Variations on "Only Nixon Can Go to China"
by Mike Kimel
Variations on “Only Nixon Can Go to China”
This is not a short post. Be forewarned.
A few years ago, I co-authored a book called Presimetrics with Michael E. Kanell, a reporter for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. In the book, we tried to take an objective look at how Presidents performed on a wide range of issues – everything from abortion to the national debt. To achieve that objectivity, we did two things. The first was to always get data from the most objective source we could find. Thus, when looking at the murder rate, we obtained our data from the FBI. The second thing we did to try to maintain objectivity was to treat each series exactly the same way – looking at how the series changed from right before a President took office to right before he left office.
We got almost no press and the book didn’t do well – perhaps in part because we tried so hard to keep our opinions and biases in check. Additionally, the book had plenty in it to anger everyone, regardless of their political persuasion. (Yes, more often than not, the facts have a liberal bias… but on a few issues near and dear to liberal hearts, they don’t.)
Still, I learned a lot from working on the book. And while Presimetrics is about facts, I want to talk about something subjective. As the old saw goes, only Nixon can go to China. But there’s a corollary – once Nixon goes to China, everyone else can.
And there have been plenty of visits to China in the past few decades. Depending on your political views, you might like some and not others but whatever you might think of them, each of them has created a precedent.
Once the country got used to top marginal rates in the 90 percent range, only an economically liberal President could cut tax rates, particularly since the previous time the country had undergone significant tax cuts (from 75% in 1920 down to 24% in 1929) we had the mother of economic disasters. But once LBJ did cut the top tax rate from 90% to 70%, the door was opened and it took only a few decades for us to reach a point where top rates of 39% are described as socialism.
The next Democrat in the Oval Office, Jimmy Carter, set other precedents that affect us today – perhaps the biggest of which was deregulation. Nixon himself visited at least one other China – there may have been politics behind it, but he created the EPA and made the environment a legitimate issue. The air is cleaner, and rivers aren’t on fire in Ohio any more as a result of that particular visit to China.
Sometimes going to China only applies to one party. The Republican Party used to be somewhat pacifist, or at least non-interventionist. The leading candidates for the Republican nomination for President in January1940 – Taft, Vandenberg & Dewey – were all isolationists. Wilkie, the eventual nominee, was all over the map, but a big part of his campaign was accusing FDR of having a secret plan to get the US into WW2.
The first post-WW2 Republican President, Ike, sent advisers to Vietnam but little more. His military policy seemed to be maintaining the “status quo” to the point where he slapped down the British, French, and Israelis over the Suez. Ike also famously warned America of the threat posed by the military-industrial complex. The next Republican President, Nixon, pulled out of the Vietnam War. It wasn’t until Reagan invaded Grenada that it became kosher for Republicans to militarily intervene in other countries, but since then, Republican Presidents have given us Panama, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If the last two had been successful, you could bet American troops would be sitting in military bases in Iran today.
Here’s another single Party visit to China… after WW2, every single President until Gerald Ford presided over a decrease in the national debt as a share of GDP.
That changed with Ford… and every single Republican President beginning with Ford increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Each and every single one: Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. A look at Romney’s economic plan makes it obvious he would fit right in. (If you have any doubts on that point, note that he’s already signed up both Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard as “economic advisers” and then go back and check on their record.)
For a few reasons, increasing the debt wasn’t a precedent for Democrats – and both Carter and Clinton paid down debt, but now, with Obama laying a new course (it’s one thing to increase the debt, it’s a whole other story when that debt is expanded mostly by bailing out industries that have behaved irresponsibly), perhaps we can expect both parties to act like drunken sailors going forward.
Obama has been visiting other Chinas too. Despite LBJ’s tax cuts, in recent decades Democrats have concluded that tax cuts might not be good for the economy when tax rates are “too low.” (Not an unreasonable assumption – the top marginal tax rates fell from 75% to 24% between 1920 and 1929, and we all know how that turned out. Most of us also remember the last time top marginal rates dipped below 30%.) Obama has made it clear that he believes that low taxes are good for the economy, and the only reason he might consider raising the top marginal rate is because “we can’t afford it.”
Obama has also perfected a new political technique for Democrats – the pre-emptive surrender from a position of strength. The fact that he faces an argumentative Congress is not an excuse – he was doing it even when his own party controlled both houses of Congress! Besides, Clinton had an obstreperous Congress to deal with too, and he generally triangulated his way toward whatever he wanted.
Here’s a China that Obama can go to that Bush 2 wanted to visit but couldn’t… “fixing” Social Security. Obama has already laid some of the ground work, what with the payroll tax cut as stimulus, the Social Security commission, and some other odd noises coming out of his mouth. Expect more reluctant progress “fixing” Social Security from a second Obama term than Romney would manage, despite Romney’s enthusiasm for that sort thing.
Which leads us to one more extension of the Nixon going to China rule… a visit to China doesn’t count if it gets immediately repudiated. The Bush 1 tax hikes were immediately repudiated by Republicans. Reagan almost did just that with the Department of Education (created by Jimmy Carter), but then he appointed the wrong flunky to oversee its destruction.
Obama, on the other hand, seems to have not refuted, but rather continued the new precedents set by GW Bush. Homeland Security, spying on Americans, security theater in airports, economic stimulus geared toward rescuing the worst offenders at whatever cost, refusal to hold anyone accountable for what would normally be considered criminal behavior during the financial meltdown, keeping tax rates low, etc., etc., etc., etc. Other than the low taxes, many of these policies would have been a stretch for Republicans pre-GW, but it is pretty clear that Romney wouldn’t reverse course on any of them. The Republican Party’s precedent has been established and confirmed. It won’t be changing.
On the other hand, in theory, Democrats can still go back to being in favor of balanced budgets, higher taxes, more spending on social issues, and accountability for white collar crime. The Democrats can still go back to favoring policies intended to benefit the little guy. (I note, as per Presimetrics, I note that intention doesn’t always make something true in reality and some of the recipes Democrats traditionally follow don’t work, just as some of the recipes Republicans traditionally follow don’t work.)
But these are all approaches that run counter to what Obama has been doing. If Obama’s policies aren’t repudiated quickly, they become precedent, carved in stone. From a practical perspective, the trip to China has to be untaken now, or not at all.
My conclusion from all of this is a very contrarian one: if you voted for Obama in 2008, you will be best-served voting against him in 2012. On the other hand, if you voted against Obama in 2008, you will be best-served voting for him 2012. And yes, I’m serious, though I don’t expect too many people to believe me.
—
This post was written in response to this.
Mike
you still have hope. i do not.
i had a chance to talk, live in person, to my Senator the other day. I learned that a Senator can fail to answer your question even when pressed, talk nonsense in front of an audience, and have no one…. not even me… able to bring the words into even approximate allignment with reality.
What Bush II taught the powers who always used to worry at least a little about the people is that they don’t have to worry. The people will swallow any lie as long as they keep repeating it, no matter how dumb. no matter how contradicted by actual events..
and, sad to say, even among my friends i notice an extreme wilingness to believe anything that supports your (their) own short term money interests, as long as it sounds like it agrees with the emotional commitments they have made as a result of reading their favorite fiction.
things may change, but they won’t change because anyone is thinking about them.
I figure Obama et al after last night are patting themselves on the back for not engaging Wisconsin and thus can keep some bona-fide argument to the money people that they are still safe giving him money for the re-election. At the same time, deep inside they are wondering just how the hell are they going to compete in a 7.5 to one Wisconsin money raising difference without looking even less like a liberal.
However, based on the ads run and the lack of polling change, I would say we are at a point in politics where the 30+ years of conservative persuasion and lack of real pain from life’s ricks to the vast majority has now become the dominate national conscience. Thus, the only thing ads will do is reinforce what is held to be true. IOW, it’s overkill insurance.
The pendulum is at that point in the swing where acceleration and velocity are zero. It’s a very slow swing which means a rather long time before the pendulum moves past this moment in it’s arc.
Mike:
The title is too long and complicated to pop up on search and recommendation lists (I’m currently studying e-publishing).
new title?
The B.S. claim that Obama had control of Congress once again raises its ugly head. The Senate was, and still is, controlled by a Republican/blue dog coalition that might as well hgave been overtly Republican. The default argument that, well, Clinton was able to triangulate past an “obstreporous” Congress falls flat when one considers the results: repeal of Glass-Stegal, the end of welfare “as we know it”, and a “successful” economy built on the tech bubble which crashed, conveniently for Clinton, later. As to the criticism of failure tomprosecute white collar crime, it is useful to remember that deregulation made most the actions criticized legal; unethical, unwise, but legal.
The now familiar and baloney claim that Obama had control of Congress again raises its ugly head. From the outset, his administration was confronted with a Senate controlled by a Republican/blue dog Democrat coalition that might as well have been simply called Republican. The default contention (perhaps anticipating the first point) that Clinton was able to triangulate around his “obstreporous” Congress yielded the repeal of Glass-Stegal and the end of “welfare as we know it” and presiding over a thriving economy built on the tech bubble which crashed later probably to Clinton’s relief.
As to white collar crime and whether or not it is prosecuted, it is useful to remember that most of the actions complained of were legal due to deregulation; unethical, reckless, dumb, but legal.
JackD,
I would counter your point on most of the white collar crime being legal for two reasons. Any motivated states attorney or the attorney general could of made a RICO case out of the massive documents fraud involved in creating and securitizing all of these subprime mortgages. Same with the straight up forgery that was mortgage assignment (think Linda Greene). This was plain old fraud and forgery, on these charges alone we should of seen CEOs taking perp walks. But nobody decide to pursue that course of action. On the other end of things SOX makes being too dumb, too lazy, or too corrupt to have proper financial controls a civil & potentially criminal matter. Again if SEC, attorney general or anyone else wanted they could of thrown the book at pretty much any of these CEOS. So while deregulation assisted with this collapse it really was caused by garden variety accounting control fraud and could of been prosecuted as such.
Maybe, but they’d have to get evidence that the CEO’s ordered or ratified those acts. Whether or not such evidence is there and can be found is far from clear. There is that task force including the NY attorney general. We’ve yet to hear from them.
Jack D
you weren’t paying attention.
whoever was in control of Congress, Our President kept bending over and saying oh won’t you please take more than you asked for.
I suspect that the President’s constant capitulation to the R’s is based on the notion that if you give them what they want, they’ll go away. Not going to happen as we now see.
He has been offerring unnecessary and destructive SS benefit reductions to the R’s since the Great Debt Ceiling hassle. That’s a China that no one should visit. It seems clear that to vote for Obama is to hope that he’ll keep the Supreme Court from going completely conservative and probably cave on Social Security. And to vote for Romney is to vote for the end of the New Deal plus a completely conservative Court.
Take your pick. It’s pretty slim pickings either way. Sometimes I’m glad I’m as old as I am. No one, including people in their 40’s and 50’s have a cheery future in front of them. NancyO
Correction. Should be “No one…has a cheery future….” NancyO
And to follow up Coberly’s point… Clinton mostly got what he wanted after 1995. He may have wanted things you wouldn’t want, but he got what he wanted.
The President has a bully pulpit, and many different ways to get what he wants. Yes, LBJ had a Democrat controlled Congress on his side, but he also demonstrated the “Johnson treatment” to keep opponents, whether in the press or in his own party, in line. I am not endorsing the Johnson treatment, nor Clinton’s triangulation. I am merely pointing out that there are several ways to deal with Congress. The pre-emptive surrender approach is the least successful one I’ve seen demonstrated yet.
str,
Yeah. But the post is also too long and complicated to get on recommended lists too.
Hi Jack:
I agree with your views on the Senate coalition. There was “never” a Dem majority in the Senate. The Senator from Aetna who now calls for pushing the Medicare qualification age back a couple of years also nixed single payer and Medicare for all hence the ACA which is a good start to better things. This ranks as Obama’s greatest achievement. I also wish he would have fought harder with the Repubs. This would have been ok, if it were not for the Blue Dogs (Lieberman is not one and is loose cannon) such as Snowe (R), Nelson, Baccus, Conrad, Spector, etc made passing legislation difficult. Lieberman above all else deserves a kick in the ass for his continued blockage of important legislation.
Glass-Steagal was dead long before it was repealed as greater percentages of investing on the stock market was given over to the banks as Greenspan interpretted and reinterpretted Section 20 numerous times to the point Glass Steagal was a shell of its former self. Greenspan as the Fed Chairman was reponsible for this although Clinton did have an interesting relationship with him. It only remained for it to be repealed and the National Bank Act (of Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis vs First of Omaha Service fame) altered to allow Citibank and Travellers to merge.
Brooksley Born of the CFTC attempted to regulate and was met with great resistence from Summers, Greenspan, Levitt, Rubin, Gramm, and the rest of Congress. I guess throttling a thriving market no matter how hazardous (think LTCM of a decade ago) the practice was, was not in the cards. Dorgan and others warned of the looseness of the market once Glass-Steagal and the National Bank Act were repealed and altered. In any case the courts would be hard pressed to find evidence of wrong doing as little was documented, the leveraging was 100 to 1 (again LTCM), and the tranching greater yet. Furthermore, these were not you ordinary middle class Americans who the courts could bully. These people had money and would fight back.
Coberly and Mike, I was paying attention and what I noticed was that Clinton gave Republicans what they wanted. If that’s what he wanted, why praise him? Success is giving your opponents what they want? And this is not surrender?
Then, of course, Clinton topped his performance by his affair with Monica, thus setting the table for Gore to be so close to Bush that the Supreme Court could give us Bush. If that’s triangulation, it looks more like failure.
Nancy Ortiz,
I feel an urge to give a facetious answer… though how facetious it is I don’t know.
Obama is running low on issues on which he can pre-emptively capitulate, and the Republicans in Congress are becoming less and less interested in negotiation given his tactics. Throw in that Romney is being advised by Robert Bork and Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee may well be Antonin Scalia, who, if he doesn’t get rejected by the Republican Congress for being too liberal, will be the first Supreme Court Justice to hold down two seats (and get two votes) on the Court.
But if I may be more serious – Republicans are learning that Obama will roll over on anything. Sooner or later even folks like Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch will manage to figure that out. Then that Supreme Court argument goes away, doesn’t it?
JackD,
Speaking purely as a) an observer of the Presidency and b) someone who cares about the economy, I’d say Clinton was successful because:
a. he mostly got what he wanted (whether you or I or anyone else wanted the same thing is not the point)
b. he presided over an economy that worked extremely well considering the number of opportunities there were to strangle it
c. he took advantage of the opportunity to halt the increase in the national debt, buying his successors room to maneuver (which they, of course, squandered)
He had his failures – he made some decisions that did weaken the economy and weren’t positive for the country, but relative to other Presidents in my lifetime, it seems the proportion of boneheaded moves to not bad moves was relatively low. (Yes, this answer sounds subjective, but I have a bookful of figures to back it up.) To echo buffpilot in a comment he left on another post I wrote, that Clinton did better than others in recent decades doesn’t say Clinton was all that great, but rather that we haven’t exactly had a band of allstars making it to President.
As to the year 2000 – it was Al Gore’s decision not to have a very popular sitting president do much campaigning on his behalf.
Hi, run. Summers and Rubin, of course, were Clinton’s people. The congress at the time was Republican (re Gramm, et al.). My basic point is that the Clinton economic policies set the stage for our recent meltdown. That the economy seemed to be doing well under him was really the growing of the tech bubble getting ready to burst. The housing and derivative “exuberance” before the market collapse was just more of the same but deliberately encouraged by government policy under both parties. I think that Clinton derserves his share of the blame for that.
Mike, I get your point using Scalia. What I see is that even the sacred appointment of a supreme will fall and become the next great hostage position.
If that happens, then regardless of debt ceiling default threat, I would consider the US government to have collapsed. It is the ultimate threat as was the nuclear option.
Mike
you just think Obama caved. i think he did what he was sent there to do. his problem was the R’s kept missing their lines so he had to prompt them on-stage.
run
yes, isn’t it great that Obama got Romneycare through Congress. saved us from ever having single payer. ever.
Daniel,
“What I see is that even the sacred appointment of a supreme will fall and become the next great hostage position. “
Exactly what I was trying to convey. Right now what liberals like TBogg (see link to the post to which I’m responding at the bottom of the piece) and so many others are saying is this:
“Well, Obama isn’t what I wanted for Christmas, but at least he’s going to deliver Supreme Court Justicies and I’ll vote on him for that reason.”
I’ll admit, so far he has given TBogg et. al. those Supreme Court Justices. I suspect, though, that last reason to which they’re clinging (they’ve mostly thrown in the towel on the second to the last reason, namely “Obama is less likely to get us into a shooting war than Romney”) may meet with some disappointment if Obama is President the next time a vacancy opens up. Obama has displayed time and again that there is no penalty to breaking rules and whacking him over the head and Republicans in Congress are learning.
If the pattern holds, Republicans will hold firm and Obama will cave.
I subscribe to Hanlon’s Razor.
No, the Supreme Court may accomplish that. Single payer had not a prayer out of the shute this time. Obama care, if it survives, may morph, over time, into something you like. Social Security and Medicare started out as much less than they are.
Another way of looking at it courtesy Lambert Strether at Naked Capitalism is “Why should I care if civil liberties are shredded by 5:4 votes or 6:3?” Sounds about right to me. The worst people on this court are very very young.
Yes, but the result is indistinguishable from malice and that’s what counts. Besides, there’s a high correlation between meanness and stupidity. You can always tell the mean, stupid ones–they’re the ones laughing all the way to the bank. NancyO
This is interesting Mr. Kimel. Where could Mr. Obama go to China? Taxes? Like you point out he’s already been there. I was in Washington at the beginning of May and while Members were in recess, staff was there and were calling what we know as the Bush tax cuts the Bush/Obama tax cuts. Many staffer, senior ones at that, beleived these cuts will be continued even if Obama wins in November.
How about abortion? No way, his true base would revolt. War with Iran? I doubt it. Supreme Court? Maybe. Entitlements? Bingo!
That’s OK, I’ll distribute it by email!
little john,
Obama may yet surprise us with several new Chinas. As I noted upthread, it wasn’t too long ago that the the “I’ll hold my nose and vote for him” gave two reasons: Supreme Court and no hot wars. Nobody believes that second reason any more.
And yes, SS is only one of the various entitlements that can be fixed.
That said, I assume the “Bush/Obama tax cuts” is a line used by Republican staffers, not Democrats. That isn’t to say it isn’t an accurate description, mind you, merely that I would think for political reasons the Democrats wouldn’t want to claim it and the Republicans would want to spread the, er, paternity around to make it more likely to stick permanently.
Of course, it is always possible that Obama will wake up one day realizing that he is the President of the United States and he has the biggest bully pulpit in the land. I doubt it though.
Yeah, they were GOP staffers. I think the biggest, easiest target may be SSDI.
Haven’t many from MF Global staed that Corzine was directly handling the book which brought down his company? Wouldn’t this lead to a case against Corzine by SEC disclosure regs or SOX. But it would seem there will be no investigation of the MF Global collapse by any regulator despite the clear evidence that supposedly segregated customer funds were stolen.
Disability Insurance? I think most Americans would still view that as a fine FU. Medicaid is my bet.
don’t think so.
the medical profession could not have survived the way it was going. by giving them 30 million new customers who get a deal they can’t refuse they will do quite well. without Robamney care we would have had to have Medicare for all.. a much better deal. or maybe have the government take the place of the employer in the current paradigm. but when you have no imagination, anything looks like the best deal on offer.
i have heard that when the Supremes find that the government CAN force you to buy from a private provider, that will clear the way to replacing SS with the pfree market, you know, like the one that brought you the last great recession.
don’t count on it.
they are after Social Security… you know, retirement insurance… and they are so close to getting it they are drooling in public.
the crime and the stupidity of it is that SS has nothing to do with the deficit, and it ain’t broke. never will be. it’s just that with a Billion bucks to spread around Peterson can buy even Bill Clinton to stand up on stage and say “it needs to be fixed.” It doesn’t.
heck, i wouldn’t be doing my patriotic duty if i didn’t add
that when SS is under attack by a big liar who says its going broke and it will cause huge deficits..
the national committee to protect social security and medicare says… hey, we got a great idea, lets think up new benefits and make the rich pay for them.
And Yobama, as you know, said, hey, with SS going broke, and that huge deficit threatening all we hold sacred, i got a great idea, lets stop collecting the SS “tax” and fund SS by borrowing.”
Yes my friends, these are strange times. They can say anything they want, no matter how dumb, and we just smile and change the channel.
coberly,
SS is a China he’s already visited (though not the DI portion in particular). He’ll keep chipping away at it, applying new “fixes.” The question is, what else is going to fix? I expect Medicaid. It doesn’t have its own revenu stream which makes it more, ahem, unaffordable, and its constituency is the poor.
Coberly,
The government forcing citizens to buy from private providers is hardly new and unique. Shortly (a few years) after the adoption of the constitution, males 18 and older were required to buy rifles and ammunition so as to be able to form militias, shipowners were required to puchase health insurance for their seamen, and later seamen were required to purchase it for themselves. This was before the fear of broccoli swept the nation.
This was supposed to be a stimulus measure but the law of unforeseen consequences applied: tying social security to general revenue funds (borrowing) creates an argument that it is contributing to the deficit.
Hmmm…Medicaid. That seems too big. I think it’ll be incremental, especially if he wins in November. I can hear it now at the SOTU in 2013, “Let’s eliminate the fraud and abuse with Social Security Disability in order to save Social Security.” New, tougher measure will be introduced in order to qualify for SSDI. Then in 2015 he can tout the “savings in entitlements” and move on to bigger targets while his successor can take even bigger advantage of Mr. Obama’s trip to China.
Coberly:
Obama asked for healthcare and the blue dogs combined with the Repubs blocked everything else which could be passed. Things do change over time the same as SS and Medicare over time. You may yet see what yu wish to see; but, the single payer and medicare for all was dead on arrival.
Glen,
I don’t know enough about the details of the investigation into MF Global and the status of the available evidence to comment. I would note that what people tell reporters doesn’t always translate into admissible evidence but, as I say,I don’t know about the particulars here.
Jack
i actually knew about that sort of, but i am guessing it wasn’t exactly the same thing. in any case my view of the law is more cynical than yours. precedent is in the eye of the beholder, and the precedent here is like a poke in my eye with a sharp stick.
you left out mandatory car insurance… which is a state issue, as was, i think, that militia thing. much as i understand the need for car insurance, especially for people like me who think they don’t need it, letting the private insurers handle it means that it costs too much and attempts to reform it can’t even get a hearing.
you will note that you are not required to be a shipowner, or a seaman, or even a car owner, whereas with Robamney care, all that is required is that you be human. No, if it turns out to be unconstitutional maybe we can get state-car insurance, say priced into a gallon of gas, and certainly repeal that militia thing.
i also have despair at liberals who accept a rotten right wing “solution” because it “comes from a democrat” and of course “there is no chance that we could ever get anything better.”
jack
which is exactly why they did it. they could have had a stimulus without dragging in SS.
I agree. I just don’t agree that that was Obama’s desire. I think it’s all he could get.
Scalia is 76 years old, a smoker, and very overweight. Kennedy will turn 76 in July, and had a pacemaker implanted in his heart two or three years ago. Thomas will turn 64 later this month, is a smoker, and is very overweight.
Ginsburg is 79 and had colon cancer a few years ago. She also reportedly has other illnesses. Breyer will turn 74 in August.
I would say, enough said. But I already know that liberals who plan not to vote in November don’t need actual accurate or logical refutations in order to justify their decision; they just need something to say, and anything will do. Here’s a thank-you kiss from Romney. And from David Koch. And from John Roberts.
Bet you voted for Nader in 2000. John Roberts and Samuel Alito (among others) are grateful—at least if you lived in Florida at the time.
Sorry, amateur; I know we’re basically on the same side. But this isn’t a chess game, in which cutesy plays are admired. It’s not a game of any kind. It’s really, really serious business, and very long-term.
“I agree. I just don’t agree that that was Obama’s desire. I think it’s all he could get.”
It’s almost four years now since Obama took residence in the WH. It is time to stop the “it’s all he could get” excuses. Our most serious problem is that the alternative to Obama is a sop to pomp and circumstance. He’s a guy with no ideas of his own sorrounded by a crowd of people who are either the biggest liars on Earth or suitable for entry into the asylum. If the social/economic direction continues for another decade or two on its path of the past several decades we will find our selves back a wee bit before the Industrial Revolution in Europe. China is already past its own industrial change and will mature into a better place to live. The US and Europe will be hanging on by the tips of fingers with the bulk of the people being under water, and not just figurativley speaking.
Coberley,
Those provisions were federal, not state. All of this of course overlooks that we are really talking about taxation. Under the law, if one doesn’t buy insurance, one is charged a penalty. The Republicans like to parse words and say that isn’t a tax. The answer to that is a rose by any other name, etc.
If the court overturns healthcare, that doesn’t mean state required auto insurance will fall. The argument is about federal, not state, power.
I don’t have any need to be admired. For better or worse (mostly better) I managed to make my adopted home in Austin TX, a gorgeous little blue gem of a city surrounded by one butt ugly red state. So for all the cultural and other amenities Austin offers, political engagement beyond a limited local level isn’t one of them.
You would win that bet, I did in fact vote for Nader in 2000 and believed him at his rally here when he pledged to continue after the presidential race to build a national organization. I learned my lesson.
And I hasten to note that one of the most disastrous decisions of the recent SCOTUS didn’t require either Roberts or Alitos involvement. I think it came down titled Bush V. Gore.
Jack D
I am sorry, but it is not the Republicans parsing words here. If you can’t tell the difference between a tax and the government telling you you have to deal with the mob, you need spectacles.
I also understand that “precedents” are not written in gold. When the Court has some reason to rethink the matter they may decide that the situation before it is actually too dangerous for democracy to rely on a what was a popular and “reasonable” construction of the law in the early eighteenth century. After all, Dred Scott was a precedent.
And I do know the difference between state and federal power. But I live in hope.
A rose by another name is a geranium.
Beverly
It is not a game, but your logic is not the only logic. So don’t be too condescending to those who disagree with you. It just irritates them.
It may be that Obama’s appointments to the SC will be better than Robamney’s, but I wouldn’t count on it. It may just be that with you worried to death about abortion rights, and the other side worried to death about murdering babies, they (the powers) have got you where they want you.
That is the tea partiers will vote R in spite of their economic interest, and the libs will vote D in spite of the actual performance of their party.
I do not think that Romney would be a better choice than O. In fact he makes me sick. But O is so far beneath contempt that I will not vote for him.
And no, I did not vote for Nader. And yes, Gore defeated himself. With of course a little vote rigging from the other Bush.
Great, what we need in a President is a spineless wimp with no principles who won’t even ask for what is right. “Hey, guys, I’m here to compromise. Take my daughters…”
That’s the Lot compromise, in case you didn’t recognize it.
and i hear he likes video games.
hey, watch me splash that terr’ist there in the middle of that wedding party. oooh. that was a good one. we got the guy, and no more than 30 collaterals.
Coberly,
I’d respond to the first paragraph but I can’t understand it.
I cited the earlier statutes only because the challengers to the law and some of the Justices during oral argument claimed, falsely, that the government (federal) had never required anyone to purchase anythng before. Precedents do fall from time to time. I am as cynical as you are about the court. It is a court of politics, not law. It’s helpful from time to time to expose them for who they are.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it’s a geranium?
Beverly,
If you are voting in Michigan this time, your vote could actually matter. If Romney gets in, particularly with a Republican congress, your contempt for Obama will quickly be overcome by the sound of the gnashing of your teeth at what that government will do. Sometimes one has to play defense. Not voting is a vote for Romney.
I don’t think you know what he asked for; just what he got. If you would have preferred a public ask and rejection, OK, but the result wasn’t going to change. The Congress under Obama has never been remotely progressive.
Jack (good name by the way),
You have noticed, I trust the make up of the congress during those four years. I’m sure you know they are a separate branch of Congress; checks and balances and all that; thry don’t go along, nothing happens. The only way to stop the excuses is to change the circumstances. If you take Obama out of there, it will get worse, much worse.
JackD
heck, I can remember when if it looked like a duck etc it was a Communist. I don’t know what you don’t understand about the first paragraph. a tax is not a mandate to do business with a criminal enterprise. they really are different things.
and if you don’t think the Health Industry is a criminal enterprise, I would be willing to accept “a tax is not a mandate.”
they really are different. if you can’t tell, maybe it’s too late for spectacles.
i haven’t been following closely, but i believe the argument was not that the gov never required anyone to purchase anything before, but the gov never required anyone to purchase something simply because they were alive. it’s one thing to say it is not in the public interest for you to drive a car, or operate a merchant vessel, without insurance. it’s another thing to say, you have to buy health insurance from the people who have been cheating us all these years.
as for the requirement to bear arms, we had a state legislator propose a law to do that in this state. nothing came of it. except people laughed at her. times change.
i can only hope the tea partiers scare the SC, but i don’t expect it. the SC knows they can’t get unelected, and if they do something wildly unpopular the right will manage to blame the Dems.
JackD
you have beverly mixed up with me. i am sure she is not amused.
JackD
I have heard him calling for “fixing” SS. since it ain’t broke, it’s unsure what he means. but the payroll tax holiday gave me a pretty good idea.
as did the fact that the Dems loved it.
JackD
the only way to change the circumstances is to show the Dems that if they vote for Republican policies we won’t vote for them, no matter how scary the R’s are.
to be perfectly honest, it isn ‘t going to happen. The Robamney party is in charge and will be for a thousand years. The people have been tamed. Life will get worse for them, and a lot worse for some of them, but they will never do anything about it but complain about “the government” and blame it all on Roosevelt. except for the libs, who will keep demanding higher taxes on the rich.
Well Dale, I’d be happy to see some taxes on the rich. And I am a believer in the concept that things do not improve until they have become literally unbearab le to enough people.
18th century France is my frame of reference. Far worse than the worst depths of the Depression and still the wealthiest few were arguing over their rights to keep all that they had and maybe allow the rest to complain more openly. Some deal, but just the right set of circumstnaces to result in the Jacobin Solution. I certainly hope that we’re not so stupid, rigid or pig headed to allow our society to degenerate to that point, but I can tell you for sure that there is no level of greed that the wealthiest people can’t go beyond. It’s a disease that simply gets out of its own control. And their sychophants are groveling for yet more. Only the poor want only enough to survive.
I think you misunderstood my post, Jack. I wouldn’t be caught dead NOT voting AGAINST Romney. I mean that literally. If I die before the election, I’ll still vote. I know how to do that; I’m originally from Cook County, IL, you know.
Jack
i’d like to see the rich pay more taxes too. But when the only idea the libs have in response to every situation is “tax the rich” they are as stupid as the Republicons whose only idea for every situation is “cut taxes.”
you will hear this “argument” for the next thousand years while the powers get what they want: power. of course they will be rich too… beyond the imagination of man… but it’s the power that’s the point. rich is only a bi-product.
specifically what is shameful today is first
people with a 100k income say “don’t tax me. i’m not really rich.”
and “progressives” say “don’t tax the worker forty cents for his own retirement… tax the rich.” because that is such smart politics you see. and also, though i hate to say this and ought to apologize to “formerly anonymous” who said it first” the only thing the libs can think of is taxing the rich so the poor poor don’t have ever, ever grow up in any way.
and no, that doesn’t mean i hate welfare. it just means that welfare is not a good solution for a very predictable and very large part of ordinary life for ordinary people.
I’m pro-choice, but I’ve never been a movement person on that issue. I care about the issue, but it’s not at the top of the list of issues I think of when I think of what will happen if Romney wins and appoints a replacement for Ginsburg, or, for that matter, appoints a 45-year-old wingnut to replace Kennedy. There are issues, especially of the “states-rights,” “procedural” and “jurisdictional” variety, that almost no one knows about that are profoundly important. Those are the issues uppermost in my mind. There’s been tremendous damage done by 5-4 rulings on these issues in recent years. Some can be undone easily and quickly. Or far more damage can be done in the next–oh, what?– 30 years, during the Romney appointees’ years on the Court.
Actually, I plan to vote Democratic despite the performance of my party precisely because of the performance of the other party when they have power. I don’t know why any liberal who’s disappointed in the performance of the Democrats would want the Republicans to gain control. That’s just crazy, in my opinion.
Oh, and by the way, Citizens United was a 5-4 decision. So were other recent election-law Supreme Court opinions whose purpose is to enshrine a permanent Republican White House and Congress.
I’m pro-choice, coberly, but I’ve never been a movement person on that issue. I care about the issue, but it’s not at the top of the list of issues I think of when I think of what will happen if Romney wins and appoints a replacement for Ginsburg, or, for that matter, appoints a 45-year-old wingnut to replace Kennedy. There are issues, especially of the “states-rights,” “procedural” and “jurisdictional” variety, that almost no one knows about that are profoundly important. Those are the issues uppermost in my mind. There’s been tremendous damage done by 5-4 rulings on these issues in recent years. Some can be undone easily and quickly. Or far more damage can be done in the next–oh, what?– 30 years, during the Romney appointees’ years on the Court.
Actually, I plan to vote Democratic despite the performance of my party precisely because of the performance of the other party when they have power. I don’t know why any liberal who’s disappointed in the performance of the Democrats would want the Republicans to gain control. That’s just crazy, in my opinion.
Oh, and by the way, Citizens United was a 5-4 decision. So were other recent election-law Supreme Court opinions whose purpose is to enshrine a permanent Republican White House and Congress.
I’m pro-choice, coberly, but I’ve never been a movement person on that issue. I care about the issue, but it’s not at the top of the list of issues I think of when I think of what will happen if Romney wins and appoints a replacement for Ginsburg, or, for that matter, appoints a 45-year-old wingnut to replace Kennedy. There are issues, especially of the “states-rights,” “procedural” and “jurisdictional” variety, that almost no one knows about that are profoundly important. Those are the issues uppermost in my mind. There’s been tremendous damage done by 5-4 rulings on these issues in recent years. Some can be undone easily and quickly. Or far more damage can be done in the next–oh, what?– 30 years, during the Romney appointees’ years on the Court.
Actually, I plan to vote Democratic despite the performance of my party precisely because of the performance of the other party when they have power. I don’t know why any liberal who’s disappointed in the performance of the Democrats would want the Republicans to gain control. That’s just crazy, in my opinion.
Oh, and by the way, Citizens United was a 5-4 decision. So were other recent election-law Supreme Court opinions whose purpose is to enshrine a permanent Republican White House and Congress.
Well, as you say, amateur, living in Texas, you do have the luxury of casting a protest vote or protesting by not voting. As for Nader, he might well have been planning to try to start some national movement, but after Bush v. Gore, that just wasn’t going to work very well, and he knew it.
No, the health care industry is not a criminal enterprise. That silly allegation is, no doubt, why I didn’t understand the paragraph.
Coberly,
You are correct. Sorry Bev.
Thanks, Ralph. Why don’t you start a third party?