I'm With the Government and I Have a Plan??
Paul Waldman at Prospect.org is asking the question that I've been wanting to see asked. Waldman reviews Romney's economic proposals and concludes...
To review: The way Mitt Romney's economic plan differs from what George W. Bush did is that Romney favors exploiting energy resources, free trade, having a good education system, balancing the budget (something every candidate in both parties says they'll do, but only Bill Clinton actually did), tax cuts, and less regulation. In short, Romney's program is exactly the same as what George W. Bush did. Yet Romney says, "My policies are very different than anything you've seen in the past." Right.
Nobody is disputing that the economy could be better, unemployment could be lower and that would be a wonderful thing.
We're all agreed on that much.
The question, then, is - since the GOP and Ryan/Romney are saying "Vote for us and we'll make it better..." - HOW exactly are you going to do this? What are you going to do differently than Obama and, more importantly, different than W Bush did before Obama?
The GOP inherited a healthy economy after Clinton's eight years, they had a chance to "improve" the economy with Republican policies and, at the end of eight years, the economy was in the crapper (not to mention that we were spending trillions of dollars on two questionable wars).
Mr Ryan/Romney: What are you going to do DIFFERENTLY than Bush did and why should we accept the rather overly-simplistic suggestion: Things aren't perfect, so let's change paths...?
The thing about changing paths is that, rather than making an improvement, things could get worse again. What are you proposing that would inspire us to trust you?
Anyone?
82 comments:
It sounds like Romney might finally fix a big problem plaguing air travel: planes with windows that don't open. LOL.
I'm told that Romney's website is quite specific about what he would do. I haven't checked it out yet myself. Have you?
BTW, Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Congress, that Contract With America congress with Gingrich as Speaker, balanced the budget and Clinton signed on to it. Also, the economy was heading south at the end of Clinton's term and after the second round of tax cuts, the middle four years of the Bush presidency saw growth and increased revenues to the federal gov't. Then, after spending continued to rise and conservatives sat out the midterms of '06, the Dems took over Congress and then things went south again.
But one thing that we should see different than Bush when Romney is president is cuts in spending. It was Bush's major failure fiscally that he didn't veto like crazy all the bills that brought forth new spending.
lol.. thats one way to see the world. If only MA could read what he writes.
Unfortunately, Dan, there is no way to know how Romney will be different, which is why no one tries to answer that question.
Here we have a pro-gay, pro-choice candidate who claims he is magically no longer either one; who created Romney care with its individual mandate, who now claims he is against that; who criticizes the poor getting free health care at ERs as "socialism" in 2007, and now endorses the practice; who promised to fight for stem-cell research, who is now against it; who thought minimum wage increases should keep pace with inflation, who now does not; who has said that paying taxes should be part of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but who now says no amnesty ever; who thought DADT should be repealed, until he changed his mind; who was for limits on carbon emissions until he wasn't; and who's own campaign advisor likens the Romney campaign to an etch-a-sketch.
And, if he doesn't provide specifics, he thinks he can minimize his flip-flopping, which is exactly why he hasn't really provided any serious specifics.
But hey, let's go to his website where I hear he offers all sorts of specifics! Actual cuts from his website ... that is, actual real programs he specifically says he'll cut (Obamacare, Amtrack, and Foreign Aid) amount to a paltry 97.6 billion dollars, which is ... well ... laughable if it weren't so absolutely, totally, and pathetically ridiculous.
I know what you're thinking, Dan. You're thinking "Billion, with a B?????!!! Surely you've made an error with the decimal place, because that's absolutely completely fraking nuts!" No, I didn't, and yes, it is.
97.6 billion dollars in specific cuts when, by his numbers, federal spending is currently 3.5 trillion.
The Pentagon spends about $3 Billion in a day, so his actual specific cuts amount to about a month's worth of Pentagon spending. And he doesn't even mention cutting the Pentagon. In fact, can you guess what he wants to do with Pentagon spending? You guessed it. Increase it...though he naturally doesn't give a specific amount.
So... there is simply no possible way to know what he's going to actually do. Even if he one day decides to provide real specifics about any of his plans someday before the election, there is a clear and obvious pattern of behavior that demonstrates there is essentially no probability that he'd actually follow through with those specifics.
I don't take Romney and Ryan seriously. So to answer your question: they do nothing to inspire my trust.
A good analogy is that Obama is going to drive the United States off a fiscal cliff at 70 MPH. Romney and Ryan promise to slow the car down to 50 MPH.
I'll vote for someone who promises to instead turn the car of government spending around.
This comment has been removed by the author.
John,
If there is no such choice available, then to do nothing means we will indeed speed off that cliff.
But what many enamored with Obama fail to admit, as other also fail, is that Romney made his bones by turning around bad situations into good ones. Even in those cases where he didn't get the job done, they were headed for failure already. Indeed, in those cases, he slowed the speeding car and the jobs people lost lasted longer than they would have (the Obamaphiles should like that as they pretend things would be worse had he not passed his stimulus bill).
What's more, things were not nearly so bad with the last guy and Barry ran on change. Well, he didn't improve anything and he had all the cards in his hand when he first started. If Bush was a failure, Obama doesn't even rise to that level.
From a CNN story about Romney running far behind in Ohio - a must-win state for him...
"Why is Mitt Romney running for president and what will his presidency be about?" the [REPUBLICAN] official asked. "I don't think most Republicans in Ohio can answer that question. He has not made a compelling case for his candidacy..."
That's what I'm saying. Saying, "Trust us, we're with the GOP - the party that brought you eight years of the Bush presidency, and looked how well that worked..." is not going to work. Certainly not for me. Apparently, not even for many Republicans.
Dan,
It seems far less info had no effect on your finding Obama worthy of support. At least in the case of Romney, he has proven himself capable of turning around bad situations. Obama has shown he is capable of reading a teleprompter and little else.
In other words, you put your trust in Obama with far less evidence that your trust was well placed. To this day I have yet received a solid, coherent and rational explanation from any who voted for Obama as to why they did. Bush was part of the non-reason as he was seen as the cause of so much that was wrong with our nation. Now, with things far worse in pretty much every category, you will continue to place your trust in this failure of a president rather than a guy with a proven track record for delivering just what we need (economically, at the very least).
Marshall, we voted for Obama because the GOP policies were so very very wrong in so very many ways. We were going bankrupt as a nation and were engaged in what most of us saw as wrong, immoral wars that came at a terrible cost in lives and money and national stability. You are right that we didn't have a whole lot of evidence for what Obama would do, I suppose, but this is probably true for many presidential candidates, ot at least the ones without years at the federal level (including Romney in that).
We did see Obama's plans and they were, by and large, right-minded, not crazy and questionably moral like the Bush/GOP plan.
"Far worse?" that is a matter of your opinion that I don't think the real world evidence justifies.
How many nations have we invaded since Obama came into office? Let's see... none. Check.
Have we moved towards or away from civil liberties for all Americans? Let's see... generally, towards civil liberties.
Have we increased or decreased environmentally damaging/economically unsustainable and unhealthy practices? Imperfectly, we have decreased such behavior. He could do better, but it's moving in the right direction.
Is the economy heading downwards, like during the Bush final years, or upwards? Upwards... not fast enough, but upwards.
Are the car companies still going or did we let them go bankrupt (Romney's plan)? Still going.
I disagree with your assessment and don't find it to be based on real world evidence.
Dan wrote:
How many nations have we invaded since Obama came into office?
He initiated a war against Libya--and without Congressional consent. Bush, in contrast, sought and acquired Congressional consent before invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
Have we moved towards or away from civil liberties for all Americans?
Obama has engaged in drone strikes around the world, including the targeted killings of American citizens. He aggressively sought the reauthorization of the power to detain people, including American citizens, indefinitely without trial.
Is the economy heading downwards, like during the Bush final years, or upwards? Upwards... not fast enough, but upwards.
On what basis do you conclude "upwards"? Please provide statistics.
Are the car companies still going or did we let them go bankrupt (Romney's plan)? Still going.
Yes, Obama bailed out car companies with taxpayer dollars. Do you approve, Dan?
Dan -
I have to agree with John Farrier on several points. Obama has extended our UVA war in to Pakistan and Yemen, as well as introducing Special Operations Units into the latter country as well as the Central African Republic, as part of a larger attempt to create an African Command. He swelled American troops in Afghanistan, sending 100,000 combat and support troops with little or no tactical or strategic goals other than to "win" and "build the Afghan Army". Without any sense of what "winning" might mean, that was less than meaningless; with the suspension of Americans training the Afghan Army after dozens of attacks on American troops by the Afghans they're supposed to be training, I think we can call that a big fail, too.
Then, yes - Libya. We got lucky in some ways, unlucky in others there.
To say Obama has not invaded any countries is demonstrably false. He just hasn't done it with the flair and panache of W.
As for civil liberties, I have two words to begin: Guantanamo Bay. Blaming Congress for blocking funding for moving prisoners is nonsense. He could move them wherever he wanted, then sit around while the Republicans in Congress whined and stamped their feet. Lord knows Presidents before him have done such. Then there's the recent NDAA that included provisions approving authorization for the President to determine that American citizens living overseas can be targeted for assassination without any legal finding they are guilty of a crime. That is a very, very dangerous precedent to set. I like Obama, but no President should have that kind of power.
John has responded well to questions put to me, but I wish to highlight the following:
"We did see Obama's plans and they were, by and large, right-minded,"
Really. Did you have to send away for them? He didn't present them publicly. What were they? Can you link to some specific plan he laid out before the election? Why did you not reveal these plans in blog discussions before the election? I know I asked for them at the time on several occasions. I recall much hyperbole and vague references, but no plan. Now, we are far closer to being a bankrupt nation (if we can still say we're not) then we ever were during the Bush years and what Barry seems to promise is more of what got us this much closer.
The point is, you knew nothing about Obama and he had no track record by which a competent judgment could be made. This is not the case with Romney, who, as I said, made his fortune by turning around bad situations.
John, as you probably know, each of your examples are areas where I disagree sharply with Obama. I think I have been quite clear that I don't think Obama is a perfect president and I've disagreed with him on many levels.
So, my apologies, I overstated my case in my words, using them loosely.
I suppose that I hold pretty low standards for our presidents. I recognize that, on many issues, I am in a minority and not in a position to demand my wishes be national law. So, for the most part, the most I hope for our leaders is that they do no horrible harm.
Bush was so far and away beyond that measure that I, by comparison, Obama has been a great relief. It is in that sense I meant what I said. Yes, Libya was wrong, in my estimation. But compared to the hundreds of billions spent and hundreds of thousands of deaths started by the GOP and Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya seems like a child's fight.
In a perfect world, I would be wholly outraged by Obama's actions in Libya (and I was/am). But I suppose there's some moral fatigue happening and, compared to the awfulness of the GOP (and not just on their military adventurism, but on their disregard for science and their over-emphases on/trust in corporate solutions and for their morally wrongheaded approach to issues of homosexuality and other religion-mixing-with-civics cases), I find myself just relieved that Obama has not gone down that ideological path and fear that Ryan/Romney would turn us back down that path and that would be a dirty shame.
In The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf makes the case for voting for Johnson:
I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it. I am hardly the first to think that humans should sometimes "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I am hardly the first to recommend being the change you want to see. I can respect counterarguments, especially when advanced by utilitarians who have no deal-breakers of their own. But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves?
How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes.
There are far more than two people running for President this year. There's no reason why Gary Johnson or Jill Stein can't win the White House.
Oops. I forgot the link to the Friedersdorf article.
"There's no reason why Gary Johnson or Jill Stein can't win the White House."
For better or worse.. there are lots of reasons. I heard Johnson speaking the other day and even he (and his supporter that was interviewed) was resigned to a loss. That said, they were optimistic about their long term prospects. Sometimes you win when you lose.
The whole war thing is a bit foggy. Its hard to criticize Obama on this issue when every prior president has done similar things. The US is not exactly innocent when it comes to killing innocents.
When it comes to voting, we never really know how the candidate will actually be once elected. In an effort to attract as many voters, the candidates are often vague and obtuse.
To say the economy hasnt improved since Obama is grossly inaccurate. And the past year has been significantly better than last. You want evidence? Idk.. try looking at the DOW, S&P, ect. One example is that California sold some bonds the other day at historically low rates. Investors have improving confidence in the US economy. One major hurdle from kicking the economy into full gear is Europe.. and how is any president supposed to influence that?
Obama is a pretty moderate guy. That means I'm not going to be completely happy with what he does. That said, the (most likely) alternative is an increasingly extreme Republican party, which I dont find very appealing.
John again provides a fine response. I would again point to the fact that Bush's actions were backed up by all but four (may have been fewer) of the same group of nations who comprised the coalition for the first Gulf War. The congressional resolution that preceded our involvement provided a lengthy list of justifications, which, if not responded to, would not have led to an improved situation.
But then again, I supposed FDR is responsible for all the innocent deaths as a result if his going to war after an isolated bombing of Pearl Harbor. As I understand it, he did not begin with a direct assault on Japan, as Bush didn't begin with a direct assault on whomever lefties wish to believe should have been.
In response to other points made...
As to the economy improving, it would be a stretch to tie anything Obama has done to that. It is only the speed of recovery on which the government has any real impact. In that, Barry's has been negative as this recovery is widely considered extremely slow.
Obama the moderate? Perhaps in some alternate universe, but not in this one.
I think mainstream critics of the Libertarian/Green Party supporters have genuinely good points. I think the Libertarian/Green (and other assorted small parties) supporters also make solid, legitimate criticisms of the mainstream candidates. I've said in the past that I would not vote for Obama, and I might not yet, as the Green Party candidate will be on the ballot in IL. All the same, I am doing so knowing full well the President will carry IL and win a second term. If I lived a few dozen miles north in WI, I would be far less sanguine (even though recent polling shows Obama up in WI).
Matters of war and peace, of the constitutionality of the use of American troops on foreign soil and the usurpation of the judicial role by the executive in determining cause for depriving American citizens of their lives . . . these aren't small, side, tangential issues that are meaningless. Am I happier overall that Obama is and will continue to be President? Obviously. Since that isn't the question I'm asking myself when I think about the election, however, I'm not sure how it's relevant.
I do think mainstream critics who shout "Booga-Booga-Right-Wing-Nuts!" whenever a critic from a different perspective raises important matters do a disservice to both major party candidates. Since the reality is that Romney is such a horrid candidate the Republicans are going to lose seats in the Senate, and might well lose the House of Representatives as well, I think we need to look beyond the crazy section of America and ask questions about how we want a second Obama term to look.
BTW, as to letting car companies go bankrupt, I'm not sure if the term is properly understood. The significant difference between the bail-out and bankruptcy is who gets screwed. The bail-out worked nicely for the unions, while those who normally are protected by the bankruptcy lost out. Otherwise, the likely outcome of a bankruptcy would not have meant no auto industry. GM is not doing so great while Ford, who did not accept bail-out money, is.
Some of the latest economic numbers...
"Job losses peaked in early 2009, and steadily declined throughout the year. The economy finally started creating jobs in the beginning of 2010, but then employers pulled back in the summer. A similar trend occurred in 2011, and then again in 2012..."
Job Growth
"The unemployment rate surged to 10% in Obama's first year in office and has fallen gradually since then, landing at 8.2% as of June."
Unemployment
"During the first three months of 2009, the economy slumped at an annual rate of 6.7%. Since then GDP has been growing and slowly recovering, but the rebound has been a lackluster one..."
Economic Growth
"Obama the moderate? Perhaps in some alternate universe, but not in this one."
Heh.. you're right MA... Hes not moderate in your Limbaugh, Beck, Right-Wingnut world view. To be elected, almost by definition, a candidate must be moderate... at least in an election with two primary candidates.
"As to the economy improving.."
I think you nailed it once again. Romney is battling an improving economy and this is (yet another reason) he has failed to gain traction on Obama. Its very difficult to come in and say, "Hey, things are getting better. But, I can do an even better job". If the economy is so bad, it wouldnt matter how many times Romney stuck his foot in his mouth.
And.. who is Barry?
Here's a little something about the horrible choice for president. It is one of several I've seen regarding the character of Mitt Romney the man. It has much to do with why I can punch the ballot in his favor after having voted otherwise in the primaries. Is he the best possible candidate? Can't say that. I can say with total confidence that he's the best on the ballot. No third party candidate has a prayer.
Dan posts economic stats that are horrid and sees them as reason to support Obama. Incredible.
Clown Hall?
MA, this is one reason its impossible to take you seriously.
Sadly you are missing the point about Romney. Its not that he hasnt done good things in his life, its that people can not connect with the man. Romney may be a good executive, but hes a terrible politician. Worse, he is running a terrible campaign. Not terrible in terms of policy ideas, terrible in terms of spending time in PA or getting caught with 47% of his foot in his mouth.
Conservatives are already blaming each other for nominating Romney.
"economic stats that are horrid"
So you mean to say that a President that experiences a spike in.. say.. unemployment.. at the start of his term.. followed by a decline.. is unfit for the next four years. (as Mitt Romney would say) Ha Ha Ha
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/praise-of-mitt-romneys-transcribed-laugh.html
Well Parkie, as you seem to have mustered a somewhat reasonable comment, my response is that you statement is a severe indictment of the general population. Why aren't people looking into the character, background and track record of the people for whom they vote? The comparison between the two men is incredibly stark and Romney comes out head and shoulders the better man, the better executive and the better leader of the what is still barely the best nation on earth, but fading fast under the incompetent lack of leadership Barry has provided. But that would have been true of pretty much everyone Romney beat out in the primaries.
But then, this is common for the left to be moved by the superficial, otherwise Barry wouldn't be here now trying to pretend he deserves another four years. I don't want a president to spend his term campaigning, like Obama and Clinton. I want a president who will be presidential.
Worse is those like yourself who will dismiss anything that comes from an article simply because it appeared in something like Townhall as if leftist sources are somehow more credible simply because they are leftist. What should have been taken away from the piece is the cut of this man's jib, a sampling of many such stories about the guy that again indicts those who "cannot connect with the man". What the hell is wrong with America that so many are drawn to someone so shallow and insincere as Obama while finding fault with Romney?
Here we have Alan going on and on about Romney's position changes (while not a president), but I'm guessing he's cool with Barry "evolving" on issues while president? It seems we have two possibilities with whom we can't predict a future. All that's left is character and track record. What we have is Romney who has proven his charitable nature in spades, seemingly living the Christian life to which Obama only gives lip service (in other words a man of true character). And we have Romney with a proven track record of turning around failing institutions towards success, versus Obama who took a bad situation and made it absolutely crap. I couldn't care less if Romney stuttered and spit while he talked. He's the better man for the job Obama should never have had in the first place.
Speaking only for myself, I do not care about the character of the person running for office (unless there's solid evidence the person is a raging psychopath, which does happen). Whether or not Willard Romney or Barack Obama is a better person means nothing. All things being equal, I would probably guess that Romney is a decent fellow, if somewhat haughty while Obama is probably a more down-to-earth guy who manages to use a certain charm to keep people at a distance. I would probably enjoy a sit-down with each man without too much of a problem. Having met both disreputable and honored public figures in the past, let me just say that public persona and actual person have no relationship to one another.
Having said that, Art, I think Parklife's comments are clear. Has Obama done enough to help us drag ourselves out of the hole dug for us by W and the Republican Congresses? Probably not. Thing is, Romney is clear enough that he would favor plans to take us back to policies that got us there in the first place.
Since you and folks like you have been saying for years that government programs don't actually create jobs or have an effect on the economy, I'm not sure why you're complaining that Obama's economic record matters, anyway.
As to sources, I read last night on another site some right-winger claiming Barack Obama donated a pittance to charity the year prior to becoming President. Yet, a perusal of the Obama family tax returns, which are available to the public going back over a decade, actually say something very, very different. Since the claim about Obama's charitable giving was sourced back to a right-wing website much like Townhall, that is the reason not to trust it.
Do left-wing websites get it wrong? Sure. That's why it's always best to go to the sources to find out what is actually said and done. It's easy enough, as in the case of the Obama's tax returns, to find the original source of a claim made.
The difference is simple enough: It isn't that Townhall is "bad" and Think Progress or Crooks and Liars are "good". Their record for accuracy, however, are clear enough. That's the test. For some reason, this point - how sources are used and interpreted - just never gets through to you. All the same, I for one rely upon the actual primary source; far better evidence-wise.
"Since you and folks like you have been saying for years that government programs don't actually create jobs or have an effect on the economy, I'm not sure why you're complaining that Obama's economic record matters, anyway."
This isn't what's being said. The general belief by the right is that nothing works better than the market being allowed to do what it does. If a politician expects anyone to believe he can put people to work, he must move toward removing any government policy that interferes with the private sector accomplishing that goal. Obama's proposals interfere and Romeny's, being based on his understanding from his perspective formed by being a part of the private sector, will remove those obstacles where he can in order that the free market can work as it is meant to.
So it's not character alone, though Romney is clearly a man of far better character. But rather, he has a far better understanding of what it takes to create wealth and to be fiscally sound as an organization/business/whatever. Unlike Bush, I think he will be more willing to veto bills that result in spending we cannot afford. He will do more to cut current spending that is unnecessary. But like Bush, he will move toward tax policy that will increase revenues to the federal gov't without digging deeper into the pockets of the citizenry.
(Sidebar: I would appreciate not having to vacillate between whether or not a president is responsible for the economy. One can't speak of "the Bush years" and then pretend Obama is not also responsible for what happens during his term. I'm willing to speak from either, but not bounce between both. Speak amongst yourselves and make up your minds.)
"For some reason, this point - how sources are used and interpreted - just never gets through to you."
Hardly. I'm well aware of how sources are used and interpreted and constantly amazed at how poorly it is done to support left-wing/Democratic nonsense. You simply are too willing to swallow whatever is said to defend the left. As with our own back and forth, I have not seen that the leftist sources return volley in a manner that leaves the right without an easy return of their own. Accuracy seems to be in the eye of the leftist beholder in such a manner that reality and truth have little value.
All we have to guide us are the words and actions of the candidates. Pres. Obama has a record as a State Senator, US Senator, and President. Mitt Romney as a businessman and Governor of Massachusetts. Both are middling, at best, although I think Romney's stint as Bain Capital CEO is less relevant to being President.
Thing is, Romney ran both for US Senate and Governor as a pro-choice, pro-gay-right Establishment Republican. Now he's . . . what, exactly? That he has been willing to jettison pretty much every position he's ever held in order to secure the nomination, and do so in such a way that the Republican Party is already making excuses about why he will lose, tells us all we need to know about the guy.
"Thing is, Romney ran both for US Senate and Governor as a pro-choice, pro-gay-right Establishment Republican. Now he's . . . what, exactly?"
He's "evolved", right? Isn't the crap used to defend Obama's politically motivated change of heart? And again, he's done it after selling himself as pro-traditional marriage in order to get elected president. Romney's "evolution" has already taken place.
It is hardly accurate to regard these guys as equally "middling" since Barry's record as a State Senator, US Senator, and President is crap, with no record of note for the first two spots at all. Romney, on the other hand, has an incredibly successful record in the business world (again, much of which is the very relevant record of turning around bad situations) and I've not heard that he was a failure as governor. Words and actions? Talk is cheap, but Romney's actions say far more than an of Obummer's.
I'm not even sure what you mean in your reply, Art. Any fair observer of Obama's public record before he became President sees the continuity in his preference for deal-making, for careful public positions on controversial issues, a refusal to add unneeded drama to public life, and a dedication to the public good as he perceives it.
I don't always agree these are the best ways to govern (except for the drama bit; for some reason, The Republicans in Congress treat legislating like a reality TV program), but the consistency is there. Furthermore, Obama has not cast aside what many would consider basic policy positions in the desire for party approval. On the contrary, considering the flak the guy gets from folks like me who voted for him, quite the opposite is the case.
So . . . character. As with all things, context is everything. Is it fair to chastise Romney for altering the positions he's taken as an elected official in the past? Well, if he did so out of some dedication to principle, no. Is there evidence one way or another that Romney has just chucked it all in his desire to grab the main chance?
All we have is the results of our recent history. Has Romney evolved? Perhaps. More likely, considering the preponderance of the evidence, he came to understand that what he needed to win the Republican nomination was to mouth pro-life, anti-gay platitudes while pledging to cut taxes without any coherence or consistency to win enough votes moving forward to win enough primaries to get the delegates he needed.
Dan, are you arguing that the economy is doing well or has improved under the Obama Administration?
When Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.6%. He promised that if Congress didn't pass the massively expensive stimulus package, the unemployment rate would reach as high as 9%. Congress passed the stimulus package and unemployment has (so far!) been as high as 10%. Now it's 8.1%, but only if you accept the BLS's funny numbers. That agency has been deleting people counted toward the participation rate. If you include the same participation rate as we had at the beginning of the Obama Administration, unemployment stands at 11.2%.
The national debt is now over $16 trillion, $5.4 trillion of which came under Obama's watch.
And though it's not an economic issue, it's noteworthy: under Obama, warrantless wiretaps quadrupled.
I'm arguing that the economy has been doing better under Obama than it did during the GOP years/leadership, and it is doing better in at least a slightly more moral/small-smart gov't sort of way.
I don't like the direction the GOP has led us in under the last three GOP administrations and don't think that their direction has taken the economy in a healthy direction.
How can you argue that, Dan? The highest unemployment rate that we had under the Bush Administration was 7.2%. The lowest unemployment rate under the Obama Administration was 7.6%.
The Obama economy at its best is worse than the Bush economy at its worst.
See Dan, what you're not seeing is that unemployment should have dropped the very day that Obama was elected, according to John. The economy can make pinpoint turns and course correct immediately. So arguing, as you might, that in only 9 months since taking office employment began to decrease and has been decreasing since it's high of Sept 09 is just silly because it should have decreased immediately in Nov 08.
Looking at a trend in a graph like this one, Dan,
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-23/politics/30485008_1_unemployment-rate-obama-election-day
presupposes understanding the notion of a trend. It presupposes understanding that any economist can tell you that it takes around 7 years to recover from a significant recession like this one, that you cannot turn the economy around on a dime.
In other words, Dan, understanding your point requires understanding something other than post-hoc reasoning.
It presupposes something other than political hackery. It presupposes understanding that the trend would have peaked more or less at exactly the same time regardless of who was elected President in 08, because it takes a while for any new efforts to actually affect an economy as large as ours.
But these are, apparently, new ideas, I guess.
See, Dan, what you're not seeing is that history has shown what is likely to reverse a direction, what is likely to worsen a situation, what works and what doesn't as regards truly stimulating an economy. It has shown that the things Dems like Obama insist on trying always fail and the best chance is to reduce government spending, keep taxes and regulations down to a point that business can function at a high level and other such proven methods. The less gov't does to try to stimulate the economy, the better.
In other words, Dan, understanding THE point requires understanding what has been shown effective several times in our nation's brief history.
There's nothing new here at all.
Do you think he even knows that he disagrees with nearly everyone in his own party with those statements? Would reminding him of the stimulus bills passed during the Bush administration, passed by Republicans in Congress help him understand? Would reminding him about the refusal of companies to spend money, even though they had large amounts of capital built up, help him understand?
Or remind him once again of the *fact* that reductions in taxes have never, ever been the miracle he thinks? That tax rates during the Clinton years, the largest peacetime expansion in US history were significantly higher than they are now? Would reminding him of those facts help?
He's right, there's nothing new here at all. MA not understanding anything is the same as always.
MA is amazing.. cant even be mad.
I saw a recent meme on Facebook that made the claim that during the Carter Administration, more jobs were created per capita than any subsequent administration save the Clinton Administration. I checked it out and it's true. When the national population was less than 200 million, there were over ten million new jobs created during Carter's four years.
The top tax rate at the time was 70%.
All those folks pining for the post-WWII economic good times forget the top tax rate was 95% until the early 1960's, the percentage of the workforce working in a union-negotiated contract was close to 30%, and wages were rising at an annual rate higher than inflation (that stopped in 1972, started up again in 1996, then stopped again in 2001). So, high taxes on upper-income-earners, strong unions - they're good for the economy!
I haven't time to get into great details, not that facts matter to people like you who cherry pick to convince yourselves, but here are a few points:
-I don't know of anyone on the right (of any significance) who does not agree that lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations leads to economic growth, especially given the data that proves it.
-There's a difference between Bush's stimulus bills and Obama's. Look it up.
-It's no secret that private companies are sitting on piles of dough, nor is it a secret why. Look it up.
-Reductions in taxes have resulted in more revenues to the federal gov't every time it has been tried. Even while Bush Jr. failed to cut spending, revs went up. Another fact one can find online.
-Those who point to high tax rates during the Clinton years fail to mention the tech boom which had a little to do with the state of the economy at the time.
And again, we can each point to one aspect of an era to make our cases and do so without taking into consideration the entire state of affairs at the time, which might include factors that override the point we want to push as significant. This is typical of the left.
Shorter MA: "Because tech sector workers, businesses, executives, and investors paid no taxes in the 1990's. So, ya know, it was like ... toterrly differnt n' stuff. Duh, everyone knows that."
Except...of course...they did, and it wasn't.
Either your theory encompasses everything and is therefore both comprehensive and comprehensible, or, like MA just did, you have to come up with not one, not two, but three (count 'em, THREE!) bits of post-hoc "reasoning" where your theory fails and you have to make exceptions.
High taxes stifles business....well, except for the tech boom.
Low taxes stimulates the economy ... well, except for all the private companies holding on to capital.
Low taxes means more government revenue ... well, except that the overall trend has been at about 10% of GDP because taxes are what we call a confounding variable, not a predictor. (Though why anyone like MA who thinks the government should be doing less would be arguing for *higher* government revenue for Congress to spend is a mystery...)
Oh, and sorry for "cherry picking" from the entire last half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st, you know....the actual point in time that the US economy actually relates to our current situation. But hey, MA, I have no doubt that you can find an example that supports your thesis from 1784 that is FAR more relevant. You know, given our current agrarian economy based on brewing Apple Jack and selling sewing notions.
Gotta love Occam's razor and how it cuts MA's myths and post-hoc analysis to shreds.
"I haven't time to get into great details, not that facts matter to people like you who cherry pick to convince yourselves, "
In other words, "I don't actually have any details or facts, and I have proven myself to be completely incapable of using the mysterious Google machine -- which I nonetheless expect others to use."
Nice try MA. You know, here's another thing you could have tried ... I'll just throw this idea out there, I know it's crazy, but:
Instead of caving to your bizarre compulsive obsession to post anything anywhere at any time, because ZOMG SOMEONE MIGHT BE WRONG ON THE INTERWEBS!?!??!11!!!
Maybe you could ... oh say ... post only when you actually have something to say and have the time to back it up, instead of wasting people's time and wasting all those poor harmless, defenseless electrons with your poorly thought-out "opinions" unsupported by anything at all, which you yourself even admit contain no real facts.
Because if *we* were to post anything, anything at all without a detailed 1500 page treatise of facts, you would completely Lose. Your. Sh*t over it. (And then when we posted the accompanying treatise, you would simply respond with one sentence dismissing the source, eg. "Everyone knows John Calvin was a flaming liberal evil gay Dem godless feminazi commie terrorist Barry abortionist!" Yay God!)
So, I'm merely suggesting the outlandish notion that, if you don't want to be called a hypocrite, you might try acting in a way that is less hypocritical.
Just some friendly advice.
"fewer regulations"
MA has been eating lead paint chips again.
I think Wall Street needs fewer regulations.
And those people who discover that imported Chinese baby formula contains melamine. They should have fewer regulations.
And the FAA. I mean, all those safety checks are just a waste of time.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to dispose of highly toxic waste from a chemistry lab? Let me tell you, it's a LOT. And there should be fewer regulations about that.
Because poisoned, maimed, or dead consumers are so much more effective at moving the economy forward.
On tax cuts and revenue. It took me less time to find three links that demonstrate very clearly that tax cuts do not, in fact, increase revenue than it did to read Art whine about how little time he had to actually, you know, find stuff to back up his claims.
I looked it up, Art. I've looked it up before, and written about it before. So, um, yawn.
And just for good measure, Paul Krugman has a handy-dandy graph that demonstrates from actual US history that the claim is demonstrably false.
I did all this by using Google, Art. Actual facts. Things that everyone can agree is real. Revenue. Tax rates. The things we're talking about. Falsifying your claim.
There you go again, Geoffrey, "cherry-picking" facts that examine the last 50-60 years. How could half a century -- almost a quarter of the time this country has been around -- during the most recent past be at all relevant?
And I look forward to MA's discourse about how the economic model discussed in your second link is only part of the evil librul gay commie Muslim abortionist feminazi flaming Dem agenda.
Go ahead, MA, let us discuss the paper in the second link like men. I'll even let you start by answering the following question:
"Read the paper at Geoffrey's second link. Demonstrate the authors' thesis is wrong. Show your work." (If you find it difficult to post integral calculus in the comment section, feel free to post a PDF of your calculations somewhere for us to examine.)
BTW, MA, some more for you...
You said, "I don't know of anyone on the right (of any significance) who does not agree that lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations leads to economic growth"
Here's Paul Ryan (you may know him as someone on the right of some significance, being the VP candidate and self-professed economy wonk begging Congress to vote for the TARP bailout of Wall Street; "Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles. But I'm going to vote for this bill — in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system.... I believe with all my heart — as bad as this is — it could get a whole lot worse, and that's why we have to pass this bill."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8qdYzdT9TI
That example not enough for you?
Well, here's the Republicans that voted for TARP from the House:
Bono Mack, Mary CA-45
Calvert, Ken CA-44
Campbell, John CA-48
Ehlers, Vernon MI-3
Ferguson, Michael NJ-7
Fossella, Vito NY-13
Herger, Walter CA-2
King, Peter NY-3
LaHood, Ray IL-18
Lewis, Jerry CA-41
McCrery, James LA-4
Peterson, John PA-5
Pickering, Charles MS-3
Radanovich, George CA-19
Ramstad, James MN-3
Regula, Ralph OH-16
Ryan, Paul WI
Saxton, H. NJ-3
Walsh, James NY-25
Wamp, Zach TN-3
Wilson, Heather NM-1
And the Senate
Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Seems like a few names of folks on the right of some "significance."
Still too much "cherry-picking"? Well a guy by the name of Paul Ryan, a person on the right of some significance, also voted for the auto bailout as did 32 of his Republican colleagues in the House:
Barton (TX)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Capito
Castle
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Frelinghuysen
Hoekstra
Hunter
King (NY)
Knollenberg
LaHood
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
Miller (MI)
Murphy, Tim
Porter
Ramstad
Regula
Rogers (MI)
Ryan (WI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Upton
Walsh (NY)
Young (AK)
And 10 Republicans from the Senate:
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Collins (R-ME)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Lugar (R-IN)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Took about 10 seconds to google that and demonstrate with facts that you were wrong, yet again.
By not having time, I mean, I work lots of hours. I had an easy night tonight. Only nine and a half hours. That puts me at about 34 hours or so in three days. I scan some blogs while winding down before bed and a bit more whilst eating breakfast before going back in. While you routinely post opinions without backing it up (until I stop by), you insist I do all the time. Here's a tip for you as you untwist your panties: I'll do things your way when I visit your blog. Oh wait. I don't visit your blog, so you'll just have to deal. In the meantime, I'll research as time allows and then you can pretend my sources aren't credible.
As to regs, it is so incredibly typical for the desperate like yourself to point to safety issues that I'm sure your company would ignore if not for regulations, right? Your employers are evil and twisted capitalists that don't care about public safety without regs telling them what to do, right? Regs that force them to comply by virtue of them being on the books, right?
More later as time allows. Deal with it.
Geoffie,
I know you have a huge man-crush on Paul Krugman, but he's worthless. And your links would mean something if not for the curious fact that every time tax rates have been cut, good things have happened. Every. Time.
But, as if this hasn't been said repeatedly, cutting taxes is not the only move reality-based people choose. Though revenues increased after the Bush tax cuts were in place, reductions in gov't spending and reviewing gov't regulations to eliminate those that unnecessary create the best environment for the private sector to thrive, which is what everyone claims to want.
You all clearly have more time to discuss any of this than I do. My apologies for not keeping up.
John to answer your earlier question... I'm sorry about Alan's brash way of putting things, but I think his point is well made and is my position. The economy was in a tailspin following eight years of GOPBush and it wasn't going to turn around or even stop its descent in a matter of weeks.
And, not surprisingly, I think Alan and Geoffrey have the best of it on the points they've made. Thanks fellas, although I still insist I want you to be more polite to other commenters. Just make your points - they're well made - without the snark.
Thank you.
Sure, Dan, I'll observe your rules as soon as all do. As soon as you chastise everyone, not just Alan and me.
It's that simple.
Art, how did I know you would ignore the links and restate your point without any evidence? Oh, that's right because you work so many hours unlike the rest of us who just have so much free time to take thirty five seconds to search Google to find evidence - evidence, Art, as in "things that support the claims I am making".
What a ridiculous person you are.
John to answer your earlier question... I'm sorry about Alan's brash way of putting things, but I think his point is well made and is my position. The economy was in a tailspin following eight years of GOPBush and it wasn't going to turn around or even stop its descent in a matter of weeks.
Dan, at what point does Obama become responsible for his own work? At what point can he no longer blame Bush for everything? According to Obama himself, it's three years.
Look at this chart again. Except for the red dots and the blue arrows, all of that was produced by the Obama Administration. He made predictions about the outcomes of his plans. Those predictions were spectacularly wrong.
Some Obama defenders have said that the state of the economy is beyond the President's control. Some Bush defenders said the same thing when the economy was poor during the Bush Administration.
They're both partially right. Beyond ensuring basic law and order for safe commerce and a reliable means of exchange, there's nothing that a government can do to help the economy. But there's a lot that governments can do to damage the economy.
Have you ever had a co-worker who was so incompetent that the most productive thing he could do was stay out of the way? Oh, he wants to help, but all he's doing is causing problems that slow down productivity.
That's government. So I want a government that will stay out of the way so the economy will recover. Which it will do on its own without government's "help."
The current or next President should follow the example of the wise President Harding. The economy went into a sharp depression in 1920. Harding was pressured to engage in government stimulus spending. Instead, he cut the budget drastically. He understood that the best thing that government could do to help the economy was nothing. Harding was right and the economy roared back to life.
Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are arguing that they know best how to manage the largest economy in the world. They're both wrong. No one person or group of people is as smart as everyone making individual decisions for their own self-interest. That's why I'm voting for the guy who promises to get government out of the way.
John,
Getting govt. out of the way is great an all.. But what does this mean for you? No govt? Limited govt? Something else?
My understanding is that MA would have no govt. Well, only enough to prevent homosexual marriage. Which, oddly, his govt. would need raise revenue.. which.. of course.. requires taxes.
I hope you understand my point. But. Every. Time. I see somebody write / say "Get govt. out of the way", I picture shanty towns, people living in filth, huge income disparity.. basically your run-of-the-mill 3rd world stuff.
Getting govt. out of the way is great an all.. But what does this mean for you? No govt? Limited govt? Something else?
I favor minimal government, but not the complete absence of government. I am especially interested in restricting the federal government to its Constitutionally permitted roles.
But. Every. Time. I see somebody write / say "Get govt. out of the way", I picture shanty towns, people living in filth, huge income disparity.. basically your run-of-the-mill 3rd world stuff.
Why?
Why John? Because painting the most dire picture sells the bad idea best, and that's how the left operates. You have stated the position I favor and have done so without the vast and detailed evidence I am so often expected to produce. The Harding example is a good one. What happens when the economy responds so well to policies like his is that more revenues are generated which can then be used to do what the gov't is meant to be doing. It also allows for more jobs, more income for individuals and results in fewer unemployed and fewer in need of assistance.
Geoffie,
Poor guy. As if Dan hasn't given me heat routinely. You are so put upon. Boo hoo.
Anyhow, it is more than merely jumping on the internet to find supporting evidence. I would need to peruse all of your links to, first, see if you even understand what you think you have, as you have in the past missed the point of even your own offerings, then to see if the case made is solid, then see what arguments are made in rebuttal and then present them in a manner that would be understood by such highly educated people as you and your boy, Alan. How much time do you think I should need for this after a twelve hour night? Do you think maybe I could have a little time to do a few personal chores or errands, or are you kids so special that I should devote more time to respond to your poor understandings?
For example, and this is so incredibly typical, few, if any conservatives look to only tax cuts as the be all and end all of our ideas on the best fiscal course for the nation. It is always part of a larger plan. Yet, you want to focus on some unstated notion that all we need are tax cuts. And then I'm supposed to spend time I don't have to fend off your weak arguments against them.
Then we have Alan, who thinks one vote on one issue means that my point regarding what conservatives believe is untrue. Why should I spend time to battle against one who will accuse me of what I never said and then "prove it" with that which doesn't?
This is a guy who apparently believes that every state and federal regulation on the books right now is so absolutely needed that to remove even one will lead to the deaths of millions, so screw the businesses that are burdened by them, they deserve it because they own the business so of course they can afford it.
Why? I am not interested in a race to the bottom.
People matter. From creating longterm economic stability to preventing moral decay to creating space for freedom, I support a government that supports its citizens.
"This is a guy who apparently believes that every state and federal regulation on the books right now is so absolutely needed that to remove even one will lead to the deaths of millions, so screw the businesses that are burdened by them, they deserve it because they own the business so of course they can afford it."
Prove it.
Give us a quote where I said that. Or anything like that.
You were on for 5 minutes, from 3:16-3:21. Surely it doesn't take even 1 minute to give me us one, just one bit of evidence to back up one, just one thing you're spewing.
"One vote, on one issue."
Actually, I gave you many many votes on two separate bills, TARP and the auto bailout.
You. Can't. Even. Count. To. Two. (hint: It's the one that comes after one.) And these aren't just two separate bills, but bills involving government spending to the tune of bazillions of dollars.
Please MA, at least learn to count to two before you respond, again, OK? The big kids are talking, kitten. Go outside and play.
(Seriously, you can't count to two...I mean...I know you're a total idiot, but I would have, if I had to guess, at least have given you the benefit of the doubt on counting to any number less than 10 using your fingers.... Guess I overestimated your abilities yet again.)
BTW, Dan, it isn't snarky if it is true. Since he has proven that cannot count to two, I don't think it's snarky to call him an idiot.
Now, one could give him the benefit of the doubt and say, "Oh, he just didn't read the whole thing...blah, blah, blah..." Then he's an idiot for participating in a conversation he doesn't understand.
Sorry, Dan, there isn't any way to spin this that has poor little MA coming out as the victim here being bullied by us big meanies. He's a moron, he's always been a moron, and that would be excusable if he just didn't spend his time proving how stupid he is by writing such stupid, unsupported crap. But he does so willingly, no one is making him come here and prove again and again what an oafish twit he is.
You let it happen as long as you let the trolls use your blog as a shitter, so chastising me ... probably not so useful.
Alan, my blog, my rules. I'm asking nicely that you just make your points without the snark.
With Marshall, he generally starts it so I'm not so concerned about him. But John is someone I consider a friend (or at least as much as an online stranger can be a friend) who likes to discuss these issues. When he disagrees with me, he does so politely.
I'm just asking you to respond in kind or not to respond at all.
OK, Art. Here's a challenge. It should be real simple for you.
You can even write a blog post at your own place instead of taking up space here.
Take a blog post of mine that uses supporting evidence. Then, in as much detail as you think necessary, make clear how I do not understand the source I am using. In fact, I'll help you out. Click here because I'm particularly proud of this piece. There are not one, nor two, but THREE links from which you can choose.
As to the question at hand . . . you're basically saying you aren't going to read the links. So how can you possibly know what they say or how I may or may not have understood them or that they do or do not support the argument that tax cuts do not, in fact, increase revenue. Can you find a link to a single source - any will do - that has actual evidence that tax cuts increase revenue? Just one. Not a theoretical argument, but actual evidence from a tax cut that increased revenue.
"When investigators from the Food and Drug Administration inspected NECC's facility, they found a fungal contaminate in a sealed vial of a steroid, methylprednisolone acetate."
Meningitis warning.. from your government.
My, my. The girls are in a snit, aren't they?
Dan,
I start nothing unless taking an opposing view and disagreeing with your posted opinions is "starting it". If this is the case, then you are "starting it" every time you post a comment at Stan's or John Barron's blog.
Alan,
Two things:
"One vote, one issue" referred to the notion that one vote on one issue means that this:
"I don't know of anyone on the right (of any significance) who does not agree that lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations leads to economic growth"
That is to say, slug (think of that as a term of endearment---sorta like "kitten"), that one vote on one issue does not mean a person's belief about how best to spur economic growth is invalid. How typical of you to assume the worst.
What's more, worm (think "kitten"), you seem to have no problem leaping to incredible assumptions about me and my positions, but you demand proof to support this:
"This is a guy who apparently believes that every state and federal regulation on the books right now is so absolutely needed that to remove even one will lead to the deaths of millions, so screw the businesses that are burdened by them, they deserve it because they own the business so of course they can afford it."
...in response to condescending remarks about Wall Street, Chinese, toxic waste and this:
"Because poisoned, maimed, or dead consumers are so much more effective at moving the economy forward.'
So obviously, you must believe there are absolutely no regulations on the books that can be lifted for the dire effects doing so, you appear to believe, will have on the population.
At when do I get to see you prove that I'm a moron? You haven't yet. Your tantrums don't do it.
Parklife wrote:
Why? I am not interested in a race to the bottom.
People matter. From creating longterm economic stability to preventing moral decay to creating space for freedom, I support a government that supports its citizens.
It would appear that you and I are trying to accomplish the same objective through different means.
One doesn't equal two, MA.
Lemme know when you've passed Kindergarten math. Until then I'll go back to ignoring you.
xxxooo
It's not a matter of math, Alan. It's a matter of honesty and portraying my statements accurately. I've explained mine and shown yours to be fraudulent. I'll say it again: one vote on one issue does not mean that a politician's core beliefs are invalid, false, deceptive or any other negative that suits your purposes of demeaning those that disagree with you. There are many reasons why a given politician might vote against his core beliefs and the end goal might require him to do so. This seems to be what the left suggests they want in terms of compromise, but dishonest members of that group use it to show "flip-flopping" or some such. My statement is accurate and is held by Ryan who agrees that lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations leads to economic growth. A vote here or there that seems to be in conflict with that belief does not mean the belief is not firmly held.
"My statement is accurate and is held by Ryan who agrees that lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations leads to economic growth"
Dont feel bad MA, Ryan cant explain the magic math either.
"It's a matter of honesty and portraying my statements accurately."
MA, your idea of what the "left" represents is not even close to reality. Perhaps gaining some background knowledge would be a good start.
"There are many reasons why a given politician might vote against his core beliefs and the end goal might require him to do so."
The ends justify the means.
Got it. I knew you believed it, I just don't think I've ever seen you such a clear and unadulterated proponent of situational ethics before.
I would love to hear what your fellow "conservative" blogging friends think about that one, but alas, I know it is part of your code never to disagree with each other or criticize. I guess because none of them disagree with you, they all agree with you.
Sorry...just jumping back to a conversation I was having on a thread a while back with Craig.
"A vote here or there that seems to be in conflict with that belief does not mean the belief is not firmly held."
Really? I would say it is the very definition of a belief not firmly held.
No. It's the definition of what a lib does when he sees an opportunity to twist a situation to his advantage. I'll seek out what I can regarding Ryan's reasons for voting the way he did on these issues and find that what you yourself have reprinted speaks to doing what he thought was the best route despite the seeming conflict in doing so.
But your position suggests that a good Christian who kills during wartime is not really a good Christian because he killed people during wartime. Good men often must do things they wouldn't ordinarily do in order to take care of business. In a perfect world, one's principles might not ever be compromised. This is not a perfect world.
At the same time, a few votes hardly indicates weakness or abdication of principles. Nor does it necessarily indicate the worst form of ends justifying the means. But again, I'm speaking of what good men often must do and I'm not entirely sure that you would understand anything about good men. Character-wise, that is.
Well, I guess that's what I get for expecting a serious,rational response without insult or stupidity.
It is interesting to see, however, that you believe holding people to their stated values and beliefs is only a liberal quality, and not something you would ever do. Not that I should be surprised, I suppose.
I'm surprised that you know of no examples where a "lib" has voted or acted against their "core beliefs" and if they have done so, it is only because it isn't a perfect world?
As for the killing during wartime scenario, I'm not sure how that fits at all, as I'm sure any number of Christians would hold to the core value of defending innocent life and freedom, which would not exclude killing during wartime, nor would that be an exception or post-hoc rationalization. But whatever.
Meh.
Well, I guess that's what I get for expecting a serious,rational response without insult or stupidity.
It is interesting to see, however, that you believe holding people to their stated values and beliefs is only a liberal quality, and not something you would ever do. Not that I should be surprised, I suppose.
I'm surprised that you know of no examples where a "lib" has voted or acted against their "core beliefs" and if they have done so, it is only because it isn't a perfect world?
As for the killing during wartime scenario, I'm not sure how that fits at all, as I'm sure any number of Christians would hold to the core value of defending innocent life and freedom, which would not exclude killing during wartime, nor would that be an exception or post-hoc rationalization. But whatever.
Meh.
Actually, Alan, it is difficult to nail Dan down on when killing another human being is acceptable. There are also many Christians who feel it is unacceptable to put murderers to death and to do so somehow works against Christian principles. Yet it doesn't do that at all. Thus, it is a perfect example of a good person going against his principles if that Christian sees all killing as evil, as Dan seems to, yet is willing to go to war to defend those innocents. Indeed, I believe that going to war goes against a basic Christian ethic despite it being necessary and not anti-Christian to do so. Most Christians would rather find peaceful solutions, including pretty much every conservative politician of whom I've ever heard because it goes against their principles to war. It's called doing what's necessary. It isn't uncommon, foreign or a new concept.
There are few likely examples of libs voting against principles because they don't work that way. Compromise is something they expect of the other side but aren't willing to do themselves. It's why Obama and his suck-ups like to say that their efforts are blocked by Republicans...because they aren't really serious about compromise.
I'd love to know what in the world got me dragged into this thread.
The last time I got into this type of exchange a certain commenter blatantly lied about my actions.
Unfortunately, even this little comment is probably too much, it's too bad really.
No worries, Craig. Your response answers my question exactly. ;)
---
MA, I got it. When Republicans routinely vote or work against their "core beliefs," it is in the spirit of compromise.
Democrats hold much more tightly to their core beliefs, it is because they refuse to compromise their principles.
I can't imagine a single Republican agreeing with that assessment, at least not publicly, but I have to say, MA, I think we have found two things on which I agree with you 100%.
1) For Republicans, situational ethics, "the ends justify the means" is a core belief, and
2) Republicans are much more willing to compromise their core beliefs, and Democrats are less likely to do so.
So, their refusal to pursue ending abortion, their refusal to vote for smaller government, to cut funding for various federal programs they say are wasteful and unnecessary, their refusal to move forward on a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, their votes for bail outs for the auto industry and Wall Street, etc... These are not evidence of a total lack of any moral compass whatsoever, nor are they evidence of a craven need to say anything to get elected whether one intends to pursue those goals ... instead, these are examples of compromising their beliefs in order to "compromise" with Democrats, in order to make government bigger, spend more tax money on private business, and completely forget about social moral issues.
Hey! How timely!
Here's Mitt talking today about how he's holding on to his core values regarding abortion:
"There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.
Alan,
I'm getting a little concerned. I went back to look, and I don't see that you asked me a question. I guess I should be pleased that I can answer your unasked questions.
For now here's an asked question.
Would you please leave me out of your conversations from now on?
No problem, Craig. Again, not a big deal. Feel free to begin treating it like not a big deal.
Or you can keep posting in order to make it a bigger deal, while asking to be left out of "it" (whatever "it" is.) :)
WTF, I'm pretty sure I never asked to be left out of "it".
I know it's tough because of my lengthy comments, but is "it" too much to ask that you accurately "quote" me.
No, you stop!
No you!
You!
No you.
OK, Craig, this has been swell and all, but the swelling's gone down now, so you'll have to continue on your own, with whatever it is you're going on and on about.
xxxooo
Post a Comment