[barmar]

barmar, on 2013-July-29, 10:56, said:

Lesser of evils?

Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that Obama actually IS the lesser of evils, or agreeing that his vision departs from the majority. Just pointing out how he could have won if this were true.

Last week The Daily Show did a piece about an idealistic young woman who was approached by the Democratic Party to run for Congress. But she turned them down because she didn't think there was any way to get past the gridlock in DC. So there was no point in going there if she couldn't be effective. I expect this is a common feeling among potential politicians. Unfortunately, it makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy; we'll never get any change if people who want to effect change are reluctant even to run. But I can understand them -- there's too much momentum to get around. Not only are good prospects not running, but we also have a number of them retiring -- they've gotten tired of banging their heads against the walls of Congress.

So we're mostly stuck choosing among career politicians in the pockets of big business lobbies, not people who actually represent our viewpoints.

[blackshoe]

Well, if the majority of the American people want what Obama does for this country, then our "noble experiment" is a failure. One step forward, three steps back.

Ben Franklin said, 226 years ago, that the country had been given "a Republic, if you can keep it". I suppose nothing lasts for ever.

[dwar0123]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-29, 22:10, said:

Well, if the majority of the American people want what Obama does for this country, then our "noble experiment" is a failure. One step forward, three steps back.

Ben Franklin said, 226 years ago, that the country had been given "a Republic, if you can keep it". I suppose nothing lasts for ever.

When the majority of the American people don't get the president they wanted, that is when our "noble experiment" has failed and the Republic is lost.

What part of this don't you understand?

About the only thing that Obama has done to this country that could be construed as undermining the noble experiment is not rolling back much of the Bush administrations ironically named patriot act powers and failing to close Bush's offshore no judicial process prisons.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-29, 22:10, said:

Well, if the majority of the American people want what Obama does for this country, then our "noble experiment" is a failure. One step forward, three steps back.

Ben Franklin said, 226 years ago, that the country had been given "a Republic, if you can keep it". I suppose nothing lasts for ever.

What is it "Obama does" which you find so objectionable? Please, be specific.

Here are some notable facts: Obama is African-American. He is a moderate Democrat. Which of the facts do you fear?

Has the conservative right become so rigid that moderation is now considered extremism? If so, we truly are in deep doo doo.

[blackshoe]

"What part of this do you not understand?"

Wonderful. Some bird-brain invents a buzz-phrase, and now every Tom, Dick and Harry on the Internet thinks using it makes him the winner of every argument.

"Which of the facts do you fear?" Neither. Although frankly I'm not so sure about "moderate".

Obama is a Statist. The State is not the solution, the State is the problem.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-30, 23:48, said:

Obama is a Statist. The State is not the solution, the State is the problem.

It seems in your worldview that anyone who does not hold libertarian views is a threat. This seems to me extremist, with only black and white answers to solve problems that are gray. My personal views are that some degree of cooperation is needed in order for society to function well, which is basically a viewpoint that is based on shades of gray with little black and white.

However, I notice in our posts that my views seem black and white to you. Odd, isn't it?

[awm]

It's true that Obama supports slightly increasing the social safety net and government spending. However, I don't think this really explains the hate for him on the Republican side of the aisle, and it certainly doesn't support the change of opinion about him in much of Europe. Some examples:

1. He passed the Affordable Care Act, which expands government subsidies for health insurance, creates tax penalties for failure to buy affordable insurance, and increases regulation of the insurance market. However, note that this was a Republican proposal in the mid nineties (it came out of the Heritage Foundation, and a very similar program was established in MA by a Republican governor). Also, this system is much less generous and has much less government involvement than the medical system in virtually any European country.

2. He supports maintaining government-run retirement funding (social security) and medical care for the old (Medicare) and poor (Medicaid) mostly unchanged. Of course, these programs have been around for years and even Republicans supported them until recently, and they are much less generous than the European safety net. Further, Obama has shown willingness to tinker at the margins and make these programs less generous in exchange for other things (which annoys his supporters in some cases).

3. He supported mild increases in regulation on large banks and trading firms in the wake of the financial crises. These regulations are still less than what existed from the 1940s through 1990s. Many European countries have moved to increase regulation of this sort of thing in the wake of the financial crisis too. Note that even what the US Congress passed is mostly unimplemented (and the implementation is within Obama's power to accelerate -- it's the executive branch that implements laws).

4. He supported a return to the tax rates of the 1990s on the wealthiest Americans. Again, these are low relative to most of recent US history tax rates and relative to most European countries.

Yes, Republicans (now) oppose a lot of these things. But they could've have been a Republican platform in the 70s or probably even the 80s or early 90s.

The European change in opinion on Obama surely has more to do with his foreign policy decisions (which seem like a continuation of the previous administration, when something else might've been expected)...

[blackshoe]

1. I am not a Republican. I've even voted for Democrats on occasion.
2. I don't care who proposed it first, or last, or whenever, a law that fines people for not buying insurance is morally wrong.
3. I have no problem with SS as originally set up: a voluntary retirement program. I do have a problem with what it's become (ie, involuntary for at least some people) and with the way Congress has screwed with it.
4. Having contributed to SS and Medicare for most of my working life, I would really like to get a reasonable return on that investment. I'm not convinced that I will.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-31, 19:03, said:

1. I am not a Republican. I've even voted for Democrats on occasion.
2. I don't care who proposed it first, or last, or whenever, a law that fines people for not buying insurance is morally wrong.
3. I have no problem with SS as originally set up: a voluntary retirement program. I do have a problem with what it's become (ie, involuntary for at least some people) and with the way Congress has screwed with it.
4. Having contributed to SS and Medicare for most of my working life, I would really like to get a reasonable return on that investment. I'm not convinced that I will.

I don't see how any of this makes you believe that Obama has a vision vastly different from that of most voters.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-30, 23:48, said:

Obama is a Statist. The State is not the solution, the State is the problem.

My mistake. I thought you were libertarian when in fact you are an anarchist.

[blackshoe]

Am I? Thanks for letting me know.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-01, 07:26, said:

I don't see how any of this makes you believe that Obama has a vision vastly different from that of most voters.

Obama appears to believe that government intervention - in the marketplace, in our daily lives, and even in the daily lives of people far from this country, is the answer to all problems. I don't think most voters in this country believe that, but as I've said before, if they do, this country is in deep kimchi.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 14:01, said:

Obama appears to believe that government intervention - in the marketplace, in our daily lives, and even in the daily lives of people far from this country, is the answer to all problems. I don't think most voters in this country believe that, but as I've said before, if they do, this country is in deep kimchi.

Okay, now I get what you are saying. I just don't see any evidence that Obama actually believes that government intervention is the answer to all problems.

Obama certainly believes that the government can help to solve some problems not amenable to other solutions, but I don't see that as an extreme position at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most people see it that way too, as do I.

[blackshoe]

Are there problems not amenable to non-government solutions? How do we know? After all, it seems that every time a problem crops up, government steps in and tries to fix it.

I'd ask for examples of government programs that have worked out well when non-government solutions were tried and failed, but I'm sure you can come up with something. After all, there are so many programs. The fact that I can't think of one doesn't mean there isn't one, somewhere. Still, you have to wonder if one, or even two, pluses outweigh the minuses.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 14:28, said:

Are there problems not amenable to non-government solutions? How do we know? After all, it seems that every time a problem crops up, government steps in and tries to fix it.

I'd ask for examples of government programs that have worked out well when non-government solutions were tried and failed, but I'm sure you can come up with something. After all, there are so many programs. The fact that I can't think of one doesn't mean there isn't one, somewhere. Still, you have to wonder if one, or even two, pluses outweigh the minuses.

Some might suggest that the fact that a "problem" exists shows that non-governmental solutions aren't working... Regardless, here are four prototypical examples

1. Provision of public goods. Public good are indivisible. If you provide a public good to some people, you can not block other people from consuming it. (Think about street lamps. If you install street lamps, (traditionally) its impractical to have them turn off if some who didn't pay of the service isn't in the area. A market based solution will provide a suboptimal quantity of lighting. Conversely, a solution based on the government taxing the population and providing service typically does much better.

2. Positive and negative externalities. Externalities occur when either the cost of the benefit of a economic decision is not fully born by the individual making the decision. Pollution is a classic example of a negative externality. If I engage in a production process that generates pollution, I am imposing costs that will be distributed across a large number of third parties. The quantity of product that I product will be sub-optimal for a societal perspective because I don't factor these costs into my decision making. Inoculation programs are classic examples of positive externalities. My decision to get vaccinated against a communicable disease reduces the chance that diseases will spread through the population.

3. Regulating natural monopolies (Should be obvious)

4. Last, and certainly not least - trying to provide all citizens will equal opportunity from birth. (Think public education)

[y66]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 14:28, said:

Are there problems not amenable to non-government solutions? How do we know? After all, it seems that every time a problem crops up, government steps in and tries to fix it.

I'd ask for examples of government programs that have worked out well when non-government solutions were tried and failed, but I'm sure you can come up with something. After all, there are so many programs. The fact that I can't think of one doesn't mean there isn't one, somewhere. Still, you have to wonder if one, or even two, pluses outweigh the minuses.

Let's start with acid rain (see wikipedia). What do you consider sensible criteria for comparing the relative effectiveness of alternative actions?

[mgoetze]

Those Germans who loved Obama and only now, after the revelations of Snowden, distrust him are, in my opinion, pretty stupid, naive and/or disinterested. The fact that Guantanamo is still open for business and there is still a war going on in Afghanistan, among other things, have been providing pretty good clues as to what one should think of Obama (from a European perspective) for a good long time now.