Roger Hicks
Mentor
We are of one mind on the matters discussed above. All I am saying is that there is a huge gulf between opposing a policy because you do not think it will work, and wishing its failure. You may also find the above post, 'Further thoughts on success and failure' relevant to what you and I have been discussing -- or of course you may not.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
gdi
Mentor
Roger Hicks;1163527} You may also find the above post said:
bmattock
Mentor
Sorry, my bad. I understand both meanings, but I took your response to be the former.
I am complicated (at least politically) because I believe at long last in the need for government regulation on, of all things, free markets, and I believe that there are some functions government must provide because markets will not (if one one wants those things, of course). That is a distinctly liberal viewpoint. I also believe that the government governs best that governs least, and that is a libertarian viewpoint. And I believe that most of the social programs the US has, and which the Obama administration seeks to expand, are deleterious to the nation and my own pocketbook, as most government bureaucracies are a boondoggle and colossal waste of funds, not to mention that they establish and perpetuate dependence of the government teat.
In what way is that simple? In what way destructive?
Even if it was - I could argue from the position of Shiva, the necessity of destruction for creation.
I would agree with that, although I do believe that many politicians want 'peace and prosperity' only insomuch as it does not conflict with what they personally want, which is continued power, money, sex, and influence. However, like many Americans, I am willing to put up with much of the latter if I can have the promised former.
No, Roger, that is a logical fallacy. If I agreed that President Obama's methods would lead to peace and prosperity, it would be true. But I do not. In fact, I disagree in the most vehement terms. I believe nearly every one of his stated policies will lead us in the opposite direction, regardless of what he believes. I desire his failure because I do not desire the outcome I think will happen if he succeeds, not because I do not desire the outcome he imagines will happen if he succeeds.
Let me drop subtlety, since it is not working. If one agrees that any given dictator, say Mussolini or Stalin or Mao, wanted peace and prosperity, then to oppose them would be to oppose peace and prosperity. We might agree that they did NOT want peace and prosperity. But they certainly said they did. So to oppose them, by your logic, would be to oppose the peace and prosperity they wanted.
And I do not want him to succeed. Despite your statements, Bush also believed (or at least wanted others to believe) that he also wanted peace and prosperity. I disagreed with his methods to achieve that, and I disagree with Obama's. I actually find myself in more opposition to Obama's notions because he seems to me to be adopting the very worst of the Bush administration's naked power-grabs, extending them, and then adding the usual left-wing power grabs. It's more than an ideology, it's very nearly what I was raised to believe in as simply 'evil'.
As much as I like to think of myself as 'complicated', I must admit I found today's rant in Day by Day cartoon to be lovely and very much along the lines of what I fear if Obama succeeds in his ambitions:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2009/10/11/
1.3 Trillion deficit. 47 percent of Americans pay no federal taxes (while I am ever more burdened with them). No. Enough. It must stop.
Being against this is not being a bigot. We can disagree on whether or not Obama's policies are good for America. I will not accept criticism of my position as bigoted.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,
Your view is no longer simple or destructive (except, as you say, in the Shaivite sense), because you have explained it, which you had not before; and, as so often, we are in substantial agreement about far more than might seem apparent to another.
We disagree fundamentally about the likelihood of the success of Obama's (so far embryonic) policies but that is in effect another matter. We shall both be proved more or less right or wrong in the long term.
The conflict between regulation and small government is fascinating. I think it was David Cameron who recently said that small government can make big decisions, which is eminently true (and I do not agree lightly with Cameron), but equally, a lot of attempts at 'small', simplified government have big consequences and a grievous over-inflation of government, as you point out about the USA.
This is especially true when governments try to move things 'off balance sheet' by privatizing them. A particularly startling statistic is that the USA, with 5% of the world's population, has 25% of the world's prison population. My source for this is Laurie Taylor, Thinking Allowed: I have not verified it, but such figures as I have checked make it credible. And I do not think there are many in Europe who would rather have an American-style medical system, especially if they have seen both, as both my wife (who is American) and I have.
Where, incidentally, did I say that Bush did not believe he wanted peace and prosperity? That was one one of my fundamental points: that although I had a very low opinion of the likelihood of his policies achieving either, I still wished him success in achieving both.
Your point about Mao, Stalin and Mussolini is well taken. Even so, one could not wish them failure, insofar as their policies might work for peace and prosperity in both the long and the short term. Unfortunately, none of them was outstandingly successful in either department.
In any case, it is disingenuous in the extreme to compare a democratically elected president from a moderate political party, subject to constitutional checks and balances, with a military dictator (Mao), a communist apparatchik who was in the right place at the right time (Stalin) and a product of an unusual set of political circumstances conducive to fascism (Mussolini) -- though one has to say, looking at Berlusconi, that perhaps unusual circumstances are the norm in Italy.
Try a thought experiment. What if Obama does succeed in creating peace and prosperity? Will you still be against him? Do you really consider he has less likeihood of doing so than Mao, Stalin or Mussolini?
The choice in the United States, from a European perspective, is between a mildly right-wing party and a strongly right-wing party, and it is understandable in view of the European centrist tradition that the mildly right-wing party is preferred.
Cheers,
Roger
Your view is no longer simple or destructive (except, as you say, in the Shaivite sense), because you have explained it, which you had not before; and, as so often, we are in substantial agreement about far more than might seem apparent to another.
We disagree fundamentally about the likelihood of the success of Obama's (so far embryonic) policies but that is in effect another matter. We shall both be proved more or less right or wrong in the long term.
The conflict between regulation and small government is fascinating. I think it was David Cameron who recently said that small government can make big decisions, which is eminently true (and I do not agree lightly with Cameron), but equally, a lot of attempts at 'small', simplified government have big consequences and a grievous over-inflation of government, as you point out about the USA.
This is especially true when governments try to move things 'off balance sheet' by privatizing them. A particularly startling statistic is that the USA, with 5% of the world's population, has 25% of the world's prison population. My source for this is Laurie Taylor, Thinking Allowed: I have not verified it, but such figures as I have checked make it credible. And I do not think there are many in Europe who would rather have an American-style medical system, especially if they have seen both, as both my wife (who is American) and I have.
Where, incidentally, did I say that Bush did not believe he wanted peace and prosperity? That was one one of my fundamental points: that although I had a very low opinion of the likelihood of his policies achieving either, I still wished him success in achieving both.
Your point about Mao, Stalin and Mussolini is well taken. Even so, one could not wish them failure, insofar as their policies might work for peace and prosperity in both the long and the short term. Unfortunately, none of them was outstandingly successful in either department.
In any case, it is disingenuous in the extreme to compare a democratically elected president from a moderate political party, subject to constitutional checks and balances, with a military dictator (Mao), a communist apparatchik who was in the right place at the right time (Stalin) and a product of an unusual set of political circumstances conducive to fascism (Mussolini) -- though one has to say, looking at Berlusconi, that perhaps unusual circumstances are the norm in Italy.
Try a thought experiment. What if Obama does succeed in creating peace and prosperity? Will you still be against him? Do you really consider he has less likeihood of doing so than Mao, Stalin or Mussolini?
The choice in the United States, from a European perspective, is between a mildly right-wing party and a strongly right-wing party, and it is understandable in view of the European centrist tradition that the mildly right-wing party is preferred.
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
Mentor
Inasmuch as his peace and prosperity will run roughshod (in my opinion) over a principle I value more highly than either peace or prosperity, yes.
I think we are one 'dirty bomb' set off in a major US city from living in a dictatorship.
I don't doubt that. I have the advantage of not having to please Europeans in my wishes for my nation.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Interesting discussion, though I have not read every word.
What I cannot understand is how you can have prosperity (nor real peace, actually,) without a reasonably healthy population. Currently the health care system in the US is broken. I know some will disagree with this, but I will say indisputably broken; in this case, the statistics don't lie. One of the major components of this is the lack of a sane food policy.
I also don't understand how regulation of the market is desirable but can be achieved without government agencies of sufficient size to actually monitor and regulate. And I don't understand how other social policies (environment, infrastructure, etc.,) can be ignored or diminished under the mantra of "governing least". You get what you pay for applies everywhere, all the time.
What I cannot understand is how you can have prosperity (nor real peace, actually,) without a reasonably healthy population. Currently the health care system in the US is broken. I know some will disagree with this, but I will say indisputably broken; in this case, the statistics don't lie. One of the major components of this is the lack of a sane food policy.
I also don't understand how regulation of the market is desirable but can be achieved without government agencies of sufficient size to actually monitor and regulate. And I don't understand how other social policies (environment, infrastructure, etc.,) can be ignored or diminished under the mantra of "governing least". You get what you pay for applies everywhere, all the time.
ebolton
Number 7614
There is probably a provision in the Patriot Act for that. God knows, if the Bush/Cheney team were in charge it would happen.
bmattock
Mentor
Obama has reauthorized the Patriot Act and expanded it by some amount. That's what I mean. Bush angered me by how far he was willing to gut the Constitution and seize power for himself. Obama terrifies me. He has left in place EVERY SINGLE ONE of Bush's excesses, and pushed them to even higher levels, and then added his own power grabs. The main difference is that while people were calling Bush out on it, Obama gets the nod and the wink by people who would have been outraged if Bush had done it.
Think about it. The Patriot Act was a horrible, onerous, gutting of our liberties. Liberals were right to call it what it was. And now? Obama had it reauthorized with even more expanded provisions. Where is the outrage now? Suddenly it's OK because the Great and Wonderful Obama is doing it?
Nuts.
ebolton
Number 7614
Actually, I don't think that is true. I think most of it was reauthorized in 2006, with only a couple of provisions set to sunset in 2009 that Obama could influence. From Wikipedia:
The first act reauthorized all but two of the provisions of Title II that would have expired. Two sections were changed to sunset on December 31, 2009: section 206 — the roving wiretap provision — and section 215, which allowed access to business records under FISA. Section 215 was amended further regardless so as to give greater judicial oversight and review. Such orders were also restricted to be authorized by only the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and minimization procedures were specified to limit the dissemination and collection of such information. Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact their Attorney.[169] However, the change also meant that the defendant was also made to tell the FBI who they were disclosing the order to — this requirement was removed by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act.[170]
bmattock
Mentor
ebolton
Number 7614
Originally Posted by bmattock 
Obama has reauthorized the Patriot Act and expanded it by some amount.
Your statement is still not true. The majority of the act was reauthorized under Bush and the pre-2007 Republican congress. The parts being worked out now are the ones that were to sunset in December, and they have been watered down. There has been no expansion under Obama. It might be nice if more of the act was rescinded, but it is not growing. That's a start, probably the kind of start that got him the Nobel.
Obama has reauthorized the Patriot Act and expanded it by some amount.
Your statement is still not true. The majority of the act was reauthorized under Bush and the pre-2007 Republican congress. The parts being worked out now are the ones that were to sunset in December, and they have been watered down. There has been no expansion under Obama. It might be nice if more of the act was rescinded, but it is not growing. That's a start, probably the kind of start that got him the Nobel.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Some years ago I recall the head of SNCF (French railways) looking puzzled when someone pointed out that SNCF did not make a profit. As he pointed out, "A primary school does not make a profit."
His point, of course, was that there are public goods where the value cannot easily and immediately be measured in dollars and cents.
Cheers,
R.
His point, of course, was that there are public goods where the value cannot easily and immediately be measured in dollars and cents.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Mentor
This is of course true. The question is merely one of whether or not a particular desired service is something that should be run, paid for, or regulated by the government. And that answer generally pivots around culture and political beliefs.
As it regards President Obama's agenda, I have been through the list, and I cannot find much that I am in agreement with. I certainly do not want the type of health care reform that is currently being debated. I have done my due diligence and my rejection of the current proposals is not a party issue (especially since I am not a Republican). I just do not like it and do not want it for my country.
I say this as a person who is currently looking at my employer-provided health care options for 2010 - my contribution appears to be increasing by about 30% over last year, and my coverage is shrinking. I've had three pay cuts this year (still lucky to be employed) and now I have significant health care costs that insurance did not cover that I find myself unable to pay for immediately. I still do not believe that any proposal currently being discussed in Congress will do anything for me except the following:
a) Encourage my employer to drop all employee health care coverage and pay a 'fee' for doing so to the government.
b) which will force me to buy my own health care, either 'public option' or private if there is no public option.
c) which will cost more, not less, by CBO estimates
d) and my state taxes will be increasing dramatically, because the number of people covered by medicare/medicaid will be going up, and states pay into that as an unfunded mandate from the federal government.
I do not want to pay more to get less, even if it benefits other people who currently have no health insurance. I am sorry they do not, but I cannot afford to pay for them. I pay for enough already. Recent report: 47% of all Americans pay NO federal income taxes. However, the upper 25% of wage earners (not 'the rich' but wage earners like me) pay 95% of all income tax collected in the USA. It's on my back and I am sick of it. I could afford it - kind of - when things were good. Now that they're bad, I have no money to pay my own bills, let alone anyone else's.
So yeah, I'm against it.
I presume that we will have a health care bill signed into law anyway - it is clear the Democrats have the votes to ram it through without the support of 50% of the country.
If my health care bills go up instead of down, I will be looking for apologies from people who insisted this 'reform' would be good for me. It won't, I don't want it, and I do not apologize for hoping President Obama's agenda will fail.
dazedgonebye
Mentor
Painter Dan Lacey has captured the essence of the historic moment quite well I think.
Blog.
http://faithmouse.blogspot.com/
Enlarged Image.
http://www.faithmouse.com/nobel_prize_obama_unicorn.jpg
Blog.
http://faithmouse.blogspot.com/
Enlarged Image.
http://www.faithmouse.com/nobel_prize_obama_unicorn.jpg
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,
Well, no one does. But as (by your own account) this is what is already happening, another way of looking at exactly the same set of facts is that the existing system is broken and that Obama's plan has a good chance of being better -- as health care is in most of the world, except for the very rich.
Of course we can't know. All counterfactual conditionals are true. But if every other wealthy country can run a National Health Service, it strikes me as something of an insult to the American people to say that they're not clever enough, wise enough or honest enough to do the same.
This is something of a side-show to the peace prize, though. Obama is widely perceived as being conciliatory, internationalist and so forth. To a certain extent, in diplomacy, perception is reality. Trust breeds trust and peace; suspicion breeds suspicion and aggression.
These advantages are his to use, or of course to squander. But at least he has the opportunity. A politician who is regarded as an unpredictable potential aggressor -- Ahmedinajad, let's say -- doensn't have the 'peace capital' to begin with.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
I agree that the system we have now is broken. I would have few objections if the plan was to scrap the entire thing, from top to bottom, and go to a national socialized health care system. However, I do not agree that a patch such as those proposed is going to fix anything. Adding more layers of bureaucracy will simply add complexity and cost to something that barely functions now. Obama's plan is NOT a socialized health care system - I'd be for it if it was.
As I said, I've done my due diligence. I may not be right, but I am clear on what is being offered, and I cannot find them advantageous. The few personal debates I have had with people face-to-face on the issue seems to make it clear to me that the consensus view for those who have NOT become acquainted with the actual bills being considered is that 'well, we have to do something'. I cannot agree that 'something' is better than nothing, when 'something' is bound (from my examination) to cost us more and give us less.
To get back on the subject, I have deep suspicions about the 'cipher' that is President Obama. I was cautiously optimistic when he was elected, but as time has gone on, I find myself in deep opposition to his every agenda item. And I find myself shocked, because he seems to me to be embracing the worst of what I disliked about right-wing agendas, as well as what I have always disliked about left-wing agendas. I fear that his followers (yes, I dare call most of them sycophants) are too deeply emotionally invested in their belief of him to even see what his agenda appears to be.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt out of the starting gate. I cannot do so in good conscience any longer. Whether his plans will result in a more peaceful and verdant world, I do not know. I do know that I do not want to go down the path he is laying out, even if it does get us there. I do not wish to live in a peaceful and verdant world if it costs me my liberties.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,
Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubaiyyat comes to mind "Ah love, could thou and I with fate conspire/to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire/would we not shatter it to bits, and then/remould it nearer to the heart's desire". I fully agree than a poor patch is nothing like as good as a radical rethink.
Your point about sycophants is well taken. Let us hope that we are both wrong.
I suspect however that you would (like most people) prefer to live in an ideologically imperfect world, rather than die in an ideologically perfect one. The question is the amount of imperfection you are prepared to entertain. As I get older, I am more with Voltaire: il faut cultiver notre jardin. We can cultivate our own gardens in worlds that are not perfect.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
In reality, Roger, I am reasonably certain that some form of watered-down health care bill will become law. It will be universally hated - by Democrats for not going far enough, by Republicans for going too far. It will be costly, bloated, will not do enough to help those who are currently uninsured, won't control costs well enough to stop insurance companies from making even more money, and will encourage private employers who currently voluntarily provide health insurance to their employees to drop such coverage in favor of a less expensive per-employee penalty fee. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the middle class will be increasingly squeezed towards the poor side of the ledger. And everyone who had high hopes for fixing health care in the US will point at the opposite side of the aisle and claim that their opponents were the ones who ruined it for everyone.
And life goes on.
bmattock
Mentor
pretty much the text book paradigm of capitalism
And everything else. Don't kid yourself.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Overall, most of the time, I think they do. Child labour? Wild inequalities of rich and poor (consider the fact that until WW1, middle class families could normally afford servants)? Impunity (still exists, but much diminished)? Votes for women? Ability of women to make contracts? Abolition of criminal offence of homosexuality? Great decline in backstreet abortions?
And so on...
Cheers,
R.