(10-12-2013 05:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, it's disingenuous to say that one of the two goals of proponents of the ACA is to increase the federal government's reach into the lives of citizens.

It strikes me as quite ingenuous to think that such is NOT one of their goals -- or at least (in their view) an outcome devoutly to be wished for its own sake.

My experience is that expansion of governmental roles is a constant desire of leftists, not least because they almost always imagine themselves as the ones who would do the governing.

I think the semantics of expansion of government roles vs increasing the government's reach into the lives of citizens is key and shouldn't be overlooked.

It isn't so much that those on the left want the government to control them or others with the implicit hopes that they will be able to control those they govern (since the ordinary left leaning citizen will have no chance to ever make and pass laws), instead, it's my limited experience that the left believes that there are certain aspects of life that pure market solutions do not solve, or do not solve best.

This is the motivation for an expansion of the government which I will not disagree with it, but that is not necessarily the same thing as controlling the lives of citizens.

(10-12-2013 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It isn't so much that those on the left want the government to control them or others with the implicit hopes that they will be able to control those they govern (since the ordinary left leaning citizen will have no chance to ever make and pass laws),

Expectations need not be realistic in order to be powerful motivators of people's politics. There is a fundamental difference between a person whose first instinct is skepticism toward government, because he is skeptical of who might do the governing, and a person whose first instinct is enthusiasm for government, because he is enthusiastic about who might do the governing. I have met few conservatives who are not in the former category, and ZERO leftists -- ever -- who are not in the latter category.

(10-12-2013 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  instead, it's my limited experience that the left believes that there are certain aspects of life that pure market solutions do not solve, or do not solve best.

So do the right and center, as far as you have stated it. The quality that distinguishes the left is its eagerness to find such aspects, and its positive delight in having found them.

I wish I could share your view that leftists are simply benign altruists, and I hope you can share the view that altruism is not a uniquely leftist quality.

(10-12-2013 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think the semantics of expansion of government roles vs increasing the government's reach into the lives of citizens is key and shouldn't be overlooked.
It isn't so much that those on the left want the government to control them or others with the implicit hopes that they will be able to control those they govern (since the ordinary left leaning citizen will have no chance to ever make and pass laws), instead, it's my limited experience that the left believes that there are certain aspects of life that pure market solutions do not solve, or do not solve best.
This is the motivation for an expansion of the government which I will not disagree with it, but that is not necessarily the same thing as controlling the lives of citizens.

Number one, whatever the semantic distinction between expanding the role of government and increasing the government's reach into the lives of citizens, it's a very subtle difference at best. I'm not sure how the government can expand its role without increasing its reach into the lives of citizens. I'd be interested in an example if you can imagine one.

After about 20 years of experience working in or consulting to various government agencies, I can assure you that--at least among unelected bureaucrats if not elected politicians--the motivation is controlling citizens, not curing market imperfections.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that leaders of private sector companies will do things that harm people in the pursuit of profits? I expect your answer to be yes, particularly since your prior comments would suggest that you lean left of center. If that is in fact the case, then why do you not ascribe equally to bureaucrats and politicians a willingness to do things that harm people in the name of power? My own experience is that the latter occurs far more commonly than the former.

You touch on something that I think is very important. I think young, idealistic people who lean left do feel as you do, that we are just using government to correct market imperfections, and that is arguably a noble goal. But you yourself say that you are talking about ordinary citizens there, not people in power. And the people in power prey upon those young idealists to solidify their own base, with no intention of doing anything to help anyone but themselves.

The real difference between us is that you are inexperienced and idealistic, whereas I am experienced and skeptical. I've had too much real world experience to trust anyone who works for a government paycheck. Reagan was right, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," is a lie.

(10-12-2013 05:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, it's disingenuous to say that one of the two goals of proponents of the ACA is to increase the federal government's reach into the lives of citizens.

It strikes me as quite ingenuous to think that such is NOT one of their goals -- or at least (in their view) an outcome devoutly to be wished for its own sake.

My experience is that expansion of governmental roles is a constant desire of leftists, not least because they almost always imagine themselves as the ones who would do the governing.

George, I think you meant "ingenious" not "ingenuous."

Lad, you've stated an opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Do you have any facts to support it? I have stated the facts upon which my opinion is based. Can you explain how to reach a different conclusion from those facts? Do you not believe they are correct statements of fact? In order to hold the opinion you state as a valid opinion, you sorta kinda have to have some basis for it. What is yours?

I'm pretty sure George meant ingenuous, as in naive.

George, would you say that the leftist hippies in the 60's were driven by enthusiasm for government?

(10-13-2013 12:03 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I'm pretty sure George meant ingenuous, as in naive.

George, would you say that the leftist hippies in the 60's were driven by enthusiasm for government?

I was thinking "ingenious" as in creative, but giving it a second thought, I can see that too.

(10-12-2013 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The real difference between us is that you are inexperienced and idealistic

Way to keep it civil.

(10-13-2013 02:45 PM)texd Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The real difference between us is that you are inexperienced and idealistic

Way to keep it civil.

Umm, he said that himself.

Fair enough. My apologies.

The "I'm older therefore have more experience and know more" trope (with the implication that one will change their views if only they can get more experience, thus essentially regarding as valueless the experiences of the younger party) is one that annoys me to no end. And clearly to the extent that I can overreact when I think I'm seeing it being implemented.

(10-13-2013 04:25 PM)texd Wrote:  Fair enough. My apologies.

The "I'm older therefore have more experience and know more" trope (with the implication that one will change their views if only they can get more experience, thus essentially regarding as valueless the experiences of the younger party) is one that annoys me to no end. And clearly to the extent that I can overreact when I think I'm seeing it being implemented.

Apology accepted.

I'd rather you answer some of the questions I've asked. I'd really like to hear a coherent response, because I find the issues involved troubling.

(10-12-2013 01:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 01:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hate to keep saying it, but it really has gotten to be the stupid party versus the evil party.

So when I vote, it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils?

Not to completely derail this thing, but there is no such lesser when I vote for governor next month. They're both dogs, and that's an insult to dogs.

(10-14-2013 09:49 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 01:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 01:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hate to keep saying it, but it really has gotten to be the stupid party versus the evil party.

So when I vote, it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils?

Not to completely derail this thing, but there is no such lesser when I vote for governor next month. They're both dogs, and that's an insult to dogs.

Assuming you are talking about Virginia, there is a third dog in the race. Now I'm not a Virginia voter, so I don't know what kind of fleas he has, but there are other options.
http://robertsarvis.com/home .

(10-14-2013 09:49 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 01:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 01:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hate to keep saying it, but it really has gotten to be the stupid party versus the evil party.

So when I vote, it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils?

Not to completely derail this thing, but there is no such lesser when I vote for governor next month. They're both dogs, and that's an insult to dogs.

Maybe they are both dogs, but one is worse that the other. One bites, the other barks all night. Take one. You can vote for the cat, but the cat can't win, and one of the dogs will. That is the nature of the American winner take all system.

(10-12-2013 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think the semantics of expansion of government roles vs increasing the government's reach into the lives of citizens is key and shouldn't be overlooked.
It isn't so much that those on the left want the government to control them or others with the implicit hopes that they will be able to control those they govern (since the ordinary left leaning citizen will have no chance to ever make and pass laws), instead, it's my limited experience that the left believes that there are certain aspects of life that pure market solutions do not solve, or do not solve best.
This is the motivation for an expansion of the government which I will not disagree with it, but that is not necessarily the same thing as controlling the lives of citizens.

Number one, whatever the semantic distinction between expanding the role of government and increasing the government's reach into the lives of citizens, it's a very subtle difference at best. I'm not sure how the government can expand its role without increasing its reach into the lives of citizens. I'd be interested in an example if you can imagine one.

After about 20 years of experience working in or consulting to various government agencies, I can assure you that--at least among unelected bureaucrats if not elected politicians--the motivation is controlling citizens, not curing market imperfections.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that leaders of private sector companies will do things that harm people in the pursuit of profits? I expect your answer to be yes, particularly since your prior comments would suggest that you lean left of center. If that is in fact the case, then why do you not ascribe equally to bureaucrats and politicians a willingness to do things that harm people in the name of power? My own experience is that the latter occurs far more commonly than the former.

You touch on something that I think is very important. I think young, idealistic people who lean left do feel as you do, that we are just using government to correct market imperfections, and that is arguably a noble goal. But you yourself say that you are talking about ordinary citizens there, not people in power. And the people in power prey upon those young idealists to solidify their own base, with no intention of doing anything to help anyone but themselves.

The real difference between us is that you are inexperienced and idealistic, whereas I am experienced and skeptical. I've had too much real world experience to trust anyone who works for a government paycheck. Reagan was right, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," is a lie.

Meant to respond earlier but I was bogged down with some work and personal things.

You're right that expanding the governments role cannot really occur without reaching into the lives of others, but that was not my argument. My argument was more regarding the intentions of those who believe the government can offer better solutions than the market at times. If I understand things correctly, it has seem that some have been posting that the left WANT the government in everyone's lives, when in fact, it is more that they believe the government will do a better job than market solutions.

As far as the expansion of government without increasing its reach into the lives of US citizens, I don't think that's possible. However, depending on which side of the governments actions you fall on, that is not inherently bad. For example, the EPA. The industries that are regulated by the EPA are probably not too happy when an inspector shows up, but the people who are drinking the groundwater the EPA is trying to protect are probably pretty happy that the government is there to enforce waste disposal practices. For that matter, most civil and environmental issues, IMO, fall into this category, where the increase in smart and sensible government oversight/reach is a net positive.

With regards to the other issue you brought up, the private vs public sector and harm for profit or power, I believe that both will occur. History has proven that both corporations will throw aside concerns for not only their customers/clients, but also unknowing bystanders, in the pursuit of profits, and politicians have been constantly plagued by corruption in order to increase their power and often their personal wealth. If you would like I could write further about my issues with both and where I stand in ascribing the willingness to do harm to people for money or power, but it's a bit much right now.

Also, I have never said that I believe that bureaucrats are never willing to harm others to increase power, instead my issue has been with the broad statements that one political party ONLY supported the ACA to control the citizens of this country. I have not seen hard evidence to suggest that the ACA is meant to solely control the lives of US citizens, and until I see something that suggests that, I am going to stay skeptical of its ability to succeed, but not of its intentions.

(10-14-2013 09:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I have not seen hard evidence to suggest that the ACA is meant to solely control the lives of US citizens, and until I see something that suggests that, I am going to stay skeptical of its ability to succeed, but not of its intentions.

Fair enough. Let me respond. If by evidence you mean a memo from Barack Obama to Harry Reid saying specifically, "Let's go screw the American people," then no, I don't have that. But I think that's an unreasonably high burden, and one unlikely to be met, even if true.

Our system of criminal justice is based largely upon intent. Murderers and robbers don't typically run around shouting their intent before committing crimes. So the law and the courts allow intent to be inferred from actions. Let's take that approach.

Remember, we were told that our health care system was a disaster, and that the only way to fix it was Obamacare, and that we had to do it immediately. I could point out that the premise fails to comport with empirical data, or I could point out the used-car salesman or "never let a crisis go to waste" implications, suggesting less than honorable intentions, and if you want to go into those later I'd be happy to do so. But I want to focus on one area, and apply a bit of inductive reasoning.

Let's suppose hypothetically that you have a problem with two possible solutions. One has proved consistently over many years to outperform any other approach, and actually involves less direct government intervention than the current system. The other ramps up the level of government involvement and intrusion into heretofore private matters, and has proved repeatedly to perform worse than the first alternative. If the second alternative is chosen, and is pushed as the only possible solution, with no opportunity to evaluate other alternatives, and is further pushed as having to be implemented immediately, is it not a reasonable inference that the objective is not solving the problem but rather increasing government intrusion?

As for the motives question, I think most rank and file followers of the left truly believe that what they are doing is curing problems better than the free market. That was kind of where I was going with the "young and inexperienced" suggestion. But I don't believe the same regarding the LEADERS on the left. I think they are totally obsessed with controlling and micromanaging their subjects, and they prey dishonestly and disingenuously upon those more idealistic followers to get there. If the leaders of the left came out and said that they wanted to micromanage your relationship with your doctor, nobody would support them. But by casting it in the light of making health care affordable for all, they sucker in the young idealistic followers. Lenin suckered in the young idealists, Stalin did it, Castro did it, Che did it, Chavez did it.

As for the doing harm for money or power, all I can say is that I've had about 40 years of experience, about 20 working or consulting in a large number and variety of government agencies at all levels, and in that experience I have seen far greater willingness among politicians and government bureaucrats to screw people for power, than among a comparable number of private sector managers and executives to screw people for money. That's anecdotal, but my sample size is larger than a lot of statistical studies.

I don't mean this to give republicans a pass. They were just as intrusive into private lives under the patRIOT act as democrats are seeking to be under Obamacare. And if they had just had the good sense to present the better health care approaches to Americans as alternatives to Obamacare, we might have had a real debate and come up with something that won't be a disaster.

The free market eliminates bad companies, but it can not eliminate bad governments because they are not allowed to fail and go away. Probably most of the bureaucrat "civil servants" actually think they are doing good when the evidence is otherwise. They have to justify being allowed to keep their job even if what they are doing is harmful. The more control they have over the citizens the greater the number of government jobs that will exist.

(10-14-2013 10:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 09:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I have not seen hard evidence to suggest that the ACA is meant to solely control the lives of US citizens, and until I see something that suggests that, I am going to stay skeptical of its ability to succeed, but not of its intentions.

Fair enough. Let me respond. If by evidence you mean a memo from Barack Obama to Harry Reid saying specifically, "Let's go screw the American people," then no, I don't have that. But I think that's an unreasonably high burden, and one unlikely to be met, even if true.

Our system of criminal justice is based largely upon intent. Murderers and robbers don't typically run around shouting their intent before committing crimes. So the law and the courts allow intent to be inferred from actions. Let's take that approach.

Remember, we were told that our health care system was a disaster, and that the only way to fix it was Obamacare, and that we had to do it immediately. I could point out that the premise fails to comport with empirical data, or I could point out the used-car salesman or "never let a crisis go to waste" implications, suggesting less than honorable intentions, and if you want to go into those later I'd be happy to do so. But I want to focus on one area, and apply a bit of inductive reasoning.

Let's suppose hypothetically that you have a problem with two possible solutions. One has proved consistently over many years to outperform any other approach, and actually involves less direct government intervention than the current system. The other ramps up the level of government involvement and intrusion into heretofore private matters, and has proved repeatedly to perform worse than the first alternative. If the second alternative is chosen, and is pushed as the only possible solution, with no opportunity to evaluate other alternatives, and is further pushed as having to be implemented immediately, is it not a reasonable inference that the objective is not solving the problem but rather increasing government intrusion?

As for the motives question, I think most rank and file followers of the left truly believe that what they are doing is curing problems better than the free market. That was kind of where I was going with the "young and inexperienced" suggestion. But I don't believe the same regarding the LEADERS on the left. I think they are totally obsessed with controlling and micromanaging their subjects, and they prey dishonestly and disingenuously upon those more idealistic followers to get there. If the leaders of the left came out and said that they wanted to micromanage your relationship with your doctor, nobody would support them. But by casting it in the light of making health care affordable for all, they sucker in the young idealistic followers. Lenin suckered in the young idealists, Stalin did it, Castro did it, Che did it, Chavez did it.

As for the doing harm for money or power, all I can say is that I've had about 40 years of experience, about 20 working or consulting in a large number and variety of government agencies at all levels, and in that experience I have seen far greater willingness among politicians and government bureaucrats to screw people for power, than among a comparable number of private sector managers and executives to screw people for money. That's anecdotal, but my sample size is larger than a lot of statistical studies.

I don't mean this to give republicans a pass. They were just as intrusive into private lives under the patRIOT act as democrats are seeking to be under Obamacare. And if they had just had the good sense to present the better health care approaches to Americans as alternatives to Obamacare, we might have had a real debate and come up with something that won't be a disaster.

I think George Washington is our best President because he walked away from the possibility of being a king or tyrant. He followed the example of Cincinatus who went back to his farm after saving the Roman Republic.

(10-08-2013 10:20 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 09:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Good Owl, sorry, I don't care to debate the ACA on yet another thread. But I am curious about your take on the shift in power and the way our constitution works that would occur if the House Republicans get their way. Speaking as a political scientist, not a partisan, this would be a major change. Future House majorities of either party aren't going to forgot that this worked. While my comment about the Tea/T.E.A. Party wanting to turn the US into France was facetious, there really is a very direct parallel to how the House of Commons became the dominant branch of government in the UK. And I really do believe the end result would most resemble the French hybrid system.

Is that desirable outcome in the big picture?

I don't think our government, nor the "governing class" is functioning like was intended by the folks that fought and died to start this country.

To me, George Washington is the about the most amazing figure in mankind's political history for one simple act: he declined power when offered, and walked away, opting to become what was then a more regular citizen. He had a failing farm to go back to and a wife.

I think there was never an intention to have a "ruling class" (or "serving class" as some like to characterize them) in this country. But the founders made the classic mistake of projecting their own personal values and proclivities on others. Even in his own time, where Washington appears to have been more ambivalent about power and status, seeing both its drawbacks and traps as strongly as its enticements, many other men were lesser so. And so the formation of political parties, and career politicians, etc...

I think we're in a mess of our own making. But I do hold out hope we can work our way out of it. It always strikes me as odd that the party of JFK, the "ask not what your country can do for you" is so adamant about enslaving everyone into permanent government serfdom whether they volunteer to participate or not. I think our founders were by and large falling on the libertarian side more than anything else, with some at either end of the political spectrum. I think we forget that too often.

Our founders already had a government "system" of a sort with their serfdom to King George as colonists. No matter how hard they worked or tried, it could be ruled away without their consent and without recourse by one or a handful of what then passed for the bureaucracy. So it was a King and his court instead of a President and a partisan-controlled Senate. Results are the same.

They wanted out, and they were willing to take their chances with whatever they could figure out as an alternative. Same today. This (the Dem overreach of power) is BS and too many American people want out of it. The ruling class tries to use trickery and rhetoric and force to get them to stay. You know, there were many, many Tories at the time of the Revolution who were just fine with the King and fought against the American revolutionaries to keep the status quo. History repeats itself with different players, but same fundamental dynamic happening again. Its inherent in human nature, and especially among Americans.

I like the current House strategy as it potentially sets us on a course to deal with the elephant in the room: we have to spend far less than we are, and the cuts will be painful. I blame Bush for his ridiculous expansion of Medicare as much for preceeding this. Passing laws with Parliamentary tricks always comes back to bite you in the end, it just takes some time.

Will other Houses hold an executive hostage, yes if there is not give and take. But I have a feeling in the end they will cut some sort of deal. The ACA is having the problems most fundamentally threatening its success as was predicted: too many people will be paying radically more for their mandatory purchase of a bloated health policy that gives them things they neither want or need, and not enough of the poor will be getting their "free' insurance that was promised to make up the difference.

The current Republican Study Committee alternative health plan (the one you don't hear a peep about from the media), sitting in a bill in Congress, is a far better approach to the problem. It introduces the consumer and cost containment by individual choice and more transparency in provider costs back into the system. (It is the third-party payor or even potentially a single party payer (total govt control) that is the fundamental problem here, after all). It separates out those with pre-existing conditions, and sets aside adequate funds to provide for their care. The way the Dems are trying to make this a one-size fits all thing is the fundamental problem. People's needs are inherently different when it comes to their health and whether or not they want or need what is called insurance, but is primarily a health management system.

If the people demand that a tyrannical executive who has overstepped his authority and abused his power, along with a Senate bent on ignoring the Constitution (trying to "pass" a "clean" continuing resolution and sending it to the House for a vote now, when the Senate is not authorized to originate spending bills, smacks of arrogance and political trickery. )

The people at some point will demand accountability, as many are now. If that leads us to a Parliamentary system, then I guess that's where we'll be.

Bottom line: If the goal was to improve health care and not to manipulate and control individuals' personal lives, then why did they pick a "solution" that greatly increased intrusion into personal lives while delivering poor health care, when there were other solutions available that do a better job of providing health care with LESS intrusion into personal privacy?

An interesting Charlie Cook piece on the state of Congress.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-th...les_medium

Makes a good argument that the Hastert Rule is a big driver of the current issues.

Wow. Politico reporting the House GOP is considering voting on their bill (not the bipartisan Senate bill) then literally leaving town.

I'm having a hard time believing that, but still...