At Harvard, a Master’s in Problem Solving

Gill · Dec 28, 2011

iliveonramen said:
I'm sorry...I never know where you guys on the right are in your views to Obama. Does he try to be everything to everyone or is a hardcore socialists/commie/muslim whatever?

I think Adam was giving a more apt description of Obama rather than Romney.

CJ 2.0 · Dec 28, 2011

Tigger said:
Yes, there are multiple axis for assessing Conservative vs. Liberal (I do not believe that Moderates exist. They're simply Liberals who are too cowardly to admit that they are such)

I don't really agree with you on this, but I appreciate your candor.

He failed to be AGAINST gay marriage. The issue was actually brought about by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts which demanded that the Legislature pass a Gay Marriage bill within a year of its ruling. Romney failed to veto that bill, thus placing himself firmly on that side of the debate (you're gonna catch on real quick that I'm a Black & White philosopher. There is no grey).

I understand - so the legislature passed a bill to address a court decision and Romney made a(n arguably) political calculation not to get in the way.

As for the black and white, I do appreciate your canodr. For equal disclosure purposes I am more of a shades of grey type myself. To me things can be more or less of something, and there are many different stops along the way from one extreme to the other. Which is not to say that they are equally right, wrong or valid, just to say I see each discrete stop as being different from each other one in some material respect.

Romneycare not only forces people to purchase insurance (whether they want it or not), but demands they purchase a certain level of insurance, and if they can't afford it forces the TAXPAYERS to subsidize the cost. Those who don't have it get penalized on their state income tax returns. A true Conservative understands that the very laws demanding that a hospital treat EVERYONE are improper to begin with, nevermind forcing people to purchase a product they don't necessarily want and cannot necessarily afford.

Like I said, this gets into the idea of a social contract and different people have different ideas. I am pretty staunchly big C Conservative in Canada (i.e., our mainstream right wing political party) but even they(/we) are not particularly right wing by US standards and firmly behind a great deal of public responsibility for health care, though I am fully aware of the dysfunction it has introduced into our system and can't quiter figure out where the right point is. I find it pretty offensive I'm not allowed to buy better care for myself when I want it and I certainly would welcome things like co-pays that would reduce demand and payments, but I don't think many here would feel comfortable with an entirely "you're on your own" approach to health care.

And certainly even those most staunchly on the right in the US would be against, say, organ markets, though putting on my right wing free market economist cap I would have a bit of a problem finding any issue with a free market where individuals fully appraised of rights and obligations would be able to sell surplus body parts in an open exchange. It would seemingly achieve better outcomes than we get in a health market where such exchanges are prohibited. I don't really see a lot of social conservatives gravitating to this position (though I certainly understand that perspective). This is also relevant to your last point about how social conservatism leads to fiscal conservatism. I don't really think that's true. To me, economic conservatism is about individual liberty to make any decision he or she wants in the economic realm. Social conservatism is advocacy for a set of societal norms or values to trump individual preferences and restrict freedom of action in these various realms. As a result, I don't really see them as being consistent or inconsistent with each other, and I don't see one necessarily leading towards or away from the other. You have libertarian types that are for free markets and free values, and you have communist types that wish to dictate both social and economic actions to subjects. Then you have social conservatives and social democrats. Social conservatives support liberal (small l, as in individual liberty in making decisions) economic policies and illiberal social policies, while social democrats gravitate in the opposite direction to liberal social policies and illiberal economic policies.

In terms of economy and tax matters, he did less than nothing to reduce the tax burden on Massachusetts residents. In fact RomneyCare increased the burden as we now have to pay for that failed system as well as everything else. The economy in MA was no better, and probably worse when Romney left office than when he arrived.

Thanks - this to me is what matters a great deal.

I'm of the opinion that SOCIAL Conservatism leads to FISCAL Conservatism and since Romney is anything BUT a Social Conservative, he has no chance of getting any support from me to be elected dog catcher or toilet scrubber, nevermind POTUS.

Well, while I think there are a number of things conflated here (besides obviously disagreeing with your premise on causality, I don't see why not being socially or economicly conservative means no chance of support for POTUS, given the ridiclous support Obama got in spite of his political leanings and absence of any possible job qualifications), again I certianly appreciate your response and candor.

AdamT · Dec 28, 2011

Gill said:
You must really hate Obama then.

I think Obama has a similar problem, but not quite the same. Like Romney he's smart and a good problem solver, but unlike Romney he does have core beliefs. Obama's biggest weakness, IMO, is his ability to distinguish between occasions when compromise is necessary and/or possible and occasions when it's simply necessary to stand on principle.

CJ 2.0 · Dec 28, 2011

AdamT said:
I think Obama has a similar problem, but not quite the same. Like Romney he's smart and a good problem solver, but unlike Romney he does have core beliefs. Obama's biggest weakness, IMO, is his ability to distinguish between occasions when compromise is necessary and/or possible and occasions when it's simply necessary to stand on principle.

I think you're right his problems are different than Romney's, but I don't think that's it. IMO, his problem is that he likes broad ideas but #1 doesn't really care so much for the mechanics of how those ideas translate into real policy, #2 has no real ability to manage processes and infrastructure (i.e., the whole "entirely unqualified for the job" thing) and #3 is almost entirely concerns with his own electability rather than any policy convictions.

But if I was a betting man (or even if I wasn't, because this seems like a pretty safe bet), I would bet that Romney as president would be much less of a disaster than Obama, who I would rank as a terrible president by almost any metric.

Tigger · Dec 28, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
I don't really agree with you on this, but I appreciate your candor.

You're welcome.

CJ 2.0 said:
I understand - so the legislature passed a bill to address a court decision and Romney made a(n arguably) political calculation not to get in the way.

No. He actually supported it in the end, claiming he had no choice because the SJC had mandated the legislation. He didn't put up the least amount of a fight against it and actually tried to take some credit for it in the end.

CJ 2.0 said:
Like I said, this gets into the idea of a social contract and different people have different ideas. I am pretty staunchly big C Conservative in Canada (i.e., our mainstream right wing political party) but even they(/we) are not particularly right wing by US standards and firmly behind a great deal of public responsibility for health care, though I am fully aware of the dysfunction it has introduced into our system and can't quiter figure out where the right point is. I find it pretty offensive I'm not allowed to buy better care for myself when I want it and I certainly would welcome things like co-pays that would reduce demand and payments, but I don't think many here would feel comfortable with an entirely "you're on your own" approach to health care.

A truly Conservative approach IS "You're on your own." Of course a large percentage of people would still be covered (here in the US) by insurance from their employers.

CJ 2.0 said:
And certainly even those most staunchly on the right in the US would be against, say, organ markets, though putting on my right wing free market economist cap I would have a bit of a problem finding any issue with a free market where individuals fully appraised of rights and obligations would be able to sell surplus body parts in an open exchange. It would seemingly achieve better outcomes than we get in a health market where such exchanges are prohibited. I don't really see a lot of social conservatives gravitating to this position (though I certainly understand that perspective).

I don't think anyone is looking to go so far as organ markets and the like.

CJ 2.0 said:
This is also relevant to your last point about how social conservatism leads to fiscal conservatism. I don't really think that's true. To me, economic conservatism is about individual liberty to make any decision he or she wants in the economic realm. Social conservatism is advocacy for a set of societal norms or values to trump individual preferences and restrict freedom of action in these various realms. As a result, I don't really see them as being consistent or inconsistent with each other, and I don't see one necessarily leading towards or away from the other. You have libertarian types that are for free markets and free values, and you have communist types that wish to dictate both social and economic actions to subjects. Then you have social conservatives and social democrats. Social conservatives support liberal (small l, as in individual liberty in making decisions) economic policies and illiberal social policies, while social democrats gravitate in the opposite direction to liberal social policies and illiberal economic policies.

When a government maintains a truly Socially Conservative style, there isn't much for them to spend money on. Social spending goes away. Foreign aid disappears. Subsidies and business interference ends. The military is reduced to a Defense/Counter-Attack style that is less expensive to maintain.

CJ 2.0 said:
Thanks - this to me is what matters a great deal.

Yeah. He's no economic juggernaut by any stretch of the imagination.

CJ 2.0 said:
Well, while I think there are a number of things conflated here (besides obviously disagreeing with your premise on causality, I don't see why not being socially or economicly conservative means no chance of support for POTUS, given the ridiclous support Obama got in spite of his political leanings and absence of any possible job qualifications), again I certianly appreciate your response and candor.

Some of us expect our candidates to actually walk the talk and to agree with the vast majority of our viewpoints on things. I will not vote AGAINST a candidate. I never have. If the Republican cannot provide me a reason to vote FOR them, I'll vote third party again, or write my own name in this time.

AdamT · Dec 28, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
I think you're right his problems are different than Romney's, but I don't think that's it. IMO, his problem is that he likes broad ideas but #1 doesn't really care so much for the mechanics of how those ideas translate into real policy, #2 has no real ability to manage processes and infrastructure (i.e., the whole "entirely unqualified for the job" thing) and #3 is almost entirely concerns with his own electability rather than any policy convictions.

But if I was a betting man (or even if I wasn't, because this seems like a pretty safe bet), I would bet that Romney as president would be much less of a disaster than Obama, who I would rank as a terrible president by almost any metric.

That's not how I see it. I think that Obama has broad ideas, and knows how he would like them implemented, but he's too quick to compromise his ideas in the vain hope of attracting bipartisan support from an opposition who's only goal is to thwart him whenever possible. Inability to manage? That's way off base, IMO. Presidents from both parties have been trying to implement health care reform at least since Teddy Roosevelt and none came close to pulling it off. His response to the financial crisis has certainly been better than the Eurozone response. He's been far more successful in the War on Terror than his predecessor. Etc. Despite all the complaints, he's really accomplished a hell of a lot in three years. Nor do I see much pandering to the electorate. He persisted with HCR even when the majority opposed it. He gave up on the public option when his base strongly supported it. He also folded on the top tax cuts when his base was screaming for them to go away.

As to where he will rank, that's hard to say. As of July last year presidential scholars ranked him between Clinton and Reagan.

A new poll of leading presidential scholars ranks Barack Obama as the 15th best president of the United States, just below Bill Clinton but ahead of Ronald Reagan.

The Siena College poll, which surveyed 238 presidential scholars at U.S. colleges and universities, asked scholars to rate the nation’s 43 chief executives on 20 attributes ranging from legislative accomplishments to integrity and imagination.

In the overall ranking, Obama rated two places below Clinton, who was 13th best, and three better than Reagan, who is ranked as the 18th best.

Professors rank President Obama 15th best president - Emily Schultheis - POLITICO.com

I guess y'all get Fox News in Canada, eh? :lol:

poweRob · Dec 29, 2011

I think this is Harvard's great problem solver. Locked away in a safe at Harvard Law Review:

CJ 2.0 · Dec 29, 2011

Tigger said:
No. He actually supported it in the end, claiming he had no choice because the SJC had mandated the legislation. He didn't put up the least amount of a fight against it and actually tried to take some credit for it in the end.

Understood. For the record, I don't really care about gay marriage (except inasmuch as I don't really see any issue with it and gay people seem to like it).

A truly Conservative approach IS "You're on your own." Of course a large percentage of people would still be covered (here in the US) by insurance from their employers.

Insurance through employers is a dumb system. It may have made sense when it evolved back in the day, but it makes no sense in an environment where labour mobility and employee turnover are (and should be) high. However the US chooses to structure its health care insurance system, there has to be a better way.

As for government vs not government, indulge me in analogy for a moment. We all agree that a major, if not the primary, role for the federal government is collective self defence - to keep the population safe from attack by foreign powers. While different, instead of pooling risk by employer (such that high risk and low risk individuals get health care based on a risk pool of employees at a particular employer), why not pool risk for insurance based on, say, municipality of residence, or state of residence? That helps dilute risk even mroe, and provides some pretty large purchasing power which can be used to extract concessions out of health care providers.

And if society understands that we can (and should) devolve powers to a state government to provide for common defence, why not do the same for the purchase of health insurance?

Now I do appreciate all of the dysfunction inherent in putting anything in the hands of a state government to manage, but absent that effect this would seem better for health care consumers. And I'm not, by any means, saying this is the answer (like I said, there is some pretty major dysfunction in the Canadian public insurance health care system (health care provision is private in Canada, just we have a public payer/insurer that flattens the system so that there are no deductables while meddling in all different sorts of things).

As for the conservative = you're on your own, I think that's fine as a general principle but I'm not sure it is either (1) correct or (2) optimal. Re correctness, there are all different sorts of conservative positions that involve public provision of services. Now they may be totally sensible to be put into the public realm, but conservatives support them nontheless. Examples include defence, police, fire and various other public security stuff (e.g., the CDC). Now I totally appreciate a conservative position generally eschews forced interpersonal wealth transfers and is very concerned about creating dependency, but we are all dependent on a government run and financed 100% voluntary military.

I don't think anyone is looking to go so far as organ markets and the like.

I know. But why not? Wouldn't it save lives? Isn't it "the free market at work"? So what's the problem? Are we worried about people not having the proper foresight to look out for their own best interests? Are we worried about exploitation of various poor and vulnerable people? Cause neither of those are conservative "you're on your own" propositions.

No, to me this issue demonstrates the conflict, rather than symbiosis, between social conservatism and economic conservatism. Economic conservatism would say sell whatever you want, as long as it's yours. Social conservatism restricts liberty in pursuant or to maintain social mores.

When a government maintains a truly Socially Conservative style, there isn't much for them to spend money on. Social spending goes away. Foreign aid disappears. Subsidies and business interference ends. The military is reduced to a Defense/Counter-Attack style that is less expensive to maintain.

That's not even remotely true. A pure social but not economic conservative could spend a ton of money to build up "the family", whether through tax or direct subsidies for having more childrenon foreign aid that promotes traditional conservative values, and on military power to protect domestic interests while advancing a more conservative foreign agenda.

I don't think anything goes away. I think it just changes where the money goes (e.g., the "war on drugs").

To me, the only position that necessarily reduces the scope of govenrment is the libertarian one, because the explicit position of the libertarian is that pretty much everything is none of the government's business. You want to use drugs, fine. We won't pay to stop you, but we won't pay to enable you. You want to quit your job and live like a bum "married" to 5 other guys and girls in a filthy commune? Fine. The libertarian won't spend any money policing or prosecuting you.

Movement away from libertarianism, eiother on the economic or social side, increases costs. Not to say that is bad or that I am a libertarian (I may lean that way but I'm not one), but this to me is the right way for understanding all this stuff.

Some of us expect our candidates to actually walk the talk and to agree with the vast majority of our viewpoints on things. I will not vote AGAINST a candidate. I never have. If the Republican cannot provide me a reason to vote FOR them, I'll vote third party again, or write my own name in this time.

I understand. Incidentally, I also don't agree with you. If you have a choice between A, B and C, if C is the frontrunner and your preference is A before C, if B is unelectable then a vote for B enables C to win. It seesm the perfect example of shooting off your nose to spite your face.

As sucky as Romney or Huntsman or some other republican might be, if you believe they would be less of a disaster than Obama, then you must appreciate that any vote for a non-electable candidate is effectively a vote for Obama.

CJ 2.0 · Dec 29, 2011

AdamT said:
That's not how I see it. I think that Obama has broad ideas, and knows how he would like them implemented, but he's too quick to compromise his ideas in the vain hope of attracting bipartisan support from an opposition who's only goal is to thwart him whenever possible.

yeah, I don't see this at all. I have not seen him try to compromise on anything. Rather, I've seen the typical political "compromising" efforts which are all about making your opponent look bad rather than about effecting positive change through compromise.

Incidentally, I also think his ideas suck, and I might as well disclose that too, but that's not where I'm coming from on this. I genuinely perceive Obama to be completely obsessed with the political game rathert han in effecting positive change through compromise.

Inability to manage? That's way off base, IMO. Presidents from both parties have been trying to implement health care reform at least since Teddy Roosevelt and none came close to pulling it off.

but that's not it. It's not the absence of results, it is my perception of his entire leadership style and the ability of domestic and foreign pols to throw him around as he tilts in the wind or just plain disengages.

His response to the financial crisis has certainly been better than the Eurozone response.

And much worse than the Canadian response, which was a token "stimulous" which was actually focused on infrastructure combined with encouraging investment. While Europe has its own fatal dysfunctions, Obama has systematically impeded economic recovery through interventionalist meddling and a heavy regulatory hand, combined with the general waffling that creates such uncertainty as to muddy the investment environment. His "stimulous" was a nonsensical pork-filled disaster (like he said, nothing was really "shovel ready" and money went, rather than to infrastructure development, to shoring up state expenditure budgets (bassically borrowing money to spend it on services rather than on capital investments) and to terrible, terrible investments. And he is, qalmost single handedly, putting the US in an economic situation from which a proper recovery is almost impossible. You can't have a deficit gap as wide as Obama has created without repercussions. Add to that his regulatory heavy hand and his ignorance of how that impacts on the economy he is trying to fix through dysfunctional meddling, and IMO you get a feckless dunce wandering around a hay factory with a flamethrower.

He's been far more successful in the War on Terror than his predecessor. Etc. Despite all the complaints, he's really accomplished a hell of a lot in three years. Nor do I see much pandering to the electorate. He persisted with HCR even when the majority opposed it. He gave up on the public option when his base strongly supported it. He also folded on the top tax cuts when his base was screaming for them to go away.

I don't think he's been more successful. He's had successes, to be sure, but those were tactical. His strategic choices in Iraq will end very badly, and I really have no idea what his plans are in Afghanistan.

As to where he will rank, that's hard to say. As of July last year presidential scholars ranked him between Clinton and Reagan.

"presidential scholars" eh? I would expect him to be ranked around Carter at this point, but we'll see how much pain comes out of his indifference to financial ruin combined with his inability to put the building blocks in place for the economy to right itself.

I guess y'all get Fox News in Canada, eh? :lol:

I think we do, but I mostly just pay attention.

Edfit: Oh, and I just need to add a bit on Obama's complete incompetence in the foreign policy arena. From his "engagement" with Iran to his support of toppling allies while not wanting to interfere with enemies in Iran and Syria, from his complete wrong-headedness on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to his abandonment of allies in Eastern Europe in light of Russian sabre-rattling, Obama has been one sad, sorry embarrasment after another on the foreign policy front.

Seriously.

sangha · Dec 29, 2011

I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe someone has mentioned it, but can anyone point to one business problem Mitt solved when he worked as a "problem solver"?

CJ 2.0 · Dec 29, 2011

sangha said:
I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe someone has mentioned it, but can anyone point to one business problem Mitt solved when he worked as a "problem solver"?

Well, I've seen some of the stuff that Bain invested in, and they've done a very good job at finding and fixing corporate dysfunction. No idea what Romney's involvement was in any particular deals, but like I said, some very good stuff in there.

sangha · Dec 29, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
Well, I've seen some of the stuff that Bain invested in, and they've done a very good job at finding and fixing corporate dysfunction. No idea what Romney's involvement was in any particular deals, but like I said, some very good stuff in there.

I know that Bain has solved some problems. I was wondering about Mitt in particular.

But thanks for the response

AdamT · Dec 29, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
yeah, I don't see this at all. I have not seen him try to compromise on anything. Rather, I've seen the typical political "compromising" efforts which are all about making your opponent look bad rather than about effecting positive change through compromise.

You're obviously not looking with an objective eye. You need look no further than the recent payroll tax cut flap. Obama strongly opposed tying it to the XL pipeline and wanted it paid for primarily via a surtax on income over a million dollars. He compromised on both priorities.

Incidentally, I also think his ideas suck, and I might as well disclose that too, but that's not where I'm coming from on this. I genuinely perceive Obama to be completely obsessed with the political game rathert han in effecting positive change through compromise.

It's hard to believe that you aren't letting your ideology guide your opinion. Obama compromised time and time again, and to no avail. Conservatives in Congress have flatly stated that their number one goal is to defeat Obama -- not to help the country out of its mess.

but that's not it. It's not the absence of results, it is my perception of his entire leadership style and the ability of domestic and foreign pols to throw him around as he tilts in the wind or just plain disengages.

Perhaps you can provide some examples where you think Obama tilted to the polls?

And much worse than the Canadian response, which was a token "stimulous" which was actually focused on infrastructure combined with encouraging investment.

There was nothing miraculous about the Canadian response. Fortunately for you, Canada was far less affected by the crisis than America or Europe. The reasons for that are not hard to divine; you have much stricter financial and housing regulations. Of course Obama has been trying to tighten up regulations in this country but has met with overwhelming resistance from conervatives.

While Europe has its own fatal dysfunctions, Obama has systematically impeded economic recovery through interventionalist meddling and a heavy regulatory hand, combined with the general waffling that creates such uncertainty as to muddy the investment environment. His "stimulous" was a nonsensical pork-filled disaster (like he said, nothing was really "shovel ready" and money went, rather than to infrastructure development, to shoring up state expenditure budgets (bassically borrowing money to spend it on services rather than on capital investments) and to terrible, terrible investments. And he is, qalmost single handedly, putting the US in an economic situation from which a proper recovery is almost impossible. You can't have a deficit gap as wide as Obama has created without repercussions. Add to that his regulatory heavy hand and his ignorance of how that impacts on the economy he is trying to fix through dysfunctional meddling, and IMO you get a feckless dunce wandering around a hay factory with a flamethrower.

In other words, you don't believe in Keynsian economics. That is certainly your right.

I don't think he's been more successful. He's had successes, to be sure, but those were tactical. His strategic choices in Iraq will end very badly, and I really have no idea what his plans are in Afghanistan.

Bush signed the Iraq peace accord. Obama didn't have much say in the matter. Obama seems to phasing down our involvement in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, his increased presence there allowed us to take out Osama bin Laden and countless other al Qaeda brass. He played Libya perfectly, taking out another lunatic supporter of terror at the cost of no American lives and relatively little treasure.

Edfit: Oh, and I just need to add a bit on Obama's complete incompetence in the foreign policy arena. From his "engagement" with Iran to his support of toppling allies while not wanting to interfere with enemies in Iran and Syria, from his complete wrong-headedness on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to his abandonment of allies in Eastern Europe in light of Russian sabre-rattling, Obama has been one sad, sorry embarrasment after another on the foreign policy front.

You are wrong on every point. Obama has been very tough on Iran (witness their desperate threat to close the Straights of Hormuz), he supported democratic revolutions where they occurred, and he rightly shifted course re: Israel rather than follow a policy that has been failing for 60 years.

Seriously.[/QUOTE]

Tigger · Dec 29, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
Understood. For the record, I don't really care about gay marriage (except inasmuch as I don't really see any issue with it and gay people seem to like it).

On the other hand I care about it very greatly as I see the idea as being completely contrary to the basic morals, ethics, and values that I believe in.

CJ 2.0 said:
Insurance through employers is a dumb system. It may have made sense when it evolved back in the day, but it makes no sense in an environment where labour mobility and employee turnover are (and should be) high. However the US chooses to structure its health care insurance system, there has to be a better way.

I tend to disagree. Then again I see health care as the PRIVILIGE that it is rather than the RIGHT that the US and most Western nations have tried to turn it into.

CJ 2.0 said:
As for government vs not government, indulge me in analogy for a moment. We all agree that a major, if not the primary, role for the federal government is collective self defence - to keep the population safe from attack by foreign powers. While different, instead of pooling risk by employer (such that high risk and low risk individuals get health care based on a risk pool of employees at a particular employer), why not pool risk for insurance based on, say, municipality of residence, or state of residence? That helps dilute risk even mroe, and provides some pretty large purchasing power which can be used to extract concessions out of health care providers.

And if society understands that we can (and should) devolve powers to a state government to provide for common defence, why not do the same for the purchase of health insurance?

You miss a very important point there, CJ..... The role of Government is the Defense of the NATION, not the individuals therein. That is the biggest problem when people read Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.... they fail to realize that it refers to the General Welfare and Common Defense of the NATION, not the individual citizens.

The problem with what you're suggesting is that it requires all the individuals within that municipality to be on the same plan. The plan that works for ME, might not work for YOU, and probably doesn't work for some 75 year old grandmother in a nursing home.

CJ 2.0 said:
Now I do appreciate all of the dysfunction inherent in putting anything in the hands of a state government to manage, but absent that effect this would seem better for health care consumers. And I'm not, by any means, saying this is the answer (like I said, there is some pretty major dysfunction in the Canadian public insurance health care system (health care provision is private in Canada, just we have a public payer/insurer that flattens the system so that there are no deductables while meddling in all different sorts of things).

I tend to disagree. I believe that I am much more capable of making decisions about my medical care than some bureaucrat in Oxford, Worcester, or Boston, MA; or in Washington, DC.

CJ 2.0 said:
As for the conservative = you're on your own, I think that's fine as a general principle but I'm not sure it is either (1) correct or (2) optimal. Re correctness, there are all different sorts of conservative positions that involve public provision of services. Now they may be totally sensible to be put into the public realm, but conservatives support them nontheless. Examples include defence, police, fire and various other public security stuff (e.g., the CDC). Now I totally appreciate a conservative position generally eschews forced interpersonal wealth transfers and is very concerned about creating dependency, but we are all dependent on a government run and financed 100% voluntary military.

Correct or Optimal in what way? The US Constitution and the Constitutions of the individual States (and charters of the Cities and Towns) denote what the LEGAL role of those governments is. There is nowhere in the US Constitution or in the Massachusetts Constitution where either entity is given the right to engage in any medical or insurance business. Now, if you want to ammend those documents through the proper process to include this, fine. However, until those documents are so ammended, this is totally UnConsitutional on every level.

CJ 2.0 said:
I know. But why not? Wouldn't it save lives? Isn't it "the free market at work"? So what's the problem? Are we worried about people not having the proper foresight to look out for their own best interests? Are we worried about exploitation of various poor and vulnerable people? Cause neither of those are conservative "you're on your own" propositions.

Personally, I'd have no problem with it, but I know that the vast majority of Americans would.

CJ 2.0 said:
No, to me this issue demonstrates the conflict, rather than symbiosis, between social conservatism and economic conservatism. Economic conservatism would say sell whatever you want, as long as it's yours. Social conservatism restricts liberty in pursuant or to maintain social mores.

Economic Conservatism is concerned with living within one's means financially. Social Conservatism is concerned with living within proper morals and values. They're both systems designed to ensure that the Right thing is done rather than the easy thing.

CJ 2.0 said:
That's not even remotely true. A pure social but not economic conservative could spend a ton of money to build up "the family", whether through tax or direct subsidies for having more childrenon foreign aid that promotes traditional conservative values, and on military power to protect domestic interests while advancing a more conservative foreign agenda.

I don't think anything goes away. I think it just changes where the money goes (e.g., the "war on drugs").

A purely Social Conservative understands that the ideal is to get people to choose to live a proper life by making the improper life much less advantagous to them. Yes, that does require some spending (courts, executions, jails, etc...) but this is completely offset by the total removal of the domestic and international welfare systems that countries like the US currently engage in.

CJ 2.0 said:
To me, the only position that necessarily reduces the scope of govenrment is the libertarian one, because the explicit position of the libertarian is that pretty much everything is none of the government's business. You want to use drugs, fine. We won't pay to stop you, but we won't pay to enable you. You want to quit your job and live like a bum "married" to 5 other guys and girls in a filthy commune? Fine. The libertarian won't spend any money policing or prosecuting you.

Movement away from libertarianism, eiother on the economic or social side, increases costs. Not to say that is bad or that I am a libertarian (I may lean that way but I'm not one), but this to me is the right way for understanding all this stuff.

That's the problem. The Libertarian has no morals or values at all. They are essentially anarchists with a twist. The role of Government is to ensure a decent and moral society. That cannot be done within the system the Libertarians suggest.

CJ 2.0 said:
I understand. Incidentally, I also don't agree with you. If you have a choice between A, B and C, if C is the frontrunner and your preference is A before C, if B is unelectable then a vote for B enables C to win. It seesm the perfect example of shooting off your nose to spite your face.

Some of us actually believe we need to be able to vote FOR someone, not against their opponent. I refuse to vote for any candidate who is not very close to my viewpoint on the majority of issues. I would rather have the GREATER of two evils elected, with the intent of either formenting Armed Revolution or at least pointing out how bad they are than the lesser of two evils.

CJ 2.0 said:
As sucky as Romney or Huntsman or some other republican might be, if you believe they would be less of a disaster than Obama, then you must appreciate that any vote for a non-electable candidate is effectively a vote for Obama.

At the end of my life I am going to have to stand before my Creators and attest to my actions in this world and how they compare to my beliefs. Voting for an individual who does not hold even an infintessimal amount of morals and values as I see them is not going to help my case. I've been eligible to vote in 5 Presidential Elections. I've voted Republican twice, Independent twice, and chose not to vote in 1996 because there was no candidate that I could support. As of right now, assuming Romney is the candidate I am more likely to vote for NOBODY, than I am for Mitt Romney.

CJ 2.0 · Dec 29, 2011

AdamT said:
Perhaps you can provide some examples where you think Obama tilted to the polls?

sorry, my mistake - I said foreign pols - i.e., politicians, not polls. i should have been mroe clear.

There was nothing miraculous about the Canadian response. Fortunately for you, Canada was far less affected by the crisis than America or Europe. The reasons for that are not hard to divine; you have much stricter financial and housing regulations. Of course Obama has been trying to tighten up regulations in this country but has met with overwhelming resistance from conervatives.

Not really. First, the entire US mess was largely driven by democratic efforts to broaden lending for "affordable housing" combined with the corporatism that is so pervasive in your system which allowed banks to manipulate markets to shift risk. Our housing market didn't collapse because we didn't push banks to broaden lending practices like you did. As for addressing economic issues, we had a much more targeted stimulous focused on investment (e.g., tax credits for home improvements) rather than maintaining spending on services.

In other words, you don't believe in Keynsian economics. That is certainly your right.

actually, I sort of do. Just I appreciate that it is more complex than that, and that different spending forms matter, as do different regulatory environments. Now we don't need to go into the fact that Obama has added billions in regulatory inefficiencies into the economy, but on the "stimulous", the key driver of how useful it is in the medium to longer term is whether it spurs genuine investment and an improvement in the capital stock. Spending billions to get people to shift forward consumption decisions (i.e., cash for clunkers) is just dumb and does nothing other than artificially boosting short term figures at the direct expense of numbers right after the program ends (it also had the wonderful added benefit of severely driving up the price of used cars). Borrowing to prop up employment on service production and consumption similarly has little long term benefit. On the other hand, real investment on needed infrastructure (i.e., building roads that are in demand rather than bridges to nowhere or a high speed rail line that no one wants or needs) can have a real benefit. But you need to be careful that corporatism doesn't infect the investment environment and skew private investments away from useful ones (i.e., Solyndra et al). Every single dollar spent by Obama on solar energy and every pivate dollar invested as a result could have been FAR better spent on development of oil and gas infrastructure - it would have created more short term jobas and would have increased the ability of the economy to produce wealth going forward.

And that, combined with the unnecessarily massive scale and ridiculous scope of the stimulous was why it failed so badly. Add onto that the growing realization of how screwed you guys are because of your insurmountable deficits (which Obama only wants to add to), and you create exactly the "stimulous" that one would shape if the goal was to IMPEDE long term growth and prosperity.

Bush signed the Iraq peace accord. Obama didn't have much say in the matter. Obama seems to phasing down our involvement in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, his increased presence there allowed us to take out Osama bin Laden and countless other al Qaeda brass. He played Libya perfectly, taking out another lunatic supporter of terror at the cost of no American lives and relatively little treasure.

He did actually. There have been numerous reports of how Obama screwed things up with the Iraqis so badly to get his pull out even though they would have wanted him to stay.

You are wrong on every point. Obama has been very tough on Iran (witness their desperate threat to close the Straights of Hormuz)

bull ****. He "re-engaged" with them following Bush, killing momentum towards building pressure on them, and only changed tact when he was shown what everybody else knew - that his approach was stupid.

he supported democratic revolutions where they occurred

Also, bull ****. He stood on the sidelines when the Iranians tried to protest against their govenrment, and has been dragged by circumstance into changing his position that Assad is not a "reformer" like he was pretending at the outset.

, and he rightly shifted course re: Israel rather than follow a policy that has been failing for 60 years.

Topic for a different thread, of course, but this too is fundamentally wrong. The failed policy is that of deemed equivalency and pretending the Palestinians are interested in peace, which has been the policy of the govenrtment since Oslo. The only difference is that Obama has made it far, far worse.

CJ 2.0 · Dec 29, 2011

Tigger said:
On the other hand I care about it very greatly as I see the idea as being completely contrary to the basic morals, ethics, and values that I believe in.

I understand. But it is not the government's role to tell people how to live their lives. What about divorce? Also contrary to lots of people's ethics and morals, and probably more destructive to society than gay marriage. Should it be prohibited by law?

I tend to disagree. Then again I see health care as the PRIVILIGE that it is rather than the RIGHT that the US and most Western nations have tried to turn it into.

i see it as a privilege too, just like I see joint defence of our collective "rights" as a privilege as well. In fact, to put it out there, I would assert that all "rights" are merely privileges. We each have a right to nothing other than what the law of the jungle provides. We just live in a society where certain of those privileges (like the privilege not to be drawn and quartered because our master renegged on a contract) are so far removed from possibility that we regard them as rights.

But were it not for our civilization, no one would be saying that an ability to choose your spouse or not be summarily executed by the next roving band is anything but a privilege enjoyed by the strong.

You miss a very important point there, CJ..... The role of Government is the Defense of the NATION, not the individuals therein. That is the biggest problem when people read Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.... they fail to realize that it refers to the General Welfare and Common Defense of the NATION, not the individual citizens.

I don't agree (leaving aside the constitution, which I am not that familiar with). The fundamental essenceof the social contract is that human beings agree to bind themselves together to repell outside threats to their security.

The problem with what you're suggesting is that it requires all the individuals within that municipality to be on the same plan. The plan that works for ME, might not work for YOU, and probably doesn't work for some 75 year old grandmother in a nursing home.

Actually, it may or may not. it need not be exclusive, and multiple plans could develop each with a differebnt risk profile but all negotiated collectively by the municipality (potentially with multiple vendors). So I have a municipality with 1 million people. I use that to negotiate with a series of insurance companies for a number of insurance arrangements which consumers can choose from (or they can go it alone if they prefer or have any other sort of coop). Some could be catastrophe only with a high deductable, others could be entirely comprehensive. The consumer would have to pay the premium but the municipality would be the aggregating entity.

This actually makes mroe sense than an employer driven model. Lots of people may lose an employer without gaining another. I would think very few people don't live somewhere.

I tend to disagree. I believe that I am much more capable of making decisions about my medical care than some bureaucrat in Oxford, Worcester, or Boston, MA; or in Washington, DC.

And you are probably right in that regard, though right now insurers make all different sorts of decisions.

Correct or Optimal in what way? The US Constitution and the Constitutions of the individual States (and charters of the Cities and Towns) denote what the LEGAL role of those governments is. There is nowhere in the US Constitution or in the Massachusetts Constitution where either entity is given the right to engage in any medical or insurance business. Now, if you want to ammend those documents through the proper process to include this, fine. However, until those documents are so ammended, this is totally UnConsitutional on every level.

sorry, correct or optimal in terms of conservative principle. As i said, I will defer to you on what's legally possible in your various jurisdictions.

Personally, I'd have no problem with it, but I know that the vast majority of Americans would.

I agree. And on what grounds? What proportion of social conservatives would think this is fine? Honestly? Abortion rights are different. I understand that. The objection is grounded on the assertion that the unborn baby is still a person and should be protected by law from being killed. But here, a policy that would impact on no one but the freely consenting donor and recipient, I beleive likely would also be very strongly opposed on social conservative principles.

ame with assisted suicide.

Economic Conservatism is concerned with living within one's means financially. Social Conservatism is concerned with living within proper morals and values. They're both systems designed to ensure that the Right thing is done rather than the easy thing.

Social conservatism in personal life I agree (though will not offer my opinion on the "properness" of any particular morals and values). Social conservatism as social policy legislated by the government I do not.

But on reflection, I see some of what you're saying and I do see some complementarity. Would the line of thinking be that it is unjust to forcibly take resources from one person to give to anohter, but that the social mores of those with means, if raised and guided properly, would help ensure that those deserving of charity would receive it, freely offered? Because I do understand that.

A purely Social Conservative understands that the ideal is to get people to choose to live a proper life by making the improper life much less advantagous to them. Yes, that does require some spending (courts, executions, jails, etc...) but this is completely offset by the total removal of the domestic and international welfare systems that countries like the US currently engage in.

Costs and benefits. You could get rid of lots of both with a libertarian appraoch, though. Social conservatism adds to public costs compared to that alternative.

That's the problem. The Libertarian has no morals or values at all. They are essentially anarchists with a twist.

I'm not sure that's true. Their morals are libertarian, which I believe stands for the proposition that every man is entitled to maximum liberty, to the extent that it does not impinge on the liberty of others, and a society so structured achieves the best outcome for its citizens. Like Is aid, I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, but I do see the point. Murder is bad because it kills people. Assault is bad because it hurts people. Consenting adults having gay sex is not bad because it doesn't have any impact except on consenting adults, who are deemed responsible enough to make their own judgments as to whether it is good or bad for them. Same thing with drugs.

The role of Government is to ensure a decent and moral society. That cannot be done within the system the Libertarians suggest.

it can be, but I don't think it has to be. The role of the govenrment is to carry out the will of the people.

Some of us actually believe we need to be able to vote FOR someone, not against their opponent. I refuse to vote for any candidate who is not very close to my viewpoint on the majority of issues. I would rather have the GREATER of two evils elected, with the intent of either formenting Armed Revolution or at least pointing out how bad they are than the lesser of two evils.

I appreciate that, though I also see the direct consequence.

At the end of my life I am going to have to stand before my Creators and attest to my actions in this world and how they compare to my beliefs. Voting for an individual who does not hold even an infintessimal amount of morals and values as I see them is not going to help my case. I've been eligible to vote in 5 Presidential Elections. I've voted Republican twice, Independent twice, and chose not to vote in 1996 because there was no candidate that I could support. As of right now, assuming Romney is the candidate I am more likely to vote for NOBODY, than I am for Mitt Romney.

fair enough. And thanks for this, I really am enjoying this discussion.

AdamT · Dec 29, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
Not really. First, the entire US mess was largely driven by democratic efforts to broaden lending for "affordable housing" combined with the corporatism that is so pervasive in your system which allowed banks to manipulate markets to shift risk. Our housing market didn't collapse because we didn't push banks to broaden lending practices like you did. As for addressing economic issues, we had a much more targeted stimulous focused on investment (e.g., tax credits for home improvements) rather than maintaining spending on services.

No, it actually had little or nothing to do with affordable housing. No need to beat that dead horse again. The problem was a breakdown in banking regulations that were put in place after the Great Depression, and machinations by Wall Street to get around what little regulation there was. Your stimulus could be much more targeted because your problem was much smaller to begin with.

actually, I sort of do. Just I appreciate that it is more complex than that, and that different spending forms matter, as do different regulatory environments. Now we don't need to go into the fact that Obama has added billions in regulatory inefficiencies into the economy, but on the "stimulous", the key driver of how useful it is in the medium to longer term is whether it spurs genuine investment and an improvement in the capital stock. Spending billions to get people to shift forward consumption decisions (i.e., cash for clunkers) is just dumb and does nothing other than artificially boosting short term figures at the direct expense of numbers right after the program ends (it also had the wonderful added benefit of severely driving up the price of used cars). Borrowing to prop up employment on service production and consumption similarly has little long term benefit. On the other hand, real investment on needed infrastructure (i.e., building roads that are in demand rather than bridges to nowhere or a high speed rail line that no one wants or needs) can have a real benefit. But you need to be careful that corporatism doesn't infect the investment environment and skew private investments away from useful ones (i.e., Solyndra et al). Every single dollar spent by Obama on solar energy and every pivate dollar invested as a result could have been FAR better spent on development of oil and gas infrastructure - it would have created more short term jobas and would have increased the ability of the economy to produce wealth going forward.

I agree with that for the most part, but this was a case where theory and reality were at loggerheads. Keynsian theory says that stimulus should be used to increase aggregate demand. In this case it had to happen quickly as we were on the brink of collapse. A large component of Obama's stimulus was directed to infrastructure, a/k/a "shovel ready" projects, but as it turned out, there simply weren't enough truly shovel ready projects to absorb the stimulus. Keynsian theory also places great emphais on the multiplier effect of stimulus which is great with respect to direct assistance to the poor and working class. Obama's stimulus included a great deal of that in the form of unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts.

So while it's nice to imagine that stimulus could be used to fund great and lasting infrastructure improvements, the reality was that those projects could not be undertaken quickly enough to provide the necessary stimulus. Obama has proposed additional infrastructure stimulus, but of course it is adamantly opposed by conservatives.

I'm not sure what "billions in regulatory inefficiencies" you think that Obama has imposed so I can't address that directly. It is clear that he hasn't enacted more regulations than his predecessor, however.

And that, combined with the unnecessarily massive scale and ridiculous scope of the stimulous was why it failed so badly. Add onto that the growing realization of how screwed you guys are because of your insurmountable deficits (which Obama only wants to add to), and you create exactly the "stimulous" that one would shape if the goal was to IMPEDE long term growth and prosperity.

To the contrary, the scope of the stimulus was too small by at least half to provide sufficient momentum to the economy. Our debt situation, while serious, certainly is not insurmountable.

He did actually. There have been numerous reports of how Obama screwed things up with the Iraqis so badly to get his pull out even though they would have wanted him to stay.

That is the exact opposite of what happened. U.S. Troop Withdrawal Motivated by Iraqi Insistence, Not U.S. Choice - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com

bull ****. He "re-engaged" with them following Bush, killing momentum towards building pressure on them, and only changed tact when he was shown what everybody else knew - that his approach was stupid.

Total nonsense.

Also, bull ****. He stood on the sidelines when the Iranians tried to protest against their govenrment, and has been dragged by circumstance into changing his position that Assad is not a "reformer" like he was pretending at the outset.

What have you been smoking? What did you expect Obama do to? Invade Iran and Syria? He's consistenly denounced both governments.

Topic for a different thread, of course, but this too is fundamentally wrong. The failed policy is that of deemed equivalency and pretending the Palestinians are interested in peace, which has been the policy of the govenrtment since Oslo. The only difference is that Obama has made it far, far worse.

Obama hasn't made it worse. It's been a cluster**** for 60 years. Who was it who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Tigger · Dec 29, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
I understand. But it is not the government's role to tell people how to live their lives. What about divorce? Also contrary to lots of people's ethics and morals, and probably more destructive to society than gay marriage. Should it be prohibited by law?

I agree that it shouldn't be the role of Government to enforce basic morals and values. However, since society in general has stopped doing so, there really isn't anyone else to do it.

I'm actually for a very different system for marriage/divorce than what is currently in place. Probably best left for another time and thread.

CJ 2.0 said:
i see it as a privilege too, just like I see joint defence of our collective "rights" as a privilege as well. In fact, to put it out there, I would assert that all "rights" are merely privileges. We each have a right to nothing other than what the law of the jungle provides. We just live in a society where certain of those privileges (like the privilege not to be drawn and quartered because our master renegged on a contract) are so far removed from possibility that we regard them as rights.

But were it not for our civilization, no one would be saying that an ability to choose your spouse or not be summarily executed by the next roving band is anything but a privilege enjoyed by the strong.

The problem is that too many of these things have become "Rights" and we no longer carry out the Duties and Responsibilities that came with them in the first place. That's the bigger problem, so far as I'm concerned. As to the idea of Survival of the Fittest, I'm all for it.

CJ 2.0 said:
I don't agree (leaving aside the constitution, which I am not that familiar with). The fundamental essenceof the social contract is that human beings agree to bind themselves together to repell outside threats to their security.

The thing is that here in the United States one cannot (or at least should not be able to) remove the Constitution from the discussion because it IS the document which provides the foundation not only for our Government but for our Society as well.

While you're right about the Social Contract, as I mentioned above those privileges (security, etc...) are supposed to be balanced against certain Duties and Responsibilites. That's what we've lost here in the USA. We no longer enforce those Duties and Responsibilities to Society, but we all want the associated Rights/Privileges that go with them.

CJ 2.0 said:
Actually, it may or may not. it need not be exclusive, and multiple plans could develop each with a differebnt risk profile but all negotiated collectively by the municipality (potentially with multiple vendors). So I have a municipality with 1 million people. I use that to negotiate with a series of insurance companies for a number of insurance arrangements which consumers can choose from (or they can go it alone if they prefer or have any other sort of coop). Some could be catastrophe only with a high deductable, others could be entirely comprehensive. The consumer would have to pay the premium but the municipality would be the aggregating entity.

This actually makes mroe sense than an employer driven model. Lots of people may lose an employer without gaining another. I would think very few people don't live somewhere.

I just do not like the idea of my monies being used to support the care of individuals whose lifestyles I oppose; which is exactly what happens in your sort of system. At least with the employer driven model I can choose not to work for an employer whose health care options are not to my liking, whereas it may be much more difficult to relocate myself to another part of the country for the same reasons.

CJ 2.0 said:
I agree. And on what grounds? What proportion of social conservatives would think this is fine? Honestly? Abortion rights are different. I understand that. The objection is grounded on the assertion that the unborn baby is still a person and should be protected by law from being killed. But here, a policy that would impact on no one but the freely consenting donor and recipient, I beleive likely would also be very strongly opposed on social conservative principles.

Same with assisted suicide.

There we seem to be on at least similar ground. I am against abortion in almost every situation and have no problem with assisted suicide, so long as the deceased is the one who has to implement the final action to end their life.

CJ 2.0 said:
Social conservatism in personal life I agree (though will not offer my opinion on the "properness" of any particular morals and values). Social conservatism as social policy legislated by the government I do not.

But on reflection, I see some of what you're saying and I do see some complementarity. Would the line of thinking be that it is unjust to forcibly take resources from one person to give to anohter, but that the social mores of those with means, if raised and guided properly, would help ensure that those deserving of charity would receive it, freely offered? Because I do understand that.

The basic idea is that each individual is truly responsible only for themselves and those that they choose to take care of (family, friends, those of like philosophy and worldview, etc...) Obviously it would be nice if those people who had the means were more giving to others, but I for example find it difficult to locate charities that do require certain things for their assistance so I don't end up giving as much as I might.

CJ 2.0 said:
Costs and benefits. You could get rid of lots of both with a libertarian appraoch, though. Social conservatism adds to public costs compared to that alternative.

True, but at the same time you get rid of pretty much the entire idea that there are ANY standards or limitations built into society. Those Duties and Responsibilities I mentioned earlier go away at the same time.

CJ 2.0 said:
I'm not sure that's true. Their morals are libertarian, which I believe stands for the proposition that every man is entitled to maximum liberty, to the extent that it does not impinge on the liberty of others, and a society so structured achieves the best outcome for its citizens. Like I said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, but I do see the point. Murder is bad because it kills people. Assault is bad because it hurts people. Consenting adults having gay sex is not bad because it doesn't have any impact except on consenting adults, who are deemed responsible enough to make their own judgments as to whether it is good or bad for them. Same thing with drugs.

The problem is that this that those societal norms, limits, and mores are necessary for society to continue to exist and operate. The system they suggest would be GREAT if one could reasonably expect individuals to live a proper and decent life. I think the US Society at the moment shows just how unlikely that would be; and Europe is an even better example of it.

CJ 2.0 said:
it can be, but I don't think it has to be. The role of the govenrment is to carry out the will of the people.

I totally disagree. The purpose of Government is to ensure that basic standards are met. Then again I'm not a fan of Democracy. I'm an Authoritarian.

CJ 2.0 said:
I appreciate that, though I also see the direct consequence.

fair enough. And thanks for this, I really am enjoying this discussion.

That's fine. We all have a different way of looking at things. I'm enjoying this too.

sangha · Dec 29, 2011

Tigger said:
I agree that it shouldn't be the role of Government to enforce basic morals and values. However, since society in general has stopped doing so, there really isn't anyone else to do it.

We'll remember that if you ever talk about getting thrown in jail for wife-beating

CJ 2.0 · Dec 29, 2011

AdamT said:
No, it actually had little or nothing to do with affordable housing. No need to beat that dead horse again. The problem was a breakdown in banking regulations that were put in place after the Great Depression, and machinations by Wall Street to get around what little regulation there was. Your stimulus could be much more targeted because your problem was much smaller to begin with.

You had the government sending letters to banks telling them to loan more money to people in various demographics in order to expand home ownership. That was precisely the rpoblem. Built onto that, I agree, was the corporatism that is endemic in US politics where interests controlled and manipulated congress for their own purposes - in thsi case, to securitize and alienate junkinstruments without having to account for the risk embedded in those instruments. But this flowed in large part from the initial intervention, which created these junk mortgages in the first place.

I agree with that for the most part, but this was a case where theory and reality were at loggerheads. Keynsian theory says that stimulus should be used to increase aggregate demand. In this case it had to happen quickly as we were on the brink of collapse. A large component of Obama's stimulus was directed to infrastructure, a/k/a "shovel ready" projects, but as it turned out, there simply weren't enough truly shovel ready projects to absorb the stimulus. Keynsian theory also places great emphais on the multiplier effect of stimulus which is great with respect to direct assistance to the poor and working class. Obama's stimulus included a great deal of that in the form of unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts.

We don't need to get into it here (more of an economic topic than a political one as to whether any of that stuff works or not), but Obama did not do a good job at this, and I don't really see how you can say that he did. The stimulous was a corporate pork boondoggle that rewarded vested interests with p[ublic money. It did not achioeve any of its objectives, which in large part was because of institutional design.

So while it's nice to imagine that stimulus could be used to fund great and lasting infrastructure improvements, the reality was that those projects could not be undertaken quickly enough to provide the necessary stimulus. Obama has proposed additional infrastructure stimulus, but of course it is adamantly opposed by conservatives.

Then don't spend the money. Shifting forward car demand is worthless, just like loaning money to companies that invariably will go bankrupt. In fact, this is a hige part of the problem with spending stimuli as opposed to tax stimuli. Tax stuff you can just design and forget. Spending you need to run properly. Obama's bias prevented a greater role for tax stimulus. While you might want to argue this is because the government multiplier is higher, that only assumes perfect implementation, which isn't what happens in real life. money is used to pay down existing state deficitsor simply borrowed and then transfered to others to waste digging holes and filling them up.

Structure a stimulous as financial incentives for home renovation, capital investment and the like, and the impact will be much, much greater. Bat Obama had interests to pay off, so he needed his slush fund for that.

I'm not sure what "billions in regulatory inefficiencies" you think that Obama has imposed so I can't address that directly. It is clear that he hasn't enacted more regulations than his predecessor, however.

RealClearPolitics - Regulatory Cost Battle Flares Anew Between Obama, House GOP

Besides the fact that Bush didn't do a good job either, Obama has been a systematic and fundamental regulatory impediment to economic productivity. Also, Bush at least had a growign economy. While liek I said he didn't do a good job, Obama seems fundamentally unable to acknowledge that stuff costs money and we only have so much of it. This is true whether it's money paid out by government and forcibly extracted from taxpayers or borrowed on their behalf, or money that private players are forced to spend or forego to adhere to new regulations.

Obama is acting like he's never been bound by a budget in his life and that resources are infinite.

To the contrary, the scope of the stimulus was too small by at least half to provide sufficient momentum to the economy. Our debt situation, while serious, certainly is not insurmountable.

You would say too small by half. I would say too dumb by half. If it was better designed and better implemented, it could have been done with much less money.

Total nonsense.

really? We're inventing history now? It was only two years ago, after all.

What have you been smoking? What did you expect Obama do to? Invade Iran and Syria? He's consistenly denounced both governments.

umm, he stayed completely silent and it took months of developments for him to say anything meaningful about the regime in Syria (and he never did support the protesters in Iran). Contrast to Mubarak and him holding pressers telling Mubarak he has to go.

Obama hasn't made it worse. It's been a cluster**** for 60 years. Who was it who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

He has for sure made it worse. The ojnly way to fix it is for the Palestinians to be forced to recognize they have to give up their goal of destroying Israel. Oabama has done everything he can to move things in the opposite direction.

sangha · Dec 29, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
You had the government sending letters to banks telling them to loan more money to people in various demographics in order to expand home ownership. That was precisely the rpoblem.

Right wing myth. It never happened

CJ 2.0 · Dec 29, 2011

Tigger said:
I agree that it shouldn't be the role of Government to enforce basic morals and values. However, since society in general has stopped doing so, there really isn't anyone else to do it.

Then no one should do it. That's the one issue I've always had with religion and morality. I understand that religion seeks to foster morality. But ideally, morality is not something that should be compelled, but something that should be internalized. government (and religious) compulsion of moral behaviour does not create morality. It actually makes it worse to the extent it frees people from responsibility for making their own decisions about what's right and wrong. Murder is not wrong because it is against God's law or because it is prohibited under the criminal code. It's wrong because it causes massive harm to other human beings who deserve respect and deserve the right to lead their lives as they wish.

I'm actually for a very different system for marriage/divorce than what is currently in place. Probably best left for another time and thread.

Perhaps. But I think it is a far more pressing issue than whether gay people can share pension benefits and call each other husband and/or wife.

The problem is that too many of these things have become "Rights" and we no longer carry out the Duties and Responsibilities that came with them in the first place. That's the bigger problem, so far as I'm concerned. As to the idea of Survival of the Fittest, I'm all for it.

Agree with the former. Re the latter, leads us to macro issues. Survival of the fittest individual? Civilization? We obviously provide for children until they become self-sufficient. Shoudl we do that for others who have screwed things up for themselves or otherwise didn't have a very good chance (e.g., abused children with problems later in life as a result)? Re civilizational conflict, I'm not the kind to pretend it doesn't exist. No matter how strong an individual, a single strong individual in a weak civilization will not likely survive conflict with a rival (or at least likely will not come out very well in that conflict).

And of course that ties back to how you can make your own civilization the strongest (e.g., through individual liberty and self-reliance), but I just find it interesting that the logic becomes a bit circular about individual vs collective, rights, obligations and itnerests.

The thing is that here in the United States one cannot (or at least should not be able to) remove the Constitution from the discussion because it IS the document which provides the foundation not only for our Government but for our Society as well.

Fair enough, though it can (and has) change over time - in fact, I understand it has changed pretty drastically since back in the day, both in letter and interpretation.

While you're right about the Social Contract, as I mentioned above those privileges (security, etc...) are supposed to be balanced against certain Duties and Responsibilites. That's what we've lost here in the USA. We no longer enforce those Duties and Responsibilities to Society, but we all want the associated Rights/Privileges that go with them.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I just do not like the idea of my monies being used to support the care of individuals whose lifestyles I oppose; which is exactly what happens in your sort of system. At least with the employer driven model I can choose not to work for an employer whose health care options are not to my liking, whereas it may be much more difficult to relocate myself to another part of the country for the same reasons.

And I appreciate this. Look, under our constitution we have public catholic schools in Englisdh Canada and public protestant schools in French Canada, even though no other relgiious schools get public funding. And I agree, I find this pretty offensive that my money goes to this sort of thing. And while that is more direct than buying insurance from a provider that also has abortion coverage, I still see how you would wish to direct your dollars to vendors in a way that rewards/penalizes them as you see fit. But if you're saying you won't work for a company that buys health insurance that covers abortions for any employees, and that you won't work for a company that buys insurance from an insurance company that provides abortion coverage in any of its other policies, I suspect you would have a pretty small list of potential employers.

There we seem to be on at least similar ground. I am against abortion in almost every situation and have no problem with assisted suicide, so long as the deceased is the one who has to implement the final action to end their life.

To be honest I'm not sure where I am on abortion. I REALLY dislike it, not only for moral reasons but for civilizational/demographic ones (our civilization's fertility rates are abysmal and are going to lead to MASSIVE problems down the line), but I don't think I support criminalizing it (I guess I'm not quite sure why, but there is a smattering of women's rights and liberties issues in there somewhere, and I don;t think I'm in a position to say that government should force women who become pregnant to carry children to term). But I'm certainly not going to sugar coat it and use terminology like "anti-choice" for those who believe unborn children deserve rights extended to other human beings.

Maybe ask me again in a few years.

The basic idea is that each individual is truly responsible only for themselves and those that they choose to take care of (family, friends, those of like philosophy and worldview, etc...) Obviously it would be nice if those people who had the means were more giving to others, but I for example find it difficult to locate charities that do require certain things for their assistance so I don't end up giving as much as I might.

And I don't give as much as I like because I pay over 100k in income taxes, with a 13% consumption tax on the rest, as well as various massive property taxes and the like. Effectively, the govenrment has crowded out my caapcity to choose where to direct my the money that I earn. Moreover, there is the moral component where I feel a lot more jaded to those I might otherwise be willing to give to because I already have mandatory contributions to various interest groups extracted by the govnernment.

There is a lot wrong with the current system.

True, but at the same time you get rid of pretty much the entire idea that there are ANY standards or limitations built into society. Those Duties and Responsibilities I mentioned earlier go away at the same time.

Again, not sure this is true. What it comes down to is whether your actions harm others. If it undermines your own moral fabric or makes you worse off, so be it.

The problem is that this that those societal norms, limits, and mores are necessary for society to continue to exist and operate. The system they suggest would be GREAT if one could reasonably expect individuals to live a proper and decent life. I think the US Society at the moment shows just how unlikely that would be; and Europe is an even better example of it.

perhaps. Or perhaps truly enabling people to make their own decisions and not coddling them in welfare and security would force them into taking real responsibility and taking their role as a citizen in a free country seriously.

I totally disagree. The purpose of Government is to ensure that basic standards are met. Then again I'm not a fan of Democracy. I'm an Authoritarian.

Well, if you are authoritarian, we can get into a whole different set of objectives. In my view, the role of an authoritarian government is to enrich those who are in control (financially but also in terms of power and prestige). That has been and will continue to be the goal of authoritarian regimes throughout history (including even the Church).

AdamT · Dec 29, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
You had the government sending letters to banks telling them to loan more money to people in various demographics in order to expand home ownership. That was precisely the rpoblem.

Again, that had little or nothing to do with the problem. The vast majority of the bad loans were given out by private lenders who were not subject to affordable housing regulations. In fact the crisis would have been worse without CRA as low income folks would instead have gone to private lenders who were performing NO credit checks and handing out loans that were more expensive and had less disclosure.

Built onto that, I agree, was the corporatism that is endemic in US politics where interests controlled and manipulated congress for their own purposes - in thsi case, to securitize and alienate junkinstruments without having to account for the risk embedded in those instruments. But this flowed in large part from the initial intervention, which created these junk mortgages in the first place.

No, it really didn't. In fact the regulated lenders only lowered their standards because they were being forced out of the market by the private banks.

We don't need to get into it here (more of an economic topic than a political one as to whether any of that stuff works or not), but Obama did not do a good job at this, and I don't really see how you can say that he did. The stimulous was a corporate pork boondoggle that rewarded vested interests with p[ublic money. It did not achioeve any of its objectives, which in large part was because of institutional design.

Again, you throw out these right wing talking points and never back them up with anything but more right wing talking points. The majority of the stimulus went to tax cuts and to the states, who used it primarily to avoid mass layoffs. What are these corporate boondoggles you're talking about?

Then don't spend the money. Shifting forward car demand is worthless, just like loaning money to companies that invariably will go bankrupt. In fact, this is a hige part of the problem with spending stimuli as opposed to tax stimuli. Tax stuff you can just design and forget. Spending you need to run properly. Obama's bias prevented a greater role for tax stimulus. While you might want to argue this is because the government multiplier is higher, that only assumes perfect implementation, which isn't what happens in real life. money is used to pay down existing state deficitsor simply borrowed and then transfered to others to waste digging holes and filling them up.

For someone who claims to agree with Keynsian theory, you don't really seem to undertand the theory. The purpose of economic stimulus is precisely to push demand forward to fill the gap in aggregate demand. Of course it results in some slack later on, but the idea is to get past past the crisis. Once the crisis has passed the economy can handle a little slack. In this country, cash for clunkers was generally considered a successful program.

Structure a stimulous as financial incentives for home renovation, capital investment and the like, and the impact will be much, much greater. Bat Obama had interests to pay off, so he needed his slush fund for that.

And once again, these were all part of the original stimulus bill. But you're not going to get a whole lot of home renovation when millions of people are already under water and facing foreclosure. It's that reality vs theory problem.

RealClearPolitics - Regulatory Cost Battle Flares Anew Between Obama, House GOP

You're citing a right wing website doesn't really convince. Is the article biased? Well, they talk about the potential cost of a smog regulation (my word!), but they don't make a single mention of the projected SAVINGS that the regulation would generate in reduced health care costs (estimated $13 - $100 billion). You also failed to mention that Obama reversed course and canceled the proposed regulations.

Besides the fact that Bush didn't do a good job either, Obama has been a systematic and fundamental regulatory impediment to economic productivity. Also, Bush at least had a growign economy. While liek I said he didn't do a good job, Obama seems fundamentally unable to acknowledge that stuff costs money and we only have so much of it. This is true whether it's money paid out by government and forcibly extracted from taxpayers or borrowed on their behalf, or money that private players are forced to spend or forego to adhere to new regulations.

It was a LACK of free market regulation that tanked the world's economy. It's lunacy to suggest that solution is even less regulation.

Obama is acting like he's never been bound by a budget in his life and that resources are infinite.

ZZZzzzz. He's acting like he's responsible for keeping the world's largest economy from slipping back into recession, or worse.

umm, he stayed completely silent and it took months of developments for him to say anything meaningful about the regime in Syria (and he never did support the protesters in Iran). Contrast to Mubarak and him holding pressers telling Mubarak he has to go.

No, that's not true. Perhaps he wasn't as vocal as you would like, but what difference did it make? None.

He has for sure made it worse. The ojnly way to fix it is for the Palestinians to be forced to recognize they have to give up their goal of destroying Israel. Oabama has done everything he can to move things in the opposite direction.

It is no worse or better than its been for the last 60 years. In order for there to peace the Palesineans have to give up their rhetoric about Israel AND the Israelies have to quit behaving in an intentionally inflammatory manner every time there is a whisp of a possibility of improvement. It takes two to Tango.

CJ 2.0 · Dec 29, 2011

sangha said:
Right wing myth. It never happened

Link dump:

Lawmakers seek hearings on bank rules - Chicago Tribune

snip:

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed because banks were abandoning the inner city. While the act was a dead letter for years, banks are beginning to take it more seriously and are slowly building their capacity to make loans in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

A proposed change in U.S. banking regulations would result in less lending in low-income neighborhoods and should be the subject of congressional hearings, U.S. Reps. Barney Frank and Bernie Sanders said Wednesday.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and other federal bank regulators have proposed redefining small banks as those with assets of $500 million or less instead of those with $250 million or less. The change would mean that the banks qualifying under the looser standard would face less stringent rules requiring community reinvestment.

Local Investment - Chicago Tribune

snip:

Community Reinvestment - Chicago Tribune

snip:

Northern Trust Co. has become the first U.S. bank to receive Federal Reserve Board approval for a three-year plan to increase its low-income loans under new Community Reinvestment Act regulations.

The bank, which was criticized two years ago for its inner-city lending practices, submitted its plan Nov. 1 to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The plan went to the Fed board, which circulated it for public comment.

3 Illinois Banks Fail Community-loan Test - Chicago Tribune

snip:

Three Illinois banks, including Lake Shore National Bank of Chicago, recently failed to meet minimum federal standards for lending to neighborhoods.

In reviews completed between July 1 and Oct. 31, the Comptroller of the Currency assigned Lake Shore Bank, First National Bank of Coulterville and Uptown National Bank of Moline negative ``needs to improve`` ratings for compliance under the federal Community Reinvestment Act.

The law requires federally insured institutions to ``help meet the needs`` of their communities, especially modest-income and minority areas.

Nine of 12 nationally chartered banks in Illinois checked in the quarter were judged to meet or exceed the federal standards.

The Comptroller of the Currency released the list last week.

There are tons more articles, but it is quite clear that the government put pressure on banks to make loans they otherwise, in their business judgment, would not have made, and that the govenrment did this for policy reasons. This law has been on the books for a long time, but Barney Frank made it worse and in my view was the primary driver behind this collapse (with sufficient guilt for politicians of all stripes and affiliations).

AdamT · Dec 29, 2011

CJ 2.0 said:
Link dump:

You are dead wrong on this. I could (and have in the past) cite to extensive stuides on the financial crisis conducted by the Federal Reserve, the government commission established to investigate the crisis, and numerous other sources.

There's no question that CRA was designed to encourage lending to lower income people in traditionally underserved areas, but the vast majority of bad loans were issued by private lenders not subject to the CRA. The CRA loans generally performed much better than non-CRA subprime loans.

From the Federal Reserve report:

In conducting our inquiry, we took a careful look at HUD’s affordable housing
goals, as noted above, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was
enacted in 1977 to combat “redlining” by banks—the practice of denying credit to individuals
and businesses in certain neighborhoods without regard to their creditworthiness.
The CRA requires banks and savings and loans to lend, invest, and provide
services to the communities from which they take deposits, consistent with bank
safety and soundness.

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending
or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates
only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to
the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they
were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same
neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf

At Harvard, a Master’s in Problem Solving

More options

Gill

CJ 2.0

AdamT

CJ 2.0

Tigger

AdamT

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

CJ 2.0

CJ 2.0

sangha

CJ 2.0

sangha

AdamT

Tigger

CJ 2.0

CJ 2.0

AdamT

Tigger

sangha

CJ 2.0

sangha

CJ 2.0

AdamT

CJ 2.0

AdamT