It wasn’t this guy at CNN.
Or this one at the Boston Globe.
Obama’s sales pitch was not that his plan would merely cover more people, but that it would keep costs down nationally.
It’s only a few years in, but the Massachusetts plan has thus far failed dramatically at the latter task.
The goal of the Massachusetts plan was universal coverage, not cost cutting. The federal plan doesn’t achieve universal coverage (although it gets closer than what previously existed), and it is supposed to reduce costs by raising revenue and eliminating some Medicare spending.
Reducing costs by raising revenue? Nice trick.
Yeah, that wasn’t the best wording. It’s supposed to eliminate a chunk of Medicare spending, with the rest of the costs covered by increased revenue. The rest of the savings are supposed to come from a more functional system (fewer people going to the emergency room use, for example) which I didn’t mention because that part would presumably also apply to the Massachusetts program.
You two sort it out among yourselves.
If you’re arguing the Mass bill was not intended to cut costs and had a very different purpose than Obama’s bill, I agree. But it makes no sense to say that Obama should have used one to promote the other, and then turn around and say the two bills had different goals.
If Obama had tried to use Massachusetts as his precedent, the fact that the Massachusetts plan has proved wildly expensive would have been the obvious response.
And politics is all about perception, not reality. It doesn’t matter what’s supported factually, just what the electorate believes.
Assuming this is true, WHY does federal law trump state law?
Or so you wish. Unfortunately, the opposite result was reached in the deciding case of Grant v. Lee (1865).
But you know that.
If Obama and the Democrats aren’t going to challenge the Neocons on anything substantial such as I suggested here - if they won’t make a case on GOP failures or political hypocrisy and repeat them and point them out consistently how do they begin making conservative voters take a second look? It’s a failure of messaging more than anything. Other than also going over major Democratic successes from the mid 30’s through the 60’s. Even Eisenhower was convinced to become a Keynesian.
I’m curious - who do you call a Neocon? I had thought that term generally meant the muscular foreign policy, lower-taxing and freer-spending Bush/Condi/Wolfowitz types. If anything, the party is currently dominated by the tea party types; lower taxes, lower spending, and most definitely lower government footprint, which they equate with freedom.
Or is anyone not a Democrat a neocon? I get from your post that you’re uber lefty, Bush lied people died, etc etc, so we’ll stipulate that, no worries. Those Pubtards. Or whatever.
Edit to add: I could probably make an argument that, from a foreign policy perspective, Obama is more ‘neocon’ than the current GOP leadership, which is starting to sing some isolationist songs, compared to your boy’s adventures in Lybia and elsewhere.
You’re looking for a contradiction where none exists. I said the two laws had a lot of points in common (which they do) and a different goal.
Of course you can. You can say “the laws are similar, but the federal law has additional features that are supposed to reduce costs.” I’m not sure how well that approach would have worked with the public, especially with the people who were the most opposed to the law. Then again, the Democrats seem to have assumed at the time that nobody could be stupid enough to believe all that bullshit about death panels, and they were wrong about that.
Actually, I think Obama knew exactly how well that approach would have worked, which is why he made no attempt to link his proposal to Massachusetts.’
Actually, I think that nearly every Republican in congress or running for president is a Neocon to some extent or they certainly bend to their will. Snowe and Collins may be a couple of exceptions. The Tea Partiers are mostly neoconservative ideologues squared to a great extent with some libertarian leanings. Since when did neoconservatives not sing the praises of what the Tea Partiers have taken them seriously on? Absolutely nothing new there, other than, of course, they didn’t walk the talk. But I don’t think that libertarians hold any great sway over the party, nor do I consider them too far removed from neoconservative ideals other than being even more fanatical over the idea of smaller government. We are seeing Republicans get squeezed by the idea of lower spending but we’ll see how well that plays out. They’ll get some, but if the economy does weaken by next year there may be a bit of a Keynesian resurgence on the left. Maybe.
I certainly don’t think that Obama favors the idea of empire as the bible of the neocon movement, the Project for a New American Century, generally asserted as a goal. But I don’t disagree entirely with your assessment of some of his foreign policy initiatives. Obama has as much of a Blue Dog side as he does a Centrist side. But I disagree with you in that he favors much discussion with other countries compared to the “my way or the highway” / isolationist stance of most neoconservatives. To some extent, his Libya excursion wasn’t much different than Grenada in that we have more or less been in and out. We’re lending some air support as a NATO allie, but it’s basically the European’s oil and they are the ones who are spearheading the Libyan effort.
Furthermore, the likes of an Eisenhower, a Nixon, a Rockefeller or pretty much any moderate is likely to get elected other than the occasional one or two of them. Sure, some Democratic Blue Dogs may well be Neocons. But to the GOP a moderate, in their view, is basically a liberal and they’ve pretty much gone extinct in that party as far as Washington is concerned. Any consideration of an idea from the left that is not favored by Neoconservatives is basically stomped out pretty quick on the right. There is little serious discussion or compromise with the left, a classic Neocon trait.
And what do you consider to be an Uber-Liberal, if I may ask? I consider myself a progressive and I like PayGo. I have a real problem with endless subsidies and think we need very strong 2-3 year hard sunsets on most of them, that they should be seed money or emergency funding. And if we need to extend them beyond 5 years for the exceptions we need to look at revising how and why we make those agriculture and military and other such subsidies. I applaud the execution of Osama Bin Laden. I couldn’t understand why, when we went to war in Afghanistan and even Iraq why we didn’t follow the Powell doctrine and overwhelm them with numbers from the first and tried to get equal numbers out of NATO. 1/2 a million troops or more to overwhelm and then hold the ground as we did as well as we could in WWII under Democrats. Actually I know quite a few conservatives with whom both they and I can find a fair amount of agreement on a number of things with once they have a chance to let me discuss my viewpoints at a little length.
Indeed though, I take your point that the Democratic party is a wide open tent with some pretty strongly conservative members and even some moderates who could have been Republicans 30 or 40 years ago as well as the more progressive side. That’s one of the biggest difference between the two parties. There are no liberal Republicans and nary a moderate.
A well thought out reply, Snag, thanks.
I don’t agree with some of your points, especially that the Democratic party runs the spectrum of left-to-sort-of-conservative, at least from a size-of-government point of view (which is probably the most important issue there is). If you think that the Democrat party has some ‘pretty strongly conservative members’, that might only be from your POV, which like so many on this board, is liberal. Speaking as a moderate, I’d say you can count the number of conservative Democrats on the one hand of a bad woodshop teacher.
The CBO released a new report a day or two ago - it details a fiscal trainwreck, which is what Paul Ryan was warning about. We’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we have to get ahold of entitlement spending, not create more of it, and not demagogue people who try to fix it.
By neocon I was mainly referring to the foreign adventures stuff. Wiki says neocon means using our military might to topple dictators and put in democracies. Isn’t that sort of what Obama is doing, picking a side in a civil war? Most of the GOP candidates for president (what passes for their leadership cabal I guess) are questioning our Libya moves - what’s the criteria? How is this any different from Sudan? Are we the world’s policeman now, after you (Democrats) criticized Bush for doing something similar in Iraq and Afghanistan?
That’s neocon.
I seriously doubt the current candidates will ‘bend to their will’; if anything, they will follow the lead of the tea party and trumpet a message of smaller government before we end up like Greece (which is not far off, if you read the CBO report).
This is off topic, but you are aware that Bush himself criticized foreign adventurism when he was a candidate (attacking the Bosnian intervention in particular) and swore he would never partake of nation-building. The current GOP candidates making similar claims means absolutely nothing in the face of the realities of past actions.
Parties out of power are against military interventions. Parties in power support them. This is nothing new.
We’re getting away from health care here, but if Ryan is serious about reducing spending and deficits, why is he proposing huge tax cuts?
Yes, I remember that. I suspect that Bush would say that 9/11 changed everything. Once we had that kind of Pearl Harbor-ish attack on our shores, we couldn’t take any risks that there’d be more attacks, this time with WMD. Play the away game so we don’t have to play the home game, etc. Not that I would necessarily agree, but that’s what he’d say.
Read Will’s piece in the WaPo this morning. Americans are war weary (as the piece says, U.S. involvement in the Second World War lasted 1,346 days. U.S. fighting in Afghanistan reached that milestone six years ago). George talks about McCain, who certainly fits our working definition of Neocon, saying that the American interest in Libya is ‘American values’. Well then. By that measure, we will be at war forever, spending ourselves into oblivion (not to even mention the loss of life).
Obama clearly fits the definition of Neocon here, what with his shifting reasons for going into Libya and World Cop act (and please don’t say that it’s NATO, not us - that’s like saying Michael Jordan and the towel boy combined for 60 points one time). As Will points out, Reagan knew to get us out of Lebanon’s civil war (vague mission, dangerous rules of engagement). It would be nice if Obama had that kind of courage/experience/competence.
You would have to ask him.
I don’t necessarily agree with cutting taxes, although I get the idea (stimulate the economy… which is getting hammered yet again this morning… to try to grow out of our hole). It could work, but only if you stop the runaway spending. Obamacare makes more of it. It has very few appetite suppressants for healthcare - in fact, it encourages more of it (see yesterday’s articleabout how middle class folks now will get Medicaid due to this crazy 2000 page law that was rushed through and nobody read?)
He’s suggesting cuts in spending, which will hurt the economy and help the deficit, to go with tax cuts, which could help stimulate the economy and make the deficit worse. Pairing these ideas could not make less sense, and I’m not sure it’s even supposed to make sense. As it is, the stimulus package was overloaded with tax cuts, which don’t help the economy as much as spending does. It makes sense to tackle spending when the economy is doing better, not when it’s struggling to recover.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it reduces spending by less than it is supposed to. But you know why it’s not going to tackle the bigger spending problem, right? Republicans pitched a fit over the provisions that would have done more about that.
It was not rushed through, and it did not go unread.
:dubious:
This is a bit like saying they are “rigid and devout Catholics with some Atheist leanings.” The two things contradict each other. They can (and do) coexist in the same party, and they could even be said to coexist in a person if you explain how and where the differences are. But willingness to intervene militarily to advance humanitarian causes is pretty much the defining trait of neoconservatism, and reluctance to use military force for anything but national defense is one of the defining elements of Libertarianism.