Debate II

[biggentleben]

I really don't believe Clinton was a moderate at all. Not in his personal beliefs, anyway. He was, however, one of the last people in Washington - in the White House or the Capitol Building - willing to negotiate his own personal beliefs in order to make progress he felt was for the good of all. His willingness to reach across the aisle in his first couple of years when his own party was setting up an us-against-them mentality was why the "Contract With America" Republicans were so willing to work with him. A great example is the Tom Daschle of Clinton's era vs. the Tom Daschle that was forced to exist in Bush's presidency. Daschle is a moderate Democrat at his core beliefs, but he was forced to be the "anti" voice in public because his party had chosen to return to partisan politics after the Bush/Gore debacle of an election.

 

Do welfare and entitlement programs need an overhaul? Absolutely! The issue is that no one comes to the middle and says "what is working and what isn't". The right comes in saying, "Scrap the whole thing!" The left comes in saying, "There are too many people who would be hurt if we completely lost this help!" Neither side is willing to come in and make sacrifices. Heck, we're in the midst of a recession. I've not had a raise since I started this job 4 years ago. In that time, Congress has increased their pay nearly 150% once you include in travel costs and room and board. That's out of touch with America, both sides of the aisle.

 

I look at South Dakota as a great example. Kristi Noem may be the dumbest congressperson ever sent to Washington, and her entire platform is anti-Obama and anti-Pelosi, but it rallies a state right now that's sick of the crap going on in DC. Problem is, she's contributing as much as she's helping, and she can't really be attacked on her incredible absentee record and lack of education because she left school to be a mom and she's used her kids as an excuse to leave DC instead of attend committee meetings she should be a part of. No one wants to attack a mom for spending time with her kids, but this is exactly why we have the issue we do. Someone who obviously isn't willing to put in the time to do the job required is kept in office and getting pay raises while her constituents pay for higher priced items with stagnant and even lower wages (SD has an incredibly low unemployment rate, so it's hard to argue the "out of work" angle). This kind of crap representation is rampant in DC right now, and it's why nothing will happen with either presidential candidate to really change our current issues in this country.

[PseudoSABR]

Do welfare and entitlement programs need an overhaul? Absolutely! The issue is that no one comes to the middle and says "what is working and what isn't". The right comes in saying, "Scrap the whole thing!" The left comes in saying, "There are too many people who would be hurt if we completely lost this help!" Neither side is willing to come in and make sacrifices. Heck, we're in the midst of a recession. I've not had a raise since I started this job 4 years ago. In that time, Congress has increased their pay nearly 150% once you include in travel costs and room and board. That's out of touch with America, both sides of the aisle.

I think this is fair. But I think to even begin to do social welfare in sustainable way will cost a lot more money in the short term. We need good ideas, not arbitrary sacrifices from both sides. The system needs to be overhauled, not renegotiated.

[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.

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." In general I think you're both placing the "center" in firmly center-right mentality.

 

I'm fine with disagreeing on these issues.

 

OK, I don't want to hammer every specific issue, but Obama to the left when it comes to business regulation. Obviously some regulation is desirable, but I would say he has gone beyond that and placed more power in the government to regulate business based on environmental concerns and hiring practices (to name a couple).

 

He is also left of center when it comes to his tax plan. He wants to keep tax rates for those earning under 250k as is while raising for those making more while not offering much in reform.

 

He is on the left in Social Security as his plan is pretty much to maintain the status quo. He wants additional government involvement in health care.

 

He is on the left on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, access to contraceptives, funding for stem cell research and others. I agree with him here for the most part, even if he is hesitant to do more reasonable actions when it comes to drugs.

 

He is left of center in using government money to invest in alternative energy companies.

 

I could go on. He is not some socialist but he is a pretty run of the mill liberal technocrat. Because of this I will generally side with him on social issues and be less impressed with his economic policies. I struggle some with his foreign policy, but the alternative would be much worse.

[PseudoSABR]

I could go on. He is not some socialist but he is a pretty run of the mill liberal technocrat. Because of this I will generally side with him on social issues and be less impressed with his economic policies. I struggle some with his foreign policy, but the alternative would be much worse.

Left of center looks identical to left of right, which is part of the problem.

 

Are even conservatives really against tax hikes for those making more than 250k? Government money is invested in oil and coal, why not wind? (**** ethanol.) In any case, the prominence of far right ideology has pulled the center to the right. That gay marriage, funding wind, and taxing the super wealthy are even up for debate demonstrates the center-right core of American politics.

 

People confuse balance with objectivity; there's a lot of rhetoric from the right that's totally illegitimate--that the legitimate argument gets colored as left is super problematic.

[TheLeviathan]

Are even conservatives really against tax hikes for those making more than 250k? Government money is invested in oil and coal, why not wind? (**** ethanol.) In any case, the prominence of far right ideology has pulled the center to the right. That gay marriage, funding wind, and taxing the super wealthy are even up for debate demonstrates the center-right core of American politics.

 

People confuse balance with objectivity; there's a lot of rhetoric from the right that's totally illegitimate--that the legitimate argument gets colored as left is super problematic.

 

So you want specifics, get them, and then whine some more? Cmon man, this is pathetic. As drjim rightly pointed out, it's not just the tax hikes, attack the wealthy rhetoric - it's the combination of that with weak proposals to balance it with spending cuts.

 

You believe what you are isn't as far left as it is and it skews your opinion and then you're preaching to all of us about how blind we are about where things stand. It's smug, annoying, and (sadly) predictable. It's yet another demonstration of why I just can't stand liberalism no matter how many points I might agree with it on. At least many a-hole conservatives can blame an all-powerful god for making them idiots, most liberals have only their own smug, head-up-their-butt naivety to blame. Excellent demo for us though, yeesh.

[johnnydakota]

Are even conservatives really against tax hikes for those making more than 250k? Government money is invested in oil and coal, why not wind? (**** ethanol.) In any case, the prominence of far right ideology has pulled the center to the right. That gay marriage, funding wind, and taxing the super wealthy are even up for debate demonstrates the center-right core of American politics.

 

People confuse balance with objectivity; there's a lot of rhetoric from the right that's totally illegitimate--that the legitimate argument gets colored as left is super problematic.

 

So you want specifics, get them, and then whine some more? Cmon man, this is pathetic. As drjim rightly pointed out, it's not just the tax hikes, attack the wealthy rhetoric - it's the combination of that with weak proposals to balance it with spending cuts.

 

You believe what you are isn't as far left as it is and it skews your opinion and then you're preaching to all of us about how blind we are about where things stand. It's smug, annoying, and (sadly) predictable. It's yet another demonstration of why I just can't stand liberalism no matter how many points I might agree with it on. At least many a-hole conservatives can blame an all-powerful god for making them idiots, most liberals have only their own smug, head-up-their-butt naivety to blame. Excellent demo for us though, yeesh.

just adopt the same law as france if you earn 1 million a year your taxed 75% and if your company earns over 10 million your taxed at 25%

time for the 1%ers to pay there share they have been avoiding ...its time for the working class to reclaim our legacy

[PseudoSABR]

Are even conservatives really against tax hikes for those making more than 250k? Government money is invested in oil and coal, why not wind? (**** ethanol.) In any case, the prominence of far right ideology has pulled the center to the right. That gay marriage, funding wind, and taxing the super wealthy are even up for debate demonstrates the center-right core of American politics.

 

People confuse balance with objectivity; there's a lot of rhetoric from the right that's totally illegitimate--that the legitimate argument gets colored as left is super problematic.

 

So you want specifics, get them, and then whine some more? Cmon man, this is pathetic. As drjim rightly pointed out, it's not just the tax hikes, attack the wealthy rhetoric - it's the combination of that with weak proposals to balance it with spending cuts.

 

You believe what you are isn't as far left as it is and it skews your opinion and then you're preaching to all of us about how blind we are about where things stand. It's smug, annoying, and (sadly) predictable. It's yet another demonstration of why I just can't stand liberalism no matter how many points I might agree with it on. At least many a-hole conservatives can blame an all-powerful god for making them idiots, most liberals have only their own smug, head-up-their-butt naivety to blame. Excellent demo for us though, yeesh.

Look, you might recall, that this debate started with me defending that you weren't Republican. I'm a liberal. I think Obama is pretty moderate. Disagree, it's fine; don't be a weirdo about it.

 

For my part, I'm not seeing a convincing argument that Obama isn't a moderate Democrat, if left-of-center classifies as liberal so be it.

 

Honestly, Levi, you move the goal posts and than declare victory. You froth at the opportunity to call me (or anyone) a naive liberal. It's crap-logic that labels ethical integrity as naivete. Maybe your hyperbolic defensive nature is fooling some people, but--dear god--it can't be fooling everybody. It's in moments like these that an unreasonable resentment of liberalism shines through. Maybe it doesn't come from some right wing ethic, but it certainly is hellish.

[PseudoSABR]

its time for the working class to reclaim our legacy

Sadly, we don't have a legacy.

[johnnydakota]

welfare entitlements? how about stopping corp. welfare first?

mitt romney deducted 77,000 dollars for the care of his wifes horse...

thats more then most familys earn, haliburtons 3 times billion dollar grants,

for every dollar spent on poor welfare 2 dollars are spent on corp. welfare

as for social security , thats easy to fix, put congress , the senate and the presidents pensions into it and sit back and watch how fast they repay what they have stolen from it....

 

the 1%ers keep this country argueing left and right ,while they rob us blind,time for the working class to stop the theft of our country....there more of us then there is of them.....

[PseudoSABR]

welfare entitlements? how about stopping corp. welfare first?

mitt romney deducted 77,000 dollars for the care of his wifes horse...

thats more then most familys earn, haliburtons 3 times billion dollar grants,

for every dollar spent on poor welfare 2 dollars are spent on corp. welfare

as for social security , thats easy to fix, put congress , the senate and the presidents pensions into it and sit back and watch how fast they repay what they have stolen from it....

 

the 1%ers keep this country argueing left and right ,while they rob us blind,time for the working class to stop the theft of our country....there more of us then there is of them.....

I agree with the sentiment, not with the argument. If you want to change the country you live in, you can't pitch your sails on weak arguments, however true the spirit of them may be.

[TheLeviathan]

For my part, I'm not seeing a convincing argument that Obama isn't a moderate Democrat, if left-of-center classifies as liberal so be it.

 

The point is - you don't get to demand reasons, dismiss them, and say "Nope, wrong answer, you're right of center". If you want to make that charge, be prepared to defend it. You don't get to not like the answer and then declare everyone else has the wrong perspective without at least attempting to defend your position. You absolutely had that coming after twice demanding that the opposing viewpoint wasn't detailed enough and then, when it was, you start throwing smug grenades and labels around. The reason I didn't get more detailed in the beginning is because I know anything other than abstractions with you is a waste of time. You fall back on "well you're a conservative, so that's why you're wrong" line of argument.

 

You and other liberals don't want resentment? Stop doing exactly that!!!! I've met a handful of liberals I could actually say "alright, here's the problem, what do we do" without it turning into a smug ****fest about stupid conservatives rather than anything pragmatic. It easily builds resentment.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I believe Obama is a "moderate" because he cannot be anything else right now. He can barely get anything done with a GOP house as a moderate... Anything more than that and he'd accomplish absolutely nothing (and there is plenty of strife within the Democratic ranks, which will not follow an extreme left Obama).

 

As I've mentioned before, I believe the GOP is responsible for most of the partisanship within Congress... But Democrats are guilty of it as well. Obama may look moderate right now but I believe that's because it is forced upon him, not because he's actually a centrist.

[TheLeviathan]

As I've mentioned before, I believe the GOP is responsible for most of the partisanship within Congress... But Democrats are guilty of it as well. Obama may look moderate right now but I believe that's because it is forced upon him, not because he's actually a centrist.

 

I think through business regulations and other things that came out of the bailouts you see his true colors. The system is supposed to work to moderate candidates this way, but what shouldn't happen is constant gridlock which I would agree is largely at the feet of the Republicans. Obama isn't this socialist monster he's made out to be, but he's left of center and significantly left of Clinton.

[PseudoSABR]

For my part, I'm not seeing a convincing argument that Obama isn't a moderate Democrat, if left-of-center classifies as liberal so be it.

 

The point is - you don't get to demand reasons, dismiss them, and say "Nope, wrong answer, you're right of center". If you want to make that charge, be prepared to defend it. You don't get to not like the answer and then declare everyone else has the wrong perspective without at least attempting to defend your position. You absolutely had that coming after twice demanding that the opposing viewpoint wasn't detailed enough and then, when it was, you start throwing smug grenades and labels around. The reason I didn't get more detailed in the beginning is because I know anything other than abstractions with you is a waste of time. You fall back on "well you're a conservative, so that's why you're wrong" line of argument.

 

You and other liberals don't want resentment? Stop doing exactly that!!!! I've met a handful of liberals I could actually say "alright, here's the problem, what do we do" without it turning into a smug ****fest about stupid conservatives rather than anything pragmatic. It easily builds resentment.

Look I'm not dismissing an argument because it comes from a center-right person. I'm dismissing an argument because I find it unconvincing. I don't see where I'm being smug, this justified resentment of yours is totally invented.

[PseudoSABR]

[h=2]Cheer Up, Republicans[/h][h=1]You’re going to have a moderate Republican president for the next four years: Barack Obama.[/h]