Debate II

[Brock Beauchamp]

  Ultima Ratio said:

  Brock Beauchamp said:

 

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult.

 

Let me gently correct one glaring error: control of one chamber (the house) does not equal control of congress. In other news, the Democrats did in fact control congress the first two years of the Obama presidency, with a super majority for several months.

 

I'm sure you don't remember how Obama dismissed and demeaned Republicans during those two years either. He didn't want their participation or support -- because he didn't need it....... THEN. And it is pretty rich to cry out in indignation over bipartisanship after the landslide 2010 elections.

 

Actually, I do remember how Obama treated the Republicans, which I why I said some of the blame is laid at his feet. But Obama and the Democrats did not show the outright vitriol that the Republicans have shown in the past two years. To deny that is to deny reality. The Democrats didn't like the Republicans but after the Republicans took the House, they showed outright hatred for the Democrats, Obama in particular. I thought the vitriol aimed at Bush was a new low for this country but the GOP has managed to one-up that with Obama in office. It's disgusting to anyone who doesn't buy into either party's bull****.

 

As for not controlling Congress, meh. The House is where most bills start and that's the branch that matters in this type of discussion.

[biggentleben]

  glunn said:

  biggentleben said:

The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

 

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

 

I actually wasn't talking about any corporate handouts. Both Romney and Ryan's families received welfare assistance when they were boys. Without that assistance, who knows if they're in this spot today. Yet they want to remove that assistance for others to reach their "lofty" seats at the table.

[Brock Beauchamp]

  biggentleben said:

  glunn said:

  biggentleben said:

The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

 

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

 

I actually wasn't talking about any corporate handouts. Both Romney and Ryan's families received welfare assistance when they were boys. Without that assistance, who knows if they're in this spot today. Yet they want to remove that assistance for others to reach their "lofty" seats at the table.

 

I used to be more down on the Welfare system until I met my now-fiancee. She grew up on Welfare. Her mother had issues and couldn't hold down a job.

 

Now my fiancee is a lawyer at a mid-sized law firm in Minneapolis. I think it's safe to say that Welfare money was well-spent. Now, those situations are certainly not the case all the time (or even the majority of the time) but without that assistance, my fiancee would have had zero chance of ever becoming the successful lawyer she is today, paying considerable taxes into the system.

 

I'm against "Welfare Queens". I mean, who isn't? But we shouldn't be concerned about them. They're a blight on the system but the real concern is their children. Those kids deserve a legitimate shot at success, just like the one my fiancee ultimately received as she went through the system.

 

And there is simply no good way to lock out the "Welfare Queens" without doing considerable damage to their children as well. I'm all for Welfare-to-Work programs and other associated programs that try to get people out of the system but calling for drastic cuts to funding without consideration for the damage it could do to everyone in it is foolish and short-sighted.

[Squirrel]

  Brock Beauchamp said:

 

 

 

I used to be more down on the Welfare system until I met my now-fiancee. She grew up on Welfare. Her mother had issues and couldn't hold down a job.

 

Now my fiancee is a lawyer at a mid-sized law firm in Minneapolis. I think it's safe to say that Welfare money was well-spent. Now, those situations are certainly not the case all the time (or even the majority of the time) but without that assistance, my fiancee would have had zero chance of ever becoming the successful lawyer she is today, paying considerable taxes into the system.

 

I'm against "Welfare Queens". I mean, who isn't? But we shouldn't be concerned about them. They're a blight on the system but the real concern is their children. Those kids deserve a legitimate shot at success, just like the one my fiancee ultimately received as she went through the system.

 

And there is simply no good way to lock out the "Welfare Queens" without doing considerable damage to their children as well. I'm all for Welfare-to-Work programs and other associated programs that try to get people out of the system but calling for drastic cuts to funding without consideration for the damage it could do to everyone in it is foolish and short-sighted.

 

There are more success stories out there than you may think. It's just that the 'Welfare Queens' stories are the ones that are repeated over and over and over again until that's all people think of welfare. Do you remember former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe? She had 3 small children when her then husband up and abandoned them all. She went on welfare, put herself through school, became a teacher, etc. People DO use welfare as it's intended and do succeed. And, as Brock said, drastic cutting without thinking does a lot of damage, especially to the children involved.

[TheLeviathan]

Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

[biggentleben]

  TheLeviathan said:

Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

 

I agree. That's why I cannot stand the extremism of both sides. Either all in or all out.

[Willihammer]

I will not vote till someone pledges a program to carpet bomb the country with condoms and morning after pills and Mifepristone.

[glunn]

  biggentleben said:

  TheLeviathan said:

Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

 

I agree. That's why I cannot stand the extremism of both sides. Either all in or all out.

 

I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

[Brock Beauchamp]

  glunn said:

I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

 

This country could use an Ike right now.

 

Too bad that neither party is interested in nominating a moderate who blurs party lines.

[PseudoSABR]

  Brock Beauchamp said:

  glunn said:

I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

 

This country could use an Ike right now.

 

Too bad that neither party is interested in nominating a moderate who blurs party lines.

I think that's unfair. I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty moderate Dems. Afterall the healthcare plan was a conservative idea. With the obstinance of Congressional Republicans a more moderate Democrat in the Whitehouse would hardly matter.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

[i think that's unfair. I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty moderate Dems. Afterall the healthcare plan was a conservative idea. With the obstinance of Congressional Republicans a more moderate Democrat in the Whitehouse would hardly matter.

 

Obama isn't moderate. That's not coming from a conservative, that's coming from a libertarian independent. He's far more liberal than Clinton. Clinton was probably the last sensible, moderate President we've had. There's a reason why Obama is parading him around to do the heavy lifting.

 

I appreciate Obama being tough on the terrorism angle in terms of military action, but the guy still talks like a liberal. He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there. This country is in genuine need of someone who won't just talk it come the main election cycle, we need someone who's no-nonsense and common sense to the core. Once again we don't get that choice.

[Squirrel]

  TheLeviathan said:

He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there.

 

That's kind of what I think about you claiming to be a libertarian independent when I really think you are a republican. Maybe it's just that you feel it necessary to play devil's advocate to Pseudo's democrat but I've really heard nothing from you that doesn't reek of republican. It's all a matter of perspective and I don't think Obama is as liberal as you claim.

[PseudoSABR]

  TheLeviathan said:

  PseudoSABR said:

[i think that's unfair. I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty moderate Dems. Afterall the healthcare plan was a conservative idea. With the obstinance of Congressional Republicans a more moderate Democrat in the Whitehouse would hardly matter.

 

Obama isn't moderate. That's not coming from a conservative, that's coming from a libertarian independent. He's far more liberal than Clinton. Clinton was probably the last sensible, moderate President we've had. There's a reason why Obama is parading him around to do the heavy lifting.

 

I appreciate Obama being tough on the terrorism angle in terms of military action, but the guy still talks like a liberal. He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there. This country is in genuine need of someone who won't just talk it come the main election cycle, we need someone who's no-nonsense and common sense to the core. Once again we don't get that choice.

Let's see some policy that backs up Obama as a liberal. Student loan reform? Repealing DADT? I'm a liberal and largely, I've been disappointed with his progressivism.

[PseudoSABR]

  ChiTownTwinsFan said:

  TheLeviathan said:

He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there.

 

That's kind of what I think about you claiming to be a libertarian independent when I really think you are a republican. Maybe it's just that you feel it necessary to play devil's advocate to Pseudo's democrat but I've really heard nothing from you that doesn't reek of republican. It's all a matter of perspective and I don't think Obama is as liberal as you claim.

I wouldn't ever call Levi a Republican, but he's certainly far right in some of his underlying assumptions about politics and people. To his credit, he's not a sucker at all for the Republican schmucks.

[TheLeviathan]

  ChiTownTwinsFan said:

That's kind of what I think about you claiming to be a libertarian independent when I really think you are a republican. Maybe it's just that you feel it necessary to play devil's advocate to Pseudo's democrat but I've really heard nothing from you that doesn't reek of republican. It's all a matter of perspective and I don't think Obama is as liberal as you claim.

 

You mean like when I've reamed Hornhead for privitizing education, gay marriage, drug legalization, abortion law, etc? You and I have very different ideas of what a Republican is apparently.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

Let's see some policy that backs up Obama as a liberal. Student loan reform? Repealing DADT? I'm a liberal and largely, I've been disappointed with his progressivism.

 

How about everything associated with the bailouts? Not that Republicans wouldn't have done it to, but it was more the methods behind it.

 

I'm hardly "far right" about people. Unless you consider not being a pollyanna "far right". I'm just realistic about people, if we spent more time doing that we might really make some progress. Compassion doesn't have to end because you acknowledge the limitations of humanity and refuse to indulge them. You just change your orientation. That underlying assumption (compassion = indulging) is a major reason why we have so many problems with education and social welfare. And that foundational belief has flooded left-wing thinking to the point of making it so obnoxious and counter-productive that I rail against it every opportunity I have.

[PseudoSABR]

  TheLeviathan said:

  PseudoSABR said:

Let's see some policy that backs up Obama as a liberal. Student loan reform? Repealing DADT? I'm a liberal and largely, I've been disappointed with his progressivism.

 

How about everything associated with the bailouts? Not that Republicans wouldn't have done it to, but it was more the methods behind it.

 

I'm hardly "far right" about people. Unless you consider not being a pollyanna "far right". I'm just realistic about people, if we spent more time doing that we might really make some progress. Compassion doesn't have to end because you acknowledge the limitations of humanity and refuse to indulge them. You just change your orientation. That underlying assumption (compassion = indulging) is a major reason why we have so many problems with education and social welfare. And that foundational belief has flooded left-wing thinking to the point of making it so obnoxious and counter-productive that I rail against it every opportunity I have.

Everyone thinks they are being realistic. It's why they believe what they believe. I could give a **** about compassion in and of itself; it's about giving people the means to provide for themselves. I think government has a role and a responsibility in providing those means; my sense is your less sure if such means are worth the effort. It's fine and perfectly reasonable that you have some cynicism about the spirit of humanity; but that paints you pretty far right. Downplaying our responsibility to our fellow mankind is precisely the underlying assumptions I'm talking about. I don't want to get into it with you, but you start with a pretty conservative notion of why people fail, about why people are poor.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

Everyone thinks they are being realistic. It's why they believe what they believe. I could give a **** about compassion in and of itself; it's about giving people the means to provide for themselves. I think government has a role and a responsibility in providing those means; my sense is your less sure if such means are worth the effort. It's fine and perfectly reasonable that you have some cynicism about the spirit of humanity; but that paints you pretty far right. Downplaying our responsibility to our fellow mankind is precisely the underlying assumptions I'm talking about. I don't want to get into it with you, but you start with a pretty conservative notion of why people fail, about why people are poor.

 

It's not "conservative", it's simply realistic. Not everyone is intelligent. Or hard working. Or talented. Unless you want to start manipulating genetic code it's never going to be the case. (Certainly not with today's breeding rate for the college educated vs. the poor. Idiocracy baby) I have no problem giving people opportunity when they are hard on their luck and providing help that can do that. I won't, however, cross the line into doing it for them. No matter how much you socially program you, as the old saying goes, "can't fix stupid" Not everyone fails for that reason, hence why we need programs that give those that are unlucky or from unfortunate circumstances all the tools we have. The issue is that the system lefties push is oriented to "fix stupid" rather than "help those that need". That's my issue. You want the best case of this in the country? Look at student loans and our education system.

[PseudoSABR]

Your post is totally beiled not by realism, but by conservatism. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone except for you. The notion that some people are just too stupid to help is scary right wing; as if, stupidity isn't also an unlucky or unfortunate circumstance. As a liberal, I'm not interested in babying anyone, but I don't want them to become hobos either. But please, I don't want to debate these issues. But your viewpoint isn't objective it comes from the vantage of real conservative cynicism. I think that your willingness to paint Obama as a hidden liberal is also evidence of your deep rooted conservative values, which is just fine; not sure why it's hard for you to acknowledge.

 

Also claiming realism and objectivism seems totally clownish and below you, honestly.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

Your post is totally beiled not by realism, but by conservatism. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone except for you. The notion that some people are just too stupid to help is scary right wing; as if, stupidity isn't also an unlucky or unfortunate circumstance. As a liberal, I'm not interested in babying anyone, but I don't want them to become hobos either. But please, I don't want to debate these issues. But your viewpoint isn't objective it comes from the vantage of real conservative cynicism. I think that your willingness to paint Obama as a hidden liberal is also evidence of your deep rooted conservative values, which is just fine; not sure why it's hard for you to acknowledge.

 

Also claiming realism and objectivism seems totally clownish and below you, honestly.

 

I'm not claiming to be objective, I'm claiming to be realistic. At the core of liberalism is this incessant need to paint everyone who says the truth as a cynic. Some people are just not very intelligent. There is nothing controversial about that. No amount of "help" makes them more intelligent. We can help them to be more skilled, but they're still not intelligent. Just more skilled - which is precisely the manner in which we should approach it.

 

And while it's cute that you are pulling the classic attack of making me a monster to say that, it isn't true that I want to cast these people into the gutter. I'm just not willing to orient everything in life to the misguided idea that everyone is the same and capable of the same. They aren't. It's that childish delusion that is something out of a Care Bear cartoon that really makes me despise liberalism. You can't fix stupid by hoping they figure it out while we provide everything they need - they won't. To a liberal that probably sounds like awful, evil conservatism. It's just realistic, nothing more. You let me know when everyone has the same talents, intelligence, and work ethic and I'll gladly endorse your ideas though.

 

As for Obama - there is nothing hidden about his liberalism. While I would certainly call certain aspects of his belief system moderate (military use comes to mind), I would not call his beliefs about the role of government anything but significantly left of center. Clinton was a moderate. My beliefs about government are right of center, that doesn't make my evaluation off. You are just further left of Obama, it doesn't make him moderate. That's the misperception here.

[PseudoSABR]

No one's calling you a monster, and no ones endorsing care-bareism. That you paint anyone, me, Obama, liberals, that way is symptomatic of what I'm talking about. We all agree with pragmatism but your notion of realism is based on your experiential and ideological opinion. It's just your version of what's realistic. Obviously, I disagree. I think my view of how to structure society is completely realistic and not at all hippie-stupid pollyanneish.

 

I fully acknowledge that Obama is left of center, but not liberal, and I agree I'm totally further left than Obama. There's no misperception there.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

No one's calling you a monster, and no ones endorsing care-bareism. That you paint anyone, me, Obama, liberals, that way is symptomatic of what I'm talking about. We all agree with pragmatism but your notion of realism is based on your experiential and ideological opinion. It's just your version of what's realistic. Obviously, I disagree. I think my view of how to structure society is completely realistic and not at all hippie-stupid pollyanneish.

 

Then you haven't done a very good job analyzing your stance either. Your consistent need to paint every idea against the current lefty driven social welfare system as vile, evil, and uncaring is care-bearish. Taking a step off that ledge would be a good start.

 

  Quote

I fully acknowledge that Obama is left of center, but not liberal, and I agree I'm totally further left than Obama. There's no misperception there.

 

Then the issue is what level of left-of-center you consider "liberal" - I consider moderate Bill Clinton. Obama is significantly left of him, hence my claim.

[PseudoSABR]

  TheLeviathan said:

Then you haven't done a very good job analyzing your stance either. Your consistent need to paint every idea against the current lefty driven social welfare system as vile, evil, and uncaring is care-bearish. Taking a step off that ledge would be a good start.

Listen to yourself. I'm not doing those things.

 

For the record I think the welfare and education system are crap; but I believe we can do both in ethical, cost-effective, and efficacious matter. That doesn't make me crazy, extreme, or hot-headed.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

For the record I think the welfare and education system are crap; but I believe we can do both in ethical, cost-effective, and efficacious matter. That doesn't make me crazy, extreme, or hot-headed.

 

If that's true then I hope the next time the issue comes up you avoid painting any position in opposition to the current system as vile. You have done that in the past Pseudo and, as I've said then, it's the same problem we see nationally. It's hard to have reasonable ideas on the table when even wheeling out the table makes you an uncaring, conservative prick.

[PseudoSABR]

  TheLeviathan said:

  PseudoSABR said:

For the record I think the welfare and education system are crap; but I believe we can do both in ethical, cost-effective, and efficacious matter. That doesn't make me crazy, extreme, or hot-headed.

 

If that's true then I hope the next time the issue comes up you avoid painting any position in opposition to the current system as vile. You have done that in the past Pseudo and, as I've said then, it's the same problem we see nationally. It's hard to have reasonable ideas on the table when even wheeling out the table makes you an uncaring, conservative prick.

Look, certain positions seem unnecessarily uncaring to me. That's my opinion not of you overall or of conservatism in general, but there's certainly something that bubbles up from conservative posters that seem needless and even vulgar on issues of social welfare. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment.

[TheLeviathan]

  PseudoSABR said:

Look, certain positions seem unnecessarily uncaring to me. That's my opinion not of you overall or of conservatism in general, but there's certainly something that bubbles up from conservative posters that seem needless and even vulgar on issues of social welfare. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment.

 

I would argue you are looking for it to be uncaring rather than looking at it practically. Sometimes it's appropriate to call it uncaring, but not every attempt to reduce government is an effort to crap on the little guy. As I've said before, sometimes the left-wing agenda is far more insulting in the guise of being "caring". We should get past that as a country and as individuals and talk realistically about these issues.

[PseudoSABR]

  TheLeviathan said:

  PseudoSABR said:

Look, certain positions seem unnecessarily uncaring to me. That's my opinion not of you overall or of conservatism in general, but there's certainly something that bubbles up from conservative posters that seem needless and even vulgar on issues of social welfare. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment.

 

I would argue you are looking for it to be uncaring rather than looking at it practically. Sometimes it's appropriate to call it uncaring, but not every attempt to reduce government is an effort to crap on the little guy. As I've said before, sometimes the left-wing agenda is far more insulting in the guise of being "caring". We should get past that as a country and as individuals and talk realistically about these issues.

Oh, you wanted to talk realistically? Well, then.

[drjim]

If I may chime in Lev is right about Obama. He is a liberal and he is left of Clinton. He is probably not as liberal as many progressives would want, but he is surely pretty liberal.

 

I generally like him because he has liberal aims with a conservative temperament. I do think he could be much more creative on tax policy and lay off on some of the more onerous business regulations, not to mention actually pursue a sane drug policy, but that the price to pay when considering the alternative.

[TheLeviathan]

  drjim said:

If I may chime in Lev is right about Obama. He is a liberal and he is left of Clinton. He is probably not as liberal as many progressives would want, but he is surely pretty liberal.

 

I generally like him because he has liberal aims with a conservative temperament. I do think he could be much more creative on tax policy and lay off on some of the more onerous business regulations, not to mention actually pursue a sane drug policy, but that the price to pay when considering the alternative.

 

Well said.

[PseudoSABR]

  drjim said:

If I may chime in Lev is right about Obama. He is a liberal and he is left of Clinton. He is probably not as liberal as many progressives would want, but he is surely pretty liberal.

 

I generally like him because he has liberal aims with a conservative temperament. I do think he could be much more creative on tax policy and lay off on some of the more onerous business regulations, not to mention actually pursue a sane drug policy, but that the price to pay when considering the alternative.

Honestly, this is pretty abstract. You're generalizing. When I pressed Levi for specifics, he offered the bailouts. Whatever we might want to believe about Obama's liberalism personally or rhetorically, it really doesn't manifest itself in his policy.

 

An old friend said of Clinton: "He's the best Republican president we've ever had." We live in a center-right country, and I guess I forget that sometimes.

 

I'm fine with disagreeing on these issues.