# Yes, elections have consequences, but not these consequences **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632 "2015-01-22T23:44:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/21 "2015-01-23T04:42:31Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Really, you’ve studied that small point? Personally come to this conclusion? Or did you hear about it from [someone](http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/02/erik_paulsen_pushes_medical_device_tax_repeal_while_getting_megabucks_from_medical_industry.php)? Nope, I’ve never heard of Representative Paulsen. He’s not very high ranking, is he? > [@](#): > > [Here is a policy argument for it](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3684), for anyone who is interested. That’s hardly a policy argument, all it says is what the author(s) claim won’t happen because of the tax. “These three bad things won’t happen” is not a valid policy. IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/22 "2015-01-23T05:03:51Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Nope, I’ve never heard of Representative Paulsen. He’s not very high ranking, is he? He is the second-ranked Minnesota Republican now in Washington, and the point man for the one policy change example you picked. If you don’t know him, you’re not a close Washington-watcher (not a criticism), so you heard it from some pundit who heard it from him or someone affiliated with his effort. It is a small item in a huge bill. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That’s hardly a policy argument, all it says is what the author(s) claim won’t happen because of the tax. > > “These three bad things won’t happen” is not a valid policy. IMO. The argument _for_ the tax is that it is an acceptable component of running the ACA without increasing deficit spending, and that the industries so taxed will benefit even more from the increased business the ACA drives to them (essentially, we’re creating business for them, so they can help pay for the deal). The “three bad things” are the arguments against the tax from Paulsen, et al. Do you have some _other_ arguments on this policy point you picked? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/23 "2015-01-23T05:18:34Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > He is the second-ranked Minnesota Republican now in Washington, and the point man for the one policy change example you picked. Second, out of three. Huzzah! > [@](#): > > If you don’t know him, you’re not a close Washington-watcher (not a criticism), so you heard it from some pundit who heard it from him or someone affiliated with his effort. It is a small item in a huge bill. No one else has heard of this back bencher from MN. And no, I didn’t hear the medical devices tax from any pundit. That’s a b.s. accusation. > [@](#): > > The argument _for_ the tax is that it is an acceptable component of running the ACA without increasing deficit spending, and that the industries so taxed will benefit even more from the increased business the ACA drives to them (essentially, we’re creating business for them, so they can help pay for the deal). I, and millions of others, think that it’s unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/24 "2015-01-23T05:35:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > No one else has heard of this back bencher from MN. And no, I didn’t hear it from any pundit. That’s a b.s. accusation. Where else could you possibly have got it from? You’re obviously not a _Roll Call_ reader. Again, that’s not a criticism–but it _does_ mean that whatever information you have about wonkings of policy had to come through an intermediary. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I, and millions of others, think that it’s unacceptable. Yeah, whatever. You haven’t made the slightest gesture toward any policy argument here yourself; you’ve just baldly asserted that the opposition has none. I point to one, you still have nothing to say about it. You cited this detail of the law as a significant test of policy-versus-politics. If it is, you seem to be failing–filing yourself on the politics side. You oppose this tax because you heard somebody else say you should, perhaps simply because it is a “tax” within “Obamacare,” and those are trigger words. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/25 "2015-01-23T05:53:08Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Where else could you possibly have got it from? You’re obviously not a _Roll Call_ reader. Again, that’s not a criticism–but it _does_ mean that whatever information you have about wonkings of policy had to come through an intermediary. No intermediary. As an example, I just finished watching the debates and votes on the Keystone Pipeline amendments, which ended at approximately 12:25 AM. I also watch coverage of the House. Still never heard of Rep. Paulsen of MN. Big Player, he must be. You haven’t presented a policy position worth mentioning. (three reasons why something is not that bad doesn’t count). And I’ll thank you to stop misrepresenting my position. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/26 "2015-01-23T14:10:08Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > No intermediary. If you’re going to claim you read about it in the text of the ACA, I’m going to have to respectfully call bullshit. Otherwise, intermediary. . ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/27 "2015-01-23T14:26:11Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I don’t consider it triumphalism or boasting. That being said, folks on one side of the aisle have been squawking about “obstructionism” for the better part of six years. > > Suddenly, as if by magic, that squawking will go away, when the Democrat President obstructs the will of the people. Well, that’s just it, Congress can claim to represent the will of the people, but so with equal legitimacy can the POTUS, that’s our system. A midterm that goes against the POTUS’ party changes none of that. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/28 "2015-01-23T15:00:35Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > No intermediary. As an example, I just finished watching the debates and votes on the Keystone Pipeline amendments, which ended at approximately 12:25 AM. I also watch coverage of the House. I believe **Peremensoe** was asking what your argument is against a certain provision of the ACA. What does Keystone have to do with that? > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You haven’t presented a policy position worth mentioning. **Peremensoe** presented a policy position: ‘The argument for the tax is that it is an acceptable component of running the ACA without increasing deficit spending, and that the industries so taxed will benefit even more from the increased business the ACA drives to them (essentially, we’re creating business for them, so they can help pay for the deal).’ It is worth mentioning because **you** are the one who brought it up as an example. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/29 "2015-01-23T15:22:42Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but if President Obama does it, then it will be for policy ends, rather than political reasons, right? The difference in my mind is that the President is capable of operating on a data-driven basis, while the right seems to get their ideas from cuckooland. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/30 "2015-01-23T15:26:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I don’t consider it triumphalism or boasting. That being said, folks on one side of the aisle have been squawking about “obstructionism” for the better part of six years. > > Suddenly, as if by magic, that squawking will go away, when the Democrat President obstructs the will of the people. One issue with the “will of the people” argument is that Obama received more votes in 2012 tham all of the republican congressional candidates combined in 2014 due to voter turn out. Republicans control the congress but it is a stretch to draw any conclusions from that election to what Obama should do. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/31 "2015-01-23T15:27:49Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I, and millions of others, think that it’s unacceptable. And why? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/32 "2015-01-23T15:28:16Z")
> [@andros](#): > > If you’re going to claim you read about it in the text of the ACA, I’m going to have to respectfully call bullshit. Otherwise, intermediary. > . I read about it in the text of the ACA. Is that also bullshit? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/33 "2015-01-23T16:33:29Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You haven’t presented a policy position worth mentioning. (three reasons why something is not that bad doesn’t count). “It helps pay for things” is the policy behind nearly _every_ tax. You can’t handwave it away unless you want every federal tax repealed. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/34 "2015-01-23T16:58:57Z")
> [@andros](#): > > If you’re going to claim you read about it in the text of the ACA, I’m going to have to respectfully call bullshit. Otherwise, intermediary. > . If reading about it in a newspaper is using an intermediary, then guilty as charged. But it certainly wasn’t Representative Nobody Has Ever Heard Of from Wisconsin, or wherever, that Mr./Ms. Pere insisted I got it from. **Pere** Without using the internet, who is Representative Mike Bost? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/35 "2015-01-23T17:01:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I read about it in the text of the ACA. > > Is that also bullshit? Nope. I actually believe that _you_ have read the text of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/36 "2015-01-23T17:05:49Z")
Vetoing a bill isn’t obstructionism. Voting against a bill isn’t obstructionism, either. Both of those are part of the way our system of government is designed. If you can’t get a majority of legislators in both houses to agree to a bill, or can’t get a President voted in who will sign it, the bill doesn’t become law. The filibuster as currently used, however, is obstructionism. It’s not about preserving the will of the people; it’s about thwarting it. 40% should not be able to block the will of 60%. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/37 "2015-01-23T17:06:09Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > If reading about it in a newspaper is using an intermediary, then guilty as charged. But it certainly wasn’t Representative Nobody Has Ever Heard Of from Wisconsin, or wherever, that Mr./Ms. Pere insisted I got it from. Are you certain of that? I’m not doubting the newspaper part, mind you. But Paulsen spearheaded proposed legislation to kill the medical devices tax, got an awful lot of press about it, and was instrumental in bringing the issue into the public sphere. It would not IMO be out of the question that at least some of the talking points in the article you read came from his office or from his allies. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/38 "2015-01-23T17:08:53Z")
The President issued more veto threats in the SOTU than any other SOTU since at least WWII. > **[PolitiFact - Obama's State of the Union veto threats: most ever?](https://www.politifact.com/article/2015/jan/22/obamas-state-union-veto-threats-most-ever/)** > > President Barack Obama issued several not-so-thinly veiled veto threats to the new Republican-led Congress in his 2015 S That was on Tuesday, today is Friday, where are the examples of ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC and the rest calling out President Obama for obstructionism? Cue the sound of crickets, as expected. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/39 "2015-01-23T17:12:56Z")
Rhetoric is not obstructionism. When he actually exercises the veto pen, you will have more of a point. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/40 "2015-01-23T17:14:33Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > where are the examples of ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC and the rest calling out President Obama for obstructionism? [Maybe because it isn’t obstructionism](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18076096&postcount=36)? Also, you’re equating _threats_ of vetoes with the Republicans’ _actually_ obstructing legislation, to the point of shutting down the government and costing U.S. taxpayers $24 **billion**? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632.md?page=3)