In summary from my perspective, Bill thinks that most "Conservative / Republican" politicians knowingly lie to get themselves elected. They profess and swear by the philosophy of Conservatism on the campaign trail, and then become Liberal big spenders once they get into office. All the while knowing that adding spending and growing government is the only way they can maintain their power. He feels strongly that this character flaw is terrible, sick and will lead America into a brick wall. Whereas the Liberal politicians are truthful, ethical and facing reality with open minds and therefore can govern more effectively. (the last sentence is my assumption)
Here is the link to the details. The discussion of interest is in the comments. MPP Romney Education The Worst
Warren Meyer in this Forbes article seems to support Bill's philosophy that both parties seem to be interested in growing government when he says:
"The political incentives are for these lines to always go up, which is why the spending line has gone up almost irrespective of the party in charge for 60 years." Forbes Federal Deficit: Spending Problem
Of course I pointed Bill back to our continuum and the relativity post. And asked the following... Mitt is likely more Liberal than some of his more Conservative supporters,
however he is likely significantly much more Conservative than Obama. Now does
that make him Liberal or Conservative? Also, I asked who I should vote for if I want spending and revenues back at ~20% of GDP? It seems he did not see that as being attainable, which of course I disagree with.
Below are the links I had in the comments. Thoughts regarding Bill's Reality or my comments?
G2A Political Continuum
G2A Conflict Collusion
G2A Relativity
G2A Problem with Intent
26 comments:
They don't lie, so much as they are disingenuous. Mitt Romney, for example, affects a lack of understanding of what a "pre-existing condition" is. And he refuses to understand or discuss how he would pay for his tax cut. Lying can be difficult to deal with. We saw that the other night. It's a high risk charge to make, difficult to prove, and easily invites a diversion which gets you off message, becoming an argument about what someone knows rather than what is true.
==Hiram
One way Republicans do this is they have succeed in persuading the public, and possibly not themselves that tax cuts are not spending and that refusing to pay a debt is a legitimate way to save money. We saw this in 2011, when Republicans tried to sabotage the economy by dishonoring our debt. Let's recall that they weren't interested in reducing spending. They didn't propose cutting defense, Social Security or Medicare, the things we actually spend money on. They simply argued that we shouldn't meet our obligations for those things as they came due. Sort of like using your credit card at Target, and arguing that we shouldn't have to pay the bill when it comes. Why this makes sense to the Republican mind I have never understood. But then Mitt Romney made millions if not billions, by incurring debts others would have to pay, so I guess on some sort of Harvard MBA wavelength it makes sense to him.
--Hiram
I think both sides are trying to deal with this thorny problem in different ways. And thankfully they are, we can't have people capsizing the life rafts that didn't support building and maintaining them. G2A PEC Fraud
Please give us some links to back up your repeated accusation that "They simply argued that we shouldn't meet our obligations for those things as they came due."
Also, what does this mean "tax cuts are not spending". And who does personal property including money belong to in the USA in your opinion? The Government or the Citizens?
Lastly, when Obama says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, while at the same time implementing Obamacare, which will cost middle class folks significantly each year... Is he lying or is it something different?
"They simply argued that we shouldn't meet our obligations for those things as they came due."
Republicans take a cash accounting approach in an accrual accounting world. in 2011, they wanted to limit the debt ceiling. What they didn't want to do is stop doing things that would accrue debt. What the Republican mind fails to comprehend is that obligations are incurred not when the debt comes due, but when the promise is made. In everyday terms, money is spent at Target when you present the credit card, not when you get the bill. Republicans are under the impression that when they can get the bill, they can say, hey I don't have to pay that because it exceeded the amount I wanted to pay that month. Meanwhile they continue to charge things at Target.
We have incurred obligations in this world. We borrowed money to pay Social Security and Medicare. If you are unhappy with that bargain, the only solution is to get one of those time traveling DeLoreans and refight the elections of 1964 and 1936. If you don't want to pay the debts incurred by our decision to fight a series of wars in the middle east, which will include among other things, decades of veterans' benefits, I suggest you use the DeLorean to stop off in the year 2000 and relitigate Gore v. Bush.
Buyers' remorse is a common thing, an understandable thing. And maybe we shouldn't make those expensive promises that are now coming due. But we did make those promises, and we can't back out from them now. Nor is there any sentiment to do so. That's why Mitt is concealing what he knows about the consequences of the promises he is making.
--Hiram
As I am going to church I don't have time to read your whole exchange right now, but what I did read was quite interesting. What I noticed most was the change in tone from your previous dialogues with the liberals over at MN publius. Much less know it all from both sides.
As for are the conservatives conservative, if the GOP took control of DC I think we we definitely see lower spending then if the dems took control. Unfortunately I think the conservatives would cut taxes more than they cut spending and the deficit would grow. I think complete control by the dems would be better for deficit reduction because they would raise taxes and cut spending (both to a small degree) and the deficit would shrink slightly
Is he lying or is it something different?
That's a promise, one he kept last time around. He did in fact cut taxes for the middle class.
--Hiram
Laurie,
It is easier to have a rational discussion with people that aren't calling you stupid, child, fascist, etc every other comment. (MnPub was very interesting) On the other hand they seem to have a smaller group of commenters like we do. Mostly it is the writers of the blog.
I think it is a toss up regarding who would reduce the national debt more. I think the Republicans could do a good job if they would stop getting us into wars. (ie Iran anyone)
Hiram,
If Obama extends the Bush tax cuts and replaces them with Healthcare taxes, is he really cutting taxes?
It is time for me to signup for medical flex spending pretty soon... Which of course is now limited to $2,500 instead of $5,000 thanks to the ACA. So please do not explain how Obamacare will not cost us middle classers anything.
Again... Where are your sources?
Also as we have discussed many times before, since medical and social entitlements are part of laws, and not in the constitution... No time machine is required to change them... Just an agreeable group of politicians...
If Obama extends the Bush tax cuts and replaces them with Healthcare taxes, is he really cutting taxes?
Obama has cut taxes. And the reality is that someone has to pay for health care in America. Health care isn't free.
Historically, Republicans raise the national debt more because they are better at deluding themselves into thinking that isn't what they are doing.
--
Ah, but the question raised in this post is one of character...
Are the DFL and Obama more ethical, honest, fit to lead, etc than the Republicans and Romney.
I would argue that they both state mistruths, half truths and exagerate on a regular basis. In essence that the difference is marginal at best.
I don't argue that providing healthcare to those who were being marginally covered will cost more. Then Obama should say that out right if he is honest and forth right. He could say:
"These poor folk don't have enough money to pay their full premium, so my bill will tax the rest you to pay for their premium. It is the right thing to do."
Not something I expect to hear anytime soon.
Are the DFL and Obama more ethical, honest, fit to lead, etc than the Republicans and Romney.
That's an awfully low standard. I would hope that most of us, both Democrats and Republicans are more honest than Mitt Romney.
Republicans have a remarkable capacity for self deception. Their preference for cash over accrual based accounting is one example of that. They are way too easily convinced by their own sophistries. Check out the recent Norm Coleman article on Voter ID in the Strib for a classic example. Also, they are strangely vulnerable to arguments from authority, something I have never been able to figure out.
Republican George Bush nearly destroyed this country with his Republican policies. Republicans have a dim sense of that, that's why former President Bush not only didn't give a speech, at their recent convention, he was hardly even mentioned. Yet they want to return us to their very same policies. They want tax cuts for their wealthy friends, and they want the rest of us to pay for them. They don't really know why. They just do. As Chief Dan George observed in a different context in the movie "Little Big Man", this makes them strange to me.
--Hiram
John
I have an idea that you might like expanding from your last comment about Obama being more forth right-
As the Obama administration is quite tech savy they could set up a website matching those loser poor people who are unable to provide insurance coverage for themselves with someone who has seen their taxes increase as a result of Obama care. The premium support could be conditional on their wrting a thank you letter to one of their generous benefactors.
As for me I don't know if I make enough money to be someone who will pay more taxes or if some time in the future I will be in need of subsidized coverage but either way Obama care seems like a good plan to me, especially as they have at least attempted to fund it adequately (unlike some other political party in DC which increase spending while at the same time cutting taxes.)
Hiram,
I am willing to accept that my preferred candidate is human, a politician and has some faults.
I am fascinated that you have a hard time acknowledging that Obama has some of these same human / politician related failings.
Avoidance and denial can't be healthy. I guess focusing on the faults of others probably helps in some way.
Laurie,
I missed your comment. Yes, most of us working folks will pay more including yourself. Either directly or indirectly.
My company actually restated it's financials when Obamacare passed into law. They noted that it would be a $1,000,000 annual cost adder. Now I wonder where that is going to come from?
Back to the post. Now the question is why doesn't Obama open up and say this? Fear of loss of support, poor character issues or something else?
"Back to the post. Now the question is why doesn't Obama open up and say this? Fear of loss of support, poor character issues or something else?"
I can answer that one. It is the same with all liberals. They will not say it because in their world whatever they INTEND to happen will happen. "So it is written, so it shall be." They have no idea how the world really works, and understand even less how little they can make it follow their wishes.
J. Ewing
I am fascinated that you have a hard time acknowledging that Obama has some of these same human / politician related failings.
Not a big fan of easy, not to mention false, equivalences. But the last time they were in, the Republicans nearly destroyed the country for some reasons they have yet to fully acknowledge. And as recently as 2011, as a matter of public policy they were willing to destroy the economy for personal political blame. Democrats have never done anything like that.
There are other things as well. It's the Republican Party through through it's attempt to impose voter ID which is intent on rigging the election in their favor. Such an attack on the integrity of our political systems would be inconceivable coming from Democrats.
--Hiram
And by the way, it's not the Democratic which is attacking the legitimacy of certain types of families it doesn't happen to like. I was talking with a friend of mine, the other night, who was talking with a friend of hers who had had a vote yes Marriage sign torn down. Now I am not favor of tearing down anyone's signs, and I wouldn't tear down any of those. And the fact is, everyone gets their signs torn down mostly for reasons that have nothing to do with their content. But I just thought what if there was a gay couple in that neighborhood, living quietly, keeping the lawn nice, perhaps raising a kid or two. How would they feel about that? About a sign that for no particularly good reason, attacks the value and legitimacy of the most important relationship in their lives? How would they explain this to their kids? Why should they, not in a legal, but just in moral sense, that their family has just as much validity, and is just as much entitled to respect and just plain privacy. And from which party are these fundamental human value of love, and commitment under assault?
My party surely has it's flaws, and so does leadership. But we don't attack families. We don't put lawn signs on our yards, implying that some families are less than they are. Of that I am deeply proud. And as for the other party, which does do those things, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. And on this issue, as with so many others, the notion that there is some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties is simply absurd.
--Hiram
I like your word "absurd." It is absolutely absurd to say that the Marriage amendment has anything to do with how gay people are treated, in society or in law. If the amendment passes, NOTHING CHANGES for gay couples. If the status quo isn't hateful, then neither is the amendment because it preserves the status quo. The hateful vote is the NO vote, because that would allow some judge to impose gay marriage on the majority who oppose it.
J. Ewing
Instead the DFL believes in taking more Private property (ie money) from Private parties that have been more successful than the norm so that they can give it to those who have been less successful.
Thus buying the vote through theft of Private property, and lowering the motivation for all to work hard and become better educated. Is this any more ethical or good?
Throwing rocks from a glass house is never a good idea.
By the way, what is your answer... Who does personal property including money belong to in the USA in your opinion? The Government or the Citizens?
"...the Republicans nearly destroyed the country for some reasons they have yet to fully acknowledge. And as recently as 2011, as a matter of public policy they were willing to destroy the economy for personal political blame."
I also love your sinister interpretation of history. Perhaps Republicans won't acknowledge the reasons because they have no reason (or desire) to destroy the country. Neither do Democrats, don't get me wrong, but Democrats are driven by what they intend and not by reasons. (Admittedly it isn't completely black and white, "swamp fever" affects all to some degree.)
As for destroying the economy for personal gain, that too is the sole province of Democrats who believe they can spend like a drunken sailor, on the 4th day of a 3-day pass, who just won the lottery and found a new girlfriend to help. Republicans wanted to trim that budget a little bit, and Democrats refused, threatening Social Security checks even when the head of SSA said there was no such threat. The DEMOCRATS were involved in political gamesmanship, and they are naturally better at it, so the Republicans blinked as they always do. Even when they are in the majority they act like the minority party most of the time.
Let's just pick one Democrat program for an example. Medicare now costs NINE TIMES what it was predicted to cost by this time when it was passed. Fiscal prudence might dictate reform of the program at some point, yes?
J. Ewing
It is absolutely absurd to say that the Marriage amendment has anything to do with how gay people are treated, in society or in law.
You are saying that they can't be married. You are saying that gay families cannot be acknowledged in the same way other families are acknowledged. You are denying the stability that marriage gives to a particular class of families, one not coincidentally perhaps, has been the target of discrimination and abuse. And no one can offer a single sensible reason why this is the case.
--Hiram
Medicare now costs NINE TIMES what it was predicted to cost by this time when it was passed.
So I guess we should let our elderly sicken and die because someone back in 1965 messed up the cost estimates.
I have to ask, what should the impact be, on our policy choices of today, that mid 20th century policy analysts and actuaries turn out to have been rather unsurprisingly less than omniscient?
Should the medical care of your mom and dad receive be in any way affected by the fact that in 1965, some poor bureaucrat wasn't blessed with perfect foreknowledge of the future? Does that make any sense at all?
==Hiram
We can make forecasts, we can make predictions, we can consult the entrails of various animals, but when you get down to it, none of knows what the future will bring. Is that really a reason for doing nothing at all, for not at least attempting to deal now, with the problems that we have a pretty good idea we will have to face in the future, however unpredictable and even unknowable the specifics and details might be?
Life is uncertain, but that's not a very good reason for not getting out of bed in the morning. At least on weekdays.
--Hiram
Life is uncertain, that is why you make a plan and adjust as things change.
Two equally feasible adjustments exist:
- Collect more money from everyone to maintain the benefit.
- Collect at the same rate and reduce the benefit and/or coverages
Seems like we have choices available that don't require a time machine.
Exactly right. The solution to Medicare's excessive costs is to determine WHY those cost estimates were so far removed from reality (somewhere around the point, 40 years ago, when they were only twice the original estimates) and then find a way to reform the program. This the Democratic Party has steadfastly refused to do, refusing to allow reality to intrude upon their grand utopian visions. I will say it again, and someone will demand sources again, and I will not provide them, again. It is the way of things. If government were to get out of the healthcare "business," costs would drop as much as 50% and quality would likely improve. We can't do that without a magic wand because of all the people who have become dependent upon a Medicare system based on an unworkable model. Reform, however, is possible and we can start down the road to a far more workable system in the future. So why would we NOT do that?
J. Ewing
Back to the original topic: somewhere I have a chart – two charts, actually, for the state and for the federal government – that show government spending increasing by 10 times the amount of inflation and population growth, over the last 50 years. What I want to know is, how much better off is our state/nation doing as a result of all this spending? Are our citizens 10 times better off because of this spending? What, in particular, has Government done to improve our quality of life by an order of magnitude?
The commentor is correct that the trajectory of government spending does not depend upon who is in charge. There are two exceptions to that rule in Minnesota, both of them brief but occurring when Republicans held the legislature. The only political guidance that can be offered on the federal budget is that SOME Republicans seem to want to balance it.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment