Democratic Convention: Day 2
From a New York Times article:
Wednesday night is attack night. Elizabeth Warren, who is trying to unseat Senator Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, will offer up her particular brand of Democratic-base appeal, while former President Bill Clinton will play the part of Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential candidate who slammed Mr. Obama in Tampa, Fla., on Wednesday night. Expect to hear a broad takedown of the Republican agenda.
Last week, we heard Republicans repeatedly asking the question Reagan posed in 1980: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? In preparation for tonight’s festivities, let’s take a look at where we were in September of 2008.
That was the month President George W. Bush told us the economy was about to collapse. Big banks went under, and several others were about to go. Bush wanted a trillion dollars to be given to his Treasury Secretary, without strings, to be handed out as he saw fit to avoid the crisis.
John McCain suspended his campaign to deal with the emergency. Barack Obama, proving he could walk and chew gum, led the discussions in Washington, and helped to structure the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) which brought America back from the brink of collapse — without suspending himself.
American jobs were being shed at half a million each months, the record being set in January of 2009, in which nearly 800,000 jobs were lost in that month alone. In total, the Great Recession lost us around eight million jobs.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was on its way down from over 14,000 to its floor, in March of 2009, of about 6,500. General Motors and Chrysler were about to go bankrupt. Lending froze; banks simply stopped making loans. Home values began plummeting.
America was still fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Afghan war had gone on for nearly seven years. It could have ended much sooner, but President Bush decided to invade Iraq, shifting resources away and allowing Osama bin Laden to escape. We should have had active troops in neither war. Already, we’d wasted over a trillion dollars, and lost more American lives than had been killed in the September 11 attacks seven years previously.
The American health care system was in shambles. Both major parties had put forth proposals for repair, and health care reform was a major issue in the general campaign.
President Bush had turned the $300 billion Clinton surpluses into $400 billion deficits. In fiscal 2009, which began in October of 2008, and had been running for over three months before President Obama was sworn in, would see a Bush deficit of around $1.5 trillion (originally estimated at $1.7 trillion, but reduced by President Obama in its last few months to around $1.4 trillion).
Where are we today?
Of the eight million jobs lost in the Great Recession, we’ve gotten over four million back (compared to about one million jobs created during the entire eight years of the Bush Administration). We’ve had twenty-seven months of private sector job growth. The economy has grown every month for nearly three years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled its value from its March, 2009, low…and is now around 13,000. We’re well on the way to coming back from the worst economic crisis in nearly eighty years.
President Obama helped push through a major financial reform bill, including the creation of a financial consumer protection agency. We now have a major health care reform bill, a goal for presidents back to Theodore Roosevelt. The Iraq War is done; there are no American combat troops in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is winding down. Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.
More: Pell grants have been expanded, to allow more Americans to go to college. Important protections have been enacted for women and minorities. A major arms treaty with Russia has been signed — and approved by the Senate. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been repealed, and for the first time, gay and lesbian troops can serve in the American armed forces without fear of a court martial.
Banks are loaning again. The housing market is rebounding. Home sales are up, prices are beginning to recover, and new home starts are rising. More construction jobs are being created than at any time since the 1990s.
America’s borders are safer than they’ve ever been. More people who were in the country illegally have been deported than under George Bush. But young adults who were brought to America illegally as children, and who have been good neighbors while here, can pursue a college degree and can work here without fear of deportation.
Crises in Egypt and Libya were handed deftly and with skill; in Libya, the President forged an international consensus to see to the fall of Moammar Gadhafi, whereas in Egypt, the President helped to ensure that Hosni Mubarak was deposed by the Egyptian people themselves, without outside interference.
They Gulf oil spill was contained, and those responsible are being held to account, the cleanup proceeding apace, and managed responsibly. Contrast this with the disaster and inept disregard of the Bush Administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina.
And all this has been accomplished despite unyielding and inflexible opposition from the Republican Party. As only one example: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed with not a single Republican vote in the House, and only three in the Senate — and this Act has been instrumental in helping to create four million jobs and to bring America back from an almost certain second Great Depression.
The President had a filibuster-proof sixty votes in the Senate for just under six months (from July 7, when Senator Al Franken was sworn in, to August 25, when Senator Edward Kennedy died, and from September 25, when Senator Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy, to February 4, when Senator Scott Brown took office)…not that Senate Democrats have always been coöperative either; the term “herding cats” was undoubtedly coined for these people. Outside of that brief period, Republicans in the Senate have been able to block any legislation they wanted to, and they’ve made it plain they want to block everything.
The President prevented a second complete fiscal meltdown in the summer of 2011, when Congressional Republicans threatened to allow America to default on its fiscal responsibilities for the first time in history. President Obama brokered a deal — by no means a perfect one, but the only one that could be accepted by the opposition party.
Are we better off than we were four years ago? There’s no question of that. Nor is there any question of a rather impressive record behind this President. One can assume Republicans don’t approve of these achievements. But no one can pretend that the achievements are either meager or minor.
I expect these achievements to be highlighted tonight and tomorrow night, along with the contrast between the direction they represent and the direction Mitt Romney would take us.
As Michael noted yesterday, Democrats have been slow to publish the schedules of the Convention’s three nights. One thing we do know is that The Big Dog, former president Bill Clinton, will speak tonight, and will nominate President Obama’s for reëlection. We will strive to update this article with the schedule as it becomes available.
We encourage you to join in tonight’s discussion.
(Added: Below are some highlights of tonight’s schedule. It’s a crowded field.)
5:00 PM EDT
- Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois
- Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado
- John A. Pérez, speaker of the California State Assembly
- Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino
- Rep. Judy Chu of California
- Steve Westly, former state controller and CFO of California
- An Economy Built to Last video: Small Business
- Rep. John Larson of Connecticut
- Deputy Sheriff Ken Myers, Carroll County, Iowa
6:00 PM EDT
- Richard Trumka, president, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
- Rep. Steve Israel of New York
- Sen. Patty Murray of Washington
- Pedro R. Pierluisi, non-voting member of U.S. House, resident commissioner of Puerto Rico
- An Economy Build to Last video: Energy
- Tom Steyer, co-founder of Advanced Energy Economy
- Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York
- Rep. Karen Bass of California
- Rep. Al Green of Texas
- Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri
- Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy
7:00 PM EDT
- Denise Juneau, superintendent of the Montana Office of Public Instruction
- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California
- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack
- Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
- Education Secretary Arne Duncan
- Progress for People video: Education
- American Voices: Johanny Adames
- Former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt
- Video: in memoriam
- Harvey B. Gantt, former mayor of Charlotte, N.C.
8:00 PM EDT
- Stronger Together video: Women’s Health
- Cecile Richards, president, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
- Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland
- Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts
- American Heroes video: Veterans
- Gen. Eric Shinseki
- Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
- Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
- Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Roman Catholic Social Justice Organization, NETWORK
- Delaware Gov. Jack Markell
9:00 PM EDT
- Karen Mills
- American Voices: Bill Butcher
- California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
- Benita Veliz, DREAM Act activist
- Cristina Saralegui, journalist, actress and talk show host
- Sandra Fluke, attorney and women’s rights activist
- Austin Ligon, co-founder and former CEO of CarMax Inc.
- American Voices: Karen Eusanio
- UAW President Bob King
- Randy Johnson, Cindy Hewitt and David Foster: former employees at companies controlled by Romney’s Bain Capital
- Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland
10:00 PM EDT
- Jim Sinegal, co-founder and former CEO of Costco
- Elizabeth Warren, candidate for Senate in Massachusetts
- Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, chair of the 2012 Democratic National Convention Committee
- Former President Bill Clinton
Related articles
- GOP Claims Credit for Bin Laden’s Death but Not For Nation’s Deficit? (ireport.cnn.com)
- Can Obama sell Romney as a Bursh retread to a divided nation? (capitolhillblue.com)
- Obama Lays Foundation for Speech Stressing Choices (bloomberg.com)
- The Truth About Who’s Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending (businessinsider.com)
- Obama campaign to highlight drawdowns in Iraq, Afghanistan (thehill.com)
- Gallup: GOP convention had “minimal impact” on voter attitudes (blogs.mcclatchydc.com)
- Romney has no ‘single new idea’: Obama — NEWS.com.au (news.com.au)

This entry was posted by dcpetterson on September 5, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Reelection Watch. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
Now what % of people are gay and why should we change the marriage definition for their weirdness?
We should allow them to marry because doing so does not deprive anyone of health care. It does not, in fact, affect anyone but them.
Allowing iron-age religious fanatics to dictate women’s health care affects far more than the oh-so-delicate sensibilities of said fanatics. It affects everyone in the entire nation. It endangers the health of millions, and raises everyone’s insurance costs. It is also a violation of the “establishment” clause of the First Amendment.
But thanks for the utter non sequitur.
-
@rgb… Now what % of people are gay and why should we change the marriage definition for their weirdness?
A clever argument, but it fails to distinguish between permissive and coercive policy.
Support for gay marriage is a policy that permits people to act according to the way they have been created. Denial of contraception coerces women to bear children they don’t want.
People whose political inclination is supposedly based on FREEDOM should be strongly supportive of permissive policies (where nobody else is harmed) and strongly opposed to coercive ones (where innocent people are harmed.)
-
#204 written by parksie555 9 months ago
Well, I hardly think allowing certain religious institutions to follow their own beliefs in developing their health insurance plans with regards to contraception qualifies as “allowing bigoted and backward religious zealots to dictate health care for the entire nation”, but maybe that’s just me.
Don’t like what your health insurance plan offers? Go get another one.
-
Mule,
Separate topic, and so separate reply from me…You pointed to the WaPo fact check article. I found their analyses to be particularly revealing.
- Job creation: The best we can conclude for Republicans, then, is that neither party does better than the other.
- Investments in education, infrastructure, and R&D: So Republicans are wrong on education and infrastructure, and the only thing we need to do for R&D is make a minor change in how we distribute the resources, a far cry from “shut it down”.
- Chicago infrastructure bank: The truth, then, makes Republicans look worse. Nice.
- Pentagon budget: It’s definitely an exaggeration, though not one that changes the underlying message. (i.e., had he used the WaPo number, it would still have been damning)
- Manufacturing jobs: You really have to get nitpicky to say “July of 2000 isn’t in the 1990s”. Again, had the exact date been used, it would have remained as damning.
- Renewable energy: It’s a true statement, though not necessarily in the way one would immediately think of it.
- Unfilled jobs: This is the only one that seems to be simply untrue. I have no idea where it came from.
- Lower health insurance premium rises: Yep, it’s true. And here Clinton does something he has done many times in the past…juxtaposing and leaving the causality to the listener. He’s really good at that. But the unanswered question (not just by Clinton, but by everyone) is why healthcare inflation dropped so much.
- Welfare: Once again, the truth makes Republicans look worse, not better.
Seems to me like we have a grand total of one genuinely false claim, and its presence or absence doesn’t really say much about Republicans in general. A far cry from the stuff we saw last week.
But, you’re right, I hadn’t seen the WaPo article, and thus didn’t realize that there were two potential “bad” factual falsehoods.
-
#206 written by rgbact 9 months ago
-
#207 written by rgbact 9 months ago
-
@filistro
I’m still curious about what makes contraception “morally objectionable.”
There are two types of contraception. One type prevents the fertilization of an egg (this is “true” contraception, because it prevents conception). The other type prevents a fertilized egg from being implanted. Examples of the first are diaphragms, condoms, and some forms of chemical medication that (for instance) prevent eggs from maturing and being released from the ovaries. Examples of the second type are IUD’s and various substances that cause menstruation or that make the uterine wall unsuitable for implantation.
Many religious organizations consider the second type of contraception to be a form of abortion, and object to it on that grounds — the egg has been fertilized, and thus it is already a human life. Those religious groups that object to the first form as well do so pretty much for the reason you described:
It has to be based in the belief that every sex act should result in
the creation of a human being, or else it is sin. Therefore, to be
morally consistent, these people MUST believe that non-procreative sex
is immoral. Is that their actual belief? If so, what is that belief based on?And yes, such religious groups do generally disapprove of sex that is not procreative in intent and nature. This is the basis for “sodomy laws”, for objections to homosexuality, for condemnation of masturbation, for distaste for “recreational sex” or “casual sex”, for disapproval of sex outside of marriage, etc. etc.
The Biblical justification for this is the phrase in Genesis, “be fruitful and multiply” (that is taken as the only purpose of sex), and the conviction that “original sin” was the discovery of sex (i.e., sex = sin, so you are only allowed to do it in certain, proscribed circumstances — and even then, your children need to have the stain of your sin in your creation of them removed, i.e., they need to be “baptized”).
I’m just a reporter here, not pushing the viewpoint, nor attempting a criticism of it.
-
#209 written by parksie555 9 months ago
Filly, I have no idea what they believe in with regards to sex and religion, and I don’t think it is any of my business.
Nonetheless I don’t think it is right for the government to tell them that they must disregard their belief just because others want to pay less for their contraception.
If their beliefs were such that they fired someone from their organization because they used contraception, or they wouldn’t offer Protestants health care because they disgree with their religion, than I agree that the government has a role to force them to change their ways.
But I don’t think government intervention is required just because they don’t want to pay for or partially subsidize birth control.
It’s a legitimate position, one shared by President Obama. Shared by President Obama after getting considerable pushback on his proposed legislation, of course.
-
-
#211 written by Max 9 months ago
Awww, dc,
Now why’d’ja have to go and TELL him the differences? You know how much you difference you made by doing so? Now you done gone and embarrassed the young man in front of this whole forum. How unfair of you! What a weasel-worded way to argue; listing the facts! C’mon! Stop picking on the guy. Besides, do you think the facts changed his mind?
” … spurious…”
Whaddaya mean “Spurious”? What’s the South Carolina football coach got to do with the stock market?
Anyway, can any of you conclusively PROVE a lack of correlation? After all, we know the old saw, “imagined causation proves correlation”.
(signed) Max aka knucklehead
-
#212 written by BritinSeattle 9 months ago
Actually @parksie555 I think you have a point about health insurance. Or you would have if the health insurance and job markets were really as flexible as you seem to think they are.
But I notice that you don’t reply to my question about the broader question of other forms of employer-mandated religious observance, which is in my opinion the heart of the topic here.
-
Well, I hardly think allowing certain religious institutions to follow
their own beliefs in developing their health insurance plans with
regards to contraception qualifies as “allowing bigoted and backward
religious zealots to dictate health care for the entire nation”, but
maybe that’s just me.Well, if you have been following the development of the law, you’d realize that religious institutions are already perfectly free to develop their own health insurance plans. So if that’s your complaint, you can drop it, because churches are already exempt from the requirement. What the controversy consists of is Republicans trying to extend that exemption everywhere else.
-
#214 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
“Many Christians (in my mind, an astonishing number) are in favor of causing the actions in Revelations to occur. The most visible example of this is where that group supports a strong Israel, not because they care about the Jews (in fact, they’re looking forward to the Jews being left behind in the Rapture), but because it’s one of the steps in Revelations, and they seem to want to hurry it along.
Why is this? It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Not sure if I’ve observed this enough or to the same degree to be able to comment on it. I mean, I think I see what you’re getting at in a broader sense, that many Christians come off as being a little too “apocalyptic.” But I think it’s less that they earnestly want to “hurry it along” and more are just firm in their convictions and see the inevitability of world events.
And any Christian selfishly supporting Israel just to turn their back on the Jews (and evidently find delight that they’re not really the “chosen few”) in “crunch time” should go back and re-read the passages where it talks about things coming full circle with many Christians falling out of favor with God and the Jews ascending as his chose people again (all that about grafting and re-grafting). And also in Romans 11 where Paul says, “And so all Israel will be saved.”
Other than that, I don’t have much.
-
-
#216 written by parksie555 9 months ago
It’s a question of degree, Brit-in-Seattle. See my response to Filly above.
To me some things require government intervention to set right.
Health care insurance paying for contraception ain’t one of those things.
Only bacon in the cafeteria? Maybe.
Won’t hire because of someone’s religion ? Definitely.
Forces others to observe your religion as a condition of employment? Definitely.
-
#217 written by parksie555 9 months ago
-
#218 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
-
parksie,
So if I say what I believe that is partisan poison?
Nope. It’s not the what. It’s the how.
Would it have been possible for me to disagree with Ms. Fluke vis contraception and who pays for it without being partisan?
Perhaps not.
What positions have I taken in the past that are non-partisan?
None that I can think of.
You’re focusing on the wrong word. Hint: it’s not “partisan”.
-
#220 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#221 written by Max 9 months ago
“ “Man,its staggering how differently liberals and conservatives think.”
Calling it “staggering” is just the tip of the iceberg. ”
On this we can wholeheartedly agree!
Example: rgbact’s inability to even recognize dc’s Medicare tutorial. Much less admit his failure to communicate.
(signed) Max aka knucklehead
-
They are free to develop their own plans only after Catholics raised a
stink about it and threatened Obama’s vote share.Wrong.
They were free to develop their own plans before that as well — that is, religious institutions were already exempt from the requirement to cover contraception.
The rules as they existed allowed for negotiating extensions to those exemptions, and the deadline for doing that negotiation was sometime next year. A couple of religious organizations (many of which were already paying for contraception) wanted to hold those negotiations sooner rather than later, and pretended they were being “forced” to do something they were not being forced to do. So the exemptions were extended to some business which are run by the religious institutions, and which insure themselves (rather than contract with an insurance company to do it.)
Fluke obviously didn’t think much of the compromise.
Wrong again.
What Fluke rightly objects to is the attempt to extend the compromise beyond the existing limits. I have to ask — did you listen to her speech?
-
-
#224 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#225 written by parksie555 9 months ago
-
@parksie… Don’t like what your health insurance plan offers? Go get another one.
As Brit has already pointed out to you, lofty dismissals like that or your earlier one: “Don;t like your employer’s stance on coverage? Get a different job” both reek of the “Let them eat cake” attitude that makes a lot of people loathe Republicans.
There are millions of Americans who CAN’T get another insurance plan, and count themselves lucky every day they manage to hang onto the one they have. Ditto for their job. Let them eat cake, the Republicans say.
And there are millions of women who can’t afford the $50 to 90 average monthly cost for birth control (lots of women are allergic and need the expensive kind that can run as high as $200/month plus the cost of the doctor’s visit to get the prescription.) Republicans say, Let them eat cake. It’s their own fault that they’re women and are married to men who selfishly demand sex all the time.
And then Republicans sit around mocking and insulting Sandra Fluke for getting fired up over this issue, and wonder why there’s a gender gap.
In November when they’re all crying in their beer and bemoaning the “media bias” that “stole” a winnable election from them, I hope they will have plentiful supplies of cake on hand.
-
rgbact,
I’m hardly a cheerleader, at least no more than you are. Sorry, I think even you admitted the Dems have a small bench.
And that makes me a cheerleader? I don’t get it.
I suspect you might even agree that Dems needed to jazz their base up more than the GOP.
I don’t. I think both needed it equally, though for different reasons. And, by that metric, it appears that the Democrats have been more successful than the Republicans this fortnight. Mitt Romney (and the Republican Party by extension) has squandered a tremendous opportunity this cycle. By all rights, this should have been a Republican romp. In fact, Mr. Generic Republican was leading in the polls as long as he was running. It’s a shame (for the Republican Party, anyway) that he wasn’t able to beat Romney in the primaries.
I just don’t remember many pro-life or gun rights speakers at the RNC.
Not very many gun rights speakers, but plenty of abortion opponents. None were there exclusively on the topic, in the way that the NARAL President was for the Democrats, but the subject came up many times.
I wouldn’t even know which speaker would address issues like the debt crises or entitlement reforms or the sluggish economy.
That would be Clinton.
Bill Clinton I at least credit as being intelligent, but what good is it to rehash history?
He spent very little time on history. To the extent that he did, it was to observe that there used to be a time when bipartisan legislation was the norm.
-
C’mon dc. If they were being forced to “negotiate an extension”,
doesn’t that imply at some point that they would have had to pony up?“Had to”? Only if you define “accepting a compromise through a negotiation that was already anticipated and scheduled” as being the same as “having to pony up.”
Why do conservatives imagine that “compromise” is a four-letter word? Why are they all (these days) so devoid of the ability to see any other viewpoint, so inflexible and unyielding and partisan and unwilling to come to the table?
And then they have the brass to accuse President Obama of being partisan.
-
#229 written by Max 9 months ago
“
I hardly think allowing certain religious institutions to follow their own beliefs in developing their health insurance plans “And there is absolutely NOTHING to prevent them from doing exactly that within the context of their churches or any other endeavor where they exclusively admit their own believers.
The difference occurs when they enter the “open” market, admitting and hiring “outsiders” into their PUBLIC institution. That is where they cross the line from a purely religious entity into a public one.
-
#230 written by rgbact 9 months ago
And that makes me a cheerleader? I don’t get it.
You’re a partisan just like me. You think Obama will win easily,I think Romney will win easily. If I’m a cheerleader,so are you. I think you’ve proven this week you can be just as biased as the next person.
By all rights, this should have been a Republican romp
Not really. Even Reagan trailed Carter at this point, and Romney was never going to top that. The best Romney could ever hope for is to beat Obama by say 5%. He may still get fairly close.
That would be Clinton.
Sadly, he’s not on the ballot and hasn’t been for 12 years now. So, its a nice pep rally for Democrats,but not very relevant to anything.
-
#231 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#232 written by rgbact 9 months ago
-
#233 written by parksie555 9 months ago
By all rights this should have been a Democratic romp.
First of all you had a Democratic incumbent.
Secondly you had a candidate whose personal favorability numbers have stayed high throughout his adminstration despite steadily declining job approval numbers.
Thirdly you had a candidate that took office right at the bottom of a business cycle. The economy couldn’t help but get better on his watch.
Fourthly you had a candidate that could take credit for ending a war that had been won by the previous administration.
However you also had a candidate that focused on an unpopular health care law, alternative energy, gay marriage, and other things that are not real high on the priority lists of most middle class Americans.
That’s the only reason it’s close.
-
Sadly, he’s not on the ballot and hasn’t been for 12 years now. So, its a
nice pep rally for Democrats,but not very relevant to anything.After talking about the need to “rev up the base”, you say someone who does so isn’t relevant.
But put that aside. President Clinton’s ability to counter each and every argument and lie Republicans have made in the last two years means that it will be a bit harder for Republicans to continue getting away with it. You can’t hide your Ryan’ Lies anymore. They’ve all been successfully and cogently countered.
That means, across America right now, and increasingly for the next two months, people around the water coolers and over backyard fences, will be realizing who has been telling the truth and who hasn’t. It might or might not convince any Republican partisans to stop supporting liars and thieves. It’s hard to tell if any of them are open to realizing how badly they’ve been scammed. But for that small sliver with still an open mind, this could be the decider, and that sliver could put a couple of states in one bucket or the other.
And even those few Republicans who aren’t actually convinced of anything may become a bit more dispirited when the lies of their candidates are so effectively revealed. And on the other side, there is a new energy for Democratic candidates and their supporters, who definitely have the fire of actual data and logic on their side — data and logic as presented by an immensely gifted orator.
Go ahead and convince yourself that The Big Dog is irrelevant. It’s a nice alternate universe you live in, I’m sure.
-
#237 written by Max 9 months ago
-
@Grog
Not to change the subject, but how does this tragedy happen in France, a country where automatic pistols are banned?
Because no one ever claimed that it is possible to stop all tragedies. It has been claimed that it is possible to make them less common.
By the way, since automatic pistols are banned in France, I wonder from which country the pistol was obtained, and whether it would make a difference for such weapons to be banned worldwide? What do you think?
-
#241 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#242 written by rgbact 9 months ago
President Clinton’s ability to counter each and every argument and lie Republicans have made in the last two years means
Setting aside the picture of having the guy impeached for perjury being the new truth squad.….I’ve still not seen any “Ryan lies” refuted. Btw DC, I saw your Medicare post. Nice effort, although you’re off on many things. I may post responses sometime after convention.
Go ahead and convince yourself that The Big Dog is irrelevant.
He’s as relevant as Reagan is to a Romney campaign. Nice nostalgia,but ultimately it makes you wish you had him instead of the guy thats running.
“OK. Let’s.”
The national poll that shows them tied I mean. Yes,Obama can in theory win like 9 states by 0.5% and it would be a “landslide”.
-
#244 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#245 written by GROG 9 months ago
DC,
Because no one ever claimed that it is possible to stop all tragedies. It has been claimed that it is possible to make them less common.
Any one can claim anything. Having evidence to back up the claim tricky part.
By the way, since automatic pistols are banned in France, I wonder from which country the pistol was obtained, and whether it would make a difference for such weapons to be banned worldwide? What do you think?
What? Some kind of New World Order in which all automatic weapons are banned? No, I don’t think that would end well. -
-
Any one can claim anything. Having evidence to back up the claim tricky part.
And since no one made the claim that the tragedy in France wouldn’t be possible, your comment about it was pretty pointless, yes?
And yes, it is tricky to get data when the policy that would produce the needed data isn’t allowed to happen.
What? Some kind of New World Order in which all automatic weapons are banned? No, I don’t think that would end well.
Not a “new world order”, more of a “treaty”, like we have with copyright or child porn. Doesn’t matter, I suppose, since it won’t happen anyway. You can make love to your automatic weapon all you want, and I wish you well. The Beatles said it best… “Happiness is a Warm Gun”. Bang, bang, shoot shoot.
-
#248 written by GROG 9 months ago
DC,
The criticisms of him aren’t bashing him for “being rich”,
There have been plenty of criticisms bashing him for “being rich”. The way he got rich. The way he took money from other people to get rich. How he was handed his wealth. How he can’t relate to the common man because of his wealth.
but for having policies that benefit only the rich, policies that harm the nation as a whole.
That’s your partisan belief. Conservative policies are designed to create prosperity for all Americans — for the nation as a whole. We’ve been the most economically conservative and capitalistic nation in the developed world for the past 230 plus years, and we’ve also been the most prosperous. We conservatives do not think that’s a coincidence.
-
#249 written by BritinSeattle 9 months ago
@parksie555 It’s a question of degree, Brit-in-Seattle. See my response to Filly above.
To me some things require government intervention to set right.
The problem is that ‘questions of degree’ are very difficult to legislate for, unless you want to make a specific law for every single tiny instance of employer-mandated religious observance in the public marketplace ie. one law for birth control, one law for hijab wearing, one law for bacon in the cafeteria etc. etc.
I’m also willing to bet that the things I have a problem with are very different from the things you have a problem with, so even agreeing all these pieces of specific legislation would be supremely difficult.
Far better I think to have blanket legislation making it impossible for any employer to impose their religious beliefs, whatever they may be, on their employees. PERIOD. After all, no one is forcing members of the Catholic Church to use birth control themselves. All anyone is asking is that they show tolerance for and accommodation of religious and personal beliefs which might be different from their own.
-
#250 written by dawolf 9 months ago
@grog
most conservative and most prosperous in the last 230 years? How prospetous were you during the great depression? are you richer, healthier, with a higher standard of living and more prosperous than say sweden or denmark? were you more prosperous than britain before the first world war?
-
#251 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
“We’ve been the most economically conservative.…”
Not to nitpick your word usage, but actually we’ve been among the most economically liberal, which tends to be supported by those who are more politically conservative. A classical economic liberal tends to favor free market solutions, argue for free trade, defend property rights, and otherwise support individualism rather than collectivism in economic choice.
I knew what you mean, but I just wanted to point that out to help illustrate how this has influenced word meanings and usage over time.
-
#252 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
“most conservative and most prosperous in the last 230 years?”
“Most” implies being at the absolute top.…but while it would be hard to quantify exactly who’s been the “most” of anything during that time period, it’s without question that we’re in very select company near the top.
“How prospetous were you during the great depression?”
Not that many people didn’t struggle mightily during that time period, but it’s not as if this nation’s wealth and prosperity vanished overnight. Look at the broader trend rather than isolate a time period in which many people around the world suffered, many much more than we did in the US.
“are you richer, healthier, with a higher standard of living and more prosperous than say sweden or denmark?”
Would they have an equal or better standard of living with the same exact economic system if it had to support 310 million people with a fairly diverse ethnic background.
“were you more prosperous than britain before the first world war?”
Funny that you would mention Britain given that as their economy has trended more and more collectivist the past century, their economic might and influence has also waned.
-
#253 written by dawolf 9 months ago
-
There have been plenty of criticisms bashing him for “being rich”.
No, there haven’t. None that I’ve seen, certainly.
Conservative policies are designed to create prosperity for all Americans – for the nation as a whole.
…provided you believe that with sufficient bribes given to the “job creators,” then magically the Jobs Fairy will give you untold riches.
However, if you live in the Real World(tm) it’s plain that this didn’t work, and there’s no reason to think it will. The effects of cutting taxes for the people who don’t need tax cuts is that we run up enormous federal deficits, and the gap between the top 1% and everyone else continues to increase exponentially.
-
A classical economic liberal tends to favor free market solutions,
argue for free trade, defend property rights, and otherwise support
individualism rather than collectivism in economic choice.Is it really an either-or binary choice? Is there nothing in the middle?
I’d say there’s a huge area in the middle, and anyone who pushes for either extreme is — well, an extremist.
Fortunately, our current President is rather centrist in this regard. He is a strong supporter of, and firm believer in, the power of capitalism and private enterprise. But he also recognizes that there are vital and necessary functions that must be done by We the People though sane governance.
-
-
#257 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
“No, there haven’t. None that I’ve seen, certainly.”
You must’ve been doing laundry when Richard Trumka was speaking yesterday evening.
“Is it really an either-or binary choice? Is there nothing in the middle?”
Of course there’s a choice. I was just defining what that one term meant and correcting GROG for conflating politically conservative and economically liberal. But, yes, there are multitudes of classifications. What you’re suggesting is someone who supports a “mixed economy.” Though I don’t know that there’s an actual term for such person, except maybe casually as an “economic centrist.”
“That’s hard to say. There’s only one way to find out, isn’t there?”
Yes, it is, and I’m afraid we’re headed in that direction.…and that it’s going to be a failure of epic proportions.
-
You must’ve been doing laundry when Richard Trumka was speaking yesterday evening.
I’ve heard Trumka before, and I heard much of his speech yesterday. Now, I do sometimes miss nuance, but he seemed to me to be talking about policy, and whether policies favor the rich rather than working people — that is, he seemed to me to be lamenting the class warfare that Republicans have been waging for the last thirty years. The point, from the bits I heard, wasn’t “Rich is Bad!” but “Trickle-down and bashing working people doesn’t improve the economy.” YMMV.
-
#259 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
#260 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
“He is a strong supporter of, and firm believer in, the power of capitalism and private enterprise. But he also recognizes that there are vital and necessary functions that must be done by We the People though sane governance.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
The faction you labelled “extremists” right above that have a similar view.
“Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals (most often the poor).”
“Theories in support of economic liberalism were developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith, which advocates minimal interference of government in a market economy, though it does not necessarily oppose the state’s provision of a few basic public goods with what constitutes public goods originally being seen as very limited in scope.”
“While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.”
But lumping in Obama and most Democrats in with what I described above feels awfully dubious.
-
Mule, I’ve said it many times. We all feel that private enterprise is good, and that there must be some sane regulation. We also agree there are some things (examples: roads, police) that government must do. We differ only on details. So let’s stop demonizing each other, and find some common ground, something based on reason and experience and need and pragmatism.
-
-
#263 written by BritinSeattle 9 months ago
@GROG We’ve been the most economically conservative and capitalistic nation in the developed world for the past 230 plus years, and we’ve also been the most prosperous. We conservatives do not think that’s a coincidence.
Yes, true fiscally conservative economic policies (of which I am a fan) did indeed lead to increased prosperity for the US, but the recent (in 230 year terms) obsession with trickle-down has brought that prosperity to a grinding halt.
After a thirty-year long experiment there is not one single shred of evidence that it works as a recipe for general prosperity and should now be viewed as what is is — a hit and run moneygrab by the 1%.
There was a time when I was prepared to give trickledown the benefit of the doubt, but to continue doing so now when it has been so thoroughly and comprehensively disproven is not ‘fiscal conservatism’ but ‘sheer lunacy’.
-
BritinSeattle,
The big hole in the middle of “supply side” economics is the belief that consumers can buy things if they don’t have jobs.
The whole theory is predicated on a false concept. If a business builds something, it will inevitably sell, and will sell at a profit. Therefore, if a business has excess cash, it will build something, and thus will make profit. Thus, if you give business more money, it will build, and profit will pour in.
The problem is that if no one has money to buy the built-thing with, then that built-thing will not be bought. And business people are not stoopid. They know well that if consumers have no money, then there will be no purchases. Therefore, businesspeople will not spend the money to build things, if there are no potential purchasers.
Only a member of the wealthy gentry can imagine an economic philosophy so absurd. Only someone who always has excess cash can imagine that built things will always be bought. Only someone who doesn’t have to actually work for a living — and hasn’t had to for a few generations — can fail to understand the simple, basic truth.
If there are no consumers, there is no economy.
All economies are demand-driven. Always. There never has been, and never will be, a supply-side economy.
Never.
-
rgbact,
You’re a partisan just like me.
I’m a Democrat, but I’m not a partisan. There is a difference.
You think Obama will win easily,I think Romney will win easily.
I think Obama will win. I don’t think he’ll win “easily”. Clinton won reëlection easily. Reagan won reëlection easily. W did not. I expect Obama to win about as easily as W did.
If I’m a cheerleader, so are you.
Not at all. I’m perfectly willing to criticize Democrats, and to praise Republicans. You haven’t been willing to do the opposite. So, no, you don’t get to drag me down with you.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About dcpetterson (194 posts)
D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He is the author of A Melancholy Humour, Rune Song and Still Life. He lives with his wife, two dogs, two cats, and a lizard, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar and piano, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts—for fun. Follow on Twitter @dcpetterson






The point is, do his policies hurt or help the women of America?
I get that many people become locked in to personal issues, and seem unable to graduate from that to public policy. It shows not only in cases like this, but in, for instance, discussions of Romney. The criticisms of him aren’t bashing him for “being rich”, but for having policies that benefit only the rich, policies that harm the nation as a whole. Yet conservatives can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that discussions of wealth aren’t matters of personal “envy”, but of the effects of public policy on the economy and on the nation’s economic future.
I don’t know if this is an inability to look beyond petty personal issues, or an unwillingness to acknowledge that personal pettiness isn’t the issue. Are people being blind, or dishonest? I really don’t know the answer to that, and I wish I did.