[example1]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk Bill

I'm pretty sure that Obama knows about the Constitution, but his statements regarding Clinton balancing the budget are misleading because...



...President Clinton and Vice President Gore had zero votes on the budget. Yes, President Clinton could have vetoed a balanced budget that met his goals. He didn't. If you consider that to be credit, well, your standard is frighteningly low.

Seriously man, you're blown this out of proportion. Obama praised Bill Clinton, in a debate with his wife, partly because he liked what happened under his watch (balancing the budget across partisan lines--regardless of how much adding or removing of budgetary materials he actually did) and partly as a rhetorical tool. He didn't say "your husband was the best president ever", he merely was saying "I"m not completely unable to divide you and your husband's public service from this current debate". I thought that was pretty clear.

Nonetheless, as a social worker I can tell you that Clinton's restructuring of welfare was driven by conservative values to trim spending and it was initially unpopular among liberals. Again, as a social worker I have really come to respect the accountability involved and the incentives toward getting off of social welfare. It wasn't popular on the left, he did it anyway. Many adjectives can be used to describe that, Obama used "courageous" and I understand both the intent and the context of that choice to be appropriate.

Absolutely not! The Republican majority was thin, and several liberal Republicans joined the conservatives to make the balanced budget possible.



http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

OK, here are all of the budgets from 1962 through today, including those 1990's balanced budgets you credit to President Clinton. There's no cut in outlays (page 1); there's one cut in discretionary spending of 2.2% (page 5), overcome completely by increased spending the very next year, and composed almost entirely by a cut in defense...a cut in defense less than Bush's cut in defense in his 1992 budget, a cut overcome completely by increased discretionary spending from the Democratic Congress.

Note on page 9 that the mandatory spending (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) has increased by $461 billion since President Clinton left office. The total deficit is only $248.2 billion. Do you consider President George W. Bush $200 billion more "courageous" than President Clinton? If not, what category of mandatory spending should he have worked with a Republican Congress to cut?

Clinton's budgets were much healthier than Bush's and the increased spending in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were not unforseen. It wasn't some hidden trap waiting for Bush and making his job harder. In all fairness, the mandatory spending increased significantly under Clinton as well.

Try words other than "courageous" if you want to avoid these comparisons.

I didn't use the word courageous, other than quoting it. I don't mind the comparisons though. It's always nice discussing things with you.

Never used that word.

I said something to the effect of "he wants us to put those petty disagreements aside" and you said "Such as claiming credit for the Democratic President for the work of the Republican Congress?". I'm sure you can see why I thought you were implying that "claiming credit for the Democratic President for the work of the Republican Contress" was petty, right? Seems obvious to me.

I give President Clinton as much credit for balancing the budget as I give to President Nixon in 1969. I don't hear Obama singing the praises of Nixon. But the times were similar: a divided Government reaped the benefits of a drawdown in conflict, Vietnam for Nixon and the Cold War for Clinton.

If Nixon's wife were on stage then perhaps Obama would have praised her husband for an accomplishment that is, objectively, rare among presidents and praiseworthy. Him NOT acknowleding Nixon for this is not the same as him not being consistent in his admiration for the task. I think that's an unfair and weak argument trying to point out partisanship because of a lack of giving a full list of credits pertaining to "previously balanced budgets". It was neither the time nor the place for a list of all presidents who had achieved that feat.

I'd happily credit the Republican Congress.

I'm fine with that too.

Common ground. Richardson is very qualified for service as Chief Executive. His positions are well-reasoned.

Where do you see significant difference between Obama and Richardson's policies?

Progressive? Others see movement to an evangelical Christian nation as "progressive." Try "left-wing," or "socialist."

I suppose this could devolve into a relativist pissing match, where "progress" is defined as whatever the most number of people see as good social developments. However, I'm sure that as a pragmatist you are willing to acknowledge that there is SOME social standard by which things like policy should be measured. Whether that is the increased freedom for individual Americans or a higher standard of living, there is something there for which we are striving. The rest of the industrialized world seems to not get caught up on what evangelicals see as progress, and they have higher scores in science in math, a better social safety net, a longer life expectancy and fewer people living in poverty.

Where's the pragmatism?

"Travesty?" That's an opinion.

Clearly. There must not be anything wrong with that, since you're about to give yours...

My opinion? Means-testing eligibility for Government-subsidized health care is a travesty. If we have Medicaid or a similar system for some, we should have it for all. Private health insurance and such could still be an option for the wealthy.

Fair enough. If we were starting from scratch that would make a lot of sense. Again, I think as a pragmatist, Obama's stance that we should make it available to all but not mandate that everyone get on it, is consistent. Those are two different battles and the biggest problem we currently face in that regard is the 47 million or so people who have no health insurance.

TELL ME THE NAME OF ONE CANDIDATE WHOSE POSITION IS "I SHALL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS."

Give a link. Last I checked, such discrimination is illegal.

Barring such a quoted link, you're veering into the range of either libel, absurdity, or irrelevance.

A pragmatist would say that gay marriage should be perfectly fine. The arguments against it are largely religious, based on the faulty belief that marriage is a Christian practice (it was practiced in ancient Greece and other places). It isn't blatent discrimination in the same sense that civil rights were discriminated in the 60's, but it is still there. It is the kind of thing that could easily be quashed if most weren't so stuck on their religious convictions.

What specific platform items of Barack Obama's do you support regarding the environment?

Unfortunately, the bar is pretty low at this point. I largely support his prioritization of the environment as worthy of considerable concern and attention, as well as his ability to articulate that to raise the type of cultural awareness that we will need.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, I too would call myself a pragmatist, which is one reason that I don't get too caught up in challenging ideas based on personal hypocracy. I think hypocracy is a misnomer in a lot of cases. It is a logical fallacy that hypocracy is grounds for ideological dismissal; if a person makes an argument (steroids are bad for you) while being hypocritical (taking steroids) it does not in any way impact the validity of the premise that steroids are bad.

I rather consider the challenges faced by the Continental Congress to have been greater. Lincoln had a tough moment; so did FDR. While we're at it, Gerald Ford had to handle a nation fractured by Watergate, an environment unrecovered from pre-Clean Air Act/Clean Water Act atrocities, hyperinflation from oil price shocks, a collapsing industrial sector, a peer competitor superpower with ICBMs targeted at our cities and a proverbial finger on a hair trigger, and an opposition Congress that had forced his predecessor into retirement with the viable threat of impeachment.

Can Obama top that?

Global warming and the global war on terrorism, our need to shift away from oil and our lack of a significant middle class all indicate to me that we are in more trouble, comprehensively, than we have been in a long, long time.

Global warming is global. Does Obama propose to use military force to enforce compliance from China? Failing that, any gesture from the US or the other Western Democracies is pointless and serves only to weaken ourselves relative to China.

You think it is pointless, so you must think a president should just come in and ignore it? I disagree. It would be significant if the US drastically reduced the consumption of fossil fuels and the production of greenhouse gasses. We need to take that step forward REGARDLESS of whether or not China jumps on board.

If one believes that global warming exists and is manmade.

You are unsure about this?

Here's what the EPA says about it:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

--Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
--The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
--An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
--The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

We have a closed system. We are pumping a particular group of gasses into that system and not doing anything to balance that pumping. It makes sense logically and is backed by the research.

Nah. That's your opinion. I disagree.

You can disagree about what we need to do. You're one of millions who disagree with me. I suppose we could just keep working toward a manned space flight to Mars. Perhaps that is what we should unite behind as a country instead.

Remember that you posted this.

Why do you disbelieve me? I have a lot of respect for a number of republicans in congress, I just don't particularly respect social views of the neo-cons and the religious right. Like I've said multiple times, being a fiscal conservative makes a lot of sense at times; I am just against the culture of insensitivity that has developed toward the poor and disenfranchised.

Barring enough Republicans to force cloture, Obama would enact changes comparable in scope to FDR's or LBJ's.

Do you contend that those changes were unnecessary/wrong? I think there are times when the US populace just needs to suck it up and make big changes to lifestyle and convenience in favor of the longterm health of the nation. This feels like one of those times.

Me? Cynical?

One hardened soul you are! I kid.

I regard these current active Presidential candidates most likely to attempt to "reach out:"

1) John McCain
2) Ron Paul
3) Rudy Giuliani
4) Barack Obama

I think that's a fair list, but how many of them have already burned bridges with the middle of the Democratic party. John McCain got absolutely thrown under the bus by Bush in 2000 and he continued kissing him and campaigning for him over the past 8 years. Otherwise, he has been a reasonable guy.

Ron Paul might 'reach out', except that he doesn't believe that the Federal Government should have much of a role at all.

Rudy Giuliani--I think he'd be better than most Democrats do, though I'm not sure what his appeal really is either. I think he's a reasonable guy and largely able to balance social and defense needs.

Mostly, I think Obama will take the least work to bring everyone together as he has already done it in ways that few candidates in this race have. Hell, you're thinking about supporting him.

I'll willingly give credit to Obama for apparent willingness to try to unify this nation...and I really don't object to his candidacy. If elected, I expect that he'd be the best Democratic President since the 19th Century, and that he'd be better than several 20th Century Republicans, too.

I'm just a bit more pragmatic than you are in my support of him, example1.

I find your use of the word pragmatic very interesting. Pragmatic, to me, is the willingness to put aside certain goals in favor of more pressing or impactful ones. I've read a whole lot of pragmatist (and neo-pragmatist) philosophy in the spirit of Dewey, James, Pierce and, later, Rorty, and don't find your approach to be truly pragmatic in the sense of those central pragmatist thinkers.