea. But then, your opposition to the system as it is is also philosophical at its core. You say you don't like the idea of a country where people are left to fend for themselves when they need health care. I'm saying I don't like the idea of a country where the government rations care and then leaves people to fend for themselves when they get too sick.

At their absolute core, there's no way to resolve these sorts of things. We can only shed light on the implications of each belief and point out possible incongruities with other claims. So that's what I'm doing. :)

What other alternative do you have? Privatizing Medicare isn't going to make these choices disappear.
Well, which choices? It doesn't get rid of scarcity, to be sure. But it certainly makes the choices of an unelected government board deciding whether or not you're worth saving disappear. We can't get rid of the problem, but we can at least give people more direct control over the solution.

It's not going to make these choices any less expensive. It isn't going to make these treatments any less likely to succeed. We have to face this issue, rather than continuing to avoid it. We have no other choice. Have you talked to any doctors about end of life care and what they feel are the main drivers of cost in our healthcare system? I have. Many times. This is what they say. I'm not making this stuff up.
I don't think you're making it up, I just think you're (apparently) putting a lot of stock in a few anecdotal opinions, none of which are necessarily are more up to date on the specifics of Ryan's proposal than your average voter or politician. Soliciting the advice of doctors is great, but only insofar as it directs you to a coheret argument about the mechanics of the plan. And I haven't disputed your suggestion that end of life care makes up a very large portion of the costs, either. I've just disputed the idea that this means letting them die is an acceptable solution.

Okay. What do you think? True or False: This is necessary. If true, why are you fighting me on it? Do you have a better solution that addresses these problems? If so, what is it?
Gotta say, I love that you're using "True or False." Wish more people would make a habit of both asking and answering straightforward questions like this. It really helps. :up:

The "solution" to the problem is simple: freedom. The world is full of finite resources and services, and the free exchange of these almost invariably tends to produce better quality and lower prices over time. The only reason health care is a point of contention is that it makes people uncomfortable to think of something like health as a commodity, and it feels wrong to see someone go without care because of a lack of money. I can certainly relate to this, but a) we still need to employ the system that reduces these instances over one that simply makes us feel better and b) it won't do to simply swap a free system of some people not getting care for an organized system that only works through some people not getting care. That's the same sort of outcome, but with less freedom. And I'm generally of the mind that anything which reduces freedom needs to at least produce significantly better results than freedom does to be considered acceptable.

If the teenage junkie is going to continue to use drugs and destroy his body, I wouldn't be giving him very expensive treatments. If the teenage junkie wants help and is willing to quit, that's a different conversation. Under the scenario you outlined, I'd give it to the grandfather, who is more likely to benefit from these treatments. This is why we don't give transplants to drug users or people who are very sick. They are unlikely to benefit from the treatments, and we don't have enough resources to give to everyone who might theoretically need them but aren't able or willing to stop their self-destructive behavior. Would you be giving expensive chemotherapy to someone with lung cancer who refuses to quit smoking? I wouldn't. My Dad won't even treat these patients.
I think I'd agree with that, but I think you might be focusing too much on the example, when the point is the principle underneath it: mainly, that there are mixed factors that produce situations like this with no real answer. And when that's the case, we as a society tend to think that the answer is to have each person decide for themselves, rather than to decide collectively on questions that are so subtle and unanswerable.

Take our the "druggie" part, for example. How do you weigh a 25 year old with a 20% chance of living against a 70 year old with a 70% chance of living? Should this really just be a math problem? If so, how is that better than an insurance company denying coverage? You talk about the inequities of the current system, but your proposed alternative merely moves the same sorts of inequities around.

The only supposed virtue you seem to get out of it is that it's more "consistent." But apart from not seeing why mere consistency is supposed to be an inherent virtue, I'm not sure it's even technically true. Private insurers base cost on risk, and the cost means some people don't get some care. The system you're proposing would deny coverage based on risk, meaning some people don't get some care. Why is the former intolerable, while the latter is fine?

If we had more equal care and quality declined slightly, I'd support that. I think it's far more important for everyone to have a minimum level of quality, affordable care than it is to maintain a two-tiered system with very high levels of quality that only few can afford and benefit from.
Don't think I didn't notice the word "slightly" at the end there. ;) What if it declined more than slightly? What if these policies, over time, exploded the budget?

In fact, I don't even need to phrase this as a hypothetical, because it's already happened. Medicare and Medicaid exist for precisely the purpose you mention: to try to ensure a minimum level of care for all people. You may argue that the idea is sound, but it requires a bit of ruthlessness when controlling costs. That may be so, but it's quite a leap to count on that, given that that idea is more speculative, whereas the danger of exploding costs is not.

Also, isn't your proposed system also two-tiered? It just splits the tiers into sick and healthy people, rather than richer and poorer. And if so, isn't that a less equitable way to divide people, given that people generally have more control over their wealth than their health? Your alternative does not stop people from being excluded, nor from being assigned some kind of instrinsic value. It just says it's better for their value to be health-based, and to be decided by far fewer people than it would be in an open market.

This is an interesting question, as are the earlier points which you made, but before we address this issue, I think it would be best to continue our focused discussion on healthcare. If you're still interested, we can come back to this later.
No problem. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I was only responding to your comments about the rich. If you'd like to put it to one side, that's fine with me. :)

I should point out, however, that the question does sort of apply to health care, as well: is this about better health care outcomes, or is this about protecting ourselves from the psychic guilt we feel when someone has trouble paying for care?

Also, if you don't mind me following up on some things: first, what of the idea that Obamacare relies on the kinds of "health care projections" that you say are always undershot? Your belief about the unreliability of such things would seem to undermine your support for the reform. And second, what of the example of food, an unequivocal necessity? What of the idea that, however well-meaning our intentions, almost all goods and services are made most abundant when we stop trying to control them? Do you agree that this general principle is true? If so, why do you believe health care is exempt from it?

AKA23

08-25-12, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Yoda:
So what's the argument? That the minimum coverage will be inadequate? If so, what evidence is there of that...?

The Romney-Ryan plan doesn't say that the private plans have to provide the services at a cost seniors can afford. It is very possible that the minimum coverage would include huge deductibles and co-pays, that seniors on fixed incomes will not be able to afford. Currently, Medicare doesn't do that. These expenses are paid for by the government, through Medicare. It seems like you are arguing that things will be close to the same for seniors, but there's no way that that can be true. Previously, Medicare, through the government, paid for all medical expenses. Under this new plan, for those who are under 55 at the time of passage, private insurance companies will be paying for all of these costs, and they are going to have to get the money for these increases in cost from the insured party, which is the individual. How can you say that things will be any different than that?

Originally Posted by AKA23
As he's a medical professional who treats mostly Medicare-eligible patients, I trust his judgment on this.
Well, that's fine, and potentially interesting, but that doesn't exactly qualify as evidence, particularly when it's so vague. What of the studies that suggest that doctors thing Obamacare will fail to reduce costs? What happens if/when (let's be honest: when) I find a doctor who feels differently? This is a pretty clear-cut example of an Appeal to Authority, no?

Obamacare was endorsed by The American Medical Association, which is the largest group representing doctors in the country. Most doctors, even if they recognize it will change medicine, still support the reform. Yes, there are doctors who do not support the reform, but I believe that most do.

As for reducing costs, the aspects of Obamacare that conservatives decry will reduce costs. That independent board that will decide what treatments are cost efficient and which are not will lead to less treatments being approved that are not cost efficient and are unlikely to yield effective treatments. Electronic medical records, which are incentivized by Obamacare, will allow their to be coordination of care and less duplication of costly tests. Changing the incentive structure from a fee for service system to a more out-come oriented system is also incentivized in Obamacare. The end of life counseling that was in Obamacare but was taken out would have reduced costs as well. A lot of the things in Obamacare, if implemented, and if expanded upon, will reduce costs.

And that, frankly, is the central rhetorical sleight of hand found in almost every Democratic talking point, media appearance, or campaign ad on the topic: that they compare Ryan's Medicare reform not to other reform proposals, but to the unsustainable status quo. It is a fundamentally dishonest, asymmetric argument. And while I appreciate your alternative ideas and am quite happy to discuss whether or not they would be both effective and acceptable, it's worth pointing out that nothing of the sort is being suggested by Democrats. They're just throwing rocks from the sidelines on this issue. How do you feel about this? Are you disappointed in them?

I guess I haven't yet convinced you that I'm not a shill for the Democratic Party. Let me try this again: I am disappointed in them. While I support the Democrats in their rejection of the Ryan plan, I don't think that merely criticizing the Ryan plan without presenting your own proposals for reforming the system is really productive. This is why I've presented many of my own ideas, which are very substantive, and which have a lot of potential to help solve the huge cost overruns which are currently burdening the system.

Treatments that are unlikely to be successful need to be cut.
You're right, I have a core philosophical disagreement with this idea. But then, your opposition to the system as it is is also philosophical at its core. You say you don't like the idea of a country where people are left to fend for themselves when they need health care. I'm saying I don't like the idea of a country where the government rations care and then leaves people to fend for themselves when they get too sick.

If end of life care is the largest driver of Medicare spending, and it is, and Medicare insolvency is one of the largest contributors to both the systemic failure of the system and the budget deficit, doesn't the end of life care that are leading to these costs need to be reduced? This seems to be an inarguable point. If this is the case, then do you have another idea of how to reduce these costs other than using health history and age as a barometer to decide how and when to give treatments? If you do, what is it? If you don't, than why are you criticizing something which will almost certainly work when you don't have a credible alternative?

Originally Posted by AKA23
Okay. What do you think? True or False: This is necessary. If true, why are you fighting me on it? Do you have a better solution that addresses these problems? If so, what is it?
Gotta say, I love that you're using "True or False." Wish more people would make a habit of both asking and answering straightforward questions like this. It really helps.

The "solution" to the problem is simple: freedom. The world is full of finite resources and services, and the free exchange of these almost invariably tends to produce better quality and lower prices over time. The only reason health care is a point of contention is that it makes people uncomfortable to think of something like health as a commodity, and it feels wrong to see someone go without care because of a lack of money. I can certainly relate to this, but a) we still need to employ the system that reduces these instances over one that simply makes us feel better and b) it won't do to simply swap a free system of some people not getting care for an organized system that only works through some people not getting care. That's the same sort of outcome, but with less freedom. And I'm generally of the mind that anything which reduces freedom needs to at least produce significantly better results than freedom does to be considered acceptable.

This is all meaningless, or at least very ill defined. How will freedom reduce the end of life costs that are the largest driver of our healthcare expenditures? How will freedom make people healthier, so that they cost less? Obamacare incentivizes people to get medical care so that they catch diseases early and before they are expensive to treat. How will freedom cause them to be less sick? I don't understand this on a practical level. How is freedom the solution to this to reduce end of life costs, which are one of, if not the, largest drivers of our healthcare costs? You're going to have to be a lot more concrete in your answers for me to buy this as an argument.

Would you be giving expensive chemotherapy to someone with lung cancer who refuses to quit smoking? I wouldn't. My Dad won't even treat these patients.
I think I'd agree with that, but I think you might be focusing too much on the example, when the point is the principle underneath it: mainly, that there are mixed factors that produce situations like this with no real answer. And when that's the case, we as a society tend to think that the answer is to have each person decide for themselves, rather than to decide collectively on questions that are so subtle and unanswerable.

Take our the "druggie" part, for example. How do you weigh a 25 year old with a 20% chance of living against a 70 year old with a 70% chance of living? Should this really just be a math problem? If so, how is that better than an insurance company denying coverage? You talk about the inequities of the current system, but your proposed alternative merely moves the same sorts of inequities around.

I think the examples are a lot more clear than you may believe. Again, 50% of Medicare dollars are spent in the last two-three months of life. Do you really believe 100% of these treatments are medically necessary? Do you really think that if someone has 10 other health conditions, and they're 75, and we're treating them for number 11, that this spending is likely to lead them to recover and have a full life? Clearly, if someone is in their last two to three months of life, it must be fairly obvious to medical professionals far before they stop treatment that their treatments are not going to work. Do you dispute this? You seem to believe that most of these cases are a roll of the dice, but they aren't. Many of these cases are very clear, but we keep spending money anyway. Why do you want to continue to defend a system that does that? Is there some inherent virtue of denying reality and refusing to accept death that I am not seeing? If so, what is it, and why should this virtue be allowed to outweigh the huge burdens these practices place on already overburdened, insolvent system?

Originally Posted by AKA23
If we had more equal care and quality declined slightly, I'd support that. I think it's far more important for everyone to have a minimum level of quality, affordable care than it is to maintain a two-tiered system with very high levels of quality that only few can afford and benefit from.
Don't think I didn't notice the word "slightly" at the end there. What if it declined more than slightly? What if these policies, over time, exploded the budget?

Conservatives like to charge that nationalized health services provide terrible care, but in most cases, this isn't true. I'll give you an example. My Uncle lives in England. He is long-time Type II diabetic. At the age of 58, he had silent heart attacks and needed bypass surgery. He got his bypass surgery. He also needed multiple toe amputations, and has often been in and out of the hospital to get these procedures done. He currently sees a doctor two or three times a week to monitor various health conditions that he has. The NHS pays for all of this. He pays nothing. He is currently 66. If it weren't for these services, he'd be dead today, but he isn't dead. He's still alive, 8 years later. Conservatives say that the NHS is a horrible system and that people are always denied care, but if it's such a terrible system, why is he still alive 8 years later? If the NHS always denies necessary, rather than elective, care, than why have they paid for all of these treatments? The conservative argument seems to be more myth and legend than it does reality.

Also, isn't your proposed system also two-tiered? It just splits the tiers into sick and healthy people, rather than richer and poorer. And if so, isn't that a less equitable way to divide people, given that people generally have more control over their wealth than their health? Your alternative does not stop people from being excluded, nor from being assigned some kind of instrinsic value. It just says it's better for their value to be health-based, and to be decided by far fewer people than it would be in an open market.

The difference in my system is that everyone is treated the same. The difference in yours is that other people in the same position are treated wildly differently based on their own income, which in many cases, most have far less control over than you may be willing to acknowledge. Everyone will be in their last two-three months of life at some point. Everyone will reach a stage where treatment is not medically advisable. Everyone is treated the same under my system. This is not a particularly novel idea. Most healthcare systems other than ours use age and health history, and effectiveness of treatments, to determine whether or not to give those treatments. Your problem is unique to the United States, and a few others. If everything works so well in this kind of private run system that you are advocating for, than why are we virtually the only system that actually has it, and why are those that have nationally-run healthcare systems all very happy with the system that they have? Something doesn't add up here.

Originally Posted by AKA23
This is an interesting question, as are the earlier points which you made, but before we address this issue, I think it would be best to continue our focused discussion on healthcare. If you're still interested, we can come back to this later.
No problem. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I was only responding to your comments about the rich. If you'd like to put it to one side, that's fine with me.

Also, if you don't mind me following up on some things: first, what of the idea that Obamacare relies on the kinds of "health care projections" that you say are always undershot? Your belief about the unreliability of such things would seem to undermine your support for the reform.

Obamacare will cost more than is projected. This doesn't undermine my support for the reform because firstly, there are things within Obamacare that can be expanded and built upon that can and will reduce costs. Secondly, I believe in the overall goal so I am willing to pay what it costs to accomplish that goal. If government cannot ensure that people who are poor and vulnerable receive care and that the elderly have necessary treatments covered than the government, to me, is not performing the functions it exists to ensure.

And second, what of the example of food, an unequivocal necessity? What of the idea that, however well-meaning our intentions, almost all goods and services are made most abundant when we stop trying to control them? Do you agree that this general principle is true? If so, why do you believe health care is exempt from it?

I don't know if this is true or not. I am not educated enough on the complex nature of economics and the role it plays to goods and services to feel comfortable weighing in on this point. The only thought I have, which is raised by your questions is this: Food is currently controlled by the market, and it doesn't appear that food is getting to those who need it. If the market was so effective at providing these resources that everyone needs, than we does everyone not have the food which the market, working properly, should be making abundant?