Obama

Well, three, actually. I guess I'd just like you to better develop your "the ACA is a huge insurance company giveaway" idea in light of the following facts, which I find disconfirming to that thesis:1) The insurance companies, rather than anticipating the ACA as a huge windfall, actually spent millions in campaign contributions, lobbying, busing Tea Party activists to shout at town halls, and advertising to obstruct the bill.
2) Medical insurance companies generate profits by the main mechanism of adverse selection/rescission, and the ACA eliminates these practices.
3) While insurance enrollments are assumed to increase under the ACA - that's the point - the increase is primarily in people who will make expensive medical claims well in advance of having made significant premium payments. These are exactly the applicants insurance companies didn't want because they represent a loss, not a profit.
4) Increased pharmaceutical company profits due to more people purchasing medicine is a feature, not a bug. The whole point is to increase the number of people buying medical care.These are not points I want you to respond to, because I don't see how they can really be disputed. What I'd like to see you do is defend your view that the ACA is a "huge giveaway" in light of these points, if you can.Or you can do whatever, I guess.

Yes, Oni. You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Insurance companies did spend millions to defeat ACA, that's a matter of public record. Rescission and adverse selection in the individual insurance market are prohibited by the ACA, it's in the text of the legislation. People getting life-saving care they need is a good thing. I guess you can argue about that, though.Those don't constitute an argument I'm making. Do you understand that? My argument is not "insurance companies spent millions to defeat the ACA." That's not an assertion I'm making and defending - that's an established and recognized fact that I believe you were not aware of when you originally struck your position.If your argument relies on up being down and black being white, I don't know that debate is going to be possible. You understand that I'm talking about the ACA that passed in this country, right? The United States?

Wow.That's a long way to go to avoid Panda's question, Drone.To wit:

quote:

---

So you think Obama should close the giant embassy?

---

Thanks for making it clear, again, how you fold in the face of a direct question.

Well, ok. Let's consider it in the context of your other Iraq objections:1) You want the troops of out of Iraq.
2) You want the private military contractors out of Iraq.
3) You want the permanent military bases out of Iraq.
4) You want American hegemonic influence out of Iraq.Thus, in context, it follows that as you find the Us embassy in Iraq objectionable, you also want it out of Iraq, as I've said. Hence your inability to answer Panda's direct and simple question.Look, Drone, maybe you just misspoke and shot your mouth off without thinking. Clearly you really did want the US embassy in Iraq to close, or perhaps never to have been built at all, before you really considered the consequences of closing the US embassy in Iraq. Or perhaps it really is the size and purpose of the embassy that you object to, and you assumed inaccurately that Obama was president in 2003 when the plans for the embassy were first drawn up.That's fine. If you're genuinely retreated from that position I won't hold you to it. If we both agree that it's stupid, that's the end of it for me. You'll literally never hear about this incident from me again, I promise.But just drop the stupid game. You said it, and Panda and Onifire aren't the only people who agree you said it, they're just the only people who have said so on the forum. Quite a few people have emailed me and told me that it's quite obvious what game you're playing; nobody finds your arguments convincing. Xongsmith and Onifire are on this because they think they can attack me with it, not because they think you're right. You said it, I proved it, and your attempt to claim otherwise is a lie. You've lost that argument. Sorry, but you did.Just admit you said something you didn't mean, that this isn't all in my head, and your long nightmare can come to an end at last. I think everybody understands that this question, as well as your point about the continuing policy of rendition for torture under Obama, is rhetorical. So can we talk about the key arguments you've repeatedly avoided, now? Like how continuing the policy of rendition and torture is the only option left to the Obama Administration because of the fundamental structure of our government? That's the point you've evaded in two threads, now.

No, Oni, I didn't misrepresent you in any way. I used your own words to demonstrate that we're reasoning from the same basis, except I know one more thing that you don't - Dronester is lying to save face.When you combine what we both agree on with what I know about Dronester - which is not a secret, it's just something you haven't realized yet - then the conclusion is obvious. Dronester himself has asked that we interpret his remarks about the embassy in the context of the other things he'd like to see taken out of Iraq, so why don't you go ahead and do so?And while you're at it - if it's so important for you to continue this conversation, why don't you answer the questions I asked?

quote:

---

What other interpretation is there when Dronester puts the US embassy in Iraq on a list of things he wants out of Iraq? What other interpretation is there when Dronester complains that the US embassy in Iraq "isn't going anywhere"? (Where would it go?) What other interpretation is there when Dronester complains that Obama is continuing the Bush "policy" of not closing the US embassy in Iraq?

---

Again - don't just tell me you "interpret his remarks as complaints about the size of the embassy." Answer the specific questions I asked you. What connection does Obama have to the size of the embassy except for the fact that he's not yet torn it down? Well, that's clearly false. Throughout this thread you've referred to what you perceive is some kind of tendency on my part to not admit when I'm wrong. Of course, that's not true - probably nobody at EvC has admitted to being wrong more than me. It's just that I don't admit I'm wrong when I'm not wrong, just as I'm not admitting to being wrong about what Dronester has said because I'm not wrong about what he's said, as I've proven. What he means by his entire paragraph is that just like Obama is to blame for not withdrawing troops from Iraq, mercenaries from Iraq, and military bases from Iraq, Obama is to blame for not withdrawing the enormous US embassy from Iraq. Dronester's paragraph was a list of things Obama should have withdrawn from Iraq and hasn't. He's even admitted it.

Poetic, but futile.I see you've neither responded to my point or to Panda's question.Disappointing. You're the only one who would know, in this case. If you didn't intend to complain that Obama hasn't yet torn down the enormous US embassy, then why have you repeatedly made that complaint? In regards to the giant US embassy, exactly what part of it do you feel Obama is responsible for?You've said "continuing the policy", but only policy here is not closing the embassy. So you're lying when you say that you've never said Obama should close the embassy. You've actually said it four times, now. I've addressed these points. These are, again, all the result of systematic constraints that leave a liberal president no other choice. Obama could be as liberal as they come - and is! - and guess what we're going to get? Extraordinary rendition, torture of children, illegal wiretapping, executive orders, signing statements.How many threads do we have to open before you're prepared to address that basic point? Yes, because the goals of the Bush Administration were fundamentally conservative ones - illegal wiretapping made legal, wars, an increased security state, hegemonic expansion. The Bush administration was able to accomplish so much because the policy goals of that Administration were the exact things the government is structured to deliver.Bush was not a liberal. I can't believe you need to be told that. Yes, exactly! Because liberal goals are different than conservative ones. The government is fundamentally structured to allow only conservative outcomes. That's why no matter who we elect, we only get conservative outcomes. The answer isn't the election of liberals, it's the election of reformers.

... that the activities of President Bush, who was not a liberal and did not do liberal things, is not going to be an effective counterexample to my thesis that the government structurally favors conservative outcomes. In fact the policy "successes" (in the sense that Bush had agenda items that succeeded in passing) of the Bush administration prove me right.Try to think it through? I'm not asserting a symmetric bias in government, but rather an asymmetric one. The government is structured such that it's far, far easier to enact a conservative agenda than a liberal one.Think it through. If I asserted a structural bias against black people in academics, for instance, instances of high-scoring white people wouldn't be a counterexample, they would be confirming evidence.

Well, to be fair what he voted for was to legalize certain future wiretapping that would have been illegal under current law. (Of course you've never been fair in this entire debate, have you?)But this, of course, highlights the difficulty in trying to play "disqualify the liberal" on the basis of votes. For instance liberal icon Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks for buyers of firearms. Barney Frank favors the legalization of gambling and opposed greater federal oversight of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and contributed to the financial crisis.A lot of sausage has to be made in Congress and that means people make deals and vote for things they might otherwise not support to get agenda items passed that they consider much more important. Obama's done a great deal of this and the American people have benefited. Just ask anybody who can now buy medical insurance as a result of the ACA. But that's not what I said, now is it?Again - the fundamental structure of government makes it easier to pass conservative agenda items than liberal ones. One of the ways in which Obama is moving the progressive agenda forward is by tethering progressive agenda items (like the extension of unemployment benefits by another year) to conservative agenda items (like the extension of tax cuts for the rich.)But people like you think Obama can't be a liberal unless he's willing to die on the hill for every single liberal principle, a strategy that accomplishes precisely nothing.

Right, but that's not a "vote for illegal wiretapping", is it? I don't see how it is. I'm not, Theodoric. I'm making the exact same point you are - looking at a politican's votes in isolation, devoid of context or any sense of how they weighed the trade-offs, doesn't give you a very accurate picture about a politican's beliefs. A lot of sausage has to be made in Congress - particularly in the face of the fundamental, structural issues (like Congress not being a majority-rules body) that privilege conservative outcomes and obstruct liberal ones.

Well, no. It's a vote to indemnify AT&T (basically) against civil suits stemming from their compliance with government instructions.How does that legalize any wiretapping? You're doing a lot of work with "in other words", there, for instance the somewhat dishonest conflation of civil and criminal courts. I don't need to show such a reason. It's merely sufficient to note that a single vote taken in isolation and out of context can't be considered "disqualifying" for liberalism. Obama doesn't die on hills for liberal principles the way Bernie Sanders does; the result is that Obama has advanced the liberal agenda to a far greater extent than Bernie Sanders ever did or ever will.

Sure, but that's something else, now isn't it? How is it? Really?That's really what you're asking? You can't see the relevance of the courts to legality? But that may have already been legal. There's never been a law against American interception of communications outside of the United States; that's the basis of signals intelligence. There's been an argument made that existing law didn't extend that protection to communications between foreign persons and American citizens, and I'm sensitive to that argument, but that argument was not tested in court.And, again - the vote isn't especially relevant. It's not disqualifying for liberals - many liberals were in favor of it and voted for it. And a single vote, absent any context or justification, just isn't enough information. You are, after all, ignoring all the times Obama voted against the telecom immunity amendment. Why is that? Precisely the liberal values he's always advocated:

quote:

---

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law. We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties."

---

But, despite Obama's repeated votes against it, the telecom immunity amendment passed. At that point, it was a question of whether or not the benefits of the bill outweighed the disadvantage of telecom immunity. Obama determined that they did not:

quote:

---

Obama also said the FISA compromise was an improvement since it would put an "inspector general in place to investigate what happened previously gives us insight what has happened retrospectively. So, you know, that in my mind met my basic concerns and given that all the information I received is the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security as long as it has these constraints on them. I thought it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise."

---

So tell me, Theodoric, why is Obama's final vote for the entire bill somehow more diagnostic than his repeated votes against the very provision you're so upset about? Isn't this just another case, in fact, where Obama espoused precisely the very position you wanted him to, but simply refused to die uselessly on a hill for it?

What would you call six votes against telecom immunity provisions, and joining a filibuster against the bill, if not "making a stand"? That is, actually, exactly what compromise is. Compromise means recognizing when you can get something you want by giving something your opponent wants. A reasonable adult person seeks any opportunity to do that.

I saw something today that substantiates what I was saying about Oni's point: Well, no, they don't. They want some people to get less care:

quote:

---

But it should be possible to strengthen the safety net while modernizing some of the Great Society structures. Paul Ryan, a Republican, and Alice Rivlin, a Democrat, have come up with a Medicare reform plan in which new enrollees would receive a fixed contribution from the government, growing a bit faster than inflation. They would apply that money against the cost of health insurance. This would make Medicare a defined contribution program and save hundreds of billions. If Obama said he was open to thinking about this sort of fundamental reform, he’d generate tremendous excitement on the right.

---

Opinion | Bigger Is Easier - The New York TimesAs Matthew Yglesias points out:

quote:

---

I think this is a dubious use of the term save. If I went to CVS, bought a box of Diet Cokes, and kept them in the fridge in the CAP kitchen I’d save a substantial amount of money relative to my current practice of constantly going to the soda machine....What Ryan-Rivlin does is buy less Diet Coke. It sets a hard cap on Medicare expenditures, thus reducing government outlays. Then in an unrelated move, it dismantles the publicly administered single risk pool of Medicare and replaces it with multiple privately administered for-profit risk pools. The combination of these two moves is a sleight of hand designed to make you think that the structural shift is saving money when in fact it does nothing of the sort. Creating multiple privately administered risk pools doesn’t offer any efficiency gains. It simply creates an adverse selection problem and ensures that the rationing decisions made necessary by the hard cap will be made by employees of for-profit firms rather than government employees.

---

In other words, the conservative answer to rapidly rising health care costs is simply to buy less health care, for less people. Conservatives have no desire to expand access to health care; they want to diminish access to health care because health care is expensive.You know, assuming David Brooks and Paul Ryan can be taken as representative conservatives. (Who the hell are those guys, right?)Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A White House-backed bid to end the ban against gays serving openly in the military cleared an important Senate Republican hurdle on Saturday, advancing a major step toward becoming law.

​

Supporters mustered more than the needed 60 votes in the 100-member Senate, 63-33, to limit debate on the legislation to lift the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell," policy. Six Republicans joined the Senate Democratic majority to support repeal.

​

The Senate is expected to give it final congressional approval as early as Sunday, clearing the way for President Barack Obama to sign it into law. The House of Representatives passed the bill earlier this week.

---

Congress repeals ban against gays in military | ReutersYou just can't make money betting against Obama.

The problem is that a lot of liberals can't seem to recognize when "not compromising" is going to result in "getting nothing." The Constitution has no provision for passing legislation just because you really, really want to.Once again Obama has sidestepped the circular firing squad and done more to advance the liberal program than any living politician as a result of being ready to compromise.