Leftist Administration

[Holiman]

I am seeing alot of talk about how leftist this current administration and how utterly bad things are becoming how close to socialism we are today.

I am of the mind that the last administration increased goverment to an all time high but was not leftist so I must be missing something please educate me.

[themuzicman]

The last administration was an excellent example of Machiavellian politics. Bush wanted to get re-elected, so he started giving everyone what they thought they wanted. Conservatives wanted tax cuts, he gave them tax cuts. Liberals wanted elderly Rx coverage, he gave them elderly Rx coverage. The educational community wanted reform, they got "No Child Left Behind."

The only think GWB can point to as a relative success was the war on Iraq/Afghanistan, and that was far from perfect.

GWB tried to paint himself as a conservative, but his governing was below average to poor, from a conservative perspective.

And Obama is now doubling down on a lot of the liberals stuff GWB did.

[reb]

here's the deal in a nutshell...a line of conservative to liberal thought, with personal freedom on the conservative end, and government control on the other (abbreviations-not enough room to do the whole Liberal/Conservative spellings and get it on one line):

Lib--------dem----rep--------------------libertarian-----------Con

there are no human names in that line; just behaviours, or ideology, if you prefer.

[zibber]

The only think GWB can point to as a relative success was the war on Iraq/Afghanistan, and that was far from perfect.


Go on.

[Aronnax]

here's the deal in a nutshell...a line of conservative to liberal thought, with personal freedom on the conservative end, and government control on the other (abbreviations-not enough room to do the whole Liberal/Conservative spellings and get it on one line):

Lib--------dem----rep--------------------libertarian-----------Con

there are no human names in that line; just behaviours, or ideology, if you prefer.

Reb, libertarians want even less government control than conservatives. There are a host of issues that conservatives want the government to interfere in and are willing to grow government to get there. The difference between a modern "liberal" and a modern "conservative" is which aspects of government they want to grow and which personal decisions they want to impede.

[Holiman]

And Obama is now doubling down on a lot of the liberals stuff GWB did.


This is what Im trying to get to, examples please.

[LaoTzu]

Obama giving away TARP money, and I think actually increasing it by $130B (don't quote me tho)... that was an (R) program...
Increasing troop levels in the wars kind of goes against Liberal demands as well....

Protecting the Telcoms from prosecution in domestic wiretapping...that was something of a Republican deal too.


Just a few examples of how Obama is more of the same.

[rwm4768]

I don't agree with that line of liberal to conservative thought. For one, it is combining political parties and political ideology. I also think many libertarians would argue that they are much more liberal than the Republican Party.

I meaningful analysis of political ideology needs to have a two-dimensional grid, one for cultural values and one for economic values. For example, liberals and libertarians tend to agree on social issues. In some instances, libertarians can actually be more permissive of these individual liberties. However, at the same time, libertarians are more conservative on economic issues than most of the Republican party today.

The point I'm making is that there is not a simple linear continuum of ideology. In fact, one could even argue for adding another dimension, that of foreign policy (the reason I test as moderate rather than libertarian).

Both conservatives and liberals have their own areas in which they seek government control. Conservatives, especially cultural conservatives, want the government to create laws that ban gay marriage, abortion, etc. Liberals seek to control the economy in order to achieve greater distribution of wealth and limit personal economic freedoms. Libertarians want both economic and social liberty.

Interestingly, their is not a standard name for the opposite of a libertarian. If you really think about it, though, an ideology that combines government economic control and government social and cultural control sounds very authoritarian to me.

[jm123]

Reb, libertarians want even less government control than conservatives. There are a host of issues that conservatives want the government to interfere in and are willing to grow government to get there. The difference between a modern "liberal" and a modern "conservative" is which aspects of government they want to grow and which personal decisions they want to impede.

^This is an excellent assessment of our current political state.

Next, the leftist agenda has been traditionally social programs, while the right agenda has traditionally been smaller government. Bush was not even close to a true right agenda politician. He did the same thing Clinton did and rode the line. Obama appears to be doing the same thing, he is riding the line.

Personally I was very concerned about Obama and having congress controlled by rather liberal Democrats. However, after the way his first year has gone, I am breathing a sigh of relief. Even if they maintain control through 2012 they will not be able to get out of each others way. Obama promised partisanship/change and he has not even been able to get his party unified when they have an extreme majority.

My guess is, Republicans will start winning seats just because they are not democrats. This will be similar to what happened over the Bush years, and the Clinton years. The country is f'ing tired of the same crap, and when one of the parties pulls their heads out of their butts they will crush the other one. I was fearful this would happen under Obama, as he is very charismatic. Now, I am not so worried.

[Warrior]

I am seeing alot of talk about how leftist this current administration and how utterly bad things are becoming how close to socialism we are today.

I am of the mind that the last administration increased goverment to an all time high but was not leftist so I must be missing something please educate me.

The last administration was hardly a shining light of conservative thought. Many of the things done were quite "leftist".

[hubcap]

Without question the previous administration was not, and did not govern in a conservative fashion. Most of the conservatives I know are more disgusted with Bush than the liberals I know.

Oddly enough many liberals attempt to disparage conservatives by using Bush as an example of why conservatives are "bad" for the country. Morons are bad for the country regardless of party affiliation.

[Aronnax]

Without question the previous administration was not, and did not govern in a conservative fashion. Most of the conservatives I know are more disgusted with Bush than the liberals I know.

Oddly enough many liberals attempt to disparage conservatives by using Bush as an example of why conservatives are "bad" for the country. Morons are bad for the country regardless of party affiliation.

Reagan expanded government considerably and is very popular with conservatives. Conservatives growing government is not a phenomenon limited to the previous administration. Who was the last small government Republican, was it Eisenhower? Or did his national highway system, interference in state affairs (his response to the Little Rock Nine) and "Eisenhower Doctrine" make him a liberal who advocated big government?

[Causa Mortis]

Reagan expanded government considerably and is very popular with conservatives. Conservatives growing government is not a phenomenon limited to the previous administration. Who was the last small government Republican, was it Eisenhower? Or did his national highway system, interference in state affairs (his response to the Little Rock Nine) and "Eisenhower Doctrine" make him a liberal who advocated big government?

No Reagan was successful in reducing the welfare state by a very large % of GDP, but then again there was widespread support for this at the time. He simultaneously increased defense spending, but the net result was still a smaller government as a share of GDP.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The net difference is, however, diminunitive. If the left got everything they wanted, we'd have a small military, nationalized health care, and spending at about 25-30% of GDP. If the right got everything they wanted we'd have a large military, little social spending, and government's share of GDP at 15% with 20% of GDP on private health care. So there's no real difference unless you're on the receiving end of Social Security, welfare, or other state benefits.

[Arkeph]

To go back to the OP, most of the critics warning of socialism seem to be incoherent in their criticisms, allowing the very same kinds of policy to have very different characterizations based only on who enacted them. The rest base their criticism on things that Obama hasn't done, but which hypothetically might be pursued in order to achieve something he supports.

On an unrelated note, I don't use the terms "liberal" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and "conservative" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) because they don't make a whole lot of sense in political discussions (there are many more definitions than these).

[Aronnax]

No Reagan was successful in reducing the welfare state by a very large % of GDP, but then again there was widespread support for this at the time. He simultaneously increased defense spending, but the net result was still a smaller government as a share of GDP.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The net difference is, however, diminunitive. If the left got everything they wanted, we'd have a small military, nationalized health care, and spending at about 25-30% of GDP. If the right got everything they wanted we'd have a large military, little social spending, and government's share of GDP at 15% with 20% of GDP on private health care. So there's no real difference unless you're on the receiving end of Social Security, welfare, or other state benefits.

Unless I'm reading that graph incorrectly federal spending as a percentage of GDP went from ~20% to ~24% under Reagan. My point was the total size of government changes very little between a "conservative" administration and a "liberal" administration. The primary difference between the two are the areas they like to expand and contract.

I'm not sure the statement "conservatives favor small government and liberals favor big government" has ever been accurate based on the behavior of their administrations.

[aku chi]

Unless I'm reading that graph incorrectly federal spending as a percentage of GDP went from ~20% to ~24% under Reagan. My point was the total size of government changes very little between a "conservative" administration and a "liberal" administration. The primary difference between the two are the areas they like to expand and contract.

I'm not sure the statement "conservatives favor small government and liberals favor big government" has ever been accurate based on the behavior of their administrations.

Hmm, I read about 22.3% in both 1981 and 1989 - no net change in federal spending during the Reagan administration. It does seem that there is little to no correlation between the political party of the president and federal spending as a % of GDP. Of course, Congress has a more influential role on the federal budget, perhaps the political composition of Congress would yield some significant difference... but I doubt it; the Republican party only pretends to be a party of small government. With respect to President W. Bush, he hardly pretended to be opposed to increasing government spending; his presidency was not conservative.

[nacht]

Reagan expanded government considerably and is very popular with conservatives. Conservatives growing government is not a phenomenon limited to the previous administration. Who was the last small government Republican, was it Eisenhower? Or did his national highway system, interference in state affairs (his response to the Little Rock Nine) and "Eisenhower Doctrine" make him a liberal who advocated big government?

Probably Goldwater, but he lost to Johnson in 1964 by a landslide, only managing to carry 6 states, 5 of them likely the result of having voted against the Civil Rights Act.

He also referred to Eisenhower as having "a dime store New Deal." Eisenhower's administration's Justice Department filed an amicus curiæ in Brown v. Board of Education for removing racism. The amicus brief, far from sticking to the so-called "originalist" doctrine that is popular among modern neoconservatives, cites how we are judged and viewed by foreign dignitaries visiting Washington DC, and notes that "[r]acial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills."

Eisenhower also appointed, though later regretted, appointing Earl Warren of the exceedingly progressive Warren Court. If this were his only appointment to the court, one might forgive him the error of putting forth such a liberal justice. But he did it again with Brennan, who if anything was at least as influential as Warren. He also appointed Harlan, who while frequently characterized as a conservative had a strong belief in stare decisis (something scorned by modern conservative justices such as Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), and Stewart, who had a pragmatic approach to law and was a moderate on the more "conservative" Burger Court.

Then there was that he refused to cut taxes until the budget was balanced and had several large initiatives during his presidency...

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 02:46 AM ----------

No Reagan was successful in reducing the welfare state by a very large % of GDP, but then again there was widespread support for this at the time. He simultaneously increased defense spending, but the net result was still a smaller government as a share of GDP.


Protip: Posting badly drawn graphs without context does not generally bolster one's point. Tufte (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) needs to be required reading for anyone trying to build anything that vaguely resembles a graph. Essentially: If I need a straight-edge to figure out the even which term is being described, something is horribly wrong.

Let's look at the national debt as a percent of GDP (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), nicely colored by president. We can also see it in the nice table, provided by wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). We can see from the followup table (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._s pending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP) that government spending--indexed against both inflation and GDP--didn't really go down all that much during the Reagan years. In point of fact, they went down much more under that "liberal" Bill Clinton (going from 21.4% of GDP at the end of Bush's term to 18.5% of GDP at the end of Clinton's).

So yes, government spending went down as percent of GDP under Reagan, but not as much as it did under Clinton. Meanwhile, the debt increased under Reagan (49% in the first term, 40.2% in the second), but only went up a fraction of that (13.2%) in Clinton's first term, and fell during Clinton's second term.


The net difference is, however, diminunitive. If the left got everything they wanted, we'd have a small military, nationalized health care, and spending at about 25-30% of GDP. If the right got everything they wanted we'd have a large military, little social spending, and government's share of GDP at 15% with 20% of GDP on private health care.

Your numbers for GDP are made up out of whole cloth, aren't they?



So there's no real difference unless you're on the receiving end of Social Security, welfare, or other state benefits.

You think that military spending (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is entirely neutral? Without consequence or opportunity cost? What's more, you think that there are that many people in the entire US who receive no other state benefits (e.g., public education, supplemented college education, grants, loans, public transportation, use of highways, etc)?

[reb]

Reb, libertarians want even less government control than conservatives. There are a host of issues that conservatives want the government to interfere in and are willing to grow government to get there. The difference between a modern "liberal" and a modern "conservative" is which aspects of government they want to grow and which personal decisions they want to impede.

agree. the part i messed up in the chart was the right hand side was supposed to read 'Constitution'. not up to par....frankly, i think we now have a form of anarchy masquerading as the u.s.s. of a. government. i have no clue where that fits on the line...maybe to the right of 'Constitution' lol! lovely.....

[themuzicman]

This is what Im trying to get to, examples please.

Bush - Bailed out GM Obama - bought GM (and gave it to the unions)
Bush - TARP for banks Obama - regulate C-level incomes
Bush - Medicare Rx Obama - Public option -> single payer
Bush and Obama have essentially the same Iraq/Afghanistan policy.
Bush - $300B Tax rebate "stimulus" Obama - $1T in government "stimulus"


With the exception of the Iraq/Afghanistan policy, these are Bush liberal-lite actions that Obama has blown up into huge leftist/socialist ones.

[boldbidder]

Bush - Bailed out GM Obama - bought GM (and gave it to the unions)

Really, Obama gifted GM to 'the unions'? Mind supplying a reference?


Bush - Medicare Rx Obama - Public option -> single payer


Wow, so we have a public option acted into law that is a single payer system? Must've missed that, don't 'spose you have a reference for that either?


Bush - $300B Tax rebate "stimulus" Obama - $1T in government "stimulus"


OK, lemme get this straight. 300B in tax rebate checks to every Joe Schmoe, is not socialism, but 1T in money to prop up the financial markets and no money directly to Joe Schmoe IS socialism? Please explain how that works? I coulda swore that socialism meant that everyone got a cut, not just a select few.


these are Bush liberal-lite actions that Obama has blown up into huge leftist/socialist ones.

Yes, unquestionably, the items you have pointed (some of which though fairy tales they might be) clearly show Obama taking us directly into the dark heart of socialism.

[themuzicman]

Really, Obama gifted GM to 'the unions'? Mind supplying a reference?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Now, with General Motors and Chrysler in bankruptcy and the union a major shareholder in both through its retiree health fund, life has become a lot more complicated for the U.A.W.

Wow, so we have a public option acted into law that is a single payer system? Must've missed that, don't 'spose you have a reference for that either?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Some of the biggest questions in President Obama's push for health care reform are over the creation of a "public option" to compete with private companies in the health insurance marketplace.

Whatever the phrase "public option" suggests to you when you hear it, Obama told the American Medical Association in Chicago on Monday that it is not "about socialized medicine and government takeovers, long lines and rationed care, decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors."

OK, lemme get this straight. 300B in tax rebate checks to every Joe Schmoe, is not socialism, but 1T in money to prop up the financial markets and no money directly to Joe Schmoe IS socialism? Please explain how that works? I coulda swore that socialism meant that everyone got a cut, not just a select few.

No. Bush is "liberal-lite", which is to say that he dabbles in socialism, as is the case with the $300B. Obama is full blown, as demonstrated by his actions in this case.

Yes, unquestionably, the items you have pointed (some of which though fairy tales they might be) clearly show Obama taking us directly into the dark heart of socialism.

So, what? They don't have google in your part of the internet?

[boldbidder]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ok, so UAW owning common stock equates to Obama having 'gifted' it to them? If GM had the cash for the retiree health benefits and it wasn't in the form of equity, would that make you feel better? In either case the retiree health benefits were negotiated long before the gubment's takeover of GM and Chrysler.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


OK, so you provided a link to a blog entry from June 2009. Please explain how this relates to policy currently enacted today or currently even on the table? What page in the current health care plan talks about the enactment of a single payer system?


No. Bush is "liberal-lite", which is to say that he dabbles in socialism, as is the case with the $300B. Obama is full blown, as demonstrated by his actions in this case.


OK, so the distinction is solely related to HOW much was spent instead of HOW it was spent? You realize the gross intellectually dishonesty in such a claim don't you? If that extra 1T was spent on the military would it still be socialism? If NOT then the type of spending DOES matter, in which case sending a check to every Joe Schmoe versus giving captial to financial institutions isn't exactly an apples to oranges comparison.


So, what? They don't have google in your part of the internet?

They do actually, I guess I'm just used to doing searches that actually support my argument.

[themuzicman]

Ok, so UAW owning common stock equates to Obama having 'gifted' it to them? If GM had the cash for the retiree health benefits and it wasn't in the form of equity, would that make you feel better? In either case the retiree health benefits were negotiated long before the gubment's takeover of GM and Chrysler.

The UAW didn't buy the stock they own in GM. So, yes, it was given to them.

OK, so you provided a link to a blog entry from June 2009. Please explain how this relates to policy currently enacted today or currently even on the table? What page in the current health care plan talks about the enactment of a single payer system?

What's on the table today reflects a major defeat for President Obama. He campaigned for, and even demanded a "public option." As this entry clearly shows. Have you not been paying attention for the last year? Did you just crawl out of a cave and then decide that whatever is before the Senate and House right now must be what Obama wanted?

OK, so the distinction is solely related to HOW much was spent instead of HOW it was spent? You realize the gross intellectually dishonesty in such a claim don't you? If that extra 1T was spent on the military would it still be socialism? If NOT then the type of spending DOES matter, in which case sending a check to every Joe Schmoe versus giving captial to financial institutions isn't exactly an apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not making a huge distinction between Bush and Obama. All I've said is that Obama has taken what Bush has done and expanded it beyond belief.

They do actually, I guess I'm just used to doing searches that actually support my argument.

Really? I don't see any, yet.

[boldbidder]

The UAW didn't buy the stock they own in GM. So, yes, it was given to them.


GM's board negotiated the deal with the UAW to convert the debt obligation of the retiree healthcare fund to common stock because they simply didn't have the cash on hand. What does Obama have to do with that? You might call it a 'gift' but I can promise you there's no UAW member ANYWHERE who'd rather have a common stock over actual cash. Some 'gift'.


What's on the table today reflects a major defeat for President Obama. He campaigned for, and even demanded a "public option." As this entry clearly shows. Have you not been paying attention for the last year? Did you just crawl out of a cave and then decide that whatever is before the Senate and House right now must be what Obama wanted?


The OP asked you to show the differences in how policy that Bush enacted is different from Obama as a part of your argument you listed 'Public Option -> Single Payer' as an example of Obama taking what Bush did to super Socialism status. So obviously you misread his question because Obama has enacted ZERO healthcare policy to date. The policy that is on the table has no public option and sure as hell has no single payer so to use that as an example of 'liberal lite Bush' vs. 'Super Socialist Obama' is a joke. I coulda swore policy was measured in laws that were passed, not what a politician may or may not have wanted to do.


I'm not making a huge distinction between Bush and Obama. All I've said is that Obama has taken what Bush has done and expanded it beyond belief.


The question I asked was very simple. Is the socialist barometer at all concerned with how the money is spent or just by the simple fact that money is spent? No need for all the tap dancing, its not a difficult question to answer.


Really? I don't see any, yet.

I'm wholly unsurprised.

[Holiman]

Bush - Bailed out GM Obama - bought GM (and gave it to the unions)
Bush - TARP for banks Obama - regulate C-level incomes
Bush - Medicare Rx Obama - Public option -> single payer
Bush and Obama have essentially the same Iraq/Afghanistan policy.
Bush - $300B Tax rebate "stimulus" Obama - $1T in government "stimulus"


With the exception of the Iraq/Afghanistan policy, these are Bush liberal-lite actions that Obama has blown up into huge leftist/socialist ones.



Your first point I read blumberg's statement back in may this is clearly a case of the UAW making a deal to save GM they basically became part shareholder of the company. This does not reflect upon Obama at all. The only case involving him was he helped broker a deal between them which ousted the CEO and had the UAW agree not to strike until 2015 among other concessions. Long story short your wrong on this one.

Tarp for banks is a nasty subject that will make most people angry but Obama's policies have lead to a majority of the money being paid back and a nasty light shed on bad bank practices. While I feel he is no hero in this subject If your company demanded immidiate financial aid and I loaned you the money to stay afloat I would take an active interest as well. But again regulating banks is not socialism merely the situation the president faced was unprecedented.


Yes his healthcare plan might be socialism, but I personally feel its a must for the future of this country. This isnt new and he did campaign on this promise.


Comparing bush's stimulus checks to Obama's stimulus package is just assinine. If you did some seriouse looking you would find that nearly every country in the world spent heavy in stimulus packages to stop a worldwide recession and in truth most nations spent much heavier and on actual infrustructure while the US version was just too little to spread out. And becuase I just cant leave this alone the entire concept of spending money to 'stimulate' growth in the US is not socialism building roads bridges parks and upgrading our electrical grid energy sources etc is a must for the future.

A good read
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hubcap]

Reagan expanded government considerably and is very popular with conservatives. Conservatives growing government is not a phenomenon limited to the previous administration. Who was the last small government Republican, was it Eisenhower? Or did his national highway system, interference in state affairs (his response to the Little Rock Nine) and "Eisenhower Doctrine" make him a liberal who advocated big government?
One of the challenges in truly evaluating the "relative" conservatism or liberalism of any president is understanding what role Congress played during the presidents time in office. Reagan had to deal with a House that was entirely controlled by democrats while he was in office, while Clinton had to deal with republicans headed up by Newt Gingrich. GWB on the other hand had a republican majority for 6 years of his presidency.

[Tristan]

This is what Im trying to get to, examples please.

More Health care spending, more deficit spending, more World Police spending (which used to be the purvey of liberals, with conservatives it was only a post-9/11 thing). He's definitely running a leftist adminstration. George Bush did not run a right-wing administration... I think that is the point which most confuses people.

Go on.

Iraq is an underrated operation from the military standpoint. Everyone is comparing it to Vietnam, so okay, let's do that. We toppled the regime and occupied the country for years, with less than a tenth of the American lives lost in Vietnam, where we could not defeat the VC. The problem is that the whole war had bad PR. They say that history is written by the victors, and this will be true for Iraq. Bush won't be vindicated by any military success or the tens of thousands of terrorists dead by our hands, because the true victors were the PR people who shat on him the whole time, pushing their own idiotic versions of the war, without doing any real reporting on it.

Muzicman is absolutely right. The military operations were good, but not perfect. But you'd probably have to be a conservative yourself to understand our resentment for and, honestly, hatred of the media.

[Aronnax]

More Health care spending, more deficit spending, more World Police spending (which used to be the purvey of liberals, with conservatives it was only a post-9/11 thing). He's definitely running a leftist adminstration. George Bush did not run a right-wing administration... I think that is the point which most confuses people.



Deficit spending has also been very high under other Republican presidents. You'd have to go back to Ford to find a Republican where the debt to GDP ratio decreased. Grenada, Libya, Honduras, Panama and Iraq all were "world police spending", happened under Republican administrations and happened before 9/11.

If you define "right-wing" as a promoter of small government, isolationist policies and low levels of federal interference in personal decisions the Republican party hasn't been a "right-wing" party for over half a century. In terms of behavior W Bush didn't stray particularly far from the example set by Reagan. Large increases in military spending, giant deficits, promotion of supply side economics and federal welfare for failed loan institutions. The major difference I saw was Bush's decision to increase medicare. Though his refusal to adequately fund the additional services could be seen as a desire to starve the baby and cause medicare to fail.

[larkin]

Without question the previous administration was not, and did not govern in a conservative fashion. Most of the conservatives I know are more disgusted with Bush than the liberals I know.

Oddly enough many liberals attempt to disparage conservatives by using Bush as an example of why conservatives are "bad" for the country. Morons are bad for the country regardless of party affiliation.

Nice effort to sever the failure of Bush's presidency from conservatism. Certainly some conservatives might have suggested prior to 2006 that Bush wasn't conservative enough. That's pretty different from claiming, flat out, that he wasn't a conservative at all. The reality is: Bush won the primary against McCain in 2000 as the conservative candidate; he was elected in 2000 (and more damning, re-elected in 2004) with strong conservative support, including all the major conservative media outlets (Fox News, WSJ editorial, Weekly Standard, National Review.)

So while I personally might agree that Bush's brand of conservatism was muddle-headed at best, that certainly didn't seem to be a problem to most conservatives before his presidency was revealed to be an unmitigated disaster somewhere around 2006. As Aronnax points out, judging from the conservative media outlets and pundits (and a fair share of posters here), conservatives are basically willing to describe people as conservative as long as they personally approve. And when they don't, well, then they're liberals.

[zibber]

Iraq is an underrated operation from the military standpoint. Everyone is comparing it to Vietnam, so okay, let's do that. We toppled the regime and occupied the country for years, with less than a tenth of the American lives lost in Vietnam, where we could not defeat the VC. The problem is that the whole war had bad PR. They say that history is written by the victors, and this will be true for Iraq. Bush won't be vindicated by any military success or the tens of thousands of terrorists dead by our hands, because the true victors were the PR people who shat on him the whole time, pushing their own idiotic versions of the war, without doing any real reporting on it.


Didn't they invade Iraq based on conscious lies?

I honestly am expected to explain why a treacherous, illegal invasion that has cost hundreds of thousands of civilian lives cannot be called "good"?

[Tristan]

Didn't they invade Iraq based on conscious lies?This is the Ave Maria. A canticle looped continuously by the supplicants to achieve moral clarity. The media said it so often, it became true.

Faith needs no defense, ultimately. Rather than defend the media, you sang.

[themuzicman]

GM's board negotiated the deal with the UAW to convert the debt obligation of the retiree healthcare fund to common stock because they simply didn't have the cash on hand. What does Obama have to do with that? You might call it a 'gift' but I can promise you there's no UAW member ANYWHERE who'd rather have a common stock over actual cash. Some 'gift'.

ROFL... And the GM "board" that "negotiated" the deal was appointed by Obama. Furthermore, Obama's administration engineered the bankruptcy arrangement with GM to put the UAW ahead of secured debt holders. Were you not paying attention?

Details: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The OP asked you to show the differences in how policy that Bush enacted is different from Obama as a part of your argument you listed 'Public Option -> Single Payer' as an example of Obama taking what Bush did to super Socialism status. So obviously you misread his question because Obama has enacted ZERO healthcare policy to date.

Again, I ask the question: Did you just crawl out of a cave and assume that the current legislation is what Obama has been pushing for?

Whether this congress is able to enact what Obama has pushed for is irrelevant.

What has Obama been campaigning for? What policies does he wish to enact?

Obama is still in office, in case you hadn't noticed.

The policy that is on the table has no public option and sure as hell has no single payer so to use that as an example of 'liberal lite Bush' vs. 'Super Socialist Obama' is a joke. I coulda swore policy was measured in laws that were passed, not what a politician may or may not have wanted to do.

And why does the policy on the table have no public option?

Because the American people don't want it, and a sufficient number of congresscritters won't vote for it because they would lose re-election.

So, the only thing that is a joke is your inability to grasp what Obama has been pushing for since shortly after he got into offiec.

The question I asked was very simple. Is the socialist barometer at all concerned with how the money is spent or just by the simple fact that money is spent? No need for all the tap dancing, its not a difficult question to answer.

Both are important. Technically, socialism is government control of the means of production and distribution, if we're being technical. Part of the way this is accomplished is by increasing debt which requires increasing income for the federal government to sustain itself. That tax burden, as it increases, begins to threaten private industry, and as we saw with GM, the government, rather than letting an industry fail, takes it over to keep it going.

So, quantity is important.




I'm wholly unsurprised.

At least you admit that you didn't bring anything to the table.

[Mader]

Bush's Medicare changes involved making medication more available to the elderly.

Obama said that Grandma may not get the surgery she needs if it is 'not reasonable' at her age.

Obama wanted the government to require a doctor to counsel a patient on dying.

-those damn doctors make too much money
-those damn insurance companies make too much money
-those damn pharmacuetical companies make too much money. Oops, never mind.
-those damn banks make too much money
-those damn wall street fat cats make too much money
-those damn corporations make too much money
-those damn lazy people who don't have health insurance. Fine them!

yep, there is a difference between Bush and Obama.

[nacht]

Bush's Medicare changes involved making medication more available to the elderly.


The Medicare Modernization Act has been estimated, as of early 2005, at costing $1.2 trillion over ten years (when including cost saving measures that's a $720 billion price tag, source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)). It was termed as "probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s" by the US Comptroller General David M. Walker.

Meanwhile, at least the proposals in congress reduce (according to the CBO) the deficit over ten years, and still carry lower overall price tags.



Obama said that Grandma may not get the surgery she needs if it is 'not reasonable' at her age.

People really need to learn to use citations instead of using emotional appeals and special pleading.

He has advocated evidence-based medicine (essentially, we should stop using techniques that don't work), but he has not said that "Grandma may not get the surgery she needs." Such is also nowhere in the health care bills in question (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Kindly provide citations on this point.

Also: False: Government Will Decide What Care I Get (a.k.a. they won’t give grandma a hip replacement) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Obama wanted the government to require a doctor to counsel a patient on dying.


"Pants on Fire (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)"

"The fact remains that the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions, nor would it require a doctor to offer one. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)"


-those damn doctors make too much money
-those damn insurance companies make too much money
-those damn pharmacuetical companies make too much money. Oops, never mind.
-those damn banks make too much money
-those damn wall street fat cats make too much money
-those damn corporations make too much money
-those damn lazy people who don't have health insurance. Fine them!


Less handwaving, more facts required.

[firebee]

Obama wanted the government to require a doctor to counsel a patient on dying.


This is a terminological inaccuracy.

What actually happened is that the original health care bill included provisions to permit reimbursement for consultations about living wills, DNR orders, et cetera. Making plans for these contingencies, unpleasant as it is for people who would like to pretend that they (or Grandma) will live forever, is a part of being a responsible adult and providing professional advice on the matter is a legitimate (actually, crucial) medical function that it makes sense to pay a doctor for.

My great-grandmother was kept on this Earth for six months after her life was over because a doctor put substantial pressure on my family to disregard her wishes. I can only hope that she did not suffer for that time; unfortunately, I know for certain that the incident was exceedingly painful to my grandmother.

I have rather strong objections to attempting to remove legitimacy from the notion that aggressive medical intervention is unwarranted in cases where no good outcome is possible, and I find it particularly odious when this is done as a means of scoring cheap political points.

[Tristan]

-those damn insurance companies make too much money
-those damn pharmacuetical companies make too much money. Oops, never mind.Less handwaving, more facts required.


I went to a seminar recently, and learned some interesting tidbits about the margins in these industries. An insurance company CEO was talking about it. In insurance the profit margin is 3% of revenue, about twelve-and-a-half billion dollars in size nationwide. Three percent is an average profit margin. He said that the government has only slightly inferior efficiency to private insurers. Insurers spend a total of $23 per month per client on administrative costs. The government spends only $13, although private insurance is more elaborate. On services the government provides at $13, his firm spends $12. Most importantly, I figured, the three-percent-profit could not tip the scale in favor of the government's efficiency.

He also accused the writers of the health care bill of downplaying, severely, the effect that adverse selection will have on insurance premiums. Premiums will rise when the insurer cannot deny coverage due to preexisting conditions, etc. In states that have already banned this, the effect of adverse selection ranges 50-100% based on the state and the customer's demographic. He said the legislators are not anticipating anything close to 50%. For my demographic, healthy males under 30 in VA, the actuaries anticipate a 155% increase in the premium (from $66/mo to $168/mo). The adverse selection component is only a modest 50 percentage points of the total 155-point increase. The rest is a varied assortment of overheads that would have accompanied this legislation against my healthy demographic. But if I did want to nobly shoot myself in the foot, I could still support it for the sake of the ill, who will enjoy a windfall from adverse selection.

Just reminding you that this was an insurance exec... take it as such...


In my opinion, it's shaping up that the Obama administration thought it could address sequential problems (the cost of health care and widespread "uninsured-ness") by attacking the second problem first. It's more politically-viable to fund wider coverage, after all. However, funneling money into peoples' pockets does not, and will not, ever make anything cheaper. If government did its own part to let health care costs drop first, perhaps that second problem would carry a smaller price.

[nacht]

He also accused the writers of the health care bill of downplaying, severely, the effect that adverse selection will have on insurance premiums.


The health insurance industry has been treating the matter somewhat disingenuously. They issued a report on how much it would affect premiums, but threw out measures designed to keep premiums down (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and also ignored what would happen to premiums without reform (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The estimates on the table (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which take these things into account, pretty clearly demonstrate that the bills in question will lower the total cost of healthcare for the average family.

Now, that said: All of that is entirely irrelevant to anything I have said, and certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment to Mader.



In my opinion, it's shaping up that the Obama administration thought it could address sequential problems (the cost of health care and widespread "uninsured-ness") by attacking the second problem first. It's more politically-viable to fund wider coverage, after all.


Actually, they thought that having that many uninsured people in the united states and having people being denied for preexisting conditions was unacceptable, and believed that without doing anything premiums would continue to rise three times faster than wages (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

The bills on the table, according to the CBO, accomplish both of these things. It is not in any way clear that these are "sequential" or even "dependent" problems in any meaningful capacity.


However, funneling money into peoples' pockets does not, and will not, ever make anything cheaper. If government did its own part to let health care costs drop first, perhaps that second problem would carry a smaller price.

Health care costs are going up rapidly and by 2025 1/4 dollars will be spent on health care (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), how are you proposing that they "let health care costs drop first."

[reb]

i have found it curious in the last few days that health industry employment is up, while everything else i have looked at has a negative employment rate. even sam's is laying off some number.

if the 'black box' healthcare bill was going to prove so deadly to the health insurance industry, why did they hire so many people in the face of what appeared to be sure passage?

the rumors i hear of the current socialists in office intending to do an 'end run' on the senate/house compromise negotiations that were supposed to occur until the brown election are entertaining, as well.

this is why i write 'the u.s.s. of a.' instead of 'the u.s.'. we are now the united socialist states of america. all these crooks are cut from the same cloth.

[Aronnax]

i have found it curious in the last few days that health industry employment is up, while everything else i have looked at has a negative employment rate. even sam's is laying off some number.

Baby boomers are getting older and need more nurses to take care of them. It's not like they've got a lot of choice in the matter, medical treatment is only slightly more negotiable than food and water and the market is fairly rigid in the area of high skill services. It's easy to put a few more acres under cultivation or drill a new well but additional doctors and nurses take a lot of time and money to train. The growing demand for medical professionals isn't something that will be easily stifled by legislation.

[Tristan]

The health insurance industry has been treating the matter somewhat disingenuously. They issued a report on how much it would affect premiums, but threw out measures designed to keep premiums down (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and also ignored what would happen to premiums without reform (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The estimates on the table (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which take these things into account, pretty clearly demonstrate that the bills in question will lower the total cost of healthcare for the average family.

Like "health insurance exchanges" are going to impinge even marginally on adverse selection? That saving has already been scraped; the internet definitely already exists. You can already compare prices online, with or without fiat. As for the new subsidies to households, I've already beaten that horse to death: subsidies to households will not cut costs for firms. The bill plays fast with the incentives in these avenues; the tightened regulation of insurance combined with the subsidies will certainly raise premiums.

The bill's writers didn't consider that healthy people won't have to buy health insurance until they get sick. Being sick doesn't affect the premium in Maine and New York, just for instance. The duration of a health insurance policy there is measured in months. There is only one health insurance company left operating in Maine. Certainly the competitive "online marketplace" would look rather funny there.


What do I wish we could do about all this? A lot of things, and none of which would be politically popular enough to pass Congress. Deregulate hospitals, to lower their costs, and scale back the FDA's role in drugs to lower the cost of drugs. Tort reform, to lower costs for doctors. Cease government sanctions of the AMA, which gives the medical establishment guild protections, and makes it prohibitively hard to enter the profession. If enough of the background costs go down like this, then insurance programs will appear which would only cover financially catastrophic health care needs. Routine needs would be paid out-of-pocket, leading to customers' and doctors' discretion and further lowering of cost. Redundant procedures would start to drop away, lowering costs again, so to speak. All of these things have downsides which make them unappealing to people who want maximum security. But you cannot have maximum security and minimum cost; it's one thing or the other.

[nacht]

Like "health insurance exchanges" are going to impinge even marginally on adverse selection?


Are you seriously claiming that increased competition and increased consumer awareness will raise the price of health care?

The requirements for perfect competition includes "perfect information"--that everyone knows the prices of everything on the market and can select the products that are best for them. Without this, any form of free market or capitalistic pressure to lower prices simply will not exist.



That saving has already been scraped; the internet definitely already exists. You can already compare prices online, with or without fiat.


Having had to purchase health insurance through the internet, I'm not sure you understand the nature of the health exchange (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) compared to the current situation in these things.

The vast majority of plans are flat not available on an open market, and what plans exist for private individuals and small business are eclectic, have no real guarantees as to quality of care, and are not trivial to simply sort through online or to compare.

For example, you frequently have to approach them and get "sized up," there is no standardization between the plans, and even two different companies who think they are buying the same plan are getting subtly different plans.

[Tristan]

Are you seriously claiming that increased competition and increased consumer awareness will raise the price of health care?

Certainly not, good sir. I would like to see increased competition and better information; I think most people would. But in attempting to rig the price levels through subsidies and a more labyrinthine rule set, I've very little cause to hope the bill would net those effects. The winners would be the states that obtain access to the lines that giveth and exemptions from the lines that taketh away, such as in the case of most powerful Senator's state, Nevada (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The rules will not be standardized, not realistically.

The ideas I listed off in the latter half of my post, which I admit are as politically unfeasible as standardization, would address the fundamentals adequately enough to bring the "increased competition and increased consumer awareness" that are made so hazy in this entitlement.

I do appreciate your perspective on buying insurance, though. I've never had to buy my plans, being young and often employed by the man. I'm just reluctant to accept the idea that there will be enough competition left to give the internet more rein over prices than it already has. New England has already been testing this bill's provisions locally for a while, and their premiums are prohibitively expensive, the insurance packages short-lived, and there is little competition.

[LaoTzu]

The Presidents Q&A with House Republicans-Jan29, 2010 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Leftist my ass...

After watching the President answering questions from the Right, I am of a mind that Obama is just a guy trying to do the right thing; while in a shitty situation.

I suggest the right wing doomsayers on the board watch the entire thing... Straight from the horse's mouth, unfiltered by your GOP leader Limbaugh...

Check the civility in this meeting... amazing isn't it? They don't hate each other! Wow! You'd think the GOP would rush the stage if Obama was as much a danger as your GOP Leader Beck tells you he is...

You don't have to like Obama... (take a drink every time he answers a question with the word "Look...") but the guy is not "fringe" or "out there" or even close to "socialist".
Any suggestion that he is, is wishful thinking on the part of your GOP Leader Hannity.

[Tristan]

The Presidents Q&A with House Republicans-Jan29, 2010 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Leftist my ass...

After watching the President answering questions from the Right, I am of a mind that Obama is just a guy trying to do the right thing; while in a shitty situation.

I suggest the right wing doomsayers on the board watch the entire thing... Straight from the horse's mouth, unfiltered by your GOP leader Limbaugh...

Check the civility in this meeting... amazing isn't it? They don't hate each other! Wow! You'd think the GOP would rush the stage if Obama was as much a danger as your GOP Leader Beck tells you he is...

You don't have to like Obama... (take a drink every time he answers a question with the word "Look...") but the guy is not "fringe" or "out there" or even close to "socialist".
Any suggestion that he is, is wishful thinking on the part of your GOP Leader Hannity.


Let's review some of Obama's more interesting answers out-of-sight from, uh, my "GOP leader Limbaugh" as you put it....those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken into effect. Now, that’s just the fact, Mike, and I don’t think anybody would dispute that. You could not find an economist who would dispute that.

Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists — Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative — would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse. Now, they didn’t fill a 7 million hole in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we’ve still got to deal with. That’s a lot of people.

The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is, should have reflected — and I believe reflected what most of you would say are common sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts, and they weren’t — when you say they were "boutique" tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts, small businesses got tax cuts, large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules. I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts. A third of it was stabilizing state budgets.This was a response to a miniature speech a representative gave at the mic, which I won't quote because I really hate miniature speeches disguised as questions. Note that well. While there's some stuff I don't like about the President's answer, I won't even deign to quote the Republican's question. Anyways, this answer treads carefully around a harder question anyway: how long does it take for public policies to affect on the economy? I believe, and Obama disagrees, that policies take effect as soon as information about them becomes public, minus the odds that the policy will fail to pass into law.

In this case, if banks are failing, and the government says that it will bail them out, the relief is instantaneous (or even retrogressive, since people are pretty confident that if shit happens the government will get involved, so they sort of expected this). The expected bailout comes, and the banks keep chugging along as reckless as ever with no real structural change.

OOTH, if banks were failing, and the government said "Forget it— collapse and restructure yourselves into better banks," then there would be instant economic upheaval. This would not only topple banks in the debt cascade and cause that misery, but also throw out the norms of what people expect in public policy these days. We always get bailouts, and we never have to restructure from a position of total failure. Banks and auto companies are among those things which are "too big to fail," as the phrase goes.

In my view the bailout is easy, whereas the harsh lesson is right. I don't know if the president is just some guy trying to do the right thing. Maybe he's trying to do the expedient thing and convince himself it is right. Or maybe, like the congressmen, do the expedient thing knowing something else is right.


what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffet. You may be calling for an across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that.This was an oafish thing to say. By producing this incorrect, ten-year-old "tax cuts for the rich" jewel, the president is betraying to the audience a little bit more about himself than he realizes, perhaps.

[Grimstad]

IIRC the "ten year old tax cuts for the rich jewel" was relevent because it directly contributed to the 1.2 (Obama said 1.3) trillion dollar deficit left by the Bush admin. More republican "creative accounting". Just like the budget alternative the the "mini speach" revolved around that was magically deficit neutral in spite of the fact that there were never any actual hard NUMBERS associated with it.

[sunlover]

No significant difference between parties or their candidates. They're all pawns of power brokers/lobbyists/special interest groups. They all campaign like "politicians", then get in office and it's business as usual. Current example is Obama spouting off about the need for transparency, which lasted until he took office and ofcourse conducts all substantial business behind closed doors.

[Holiman]

Im not sure I agree with your example however I agree with your post.

[hubcap]

Nice effort to sever the failure of Bush's presidency from conservatism. Certainly some conservatives might have suggested prior to 2006 that Bush wasn't conservative enough. That's pretty different from claiming, flat out, that he wasn't a conservative at all. The reality is: Bush won the primary against McCain in 2000 as the conservative candidate; he was elected in 2000 (and more damning, re-elected in 2004) with strong conservative support, including all the major conservative media outlets (Fox News, WSJ editorial, Weekly Standard, National Review.)

So while I personally might agree that Bush's brand of conservatism was muddle-headed at best, that certainly didn't seem to be a problem to most conservatives before his presidency was revealed to be an unmitigated disaster somewhere around 2006. As Aronnax points out, judging from the conservative media outlets and pundits (and a fair share of posters here), conservatives are basically willing to describe people as conservative as long as they personally approve. And when they don't, well, then they're liberals.
Without question the conservatives were behind Bush...............seeing as how he was the least liberal candidate who actually had a chance to win. During Bush's first term he got support from conservatives primarily as a result of 9/11, but during his second term the conservatives actually left his camp and he was called out by conservatives on a number of issues, including his stance on illegal immigration and Dubai Ports just to name a couple.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, Bush sold-out the Republicans when he pandered to the electorate by opening up the checkbook. I don't know any conservatives who thought GWB was a conservative when he was elected in 2000 and the only people I am aware of who refer to him as a conservative are liberals.

[Wien1938]

In reference to the original post, can I make the point that there is nothing socialist about the Obama administration? Can anyone name one attempt at nationalisation? No, healthcare reform is not nationalisation - look up the founding of the British National Health Service for a real socialist programme.
Spending like a drunken sailor is not a mark of a socialist government. Left-leaning, yes but then as others have pointed out the recent Bush Administration spent heavily. No Child Left Behind and the Medicare legislation were distinctly unconservative from a classical perspective
It seems to my outside (but informed) perspective that both sides have not got a clearly formulated set of ideas about what to do with government.

I would suggest on a seperate note that Thomas Ricks' books on Iraq are a good place to understand the occupation. It is worth noting that it was the neoconservatives who (with others) pressed for a new strategy in Iraq and helped formulate "the Surge". Credit to Bush for doing the right thing when media and political opinion favoured handing over Iraq to Syria and Iran.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

On civilian casualties, I would look at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. as an objective and non-partisan attempt to get an accurate figure of the number of civilian deaths.

I was under the impression that INTJs relying on Extroverted Thinking and looked for evidence, rather than relying on untested assumptions?

[LaoTzu]

This was an oafish thing to say. By producing this incorrect, ten-year-old "tax cuts for the rich" jewel, the president is betraying to the audience a little bit more about himself than he realizes, perhaps.

It's a major difference between liberal and conservative ideology.... it's not all that telling.

[Melchizedek]

Obama's recent support of nuclear spending doesn't seem fit all that well into the leftist stereotype.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thoughts?

[Causa Mortis]

Obama's recent support of nuclear spending doesn't seem fit all that well into the leftist stereotype.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thoughts?

Advocating for nuclear spending is a rational perpsective, not a left/right issue. Most of Europe favors the use of nuclear technology more than we do.

Its our unique, hippie green movement where we can't have CO2 and we can't have nuclear power. So we can like have solar, except the production of the solar generates too much waste. Ergo we can have a caveman-style living.

[nacht]

Obama's recent support of nuclear spending doesn't seem fit all that well into the leftist stereotype.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thoughts?

France has 76.2% of their power from Nuclear.
Sweden gets 42.0% of its power from Nuclear.
Japan gets 24.9% of its power from Nuclear.

In terms of raw megawatts, the US generates more power from nuclear than any country in the world (101,119 MW-net, source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)). Modern reactors are significantly better designed than the first-generation reactors and many of the safety and environmental concerns have already been addressed.

Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has come around (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to thinking of nuclear power as a good thing for the future.

Alternatives being proposed are simply not universally viable (e.g., hydroelectric), not logistically viable without better electric storage (wind turbines generate power proportionate to the speed of wind *cubed*, so if your wind speed averages half today what it did yesterday, you'll generate on the order of 12.5% of the power, blackouts happen on much smaller variations than that), or rather pie-in-the-sky at this point in time (e.g., microwave transmission of power). Nuclear is a viable alternative for supplementing renewable sources as we move forward, and I doubt those renewables will be up to the task of taking over even 20% of our power grid any time soon (there is a plan for getting 20% by 2030, but it is unknown whether that can become a reality).

In short: this goes well beyond a "left" or a "right" issue, and you'll find people on either side of the isle who support nuclear, or who are adamantly against it.

[Melchizedek]

Did either of you look at the article? He's not just increasing spending for energy research, but also for weapons. That's what I was referring to.

[Aronnax]

Did either of you look at the article? He's not just increasing spending for energy research, but also for weapons. That's what I was referring to.


The increase in funding for weapons research is directed at reliability and security, not proliferation. In fact nonproliferation spending has also been increased. If you're going to maintain a nuclear arsenal you probably should be concerned with security and reliability. This kind of spending isn't particularly unusual for a Democrat administration. The US "left" isn't as "left" as they're typically portrayed.

[nacht]

Did either of you look at the article? He's not just increasing spending for energy research, but also for weapons. That's what I was referring to.

Admittedly hadn't before previous post (just read Causa Mortis's post and went from there), but really the comment still holds that this goes beyond "left" and "right," especially given that the long-term goal is disarmament.

[LaoTzu]

No doubt that part of that spending is helping the East Block to safely dismantle some of their arsenal as well...