Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
To Dream the Impossible Dream
Conor Friedersdorf reacts to Barack Obama's health care plans:
My aspiration is to one day vote for a president who gets the nation to go along with his trillion+ dollar policy proposal by persuading us the trade off is worth it, rather than pretending that there is no trade off. But it seems instead I'll be forced to choose between Republicans who act as though military spending isn't real, Democrats who act as though social services spending isn't real, and George W. Bush, who managed on this issue to be a uniter, not a divider, by pretending that all spending wasn't real.
KT|5.13.09 @ 10:32AM|#
Yep, that's pretty much the size of things. But at least Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
Heterosexist Every Body|5.13.09 @ 10:35AM|#
They had universal health care in Star Trek. Why can't we have it now?
|5.13.09 @ 10:36AM|#
But at least Democrats don't pretend to be the party of
fiscal responsibility.
I see Obama's promises of a net spending cut and line-by-line
reviews of government spending have already been consigned to the
memory hole.
robc|5.13.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Also, the congressional democrats talking about how they were the real party of fiscal responsibility back during the tax cut debates.
Dr. Lawyer|5.13.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Your tears are so delicious to me, let me drink them in and gain
your strength.
Fiscal responsbility isn't responsible. What is responsible is
making sure we make the necessary sacrifices now to ensure the good
of our future. You're lying if you think Obama is pretending there
is no sacrifice. It's just that the sacrifice will have to come
from those that in the past have been "favored" and
"priveleged".
I am ready to make the sacrifice for the future and you should be
too.
bubba|5.13.09 @ 10:41AM|#
As far as I can find, W's spending, as a percentage of GDP, was
in line with historical precedent, and actually on the low
side.
His deficits were also entirely in line.
Heterosexist Every Body|5.13.09 @ 10:42AM|#
HEB, don't start.
Afraid of the truth?
They had free doctors and a free hospital too. They could fix
everything but baldness!
robc|5.13.09 @ 10:46AM|#
bubba,
Not even remotely in line with Andy Jackson.
1. Paid off the national debt
2. Killed the bank of America (proto-fed)
3. Was a racist, warmongering, genocidal fuck.
Huh, Ill take it.
KT|5.13.09 @ 10:46AM|#
You guys have good points. I should have said "At least nobody
believes the Democrats when they claim to be the party of
fiscal responsibility."
All the same, personally I'd take Clinton's fake surplus over what
Bush left us with.
|5.13.09 @ 10:47AM|#
Credit Bush with an assist on ratcheting up the government's
scope and spending to a completely ridiculous level, but Obama and
Congress should get credit for scoring the goal.
No way, no how, I'm voting for a Democrat in 2010.
Morris|5.13.09 @ 10:52AM|#
There's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for a dog's breakfast. Imagine what life would be under a plutocracy. C'mon try. I know you have lively imaginations.
Nikola T|5.13.09 @ 10:54AM|#
Credit Bush with an assist on ratcheting up the government's
scope and spending to a completely ridiculous level
Did you happen to catch Cheney this weekend trying to say what they
did was different? "OH NO! We HAD to save the banks! We were FORCED
to bail-out the housing markets! - Obama's just doing the rest of
this stuff for fun!"
As if they wouldn't have done it almost the same way. It would have
just been a difference of which donors got our money.
JP|5.13.09 @ 10:59AM|#
My aspiration is to one day vote for a president who gets
the nation to go along with his trillion+ dollar policy proposal by
persuading us the trade off is worth it, rather than pretending
that there is no trade off.
Dare I ask it? And I mean this in all seriousness and with all due
respect ... Are we libertarians not also guilty of (sometimes)
pretending there are no trade offs? Does that make us easy
targets?
Xeones|5.13.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Imagine what life would be under a plutocracy.
That's what your Mashiach is bringing us right now, dipshit. Or did
you not notice all the blatant corporatism going on? Probably not.
Libertarians decry corporatism as just another form of
authoritarianism, not that you care to be accurate in your
aspersions, you dumb motherfucker.
How about life under freedom?
|5.13.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Please, if we have to give billions to companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway, and thus give billions to one of the richest men on the planet, that's fine, because Buffet is saying the right things about govt and thus is politically useful.
Ed|5.13.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Am I crazy or did we focus as much on Clinton after Bush was
elected, as we do now on Bush with Obama elected.
A pox on all their houses, but this fetish with "it's all Bush's
fault" is truly getting annoying. I can read that at the Times or
watch it on MSNBC, I hope for better from Reason where they are all
self serving.
It seems like many of the Reason editors were shocked that Obama is
just a typical pol and so have to resort to saying, "well Bush was
even worse" to make themselves feel better.
|5.13.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Imagine what life would be under a plutocracy.
Morris had taken his Zyprexa and Seroquel a little while ago, and
he had a moment of clarity as they started kicking in. He thought
"wait, Congresspeople are generally wealthy, and they are making
sure that all this money goes to their wealthy connected
buddies...so aren't we already in a plutocracy of sorts?"
Morris shook off this thought--it disturbed him. His psychologist
had warned him about disturbing the mental cocoon he lived in, and
he wasn't about to.
Morris decided that he'd go fuck his
mom's corpse again to calm down, because he still had a little
hallucination time left before the drugs really started working.
He'd be able to imagine that she was wriggling under him still...he
started to jog to the basement in anticipation.
Anonymous|5.13.09 @ 11:29AM|#
Ed, it's a disease, and the ill must be put down for our
safety.
The good news is that the True Believers are forming a suicide
cult.
The bad news is that they're forcing everyone in the nation to join
at the end of a gun.
|5.13.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Dare I ask it? And I mean this in all seriousness and with
all due respect ... Are we libertarians not also guilty of
(sometimes) pretending there are no trade offs? Does that make us
easy targets?
Some do. Others are honest.
|5.13.09 @ 12:24PM|#
Are we libertarians not also guilty of (sometimes)
pretending there are no trade offs?
I suppose, although a political philosophy built on taking
responsibility for your own actions kinda puts the whole tradeoff
issue right up front.
|5.13.09 @ 12:40PM|#
"""Am I crazy or did we focus as much on Clinton after Bush was
elected, as we do now on Bush with Obama elected.
A pox on all their houses, but this fetish with "it's all Bush's
fault" is truly getting annoying. I can read that at the Times or
watch it on MSNBC, I hope for better from Reason where they are all
self serving. """
Hell yeah. The right was still blaming Clinton for crap well into
Bush's second term.
mark|5.13.09 @ 1:11PM|#
I remember hearing "The Clinton Recession" on Fox News an awful
lot in summer of 2001.
Now, can I get a few more guesses for my Penny Death Pool? I had
2015.
|5.13.09 @ 1:13PM|#
"MSNBC"
Here's what I want to know. 30 days before the 2010 elections, will
"The Ed Show" be forced to go off the air in order to be compliant
to election law? I mean, it really is just an hour long political
ad for the Democrats. They don't even try ti hide it saying things
akin to, "so what do we need to do next to further destroy the
Rupublican candidates running for office?"
Jesse Walker|5.13.09 @ 1:37PM|#
A pox on all their houses, but this fetish with "it's all
Bush's fault" is truly getting annoying.
I don't think the quote has much to do with assigning blame. But
setting that aside: I think we should take every chance we have to
point out the continuities between Bush and Obama. Don't let the
Democrats pretend that they're giving us change when they aren't,
and don't let the Republicans pretend the growth of government
started in January 2009.
|5.13.09 @ 1:54PM|#
As far as I can find, W's spending, as a percentage of GDP, was in line with historical precedent, and actually on the low side.
His deficits were also entirely in line.
This is true so far as it goes, if "historical precedent" means
"post WWII," but I still absolutely feel that it's reasonable to
criticize GWB for changing the trendline to the worse.
Jesse:
I thought before the election that we'd have more chance of
"change" (for good and bad, though I thought on balance good) if
McCain were elected, and I certainly haven't changed my opinion.
While there are a few issues where Obama is better from a
libertarian perspective than GWB, I struggle to find any where he
is significantly better than McCain. Perhaps online gambling?
Jesse Walker|5.13.09 @ 2:00PM|#
I struggle to find any where he is significantly better than
McCain.
Foreign policy. Not that Obama's been good on foreign policy. But
McCain has an itchy trigger finger, and I suspect he would have
been worse than both Obama and Bush.
|5.13.09 @ 2:04PM|#
"I struggle to find any where he is significantly better than
McCain."
Obama has been a dissapointment on foreign policy the way he's
expanded the war in AfPak and kept the war going in Iraq, but if
McCain would have gotten elected, would we be at war with Iran?
Would he have renewed the cold war with Russia? At least Obama has
opened up a dialogue with Iran and Cuba and has criticized
Israel.
On economics, however, Obama sucks big time. I had hoped he would
have reached across the aisle to work with Republicans and found
some middle ground, but it appears it's full speed ahead into
European style socialism.
|5.13.09 @ 2:33PM|#
At least Obama has opened up a dialogue with Iran and Cuba
and has criticized Israel.
Diplomatic dialogues are not valuable in and of themselves. They
are valuable only to the extent that they advance our national
interests (however defined).
Whether these dialogues are good or bad foreign policy depends
entirely on results. Still too early to say.
|5.13.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Obama has been a dissapointment on foreign policy the way he's expanded the war in AfPak and kept the war going in Iraq, but if McCain would have gotten elected, would we be at war with Iran?
No. We might not have dialogue with them, but we would not be at
war with Iran. There really was zero chance of this; anyone
believing otherwise is pretty disconnected from reality.
At least Obama has opened up a dialogue with Iran and Cuba and has criticized Israel.
If you consider criticizing Israel a plus, ok. Though, thanks, I
would put considering easing the Cuban travel ban as another
positive issue.
|5.13.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Foreign policy. Not that Obama's been good on foreign policy. But McCain has an itchy trigger finger, and I suspect he would have been worse than both Obama and Bush.
I'll first assume that by "foreign policy" you don't mean anything
to do with torture, Gitmo, etc., much less things like free trade,
military spending, or the protectionism of propping up failing car
companies. As I just mentioned, I would give some points towards
Cuban policy as a possible improvement, and that is also foreign
policy. I assume you're talking mostly about fighting wars.
But on wars, did you even read Matt's book? I don't particularly
find a lot of evidence for that assertion. A man who changes his
mind and is self-righteous about whatever position he has now, but
he hasn't been one of the consistent hawks even while in the
Senate. (Although you make a case that opposing Balkan
interventions with Clinton in office doesn't count because it was
opposing an opposite party President.) A man who doesn't like to
admit defeat in a current war, sure, but that's different than
starting new ones.
Is the whole "itchy trigger finger" simply because he has a
self-righteous and irritable personality? "Suspecting" on the basis
of that, rather than actual votes, seems a bit unreliable. After
all, President Obama's great show of listening and moderation is
completely belied by his actions.
What Obama is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to me
to be no different than what McCain would have done. And in the
debates, as Pro Libertate alludes to, it was Obama that said he
would invade Pakistan if they didn't do enough against the Taliban,
while McCain said that was reckless.
|5.13.09 @ 3:25PM|#
On economics, however, Obama sucks big time. I had hoped he
would have reached across the aisle to work with Republicans and
found some middle ground, but it appears it's full speed ahead into
European style socialism.
Did you pay any attention to the campaign? If anything
he's moderating his campaign promises. Remember, he was elected
despite the constant name-calling and guilt-by-association bullshit
from the Republicans. A lot of people who voted for him even were
convinced he was a socialist. But they didn't care. What we had
wasn't working. This isn't the cold war and the word "socialism" is
no longer a conversation stopper bogeyman.
Dr C|5.13.09 @ 4:27PM|#
A lot of people who voted for him even were convinced he was a socialist. But they didn't care. What we had wasn't working. This isn't the cold war and the word "socialism" is no longer a conversation stopper bogeyman.
He is a socialist, numbnuts. The problem is that McCain is a
socialist, too.
Guess you haven't been paying attention since the campaign
ended.
Jesse Walker|5.13.09 @ 10:45PM|#
John: My impression of McCain's foreign policy views is that he
went through a period of post-Vietnam humility, gradually moved
away from it, and by the 2000 election was a hawk's hawk. If you
look at his reaction to the Russian-Georgian skirmish, for example,
he gave every impression of being eager to involve the U.S. in a
border conflict far from our shores that would put us up against a
country with nuclear weapons. Granted, Obama ultimately took the
same position, but McCain instinctively dove in.
(Remember, I'm not trying to make the case that Obama is good. I'm
trying to make the case that McCain is worse.)
So it's partly that and it's partly the irritable and impulsive
personality, which I guess alarmed me much more than it alarmed
you.
Minitruth memo|5.14.09 @ 7:57PM|#
"I see Obama's promises of a net spending cut and line-by-line
reviews of government spending have already been consigned to the
memory hole."
Doubleplusungood reference to unevent.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245