The other thing Republicans will need to do is learn to interpret reality better. To accept that blustering that ‘they are all the same’ is not the same as things being the same. And many other similar cognitive failures.
And then they have to accept that in the cold hard light of reality, the core political beliefs their party has expressed for the last couple of decades are odious.
Correct. The two answers tackle the question very differently. But then, both questions are very different and require different answers. For a religious man like Obama (who is, at the very least, a deist), his answer isn’t wrong or even proof of some loony belief. Obama’s answer is more-or-less the mainstream religious answer to that question.
He didn’t mention science because the question wasn’t about science.
You know what? That doesn’t bother me that much. Sure, I would have liked him to just say the world was created 4.6 billion years ago, but look at what Obama’s supported and what the GOP has supported when it comes to education and science. Obama has my support and he has some leeway to trick the religious people into not hating him. The GOP, owing to their anti-science, intelligent design-teaching, creationist-loving, evolution-denying, climate change-hoaxing have no respect for science and no leeway at all to give an answer like that.
Here is a CNN story on his plan(s). We can see he originally wanted a defined contribution plan, which is not Medicare. His confusing modification would either not save any money or would cost seniors a good bit of money. And it depends on contributions matching, basically, the rise in health cares costs, which is the problem today. If they were in charge how soon do you think they’d decide the new plan was unaffordable and either cut funding or go back to defined contributions? I tend to believe someone’s first proposal, not one modified based on political necessity - and the point here, remember, is whether Ryan supports the basic principle of Medicare.
I hear you. The similarity I see is that they both claim not to know the answer. Rubio’s stand is harder- he claims we can’t answer the question. Obama just says he doesn’t know. And they are answering different questions as has been pointed out.
But the thing is, it appears that there* is* an answer to this question, and what seems to amount for proof of it. Examine my photographic evidence of a great unconformity. If you are smart enough to get elected to high office, surely you can interpret what you’re seeing in these links and will find it difficult to look me in the eye and say you are not sure if the Earth is something like 6 thousand years old or something more like billions.
A poster accused me of not being fair at all. I’d like to draw an analogy to the ‘fair and balanced’ approach of Fox news, which insists on two sides to every issue. Sometimes there aren’t two sides. Sometimes there are right and wrong answers. There can be calls for a debate, but in some instances there is more opportunity for schooling than debating.
I agree that Obama is some kind of religious. But compare it to Clinton’s blowjobs. Not what you’re looking for in a candidate perhaps, but at the end of the day if the job performance is there, it doesn’t matter so much. Clinton overall seems to get a thumbs up in performance, while zero-bj W does not. Obama does generally behave like a good president, so his religiosity doesn’t seem to matter. If this were Rick Santorum I am sure we’d see a different story.
Anyway, this can be extended by analogy to Ryan’s budget plans and likely outcomes to solutions to SS and Medicare problems and so on. Some views will prove incompetent for their tainting by personal/party ideologies, and some views will hold fairly rigorously to accepted facts and procedures.
Removing the payroll tax cap.
Defined contribution doesn’t mean no Medicare, it described the level of funding. And I don’t know why this, out of the countless plans modified through discussion and out of political necessity, betrays base motives.
I accept the fact that there is simply no way to keep Medicare intact as is, coverage and/or funding has to give. Pointing out that this reduces government expenditures or changes benefits is not a shock. But if Ryan’s plan doesn’t do the trick, we need to find something that will. “Change nothing” is not sustainable. But before this turns into debate on Medicare, I’d point out you’re making my point. You don’t see the need to really explore Ryan’s current proposal, ISTM, because you know what he really wants to do–eliminate Medicare. That’s the sentiment that destroys the possibility of true debate. That’s the brand issue we need to overcome.
I refuse to damn Rubio’s answer on the reasoning that he was asked a different question than Obama was. “Rubio’s question had the word ‘science’ in it!”
I can see a slight difference in Obama saying “I don’t know” and Rubio’s saying “We don’t know,” but that’s really weak sauce.
If he would say he wouldn’t pursue creationism being taught in public schools, he could say [del]Jesus is an alien from a different planet[/del] [del]dinosaurs are pre-flood monsters[/del], um, something really wacky, for all I care.
The problem with Medicare is that we had to trick the right-leaning people into think it wasn’t welfare, hence the reason people who obviously would never need it didn’t have to pay. But seeing as the Republicans admit that it’s welfare now, we should be able to move on.
It is the artificial cap that caused the problem. It prevents the market from doing what it should, i.e., increase the amount of money with the increase of participants. The free market has proportionally more money in it than it did when Medicare was established, so there shouldn’t be a problem.
:mad: Dammit, you can’t call “I’m not being facetious here”! It’s too confusing!
Dammit, you’re right! :mad:
I never accused him of base motives. At best he modified a position he held which would get his ass kicked in a national campaign. Given that he was running for Veep, and thus did not set the agenda, that is politics as expected. If that defines base motives, there is no successful politician without them.
Now, I’m sure some part of it would be called Medicare, since it is popular, but calling a 401K (a defined contribution plan) a pension doesn’t make it one.
The details of Medicare don’t really matter. If you believe Ryan when he says he is against big government - and I see no reason not to - you must believe that deep in his heart he wants to radically change Medicare, one of the biggest of big government programs. Is that so hard to swallow?
Sorry to disappear for days at a time, but I’m so busy that is going to be how it usually goes.
Let’s take a look at your idea of ‘straining to confirm something’. I freely admit I am disposed to take issue with Coulter and Will since I have disagreed with them often enough in the past. But if I’m being partisan, why then it means I’m losing my objectivity and cannot be taken as seriously as I’d like. I try to avoid partisanship in favor of pragmatism. Let’s look at one of Will’s quotes in this light:
Tell me if you think I am imagining things: Will is attempting to persuade people motivated by racism to cut it out because the immigrants are behaving in a way that jibes with core conservative principles, namely ‘entrepreneurship’. Will is the one ‘straining to conform to something’ here, trying to overcome the core white-centeredness of the GOP with an appeal to its economic values. Isn’t the simplest approach the best? Do immigrants need to be ‘entrepreneurs’ before they can be accepted, or is the melting pot simply The American Way? Looks like the former according to the GOP. Look at Republicans announce immigration reform initiatives ahead of fiscal cliff talks. They’re prepared to accept Latino immigrants given that they have college degrees or are enlisted in the military, otherwise, not so much. The message seems to be that the GOP is willing to accept already-successful (or militarily useful) immigrants, but the ones whose ‘entrepreneurship’ is still in progress can take a hike. I’m sure Latino voters will be underwhelmed.
But let’s get on with the quote we’re really wrangling about, this one:
I’m all for both parties being checks on each other when they are both honest, but can you not see where Will is blind? I’m going to give you a hint: Obama voter =/= liberal.
I find it immensely offensive that the right insists on labeling everyone who does not vote for their candidates as a ‘liberal’, saddling them with a label which has been loaded with probably decades of hateful propaganda by now. Does someone have to be ‘an enthusiast of government’ to notice that GOP candidates are pathological liars pandering to a mad and often racist base who seem to want to destroy all government in nearly all its forms? Do I fit neatly on one side of a line preferring public over private spaces because I have the minimum cranial capacity required to notice that GOP candidates are plutocratic shills who would sell [del]their own[/del] my grandmothers to a dog food factory if it would turn a profit?
You’re focusing on the presidential level, so let’s tackle Will’s statism comments in that context. Because I was able to notice that Mitt Romney was utterly duplicitous with every utterance to mask his naked intention to undermine SS and Medicare, along with every other public program (all the way down to Sesame Street), does that mean I should accept Will’s libertarian-derisive labeling of me as a ‘statist’, that I am somehow sinning against aristocratic anarchy by suggesting that We The People should have ANY ability to oppose those who would happily enslave us all in the name of profit? Do I need to accept the disparaging label of ‘entitlements’ to every public insurance program which people pay into their whole working lives with the expectation of drawing on someday? Who does Will think he is talking about? Are immigrants going to be ‘skeptical’ of his notion of statism, or would they favor some degree of government protection from racist aristocrats after taking the trouble to immigrate here for the privilege of living in a dump and working for minimum wage? Will anyone who simply works for a living even buy his stand on ‘skepticism about statism’? I doubt it, but hey, primary on that and prove me wrong.
Look, if the Right wants to continue on this track of contrived blindness, as a tactical matter the left’s best move would be to sit back and tell y’all to just keep on primary-ing against ‘liberals’. But what is ultimately best for the people probably won’t be so… uh, ‘canned’ I guess. Anwyay, I’ll support my comments about undermining SS and Medicare in my next post.
Oh, now Santorum’s comments make sense. If all US citizens have the opportunity to go to college, then that’d be an unfair advantage over Latinos. Obama was being a bigoted snob by suggesting as such.
Oh sure, they’re firmly sold on the idea that it’s their lazy mooching self accepting the mere notion of a living wage that’s causing all the problems in the country. Now if only we could abolish the state and repeal the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we’d see an anarcho-capitalist paradise. You know, as envisioned by Malatesta… No, not quite. Godwin? Nope. Hrmm. Mises? Nope again:
I disagree with the OP’s position.
McCain was a well-known moderate. It was only after he was nominated (or at least the nominee-presumtive) that he felt it necessary to appeal to the Right with a change in some positions and the choice of Palin as vice-president. That cost him the election although he may have still lost to Obama simply by having ® after his name after 8 years of GW.
Romney likewise was a clear moderate and could have won this election if he didn’t run one of the worst campaigns of recent memory. Obama just sat back and let him lose.
Well… I have heard of these authors, but I haven’t read a single word of any of them (aside from your quote). I feel like I am being whooshed. Can you elaborate some more on what you are trying to get at? If the point is that you are presenting the classical definition of ‘liberalism’ (whatever that is, I don’t know that either), I am sure it is not the way the word is used in the US today (hint: Google ‘nigger’; compare). Frankly the word ‘liberal’ is usually an insult and a way to dodge responding directly to anyone. It is sheer propaganda in my experience, devoid of any practical meaning. I am not kidding when I say I resent being labeled as such, if only for the meaninglessness of it. George Will, for example, is an utter asshole for labeling Obama voters as ‘liberals’, as if there is some explanation there. If that’s it, he is wasting our time and is a worthless hack.
I’m riffing on the idea that the lumpenproletariat view statism in precisely the same way as a Libertarian. Broadly speaking, the latter envision minarchism (post + police state), or even complete mercenarisation. The former would, I’d assume, prefer some version of syndicalism where the aspects of the state beneficial to them were preserved. The methods used to achieve these goals will always be antagonistic to each other. The proletariat will call for increased social spending with the view to reducing the proportion of the budget used in social control, while the anarchocapitalists will call for reductions in social spending to increase the dependence of the poor on their magnanimous employers.
I have to admire William Godwin for recognising that capitalism, an inherently social endeavour, is the antithesis to individualism. The only coherent anarchocapitalist I can think of is Murray Rothbard, with Sam Konkin coming in second.
Edit: also, the liberal paradox.
…who insisted ferociously that he was not only a conservative, but a “severe conservative.”
I’m wondering if maybe you were covering your eyes and ears throughout the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012. That’d be a very understandable impulse but I think you missed a few details. Remember how McCain felt obliged to make public appearances with Jerry Falwell, the guy he’d once denounced as an “agent of intolerance?” That’s not the whole reason he lost, of course, but it’s an instructive example.
First, I would like to sincerely congratulate you for posting very much like a syllabus.
Next, I’d like to point out that the would-be anarchocapitalists seem to have played out their hand at the moment- as Su Tong would say, “The wind blows one way for thirty years, then the other way for thirty years.” I think the strategy/technique of going to war while cutting taxes and also regulations of all kinds while blaming everything on ‘liberals’ until the resulting debt/leverage ‘demands’ cuts in public programs has become transparent and will not fly again for some time, even though it now appears that ‘entitlements’ are going to take a bit of a haircut. The hard-right GOP base, the kind of people that GOP candidates have to pander to in primaries and who are most susceptible to this kind of material, do not yet seem willing to accept the kinds of changes that are taking place. Some disagree, but I think for the next few cycles at least the primary process is going to be a very real handicap to the GOP’s White House aspirations.