Thread in which the world laughs at America

[giblets]

Didn't you just make a moral judgement that doing the greatest good for the greatest number is preferable?

[Zevico]

Didn't you just make a moral judgement that doing the greatest good for the greatest number is preferable?

If you wish to call it that I suppose you can. But it is more than a moral judgement, but also a frank statement of support for evidence-based reasoning as opposed to "think of the children and think of all those rights" nonsense. Rights, after all, are what come about after people dispute and prove the necessity of their existence. Not before. It is also, to my mind, more realistic.

Quite plainly, support for or opposition to, health care does not make you either a bugbear or a saint. Much the same is true for practically every political position. It is simply a political opinion.

An example: Communism, in practice, is an evil; it does not follow that Communists, generally, are evil. Even in the Soviet Union there were Communists, albeit at the lowest rungs of the party, who possessed a conscience. The reason the upper levels of the party were practically devoid of them is not a result of the Communist political ideology, but rather the fact that, in practice, this ideology created a structure that encouraged and facilitated the ascension of those most ambitious, reckless, and those without moral scruples, to the top of the political hierarchy.

It is one thing to say that a policy will have disastrous consequences and quite another to say that those who propose it are evil or subhuman. In fact, such a tactic was the favoured rhetorical tool of Communist parties, whose basic characterisation of anyone who disagreed with them was that they were racist, immoral, fascists and so forth. Such a method shuts down debate and forces or creates a "with us or against us" mentality, a polarisation of politics wherein everyone sees everyone else as not a fellow citizen but an enemy.

It is for that reason that I so stridently oppose the injection of this disastrous, irrational and unworthy rhetorical tool into practically any political debate. It is dangerous to think of those with which we disagree, particularly on economic issues, as immoral, whatever opinion we may entertain on the consequences of the policies they advocate.

[DaShi]

Is it just me or is Zevico appearing more and more immoral in every post he makes? No wonder he's trying to remove this from the equation.

[C0ckney]

If you wish to call it that I suppose you can. But it is more than a moral judgement

it is a moral judgement you insufferable bore. there are several different views on what is moral and you made a moral judgement that the utilitarian approach is better.

[Zevico]

it is a moral judgement you insufferable bore. there are several different views on what is moral and you made a moral judgement that the utilitarian approach is better.

I never argued otherwise. When I say "it is more than that" I do not refer to its merits, rather I explain the downsides of rights-based thinking--precisely because it leads to a polarisation of politics for no apparent benefit, where one side and the other call one another demons. Instead of listening to and considering alternative views they stamp their feet and cry out about immorality. That's not a beneficial way of approaching political analysis.

In this instance, for example, I was condemned as immoral simply for asking to someone to prove a contention. What madness is that? I have expressed no
View on healthcare. It may be that government intervention is beneficial or essential, or not. But I'm not prepared to assume as much as an article of faith.

[Tupac Shakur]

WTF?! He's nowhere near as bad as W was for debt

This actually isn't true.

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

[Krill]

There is a rather obvious piece of bias in that quote Drake.

[Zevico]

There is a rather obvious piece of bias in that quote Drake.

True. The quote doesn't point out that the Obama administration wanted to raise the debt even higher in its budget proposal.

[Asher]

It also doesn't understand that the debt comes after a deficit. Much of the debt added in Obama's term came from Bush's tax cuts. Bush's wars didn't help the debt either.

Of course, that's blindingly obvious. It's just not what you want to see.

ISRAEL!!!

[giblets]

It also doesn't understand that the debt comes after a deficit. Much of the debt added in Obama's term came from Bush's tax cuts. Bush's wars didn't help the debt either.

Of course, that's blindingly obvious. It's just not what you want to see.

ISRAEL!!!

Yes:

Yep, that's pretty obvious:

[Asher]

But but but, every year in Obama's terms where Bush's tax cuts are in place the debt gets worse!!! LOL DEMOCRATS SUCK.

[Tupac Shakur]

House passes bipartisan tax cut deal, first of Obama administration

Though many House Democrats balked at extending Bush-era tax cuts, House lawmakers late Thursday approved the $858 billion tax cut deal intact, with 139 Democrats and 138 Republicans.

.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I am willing to concede for arguements sake the rollback of tax cuts to the wealthy defined as $200K/yr incomes. (Note I only concede the wealthy tax cuts being in play here because Obama has repeated insisted on maintaining tax cuts for all others.) That yields ~ $80 bil in revenue per year. A reduction in debt of $320 billion over the course of a full Obama term.

Given he racked up $4 trillion in 32 months at the end of 48 months he is on pace to rack up $6 trillion. If we were to assume he had the revenue from those nasty wealthy folk it would have only been $5.7 trillion. ( Heck I would spot you the entire Bush era all 8 years of wealthy tax cuts say never happened or worse yet were retroactively called due for another $640 billion. Obama would still outpace Bush at $5.1 trillion added in a single term vs. Bushs two term dismal performance.)

Seriously if you are going to make issue about the wars he had enough political capital to end it given his large majorites in house and senate and chose not to. No his approach was to embroil the US in another ill thought out adventure instead.

I mean really is there a serious idea about deficit reduction anytime forthcoming from the Dems?

[giblets]

I don't know, how much revenue would cap-and-trade have raised if it had passed?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Get a CBO score and more votes.