[example1]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk Bill

Thanks! Back at you!

My point is that President Clinton had little to nothing to do with those balanced budgets. They were the product of the Republican Congress brought into office as part of the backlash to Clinton's first two years in office.


But the restructuring of welfare WAS driven by conservative values: the Republicans' values. They're the ones who presented the budget that Clinton signed. I guess I'd consider the Republicans courageous, at least until they lost their way over the course of a decade in power. I disagree that Clinton was "courageous" regarding the budget, although I imagine that it took courage to tell his wife that he'd lied under oath regarding whether or not he'd had an affair with a girl young enough to be his daughter who worked for him.

Yes, and instead of stubbornly holding onto his party's perspective (as this president has done) he was willing to compromise, much to the chagrin of people in his own party. It would be like the democrats trying to propose democratically-acceptable social reforms with increased spending and Bush signing it into law. It would be both brave--because it would potentially hurt his popularity--and unlikely.

By what standard?

Clinton's first two budget years with a Democratic Congress (93-94) featured a 12.3% increase in discretionary domestic spending. The deficit averaged 3.4% of the Gross Domestic Product those two years. Bush's deficits the last two years available (2005-06)have averaged 2.3% of GDP.

With the Republican Congress, of course, everything changed from 1995-2000. After 9/11, things changed again...and the Congress was voted out in 2006, and the Democratic Congress has done nothing to correct the budget deficit.

If not for the enormous spending on the wrong war, and the fact that GDP is in NO WAY a representation of how that production is spread through the actual populace, I would agree with you.

GDP growth is going to profits, not workers.

The increased spending on Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid came as a bit of a surprise. The costs of those as a percentage of GDP went from 3.2% in 1992 to 4.3% in 2006...from $197.2 billion to $554.4 billion in just 14 years. That's driven by the surge in the cost of medical care, something that's rising much faster than the inflation rate. Nobody forecast such changes--they were expected to increase with the size of the cohorts reaching retirement and the general inflation rate. Decreasing elderly mortality and significant cost increases for elder care are significantly exceeding that estimate.

It went from growing at one rate (3.2) to another rate (4.3). It didn't go from not-increasing to increasing suddenly.

Platform policies? Little difference. All four Democratic candidates are following the DNC playbook--it's a personality/experience contest.

It belittles the needs of actual struggling Americans when you talk about it as a "playbook". It may seem like a playbook because there is consistency of message, but the needs are real. I see them every day.

Richardson's experience, though, dwarfs that of Obama, Edwards or Clinton.

So does Rumsfields and VP Dick. Experience as an isolated variable can be misleading.

I didn't say that I supported Huckabee. I wrote that others might see him as "progressive." "Progressive" is a dangerously imprecise word. Again, "left-wing" or "socialist" better describe Obama.

Here are two definitions of progressive that I found on my first search:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

There may be other definitions, but I will continue using it in this context as many other progressives do. Huckabee could be seen as progressive under this definition, as could Romney (because of his health care plan largely).

The devil is in the details of the plan. Medicare and Medicaid are hopelessly messed up...we need better if we're going to make it universal, and...

They are messed up, but not hopelessly so. They provide an infrastructure that we can build upon to improve the systems, perhaps eventually letting them go by the wayside in favor of something more efficient.

...I don't want to fund Federally-funded health care for illegal immigrants, but that 47 million figure, I believe, includes illegal immigrants.

Me neither. Without immigrants the number of uninsured is not 0%. I'm all for having a smart system that doesn't pay for those who aren't citizens. We should address immigration very quickly.

First, not necessarily: we don't know the long-term impact on society of allowing gay marriage. A very real danger is that lesbian marriages and child-raising would become so popular with women as to create an imbalance between the numbers of men and women who desire traditional marriage. Large numbers of men who want women but can't get them tend to harm societies.

That's funny.

Second, I'm just looking at current laws. If your point is that Barack Obama will expand gay rights, say so. If you write that he won't discriminate against gays, that's a different thing.

My point is that Obama won't limit their rights based on a faulty premise that marriage should be defined in the constitution as between a man and a woman. He won't discriminate against them.

My previously-written thoughts regarding gay marriage were secular.

And completely out of left field. You truly believe that the threat of gay marriage is that all the women will turn gay and the men will then start destroying society?

I support environmental concerns, too, but I strongly disagree that global warming is an important or, particularly, a viable field for investment. I'd look first at global standards for atmospheric and water pollution approaching those of the US, and, more critically, look at global management of forest and topsoil resources.

Read your link: it shows a minor increase in temperature and a minor increase in greenhouse gasses, but it can't prove causality:

"In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts)."

Also,

"Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

- Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
- Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
- Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
- Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change."

Bold added.

This was a document produced by the Bush administration. They have widely questioned whether global warming was real for years, and now they are admitting it is real. Where does your cynicism go when it comes to this?

We can agree to disagree about whether or not global warming is a significant problem. We can also agree to disagree whether it is better for us to make necessary changes whether or not China does. Lord knows we wouldn't want to develop products and technologies that we could sell to other countries when/if this turns out to be the problem that so many are predicting it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't work. It's the old Prisoner's Dilemma: without some means to ensure cooperation, each player is compelled to work on the suboptimal but self-protecting solution. (If anybody needs the lengthy discussion of Game Theory involved here, let me know.)

The only solution is involvement of ALL major players, including, particularly, China, but also India, Indonesia, Russia and Brazil, as well as the Western Democracies. That can be accomplished, perhaps, by diplomacy...it could be accomplished, perhaps, by force.

This is freighteningly simplistic. It really depends on what our goal is: if our goal is to STOP global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gasses, then you're right. If the goal is to buy as much time as possible under the current state of affairs then you're completely wrong. It's not like the US has been leading the world on this issue and they are unwilling to discuss it. We have been shirking from this responsibility by denying that the situation even exists.

What cost in dollars and human life do you see as justified to enforce effective regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?

That's not my calculation to make, but I want to elect someone who is at least willing to look at it realistically. Look man, our current president wouldn't even stand up there and say that evolution is a real phenomenon. I'm asking that we have a president who believes in the potential of science without having to mitigate it at every turn with a religious conviction. Al Gore won a nobel prize for his work on climate change, and even conservative estimates about how global warming will impact our world scare me. As you would say, YMMV.

You don't remember 1974-76 though. Trust me, that was worse: in the Cold War we were on the brink of nuclear holocaust, our nation's economy was fractured (gasoline rationing and historical inflation rates), and our faith in the government was at least as low as it is today.

I understand that the American Revolution, the Civil War and World War Two were kinda bad, too.

If we disagree about the potential ramifications of global warming then we disagree about the above. You don't see it as possibly being a more pressing issue than previous lapses in confidence in the country. You were right before: it is a GLOBAL issue. The question is whether Americans will look at it because it is global.

False dilemma. It's not either a war on poverty and global warming or a multi-billion dollar mission to Mars. One might, instead, unite our nation on a premise of maximizing our current median (not mean, median) quality of life while planning for a successful future.

Bush's big scientific foray was a trip to Mars. I am all for science in all forms, butmy point is that one problem (global warming) actually requires wide-spread American participation to make headway. The other problem (Mars) does not require everyday americans to do anything at all. BUsh present one (Mars) with lots of flair to the american public, and swept the other (Global warming) under the rug.

You wrote,

"If Republicans are able to articulate themselves well enough to have enough Senators to block legislation, then they are entitled to stand up as much as they want. That's part of the process."

Almost certainly Republicans will hold 41+ seats in the Senate while the Democrats hold the Executive Branch and majority in both Houses of Congress in 2009. Cloture is going to be used to restrict change. You wrote here that you agree with the use of cloture...remember that you wrote this come 2009.

I really have no problem with this. BTW, since I'm the only person articulating my argument here this will probably be less of a topic of conversation in the future. It is no fun being harassed by jerks like CrespoBlows (telling me to not vote because of my views) simply because I try to explain something to you.

Which Americans? What changes?

All americans. Many changes.

Those are philosophical pragmatists. As many, including the quoted Wikipedia, say, "In philosophy, the term pragmatism has a number of technical meanings that are only incidentally related to its ordinary usage." Accordingly, I'm glad that I don't match their approaches: I don't see making one's living by thinking, writing and talking about the freaking definition of pragmatism as being, well, pragmatic.

Having read those philosophers I have to admit that their works go far beyond the particular discussions they had. Neo-Pragmatists looked at the implication on pragmatism for society. yada yada.

PS. Do you mean "Peirce?"

Of course I meant Peirce, smartass. It was a typo. His name is pronounced like "purse" instead of Paul Pierce.

How strong do you think the bridges are between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the middle of the Republican Party?

Very weak, which is why I am skeptical of her ability to win a general election.

Either Richardson (whom I'd've ranked right after Paul were he still running) or Obama might be able to work with the other party.

Agreed. I see no reason why Richardson can't be a prominant member of Obama's cabinet or administration.

Likewise. Thank you for your reasoned response.

same here.