Obama vs. Reagan

[bascule]

Do you see any parallels between Obama and Reagan?

 

Both inherited a bad economy from their predecessors. As Obama's first year in office came and went, there were calls that he will be a one term president. This can, to a large extent, be blamed on his social programs, but there are also clamors that unemployment hovers around 10% and the economy is not recovering fast enough.

 

I wonder if these same people clamoring about the unemployment remember that it was also 10% around this time in Reagan's presidency too, despite the recession he inherited being nowhere near as severe as this one. Never mind the Reagan solution was to cut taxes... for the rich, and the ensuing loss in tax revenue caused the deficit to skyrocket. Where were the teabaggers then?

 

Perhaps claims that Obama will be a one-term president are a bit early at this point.

[Pangloss]

I agree with the comparison. But the value of this point appears to have been discarded to make a partisan attack.

 

Never mind the Reagan solution was to cut taxes... for the rich, and the ensuing loss in tax revenue caused the deficit to skyrocket. Where were the teabaggers then?

 

IMO it's not "loss of revenue" that causes deficits to skyrocket, it's profligate spending unbalanced by appropriate income. That includes tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts. This country is really good at reacting by throwing money at stuff. But carefully weighing benefits and making sure there's enough money to cover the expense? Not so much.

 

Of course, since Republicans are so wasteful, we can surely just fix this problem by giving Democrats a super-majority. Oh wait, we already tried that. Never mind.

 

It's interesting how the left agree about cutting spending when it comes to defense, but conveniently forget its virtues when it comes to welfare. Why was it they don't like to be called "socialists", again? I forget.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's interesting how the left agree about cutting spending when it comes to defense, but conveniently forget its virtues when it comes to welfare. Why was it they don't like to be called "socialists", again? I forget.

 

I think the key here is pointing out the moral and economic differences between military spending and social spending. As for the word "socialist":

 

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

 

Might as well call Republicans fascist if you want to call Democrats socialist.

[padren]

Of course, since Republicans are so wasteful, we can surely just fix this problem by giving Democrats a super-majority. Oh wait, we already tried that. Never mind.

 

Just as a point of interest, when a super-majority requires unanimous agreement of every single one of sixty individuals it's pretty much given that nothing can get done. What would we expect the Supreme Court to ever pass if every ruling had to be 9-0?

 

 

If there was even ten votes of breathing room (whether Republicans who actually thought for themselves or more Democrats or Independents) and they were still this useless, I'd concede your point but unanimous agreement is a pretty tall order.

[ecoli]

why do people insist on comparing presidents to previous presidents? Is this a useful heuristic or a pointless narrative fallacy?

[bascule]

why do people insist on comparing presidents to previous presidents? Is this a useful heuristic or a pointless narrative fallacy?

 

I'm not sure what to take from this... do you think history is a pointless exercise? Why analyze present events in the context of past events?

[Pangloss]

I think the key here is pointing out the moral and economic differences between military spending and social spending.

 

Well sure, that's the great thing about living in a democracy -- you can call your spending preferences "moral" and declare your opponents' spending preferences "immoral". And any politician in our purple-state country who find it desirable to be re-elected will, to some degree, have to agree with both sides, and so it's off to the races year after year with no end in sight.

 

 

Just as a point of interest, when a super-majority requires unanimous agreement of every single one of sixty individuals it's pretty much given that nothing can get done.

 

Absolutely, and when you become a super-majority by appealing to moderates, you can hardly act all surprised when those moderates calmly inform you that the ideological mandate that you greedily proclaimed the day after election day does not, in fact, exist.

 

 

If there was even ten votes of breathing room (whether Republicans who actually thought for themselves or more Democrats or Independents) and they were still this useless, I'd concede your point but unanimous agreement is a pretty tall order.

 

So now we have to give them a 70 vote majority? Oy vey!

 

But hey, okay, I tell you what, you get 70 senators from the Democratic party elected in this country and sure, you bet, you can go right ahead and move the country as far to the left as you can, because that will be on the electorate who failed to balance the government. I'd support that government 100%, because that's life in a democracy. That's how it's supposed to be.

 

But don't complain (I don't mean you personally) that the reason they couldn't get anything done is because some senators wouldn't cooperate. If the people in those states didn't like what those Senators believed then the people in those states would not have elected them. So they're not being uncooperative, they're doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing. (Just to be clear, I'm talking about the moderate Democrats who were reluctant to come on board with some bills over certain, specific concerns, not the unilateral, ideological opposition of the GOP over the last year -- I think some of those GOP senators have failed to accurately represent their constituencies. But that's another discussion.)

 

If you want cooperation, you have to respect the concerns of the constituents of the elected representative. If you want something passed that those constituents are generally opposed to, you have to offer them something that will win them over. That's how democracy works. Pelosi and Reid were unwilling to do that, and Obama was unwilling to push them into more compromising positions, and that's why they got so little done.

 

Not because they lacked "ten votes of breathing room". If you really think that's a good idea, I would just remind you that, in politics, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you like the idea of 70 progressives in the Senate, consider for a moment what 70 religious fundamentalists would be like. (Here's a towel for the milk that just came out of your nose.)

[padren]

Absolutely, and when you become a super-majority by appealing to moderates, you can hardly act all surprised when those moderates calmly inform you that the ideological mandate that you greedily proclaimed the day after election day does not, in fact, exist.

 

What I dislike is that a super-majority is required to do anything when one team refused to play at all. It's not like all progress froze over every time Republican's had the majority but failed to achieve a super-majority... do you think that is because the Republicans promoted bipartisan legislation, or because Democrats were at least willing to consider voting in favor of Republican legislation?

 

My issue really is with the expectation that "the Democrats should be able to get at least something done considering they did win a super-majority" and their failure is due to their ineffectiveness. It's an unfair burden when it requires 100% unanimous agreement of sixty because you can be 100% certain that all the Republicans will oppose even moderate or "not right wing enough" legislation.

 

 

 

So now we have to give them a 70 vote majority? Oy vey!

 

But hey, okay, I tell you what, you get 70 senators from the Democratic party elected in this country and sure, you bet, you can go right ahead and move the country as far to the left as you can, because that will be on the electorate who failed to balance the government. I'd support that government 100%, because that's life in a democracy. That's how it's supposed to be.

To be clear, I didn't say "give them a 70 vote majority" I said to give 10 more votes of breathing room, which includes Republicans - just that they would have to be willing to consider non-right wing solutions.

 

As much as I'd like to see Health Care Reform pass, I'd be happier to see it fail despite getting 10 Republican votes. Just to see that ten individual Republicans can vote outside the party line would make me feel better about the health of this democracy than any legislation could.

 

But don't complain (I don't mean you personally) that the reason they couldn't get anything done is because some senators wouldn't cooperate. If the people in those states didn't like what those Senators believed then the people in those states would not have elected them. So they're not being uncooperative, they're doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing. (Just to be clear, I'm talking about the moderate Democrats who were reluctant to come on board with some bills over certain, specific concerns, not the unilateral, ideological opposition of the GOP over the last year -- I think some of those GOP senators have failed to accurately represent their constituencies. But that's another discussion.)

 

Unfortunately, precisely because the "unilateral, ideological opposition of the GOP" has been so absolute, those moderate Democrats now cannot disagree without derailing all progress. Also, consider just how insane the pressure must be from lobbyists who already fund a good chunk of a lot of their campaigns - they can lean on any single Democrat to get them to cast a single vote that has huge historical significance. Any vote against stops any legislation. That's far too powerful for any individual - it pretty much ensures nothing can get done.

 

 

If you want cooperation, you have to respect the concerns of the constituents of the elected representative. If you want something passed that those constituents are generally opposed to, you have to offer them something that will win them over. That's how democracy works. Pelosi and Reid were unwilling to do that, and Obama was unwilling to push them into more compromising positions, and that's why they got so little done.

 

Not because they lacked "ten votes of breathing room". If you really think that's a good idea, I would just remind you that, in politics, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you like the idea of 70 progressives in the Senate, consider for a moment what 70 religious fundamentalists would be like. (Here's a towel for the milk that just came out of your nose.)

 

It's not about having 70 clones that think the same - It's about being able to have 10% dissent within the majority party and yet still be able to pass legislation.

 

Here's 12 Democrats that voted for Bush's tax cuts in 2001.

 

Granted, I don't see any Republican Nays in there but they did get 62 votes, an effective super-majority and all because 12 Democrats voted with them. Yet, the idea of 12 Republicans voting for a vaguely liberal bill is a forgone conclusion - count on zero instead.

[Pangloss]

What I dislike is that a super-majority is required to do anything when one team refused to play at all. It's not like all progress froze over every time Republican's had the majority but failed to achieve a super-majority... do you think that is because the Republicans promoted bipartisan legislation' date=' or because Democrats were at least willing to consider voting in favor of Republican legislation?

 

My issue really is with the expectation that "the Democrats should be able to get at least something done considering they did win a super-majority" and their failure is due to their ineffectiveness. It's an unfair burden when it requires 100% unanimous agreement of sixty because you can be 100% certain that all the Republicans will oppose even moderate or "not right wing enough" legislation. [/quote']

 

It defies common sense that, having been unable to win over moderate Democrats, you expect Republicans to jump on board. I hear this all the time so I'm not surprised -- liberals seem to be frustrated, and seem to have forgotten what the word "compromise" actually means. But it's understandable, of course. The religious right felt the same way during much of the Bush administration.

 

It's unrealistic to expect one party to change its opinions on issues because the other party has achieved a majority. Yes, compromise is possible, but compromise is a two-way street. If you want Republicans on board, you have to give them something that they want. Democrats were unwilling to do this. The abortion clause in health care reform is a typical example. If you want unilateral legislation, you have to have unilateral voting. You didn't have unilateral voting, so you can't have your unilateral legislation. There's really nothing more to it than that.

 

Now, that having been said, I'm not excusing Republicans at all. Certainly they have an obligation that, when the very compromise they've asked for is offered, to accept it. They were unwilling to do that in the case of the bipartisan budget committee, with seven Republican co-sponsors suddenly deciding that it was a bad idea after all. That's a failure on their part which is clearly designed to block and deter any progress by Democrats, and if they keep behaving that way then it will come back to haunt them.

 

But during the 60-vote supermajority Republican behavior was irrelevant. If you can't win over moderate Democrats, you have no business complaining about Republicans. Q.E.D.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just to add a bit to the above, here's an interesting article just posted to the White House blog at USA Today:

 

Republicans say they'll work with Obama on GOP ideas

 

Yes, "GOP ideas", but note -- during his campaign Obama supported all of the points raised by Republicans in this statement. That list includes nuclear power, "clean coal", free-trade agreements and more.

 

Now certainly you all don't have to agree with these positions, but these are Obama positions. You wanted Obama (as did I), and you got him. Don't you want him to be the person he said he was going to be? Would you rather he was a liar?

 

Nobody said it would be easy. Criticizing people for their idiocy, THAT's easy. Governing in a democracy, that's hard.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's unrealistic to expect one party to change its opinions on issues because the other party has achieved a majority.

 

What people were complaining is that the Republicans did, in fact, change their opinion on issues just because the other party was a majority. They have no business blocking legislation that they previously would have approved, just because it is the Democrats suggesting it.

 

Now, that having been said, I'm not excusing Republicans at all. Certainly they have an obligation that, when the very compromise they've asked for is offered, to accept it. They were unwilling to do that in the case of the bipartisan budget committee, with seven Republican co-sponsors suddenly deciding that it was a bad idea after all. That's a failure on their part which is clearly designed to block and deter any progress by Democrats, and if they keep behaving that way then it will come back to haunt them.

 

Will it? I have my doubts. Some people have short memories and only hear what they want to hear anyhow.

 

But during the 60-vote supermajority Republican behavior was irrelevant. If you can't win over moderate Democrats, you have no business complaining about Republicans. Q.E.D.

 

How does that follow? No one is talking about winning over all the Republicans, just maybe 5-10, which ought to be easier than winning over 5-10 of the more stubborn Democrats. But the Republicans aren't playing fair -- they are asking for things and then not accepting them when offered. It's like there are two Senates, one with Republicans only and the other with 60 Democrats and 1 Republican who's vote counts as 40 and is completely dishonest about what he wants. This is not how our government is supposed to work.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Republicans say they'll work with Obama on GOP ideas

 

Yes, "GOP ideas", but note -- during his campaign Obama supported all of the points raised by Republicans in this statement. That list includes nuclear power, "clean coal", free-trade agreements and more.

 

I support these things, but from the looks of it, I think it would be best that they be attached to things Republicans don't like, to gain their support for them.

[Pangloss]

What people were complaining is that the Republicans did, in fact, change their opinion on issues just because the other party was a majority. They have no business blocking legislation that they previously would have approved, just because it is the Democrats suggesting it.

 

I mentioned an example of that earlier, but it was just a committee to study the deficit problem. I'm not familiar with any major piece of legislation, existing in the exact same detail as when Republicans were in power, that Republicans "did, in fact, change their opinion on" after Democrats came to power.

 

Can you cite any examples?

 

 

How does that follow? No one is talking about winning over all the Republicans, just maybe 5-10, which ought to be easier than winning over 5-10 of the more stubborn Democrats.

 

You haven't won over moderate Democrats, so why do you think it logical to believe that you can find 5-10 Republicans who will be "easier"? How does that follow?

 

You can't just pick a number and say "that's what we need, so that's what they should give us". You guys talk about vote numbers as if they're some sort of commodity with no meaning behind them. Those votes represent the preferences of real people.

 

If you want them to vote on an issue you have to provide them with a reason to do so. You can do that with moderate Democrats who ask for a SMALL number of things you won't like, or you can do that with Republicans who will ask for a LARGE number of things you won't like. Pick your poison.

 

 

But the Republicans aren't playing fair -- they are asking for things and then not accepting them when offered.

 

Again, if you want me to agree you'll have to provide examples. It doesn't seem to me that that has been the case, but if you have evidence then you could well win me over. (shrug)