patrick.net

If you agree (or don't disagree), then what kind of negotiating stance would you expect from a centrist democrat leader?

klarek says

I just choked on my oatmeal when you said Pelosi was a centrist.

Compared to Bernie Sanders, Kucinich, and Jesse Jackson Jr, she is. She's no leftist if the term has any meaning any more. Maybe it doesn't.

Maybe you’re conflating establishment Republicanism with conservatism?

What's the difference? Conservatism -- Murdoch, National Review, AEI, Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institution, etc etc -- not a damn bit of difference where the rubber meets the road. Gingrich had the temerity to slag on Ryan's medicare "reform" -- and look where that bit of honesty got him.

Cato is more doctrinaire libertarian but they're being herded into the conservative money system too now.

klarek says

it’s that he is framing the general “center” from where Castro or Marx would have it. To put it kindly, that is very preachy.

Or accurate. Marx, Castro would be "far left". Sweden, Norway, would be "left". European conservatives would be centrist, as would "liberal" Democrats like Pelosi. Then we get to the right side of the spectrum which, since dinner is soon and I want to keep my appetite, I won't go into here.

mdovell says

Sorry I thought I had put the post in this text. The post I am responding too along with a few others, is the sentiment that war is not useful and therefore we should not suspect our country,Nato, and other power elite groups that influence policy, of destabilizing the Middle East.

Very naive. Justg one day out of the blue 3 Arab countries decided to destabilize.... or, yeah they saw the success of Tunisia and had to get sum a dat pie. And Nato? just trying to be a good neighbor to all of those democracy seekers.

Look. There are regimes in the Middle East, like the Saudis for example, that have cultivated a culture that attacks this country. These regimes would fall in a day but are protected by the same powers that decide suddenly that Quadafi has to go, etc.

War and destabilization makes a situation where we, Americans, are suseptable to being asked to compromise our freedoms...like the Patriot act after 9-11. This government, in the midst of a war can ask people to suspend fundamental liberties and can look like they are solving the problems while enslaving people. That is why the Middle East is being destabilized and why in bizarro fashion France (America junior under that bastard Sarcozy) is advocating attacking sovereign nations and NATO is all too happy to drop bombs on a sovereign nation.

If these developments do not tell y0u something about war and why it is useful then one's head should go back in the sand and maybe the nproblems will just go away.

Watch replies by email

Share

StoutFiles says

bob2356 says

That’s odd, I seem to remember a Republican president being in office in 20 of the last 30 years that the debt has been run up. Is my memory faulty?

Why do people argue about this stuff? If everyone would stop picking sides they’d realize that both parties are awful, and we shouldn’t even have them.

That was my point, both parties have been culpable.

bob2356 says

both parties have been culpable

No, one party voted to raise taxes in 1993. It cost them dearly in 1994, but it was the right thing to do.

But after 1994 they're not going to make *that* mistake again.

"Health care should be a human right, and conservatives who disagree with this are defective people."

Ok but let's think legally here. All rights have to be within the Constitution.

So just for theoretical discussion if it was an amendment and added how would it work?

Since medical care contingent on medical staff meeting patients how can the public say they have the right to someone elses labor?

Does anyone have the right to police, fire and EMS? They don't. Technically although all are public services nothing prevents businesses from competing.

Rights cannot be take away from people. But rights as far as what we have written down are not about immediate services. You have the right to a fair trial..but that does not mean that it will be immediate and that the court system and serve everyone at once.

The last time the country thought that certain people had a right to another persons labor it was under slavery.

If we enacted single payer or socialized health care or which ever term you may like and doctors do not wish to go along with it then what? Would doctors be drafted like the military was? Would you still allow for private practices to occur? They are legal in the UK but illegal in Canada (although the Quebec case opens it in that area).

BTW I have to ask is that single tax referring to Geoism?

Ok but let’s think legally here. All rights have to be within the Constitution.

Agreed!

So just for theoretical discussion if it was an amendment and added how would it work?

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Would you still allow for private practices to occur? They are legal in the UK but illegal in Canada (although the Quebec case opens it in that area).

Private practice is not totally outlawed in Canada. One approach is to allow service providers to choose whether they wish to be in the single-payer system or out of it -- if they take any insurance patients they can not bill anyone but the state.

I think this is the right approach to preserve freedom and boutique providers in the system.

BTW I have to ask is that single tax referring to Geoism?

Related, yes. I'd like to think taxing land and its natural resources would be enough to establish a geolibertarian regime superior to eg. Sweden or Norway. But I doubt it would work so well in practice.

In terms of left and right it is important to remember up and down as well. There's a good test here to see where people are
http://www.politicalcompass.org

Not everything is the way we think it is.

If I were to tell you about a state that has a open secession movement, the most lax gun laws of the country, is the whitest state in the country and has people complain about weak border security you might be picturing some state down south but that is actually Vermont! (vermont was a country for 11 years and some want a 2nd republic, any handgun control organization will avouch for its laws, there are areas in the northern area with no border crossings etc)

If I use another case that has the most generous social welfare package in the country, that the wealth that surrounds it is actually owned by the state government and largest employer is healthcare you might be picturing Massachusetts but that is actually Alaska (oil dividend, state owns the rights of the oil and Providence Health Systems last I checked is the largest employer)

Now Sarah Palin will never say these things about Alaska and Howard Dean certainly won't about Vermont (or that he cut taxes and spending either)

What some say and do are two different things. There is also a difference between pandering to a primary base, to a general election and then while in office. In addition not everyone that supports various parties sees issues eye to eye. The religious right is against same sex marriage but they probably have no issues with socialized medicine. Meanwhile there can be unions that can be against cap and trade because they fear their own jobs.

If we want to change things politically I'd recommend the following(these are not my ideas but from others)
1) Change the presidency to one term of six years. That way there's no distractions of a reelection
2) Consolidate primaries to about two months. None of this 6-7 month long slog. Make the primaries regional and on a weekly basis starting with the lowest populated areas to the highest. Six or so states at a time should wrap it up
3)Expand the number of representatives by 100. It will dillute power..but I'd also say expand the term from two years to three. Any freshman representative is going to spend the first year learning the ropes and then the second year running for reelection..hardly anything is going to be accomplished (for either party)

We might not like parties but it gives at least somewhat of a indication in terms of how a given person might act towards an issue. In Brazil they have no real strong parties. When the president is elected there is no base to serve or expectations to do anything. As a result no one knows what to expect. At least in western countries there's a tendency of a predictable left and right swing.

"Would you still allow for private practices to occur? They are legal in the UK but illegal in Canada"

You have it in reverse. In the UK, all doctors are employed by the National Health Service. There is no private practice.

Troy says

klarek says

it’s that he is framing the general “center” from where Castro or Marx would have it. To put it kindly, that is very preachy.

Or accurate. Marx, Castro would be "far left". Sweden, Norway, would be "left". European conservatives would be centrist, as would "liberal" Democrats like Pelosi. Then we get to the right side of the spectrum which, since dinner is soon and I want to keep my appetite, I won't go into here.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

I wouldn't even include Castro or other dictatorial regimes as "Left" or "liberal". I'd say post-revolution, the leftists are often left wondering how the dictatorship of the proletariat stopped at "dictatorship". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

That said, Pelosi is not a far-left anything, unless you define America as far-left, corporatism as far-left, a lack of infrastructure and social services as far-left, laissez-faire as far-left.

And by any metric, our leaders never pursue real liberal policies in the modern age.

HousingWatcher says

"Would you still allow for private practices to occur? They are legal in the UK but illegal in Canada"
You have it in reverse. In the UK, all doctors are employed by the National Health Service. There is no private practice.

You are splitting hairs here. Doctors in the UK can have public and private patients. I don't know if they are required to do at least some work in the public system or not. But they can certainly have private practices. Don't believe me, here is one of websites listing private docs in the UK.
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/
I'm not sure why the NIH is the whipping boy of bad socialist medicine. They consistently get something like 90% satisfaction on surveys.

shrekgrinch says

Troy says

Pelosi is a centrist

That's gotta be the funniest thing you've ever said, Troy.
'centrist' my ass.

Not a centrist by a long shot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_8th_congressional_district

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43190/majorities-of-americans-and-britons-believe-the-war-in-iraq-was-a-mistake/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

um yeah. I could do this all day.

klarek says

That's why when a smug ideologue like Troy tries to redefine the center, the left, or even the right (without the courtesy of providing a framework to his loony world), it is cheapening the discussion.

The problem is that Troy isn't redefining anything. Most people don't understand the political spectrum has two axes. If you look at the Political Compass link that mdovell sent, you will see that the mainstream Democratic party is right of center in the U.S. and the mainstream Republican party is farther right of center in the U.S. Moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans aren't actually "centrist." Our overall spectrum in the U.S. is quite narrow here in both directions.

We don't have a serious "left" party here as other countries do -- look at the typical "Green" party in some of listed countries. What we also don't really have is the top-left and bottom-right quadrants -- examples of these can be seen on the UK link. Mike Gravel was the only bottom-right candidate in the U.S. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008) -- technically he is right of most of the Republicans economically, but far more libertarian (and believes in things like universal healthcare and carbon taxes, but also a national sales tax to eliminate the IRS).

What's also funny is that Ron Paul actually doesn't fall bottom of center into libertarianism.

mdovell says

The odd thing is that much of the debt comes from the wars.

This well-known, although the Bush tax cuts created more of it:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/

We were on quite a good trajectory after the Clinton years, but it everything was screwed up quite royally afterward with the obsession over tax cuts even though our taxes are quite low overall.

@Troy

Thanks for the links... I am amazed at how much anger has been directed away from the Iraq "campaign" and into more trivial things.

Darn the NPR for putting the US in so much debt.

American in Japan says

@Troy
Thanks for the links... I am amazed at how much anger has been directed away from the Iraq "campaign" and into more trivial things.
Darn the NPR for putting the US in so much debt.

Iraq war is going to haunt us financially for decades to come and for what? No proof of WMD and no proof of danger to us from that regime. What a waste of money and American lives - much more then OBL did to us.

What $2-3 trillion could have bought for this country -- it's sickening really.

And the same Republicans who gave us this are back in power now, calling the shots.

We are a nation of idiots.

shrekgrinch says

Troy says

um yeah. I could do this all day.

What? Produce bogus polls that don't reflect actual reality?

lol--I think I understand now. Reality = whatever Shrek believes. It must be nice to live in that world.

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

lol--I think I understand now. Reality = whatever Shrek believes. It must be nice to live in that world.

Ah, I see that just spouting denial-driven crap qualifies as an adequate response to the actual FACTUAL political realities I provided an example to?
For ObamaCrats, I guess so.

If you ever posted any FACTUAL information then you might have a point. Please show me the example you provided.

klarek says

(without the courtesy of providing a framework to his loony world), it is cheapening the discussion.

Left wants radical change
Centrism is open to change
Right fights any change, wants to undo what has been changed.

This is my loony world, yes. Ooga booga.

How about my dollars drive change and your dollars drive change and the market decides what ideas win and what ideas lose?

We're terrified of the unknown that we sacrifice our souls for parties because they're the most reflective of what we believe.

wtfcapinv says

How about my dollars drive change and your dollars drive change and the market decides what ideas win and what ideas lose

LOL. Faith in the "market". So f-ing inane.

wtfcapinv says

We're terrified of the unknown that we sacrifice our souls for parties because they're the most reflective of what we believe.

No, I see the quality of life of Canada, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and think we can learn a lot from them.

"Socialism" as practiced there isn't some unknown. What also isn't an unknown is how utterly f-ed up free-market systems become. They are entirely centrifugal in nature, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

wtfcapinv says

the market decides what ideas win and what ideas lose?

What about when, gasp, market failure happens? Think banksters, among other things.

It's also hard to argue that it's government's fault when government's missteps are what "the market" wants.