Things take time because people don’t have the will to get things done. Why has there been no social security reform? Why is there no decent plan about how to fix medicare? Why does the educational system suck so hard? Why to all these questions and more when after so many years of prosperity? Arguments like “these things take time” can always be given until someone sets their foot down to do it.
Things take time because the only way to make sure they’re successful is to investigate them and deliberate over them. All of your questions are grand, but if Obama came out with a solution and Nancy Pelosi used the Democratic majority to slam it through in less than a month without allowing people to really figure out whether it was viable, it would most likely fail.
The greatest and most effective legislation this country has ever produced didn’t just explode onto the scene, it took years to develop, it had a history of lobbying and deliberating in order to preapre the American political system for it and in order to make certain it was viable. The GI bill didn’t just happen because FDR was in office, it was the result of a legacy of lobbying of veteran’s interest groups that had developed since the Civil War. It avoided many of the pitfalls it could have fell into because the Congressional members noted the failure of previous acts towards veteran’s benefits, like some of the ones passed after WWI. The Voting Rights Act didn’t just “happen” because people didn’t have the will to get it done, it took time to develop an effective means to destroy the disenfranchisement of voting rights for minorities.
Once again, I reiterate, the TARP bill. Had we taken the time to actually commit some true oversight to that legislation and added some other provisions it could have been effective - but instead, the will of the Congress and the President pushed it through and said trust us, it’s good for you. That’s not what’s supposed to happen.
Cavel: Politics is bullshit? So you’re taking the position of Hades, now, eh?
I don’t know. I’m more taking the view that none of the people running most countries in the world have any qualifications to do so, for every good thing a civil service does a 100 inefficiencies pop up and unions have too much power, but abolishing either is reckless at best and regressive to the point of abuse at worst.
The fact is that the people in power have to do what the common person wants to if they want to be reelected. The problem is the common person is an ignorant.
Many people say I’ll come to that realization and become cynical afterwards. Hopefully not.
That’s not always true, by the way. If political leaders pass legislation that is effective, even without popular support, they can still be re-elected. I believe Bill Clinton had to force a deficit reduction (?) bill that was unpopular and passed only as a result of the Democratic majority at the time. It turned out to be an effective bill. Bill Clinton got reelected. Of course, it’s effectiveness wasn’t seen in time for the mid-term elections and the Republicans took back the Congress as a result…
I’m thinking about this too much, never mind.
edit: well, it was that and Hillarycare - that certainly didn’t help.
I was cynical anyway, now I’m just bored.
I don’t blame politicians for being voted in, they’re just greedy. I don’t blame the voter for voting them in, there’s a choice between terrible and worse. And I don’t blame the people who actually might be able to run things effectively. they don’t want to have to deal with all the bullshit politics. It’s how the system’s set up. We don’t have a better one. Yay.
We never know for sure what will work. It’s interesting that many angles are attacked -Tax cuts, infrastructure, healthcare (arguably a total rehaul would be cheaper and more efficient though tardier), welfare ($ to the demand side)- and of course the way the money will actually be spent will make a difference. Don’t you think the U.S. need some serious investing in education?
You’re comparing apples and oranges and ignoring my point. There is a difference between handing out free money to your buddies in the banking business and improving the foundation of your country by putting money that will create jobs and enhance the future financial security of your people. You ignore my point that all the things I mentioned and more are the kinds of topics that should have been addressed in times of prosperity and already HAVE been discussed for years but have always run into holes by a select group of individuals that refuses to accept that these things aren’t going to solve themselves on their own. The same kind of laissez faire attitude that fucked up the banking system. You’re oblivious to the fact that the attitudes that your good conservative buddies had towards the TARP are fucking the country in many other ways and that you have to take opportunities when they’re in front of you. Like you said, Bill Clinton did the deficit reduction, which oh my fucking god, was found to be a good idea. The idea that you shouldn’t spend money you don’t have. If only Americans had gotten the point 15 years ago.
Believe it or not, I am pretty fiscally conservative, but that doesn’t mean that I give people who are generally conservative a free pass to fuck everything up, like you do. In my opinion, if Americans want the services and military and all of that, they should bloody well man up and pay their fucking taxes because there is no such thing as a free lunch. That doesn’t mean however that all borrowing is bad and that if you need to borrow to increase the PRODUCTIVITY of your country, this money will return to you many fold (in contrast to borrowing money to wage war on other people, which doesn’t help anyone).
That’s right. We never know if legislation will work and be as efficient as possible. We never know if it’s going to actually do what it’s written to do. We agree there, now let’s go one step further - does it make sense for us to rush something that we don’t know will work? Does it make sense for us not to sit down down and deliberate, question, inquire, and advise about what we should do with this bill to make it better?
The issue is, you’re dealing with the point of the structure of the bill and the elements within it. I gave up that argument; the legislation is going to pass and I’m under the impression that there are some elements which should have been focused on more. If I have conversation about the contents of the bill, it’s just going to be a conversation in which we dig our heels into our positions with one person seeing everying as essential to stimulating to the economy and me seeing parts of the legislation as being extraneous - as in, not appropriate to the purpose of the bill. Our definitions are not going to change.
But that’s not what I’m talking about. Fine. Have you’re opinion about the contents of the legislation. I’ll agree with everyone here that we need to have serious investment in the educational sector of this country. But the manner in which the bill was processed and forced through Congress is a point that needs to be criticized and it’s something that should be raising our eyebrows.
Yes, we need to have investment in education; so let’s allow the Congress to do their job and deliberate and debate over how to create a thorough educational stimulus. Let’s take the time to formulate a plan of attack to reform the elements of our school systems which are in desperate and critical need of change. Let’s not do the exact opposite of what the Congress is supposed to do - it’s not meant to be a representative body that acts with this level of haste and this critically low level of oversight. For crying out loud, we just saw what happens when you do that last fall. If you voted for Obama and feel like you’re candidate deserves some credit and that the Congress should just roll over and submit to his agenda, fine; he won, I’m well aware of that and that counts for something. But don’t be foolish, the Democrats don’t transcend the laws of nature - a hastily thrown together bill that spends money of this size but without the proper oversight mechanisms is likely to fail whether its stamped Republican or Democrat. We don’t even have the dollars and cents for this stimulus package; we’re already going to suffer from deflation as a result of all this spending we’re doing, we’re putting debt to our grandkids now - we need to at least make certain it’s effective.
Effective legislation isn’t hastily thrown together. Effective legislation isn’t passed in less than a month when it deals with this many objective and gives out this much money. We have scores of committees made exactly for the purpose of vetting legislation to manage oversight over how it’s going to be implemented. But we ignored that here, and we did it when we couldn’t afford it. Not one person here has articulated a counterpoint to the fact that this legislation has the same worrisome hallmarks of the TARP legislation in how it was thrown together and passed quickly out of fear of a crisis - that’s because it’s true.
You want to fix education? Let’s do it. But let’s the give issue as much attention, deliberation, and respect as we’re giving to it in terms of monetary value. Sin was talking about people lacking the will to get things done, but he doesn’t articulate the fact that the will to get things done needs to be moderated in order for it to be done effectively. An excess of will and deliberation leads to either foolish, avoidable mistakes or a malaise of action, respectively.
You make the assumption that politicians deliberating is the way it should be done. Politicians deliberating and listening to crack pots is what destroyed the educational system to begin with. You say these things like people haven’t debated things like education before. Its idiotic for you to present a fake naive front for advocating pointless obstructionism. I’ve seen it happen in the US, I’ve seen it happen in Canada. You swamp something under enough procedural bullshit along with a half assed argument and then you plug your fingers in your ears and wait for people to get bored so you can move on.
Its funny that after almost a decade of record deficits that its now that you decry the budget. It really is.
All due respect, you’re ignoring my point. The first 350 billion dollars that was funded by the TARP legislation was a failure. It wasn’t a failure just because of the policy - there were plenty of countries around the globe which have passed legislation that seeked to recapitalize financial institutions. It was a failure because it was passed quickly, it was passed without proper oversight implemenation being put in place beforehand, and the purpose of the bill was inconsistent; the Secretary of the Treasury said it was going to be used to do one thing and then he re-alloacted the funds for another.
You’re mad that solutions weren’t passed when we were more prosperous? You have every right to be, but you haven’t really tried to answer your question; you’re just saying that it’s because the Congress sat on it’s hands and didn’t want to get things done. You ignore the political implications at the time, or the political failings of those who tried to present an alternative. Universal Health Care was brought before the Congress back in the Clinton years. Did it fail because the Congress is impervious to change and lacked the will? Even though, you know, there was a Democratic majority at the time? Or did it fail because the solution wasn’t presented well, because the public wasn’t convinced, because the Administration didn’t go a good enough job to simplify the message and sell the idea? I choose the more plausible choice.
Social security reform was attempted by Bush right after the 2004 election, just when he had the political capital to put weight behind a legislative agenda. Did it fail because the Congress was sitting on its hands and was impervious to change? Or was it because Bush failed to articulate why his view of social security reform would be successful and failed to convince the public why it was necessary?
All due respect, it’s NOT a select group of people that keeps things from happening in the Congress; it’s the public perception of the people that determines it. We’ve needed immigration reform for decades; McCain agreed, Bush agreed, the bill was formulated by Democratic stalwart Ted Kennedy, it had the support of a great deal of Democrats in the Congress and it failed miserably. Why? Was it because Congressional members were just not willing to do anything about the problem. No. It’s because the plan wasn’t presented properly to the people. The public was primed for support and it was characterized by the overly partisan fringes of both parties as unacceptable, rather than being sold to the public as a a moderate solution by the Administration.
You noted my example of Bill Clinton’s deficit reduction legislation, but you don’t look at it in terms of why it was unpopular or why the Democrats lost their majority afterward; because the Administration failed to convince the public that it was neccessary, they forced it through with a clearly partisan vote dependent wholly on their majority and they suffered the consequences. That demonstrates that it’s not the lions of the Senate that keep legislation from getting passed, it’s the political climate at the time, it’s the dedication that the Administration and the party uses to convince the people that its in their best interest that gets things passed. Sure, they can will their desires without public support but there’s a high cost to pay, and they know it.
Finally, you stated something that makes it seem as if you haven’t noted anything I’ve said at all. Despite the fact that I’ve not only noted the failure of the TARP legislation multiple times over the course of this discourse but stated some of the reasons why, I’m somehow oblivious to how attitudes that were paramount in the formulaiton of the bill compromised its effectiveness? Once again, that legislation was a bipartisan effort. Look at the roll call. Heck, if you want to, note the previous vote before TARP passed - when the House Republicans went into revolt because it DIDN’t reflect their conserative values. It’s next iteration was passed because of a few concessions to conservatives but mainly due to the fact that it was pushed as the only way to solve the crisis. It was all about the will, without hardly any deliberation.
I’m telling you right now, as a conservative, that while this bill disagrees with my principles of fiscal conservatism, my greatest issue is that its passage through Congress had all the hallmarks of the problems in the pathway of the TARP legislation. If the issue is that fundamental, then the contents and principles behind the legislation, no matter where they fall on the political aisle, are compromised.
Believe it or not, I am pretty fiscally conservative, but that doesn’t mean that I give people who are generally conservative a free pass to fuck everything up, like you do. In my opinion, if Americans want the services and military and all of that, they should bloody well man up and pay their fucking taxes because there is no such thing as a free lunch. That doesn’t mean however that all borrowing is bad and that if you need to borrow to increase the PRODUCTIVITY of your country, this money will return to you many fold (in contrast to borrowing money to wage war on other people, which doesn’t help anyone).
Give me a break. Whenever I start having fun talking to you you go around making assumptions that serve just as a partisan sticking point rather than to further the conversation. I don’t expect you to give Obama free pass if he does something asinine, because I give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re intelligent enough to recognize that just because he’s a Democrat that doesn’t mean that he should get a free pass. Is it really that difficult to understand that I’m reasonable enough to understand when conservatives make a mistake and to castigate them for it? I’ve done it before.
There’s…actually nothing else I disagree with on the rest of that paragraph. Heck, I’ve articulated before that we should have revoked the Bush tax cuts when the economy regained its footing after 911 and we entered Iraq. It was irresponsible not to. The same way its irresponsible to repeat the same mistakes that were seen in the way the TARP legislation when we’re dealing with such an important issue. The same way its irresponsible to have the attitude you’ve espoused for the second time now; that you should just take advantage of situations that are in front of you, no matter what the consequences are or how appropriate it is to the task at hand.
Effective legislation tends to be an oxymoron more often then not.
Right, so let’s forget about deliberation or effectiveness then, let’s just throw up our hands and do whatever the executive branch wants without really thinking about it; because it’s not like we’ve created legislation that set the foundation for the growth of the middle class when we passed the GI Bill, it’s not like we helped end the disenfranchisement of blacks and minorities with the Voting Rights Act, it’s not like we laid the groundwork for westward expansion and settlement with the Homestead Act, it’s not like we helped recapitalize the broken shards of European economies with the Marshall Plan.
Hey, all those months of careful planning that the Congress takes to consider appropriation bills and deliberating over what should be funded and what shouldn’t is really just extraneous and more often than not ineffective right? We should just have one person decide that. It would be a heck of a lot quicker.
For crying out loud. Let’s just elect a King, right? Because, that’s the way we can get things done without worrying about deliberation, right? All that pesky thinking just serves to get in the way of finding the most efficient solutions and finding out whether action should be taken in the first place, right? Might as well, since effective legislation is such an impossibility as to be considered an oxymoron.
Yes, Sin. Because you’ve known me over the past decade and just know that I’ve always been in support of record deficits and have never decried the budget. Not ever. Not once.
What you’re failing to do is give any convincing argument why this education stimulus couldn’t have been thoroughly vetted, couldn’t have been articulated and amended and gone through the Congressional routes it should have. It’s not like it would have hurt the Democrats to do so; they have a clear majority in the House, they could have passed this at any time. By all accounts, their seat count will most likely increase in 2010, their political capital isn’t going anywhere. Why not then, take a few months extra to actually give the bill time to air out fully in the Congressional chambers if what you want is a truly effective educational stimulus? It’s not like you would have lost anything. Representative Obey could have just blocked all the amendments afterward and came through with the same bill we have attached to the stimulus package right now, but then at least it would have had a fair hearing before the Congress.
This was a piggyback amendment, Sin. That’s the bottom line. What it should have been was legislation that was able to stand on its own two feet, that we were able to hear about and conjecture over and deliberate over in order to make sure we were getting our money’s worth. I don’t know how to articulate my point any further than this; when you become callous and apathetic enough to believe that the legislative process and the deliberative consideration which is at the cornerstone of it is merely obstructionism, then I think you’ve taken the wrong approach to government.
Another thing; crackpots? Have you seen the people that the Congressional committees have called to testify before them in order to hear their advice? Are some thing wrong opinions? Sure. Are some of them great opinions that should be considered? Sure. But the whole point Sin is that those opinions are heard and the entire body gets to approach legislation with a more informed viewpoint than they originally had. We didn’t get people to talk about the education stimulus, that wasn’t able to be heard before a Committee which could specialize and ask the right questions and sometimes get the wrong answers, but have the ability to take their time and figure out what could be the best outcome and the best approach. When the best argument you have against that is that it’s obstructive to allow Congressional members the time to amend legislation and become more informed about what their actually spending tax payer money on just because you want things to be done, you’re missing the entire point of a deliberative body.
As a matter of fact, let me pull one of your numbers; how should it be done if politicians shouldn’t deliberate? Propose the alternative.
I’ll give you an example about Canadian health care. Health care in Canada has massive fucking problems and every couple years, something ridiculous happens and whoever is in power at the time calls for a consultation period to try to figure out what’s wrong with the system. When these run by respectable public health officials or former heads of office, you’d think that people would listen. The reality of the situation is that they don’t. Its a smoke screen and a waste of taxpayer money. In the end, the shit keeps hitting the fan because people don’t want to start making contraversial decisions.
You’re wrong that more debate would’ve resolved the problems with TARP. You don’t need to debate for a month to know that its stupid to give 1 person the ability to spend hundreds of billions of dollars as they see fit.
You’re absolutely right that there were PR problems with many initiatives in the US and the same applies for Canada and Europe (or as it should properly be called, Yurop). People are fucking stupid. The educational system does not pump out good citizens because if it did, Fox news and similar programs wouldn’t be so popular. Its important to note that the Clinton administration didn’t have the kind of majority to push through whatever it wanted. My point wasn’t so much that I’m mad it didn’t pass when we were prosperous but that its ridiculous that when we have the money to do, that it doesn’t get done. Its a different angle. Its symbolic of what is wrong with the system.
I still think its ridiculous that you would stay quiet and support and defend your party when your party blasted through billions a month in Iraq to wage a war based on lies.
And yes, if Obama fucks shit up I will be the first to call for his head.
I’ll make an analogy. I’m going to be an MD one day. An anecdote is that if you ask a patient what they think is important in their doctor, they’ll say its communication skills. You’d think that the patient would say “medical education” but the reality is that the medical education is taken for granted. Its by default. The way I see it shit like the TARP need to have safeguards by default and politicians that don’t do that are incompetent, just like physicians that don’t know their material. Its for the safety of the fucking public.
How would I do things? I’d put experts of a field (real ones, not holocaust denier types, ie crackpots) in charge of a study and implement their recomendations after a rigorous peer review. The debating should be done by people who know what the fuck they’re doing. The politicians should then kick in and figure out how to balance their budget around it, manage it. If something is really expensive, then there should be a public consultation and it should be voted on as so many things are done in Califorina.
Too many issues are clouded because politicians inject ideology into science. For example, politicians like to make all kinds of unsubstantiated statements regarding violence and sex despite the fact that scientific studies have proven them wrong time and time again. For example, its clear that abstinence programs do not work and that the Bush policies of not teaching safe sex to teens was detrimental. If something doesn’t work, read the writing on the wall and move on.
Wait. So because these deliberations, in your opinion, are wholly useless and ineffective, we should just not care about deliberating? We should just go with out gut and change things whenever we have the will to do so, despite how little time we take to analyze the situation? That’s your solution? Is that you’re alternative to deliberation?
Investigate the alternatives that these Canadian officials gave to the public. Assess whether or not these were viable alternatives or whether or not the Canadian public was properly informed by their government about whether or not the alternative was acceptable. Maybe they did properly inform the people and the people decided that it wasn’t in their best interest. Maybe the legislators decided that the system was flawed, but these outrageous mistakes were blips in the system and the benefits of the current system outweighted those negative aspects. You can’t simplify something like deliberations over Health care in Canada to a few lines and then throw up your hands and cry foul because nothing changed; ask yourself why didn’t it change? Look for proof to demonstrate whether your right or not. Ask why the deliberative body in Canada would vote against it. Don’t just say people are stupid and politicians are spineless and that’s just the way things are. That’s just the lazy way out.
Now, you’re assessing the failure of TARP as being a result of being an issue of principles rather than assessing it’s legislative failures. It wouldn’t have passed, Sin, if legislators hadn’t had their deliberative practices overridden by the tremendous will and fear of an incoming crisis. If they had done what they were supposed to do then the TARP bill would have either failed because it would have been declared ineffective or it would have had tighter controls so it could have been effective. Returning to the point; that’s the reason why this legislation should have been vetted, so people could have decided on their own, after considering how best we can spend our last ditch effort at saving the economy.
You realize that what you’ve advocated is exactly what you’ve been decrying right? You’re advocating for deliberation over subjects before we act upon them, but when it comes down to this amendment in which 150 billion dollars is being thrown into education without any clearly outlined oversight or thorough examination by either politicians or experts, you’re fine with it. I’m thoroughly confused.
And honestly, I wouldn’t use California as an example of efficient government. If California is using that kind of strategy to determine how to spend their money, I’m honestly going to be very skeptical of it from the very beginning. That whole state looks like its going to go into default and the Democrats still want to spend all sorts of money and give all sorts of concessions to the unions.
I addressed your first paragraph in my previous post (the 2nd one). The deliberations I’m advocating have nothing to do with the politicians but with the scientists who’s jobs it is to do these things to begin with. Scientists are little more than social workers. Our salaries are paid by the state and we justify our costs by explaining how what we do will benefit society in return. For politicians to then pretend to do the same thing is ridiculous. Cut the fucking crap, listen to the scientists that you hired to begin with, swallow your ego and take appropriate action instead of plug your ears like the Bush administration did with abstinence (for example). I didn’t call for people to put every claim to a vote. I would put it to a vote if something costs say, 700 billion dollars. Another way to look at it is to ask the public if they accept to be taxed for whatever more extreme recommendations need to be addressed I can’t imagine these would be too numerous and you can piggy back issues like these with elections every couple years. Very simple and not too costly. Your counterargument is irrelevant as it isn’t even about what I’m bringing up.
I have a vague understanding of the claims that were brought forward and basically it called for more money, more doctors, more hospitals and more infrastructure. These were all things that people knew before hand if only because these were the same recommendations made by previous commissions. The reason the recommendations don’t get passed is because people in power preferred to invest in things like “sovereignty” over the health of their citizens and then these same people would blame the federal government for not giving them the money they needed. A few years ago, there was a famous event where the feds actually gave the provincial prime minister what he asked and the provincial pm never put the money into the health care system. I was speechless. Its like Iran. Iran made all these overtures during the Bush years because they knew it was just talk. Here comes Obama and they’re backpedaling so fast you’d think they were on a pedal boat in front of a shark.
I’m saying the TARP failed not because of legislative failures but failed legislators. I blame people, not the system.
Debating how to implement scientifically investigated recommendations is different from debating personal ideology in a masturbation contest. The focus of the debate is not whether or not to get something done but how to get something done. It shifts the argument towards doing something instead of arguing because of ideology. You’re doing the same job, but you’re doing it differently and thus to different ends.
Mullenkamp, I actually love how you’ve been admitting the problem is with the public, ie, the politicians can’t do what they have to/want to because the public doesn’t agree with them. The public doesn’t agree with many of the issues because the public is ignorant of a basic understanding of the science (social or just science science) behind why these decisions are being recommended.
Yet you self-righteously decreed that you wouldn’t come to that realisation and be cynical in reply to my last post, I find this hilarious.
Also: Sin is right about how the debating should be done. But it never will be.
Btw spending leads to inflation, not deflation /hangover