(09-25-2015 03:07 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Sure they could have, with some leadership. French Bismarck is basically free market health care. That's what republicans are supposed to be FOR. Bowles-Simpson is lowering tax rates and balancing the budget. That's what republicans are supposed to be FOR.

Present them as the way to put democrats on the defensive, and I think you'd have a deal. I am pretty sure that Reid and Obama would not have liked to see them coming their way, and that should have been enough to motivate republicans to go along.

Well, they took Bowles-Simpson, pushed it to the right in the form of Cooper-LaTourette, and it still failed miserably, with Rs even more opposed than Ds and Heritage Action gleefully taking credit for its defeat.

AFAIK no Congressman (on either side of the aisle) has even proposed any Bismarck-style system. Your proposal above strikes me as a pretty good start, probably a bit optimistic in some of the numbers barring some other reforms, but would just never fly among the R caucus since it combines a tax increase with a spending increase.

With all due respect, this seems to have the intention of trying to blame 'all things 'R'' and flying in the face of the fact that what the D's proposed and passed was nothing like those either.

Why would we be upset that Bowles-Simpson was 'pushed to the right' and defeated, even by a right organization? I'm glee-ful that it didn't pass as well.

Bowles Simpson by definition was a bi-partisan solution. The ACA wasn't, and neither was Cooper-Latourette.

IMO, the biggest reason nobody has proposed Bismarck is because it actually reduces the power of government to a purely regulatory role and eliminates them from influence over the finances. Not many are really interested in that, and those that might be wouldn't get elected on it... because everyone else would attack them for it and mischaracterize it as either socialized medicine or giving all the power to insurers.

If you think about it, how is medicaid and medicare really any different, other than the government deciding that not everyone gets it, even though everyone pays for it?

(09-25-2015 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  With all due respect, this seems to have the intention of trying to blame 'all things 'R'' and flying in the face of the fact that what the D's proposed and passed was nothing like those either.

Except that I specifically mentioned that neither party has proposed a Bismarck system.

Quote:Why would we be upset that Bowles-Simpson was 'pushed to the right' and defeated, even by a right organization? I'm glee-ful that it didn't pass as well.

Bowles Simpson by definition was a bi-partisan solution. The ACA wasn't, and neither was Cooper-Latourette.

Cooper-LaTourette was based on Bowles-Simpson, but with a smaller tax increase, smaller defense cuts, and larger non-defense cuts. In other words, the differences were designed to make it less unpalatable to Rs and more unpalatable to Ds (which made sense politically since Rs controlled the house at the time). It was endorsed by Bowles and Simpson. LaTourette himself is a Republican.

(09-25-2015 03:07 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Sure they could have, with some leadership. French Bismarck is basically free market health care. That's what republicans are supposed to be FOR. Bowles-Simpson is lowering tax rates and balancing the budget. That's what republicans are supposed to be FOR.
Present them as the way to put democrats on the defensive, and I think you'd have a deal. I am pretty sure that Reid and Obama would not have liked to see them coming their way, and that should have been enough to motivate republicans to go along.

Well, they took Bowles-Simpson, pushed it to the right in the form of Cooper-LaTourette, and it still failed miserably, with Rs even more opposed than Ds and Heritage Action gleefully taking credit for its defeat.
AFAIK no Congressman (on either side of the aisle) has even proposed any Bismarck-style system. Your proposal above strikes me as a pretty good start, probably a bit optimistic in some of the numbers barring some other reforms, but would just never fly among the R caucus since it combines a tax increase with a spending increase.

I can assure you the numbers are quite realistic. What's truly amazing is the revenue potential of the consumption tax. That's why everybody in Europe has gone to it. It also has a significant balance of trade effect, and we certainly need positive results there. If you have a consumption tax, you get to charge it on all imports (a tariff that doesn't count as a tariff) and you get to rebate it on all exports (this is what other countries are doing when non-knowledgeable politicians and members of the press accuse them of "subsidizing" exports).

And remember that it is actually a significant income tax decrease for all individuals and for corporations. It's raising more money, but it's raising that money more like the way Europe raises it.

I still think that with leadership the package could have been put through. One thing for sure, doing so would have handed Reid and Obama a couple of very hot potatoes that they would not have liked having to deal with. How do you think Obama would have liked being told, "We're going to take your signature legislation and replace it with something ten times better"? That alone should have been enough to get republican votes.

(09-25-2015 11:40 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for rejecting compromise of any sort, that is certainly not limited to republicans. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have been at least as unwilling to make genuine compromise with republicans as republicans have with them.

Sorry, but I think that's fundamentally not true. Not saying their first objective is to compromise, but having lots of friends still in the poli sci field who analyze survey data and voting patterns, what is going on in the Republican party recently (last 10-20 years) is fairly new and different. One telling chart showed 'likely' voters and their attitudes toward compromise. Fairly high in the middle as you might expect. Dropped off a cliff as you moved right. Moving left was statistically not much different than the middle, perhaps a little higher. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Edit: I realize your example was congressional leaders and mine was voter attitudes. But this gets back to my point about compromise - especially in the House, a lot or Rs are scared of being primaried if Rush Limbaugh or someone declares them a traitor to the cause for not taking a hardline. Simply not anywhere near as prominent in the Democratic party right now. IMHO, and the opinion of many political scientists, and GOP staffers.

Politically, I think Owl69/70/75 is correct. Hardheadedness exists on both sides.

The observation you make about graphing willingness to compromise with degrees of liberalism vs conservatism make sense, and it's not all that nefarious.

If conservatism is equated with holding the "status quo", and liberalism is equated with "change" (this is not necessarily true or strictly true, but it's a gross simplification that has validity on some levels . . . . and would track with your 'graphical' observation as people get more 'conservative' or more supportive of the status quo) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

then it would make general sense that liberals might be seen as more willing to compromise, as any compromise would mean some change and therefore a movement toward their overall goals.

Whereas, a compromise that involves any change at all is necessarily a loss for a conservative position that advocates a status quo.

If degrees of change are metaphors for levels of liberal/conservative positions, you can see where there will never be peace, although there can be co-existence:

* The one constant in life is change.
* Not all changes are good (and of course not all changes are bad)
* The results of change cannot be foretold with accuracy because people's emotions and reactions are involved.
* A 'good' change, unchecked, can result in 'runaway train' actions/consequences that can create unbalanced positions/extremes.
* Change produces 'winners' and 'losers' (not always, but it's inherent). I'm not saying that it's a zero sum game, but even when the change is beneficial overall, it's not uncommon for their to be negatives associated with the change(for some, or even all, impacted)
* In analyzing stress and life expectancy . . . change is often directly correlated with stress and negative health impacts.
* A change can obviously be beneficial and produce positive impacts, but even in those circumstances there is stress involved.
* People are different and they all handle change/stress differently.

It's also a lot easier to change things for other people than it is to change things for yourself.

None of this is presented as an argument against (or for) change.

As I said at the outset, the one constant in life is change.

It's an explanation, with gross simplification, of why 'conservatives' might be less likely to compromise than 'liberals'.

(09-25-2015 04:48 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  With all due respect, this seems to have the intention of trying to blame 'all things 'R'' and flying in the face of the fact that what the D's proposed and passed was nothing like those either.

Except that I specifically mentioned that neither party has proposed a Bismarck system.

Right, after talking about the Republicans failed effort... though if you support Bismarck, that's a good thing... and since you mentioned that they pushed Dominici-Rivlin to the right, why is the fact that Heritage doesn't support it a 'failure'? and then following it by saying Bismarck wouldn't fly with R's, ignoring that it wouldn't fly with D's either. The D's passed what we have, and many of them wanted something even further from Bismarck. The D's didn't even consider Dom-Riv, and rejected it as much as Heritage

Actually, McCain's proposal was perhaps the closest thing to Bismarck.., Over-simplifying and going from memory, but he proposed $2500 per person to buy whatever policy they wanted, with the ability to supplement as you wanted. Obviously that would lead to a number of 'basic' plans priced at around the $2500 mark, with add-ons... and although he didn't specify what that 'base' policy would look like, there is value in 'cohesiveness', so it is likely that most of the base policies would be pretty similar... including basic and catastrophic coverage.

Quote:

Quote:Why would we be upset that Bowles-Simpson was 'pushed to the right' and defeated, even by a right organization? I'm glee-ful that it didn't pass as well.

Bowles Simpson by definition was a bi-partisan solution. The ACA wasn't, and neither was Cooper-Latourette.

Cooper-LaTourette was based on Bowles-Simpson, but with a smaller tax increase, smaller defense cuts, and larger non-defense cuts. In other words, the differences were designed to make it less unpalatable to Rs and more unpalatable to Ds (which made sense politically since Rs controlled the house at the time). It was endorsed by Bowles and Simpson. LaTourette himself is a Republican.

Once again, you're focusing on party.

the ACA was supposedly based on Heritage as well, but I can show you things that look like small changes that are really monumental. I'm no apologist for Heritage, but just because something looks like a duck doesn't mean it tastes good with plum sauce.

Of course LaTourette is Republican... why else would he push a bi-partisan proposal 'right'? Bowles-Simpson may have endorsed it over the status quo, but not over their own proposal. But more to my point, since you aren't a Republican, why does it seem to upset you that they turned down a 'more republican' version of a compromise? Because you are asking them to negotiate with themselves first, and THEN negotiate with the left.

I think it pretty obvious that Democrats have dug their heels in on Obamacare being the law of the land and here to stay, so it doesn't surprise me if Republicans don't want to pass what is already a compromise bill, only to then have to compromise again with the Democrats (who didn't compromise to pass their bill) to get it passed (since they don't have 2/3rds).

If you want to pass Domenici Rivlin, or anything remotely like it, there has to be SOME indication from the left that there is ANYTHING other than the status quo that they would accept. Outside of this compromise, have you ONCE seen them endorse anything that reduces income and corporate tax rates? I haven't. The key to Bowles-Simpson is lowering the rates and broadening the base. The specifics of the spending are subject to discussion and priorities... but if you (one) don't endorse lowering the rates to broaden the base... and we end up raising rates or even leaving them the same in the ultimate compromise, then you completely miss the idea of 'growing the size of the pie' rather than simply taking a larger slice of the smaller pie.

It takes two people/parties to compromise.... and 'how much' is certainly negotiable.... but there are certain things that just aren't really negotiable. If you lower rates, you encourage money to be reported and taxed. If you raise them, you discourage it. That has nothing to do with whether you spend more or less on defense or assistance.

(09-25-2015 11:40 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for rejecting compromise of any sort, that is certainly not limited to republicans. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have been at least as unwilling to make genuine compromise with republicans as republicans have with them.

Sorry, but I think that's fundamentally not true.

Sorry, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Period.

(09-25-2015 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, the biggest reason nobody has proposed Bismarck is because it actually reduces the power of government to a purely regulatory role and eliminates them from influence over the finances.

Which is exactly why I think republicans should be FOR it.

(09-23-2015 10:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 10:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the email scandal and the Clinton foundation stuff is much ado about very little.

Guess we'll find out.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...ton-server

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/s...li=AAa0dzB

(09-26-2015 09:07 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

[/php]

(09-25-2015 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IMO, the biggest reason nobody has proposed Bismarck is because it actually reduces the power of government to a purely regulatory role and eliminates them from influence over the finances.

Which is exactly why I think republicans should be FOR it.

TRUE Republicans, yes... But not what most of these people are. The thing that disappointed me the most about McCain in the 2000 election is that he joined with Obama in promising everything to everyone... but promised a little less than Obama, at least in terms of social programs because he's 'conservative'... Now of course that wasn't his only uphill battle... but it disappointed me. It showed that 'promising free stuff' got votes from the middle and right as much as anything else. Of course, Bush did it too... but that was a signal to me of a decisive change in the party.

I think that's really the problem. Democrats talk about the Republican party in disarray, and to some degree it is.

We have actual fiscal conservatives on the right, and then we have fiscal liberals who may or may not be social conservatives. Like Democrats, they are fiscally liberal... but they have a vastly different set of priorities than the Democrats. They want control, power and spending just as much.

I'm looking for the actual liberals to step up and join the true Republicans. Those who believe in the freedom of the individual... in the freedom of unpopular opinions. I want those who would burn a flag in protest to join in with those who would burn the Quran in protest. I wouldn't personally do either of those things... but I support the right of the people to do so... peacefully and assuming they own the items and do it in a safe and appropriate place.

What we NEED is a multi-party system where coalitions must be formed. Although most politicians in our current system agree on spending more, they disagree a lot on 'where'.... so although individual compromises may have winners and losers, in aggregate, everyone spends more.... because that is the only thing 60% of them agree on.

(09-25-2015 09:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:40 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for rejecting compromise of any sort, that is certainly not limited to republicans. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have been at least as unwilling to make genuine compromise with republicans as republicans have with them.

Sorry, but I think that's fundamentally not true.

Sorry, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Period.

Agreed. It's not even a close call.

(09-26-2015 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What we NEED is a multi-party system where coalitions must be formed. Although most politicians in our current system agree on spending more, they disagree a lot on 'where'.... so although individual compromises may have winners and losers, in aggregate, everyone spends more.... because that is the only thing 60% of them agree on.

And those compromises, more often than not, are simply, "I'll give you your spending if you'll give me mine."

I watched Clinton and Fiorina on Meet the Press this morning.
The consensus of the roundtable was that Clinton answered all the questions she was asked about the e-mails, but she had a poor attitude.
Fiorina didn't answer the questions she was asked, but she was forceful and diverted focus to the Democrats.

(09-27-2015 01:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 09:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:40 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for rejecting compromise of any sort, that is certainly not limited to republicans. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have been at least as unwilling to make genuine compromise with republicans as republicans have with them.

Sorry, but I think that's fundamentally not true.

Sorry, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Period.

Agreed. It's not even a close call.

And you guys are entitled to your fundamentally wrong opinions. ;-)

I'll just say again, talking to friends in the field who are empiricists and data guys who analyze voting (elections and legislatures) and survey data, and also to non-Tea Party *Republicans* working in politics currently, I think once this period is far enough in the past for detached analysis the consensus will be that Republicans are going through a very atypical period where a large enough minority were so opposed to any compromise that they were unable to function as a governing party.

And social scientists are *never* wrong. And write even worse run on sentences than the one above.

Let's meet back here in 50 years and see who is right.

(09-26-2015 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What we NEED is a multi-party system where coalitions must be formed. Although most politicians in our current system agree on spending more, they disagree a lot on 'where'.... so although individual compromises may have winners and losers, in aggregate, everyone spends more.... because that is the only thing 60% of them agree on.

Without some sort of PR electoral system at minimum, and probably a switch to a parliamentary system, we probably aren't going to see it.

But I would absolutely support both of those changes.

Hey, maybe they heard us talking bad about them:

Schumer in talks with Ryan on major tax, infrastructure deal

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ch...ate-214167

(09-29-2015 09:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What we NEED is a multi-party system where coalitions must be formed. Although most politicians in our current system agree on spending more, they disagree a lot on 'where'.... so although individual compromises may have winners and losers, in aggregate, everyone spends more.... because that is the only thing 60% of them agree on.

Without some sort of PR electoral system at minimum, and probably a switch to a parliamentary system, we probably aren't going to see it.

But I would absolutely support both of those changes.

And they may be more achievable than you might think. Conventional wisdom has it that in order to switch to a parliamentary system, we'd have to amend the Constitution. But we know that it's really a living document which evolves with society to address contemporary needs as they are perceived. As long as five justices believe in their hearts that a law is a good idea, the question of whether it comports with the language of some musty old document is easily finessed. "Amendments" are so 20th Century!

(09-29-2015 09:47 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 01:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 09:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:40 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for rejecting compromise of any sort, that is certainly not limited to republicans. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have been at least as unwilling to make genuine compromise with republicans as republicans have with them.

Sorry, but I think that's fundamentally not true.

Sorry, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Period.

Agreed. It's not even a close call.

And you guys are entitled to your fundamentally wrong opinions. ;-)

I'll just say again, talking to friends in the field who are empiricists and data guys who analyze voting (elections and legislatures) and survey data, and also to non-Tea Party *Republicans* working in politics currently, I think once this period is far enough in the past for detached analysis the consensus will be that Republicans are going through a very atypical period where a large enough minority were so opposed to any compromise that they were unable to function as a governing party.

And social scientists are *never* wrong. And write even worse run on sentences than the one above.

Let's meet back here in 50 years and see who is right.

Let me just say that my brother the political science professor, who's one of those guys who analyzes voting and survey data, would say you're fundamentally wrong....

(10-01-2015 01:28 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:47 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 01:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 09:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:40 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, but I think that's fundamentally not true.

Sorry, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Period.

Agreed. It's not even a close call.

And you guys are entitled to your fundamentally wrong opinions. ;-)

I'll just say again, talking to friends in the field who are empiricists and data guys who analyze voting (elections and legislatures) and survey data, and also to non-Tea Party *Republicans* working in politics currently, I think once this period is far enough in the past for detached analysis the consensus will be that Republicans are going through a very atypical period where a large enough minority were so opposed to any compromise that they were unable to function as a governing party.

And social scientists are *never* wrong. And write even worse run on sentences than the one above.

Let's meet back here in 50 years and see who is right.

Let me just say that my brother the political science professor, who's one of those guys who analyzes voting and survey data, would say you're fundamentally wrong....

Which is why I added the very tongue-in-cheek sentence about social scientists never being wrong. : ) My main point was just to say that my thoughts on this is not about "my team good, your team bad" but an attempt to look more systematically. Of course people doing that can *still* come up with different conclusions...

Anecdotally, yesterday 2/3 of House Republicans voted to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, even though polls show the majority of Americans oppose defunding Planned Parenthood, let alone shutting down the freakin' government over it. And based on discredited "sting" videos at that. Sorry, that's not a party that's serious about governing or compromise. (Yes, I realize it was a free vote for many of them b/c the outcome was determined.)