Political Roundtable Part XIII

[dckingsfan]

We certainly have a responsibility to be taking in far more than we are today. This is why Obama wanted this ramped up. 1.9 million is far far too much. But 30,000 is crazy small.

Why, if we aren't going to be the world's policeman why do we have to be the world's mama? We are saying we don't want to get engaged in the world's politics to ensure that their aren't a large number of displaced - but on the other hand we have a responsibility for taking in those displaced?

This may seem self-evident to you - but this is exactly what has turned the Europe politics to the right.

Oh I definitely get the concern. The best analogy I can come up with is the indigent sick person. You may hate paying for him or her insurance, but if not, you're going to end up paying higher costs at the hospitals regardless because they are forced to cover them by law.

The same thing applies internationally. Contrary to some on this board, horrific acts of violence stem far more from horrific circumstances. Horror breeds more horror. To think that the US, Europe, Japan or anyone else who benefits from a peaceful world order - the liberal world order that Putin and Bannon are trying to dismantle - can ignore the refugee crisis is to be begging for unintended consequences. Al Qaeda may have started with funding from Saudi Arabia, but it took root because of the conditions in many of these countries. Similar to homelessness in the inner cities, we end up paying for it eventually.

And often, the long term costs are lots lots higher than if we had done well care up front. Well care in this case is both development and peacebuilding dollars but also a set of standards, not unlike air flight standards that we hold countries who want to participate in the international economy. External pressure, including moral pressure, economic incentives and mutual assistance works far better than demonizing people and advocating for more tensions and war.

As for the world's policeman analogy, the US's current contribution doesn't even quality as a school crossing guard. We simply aren't involved from the standpoint of refugee adoption right now.

So, by your argument, you would advocate allocating more resources to the UN (world peace keeping).

My question to you is where will the $$s come from? Are you willing to take from our entitlement programs? It is always great to want to solve a problem - the liberal world order has been more than willing to do that over the last 50 years. Actually cutting one thing to pay for another - not so much.

The world police vs. world mama are two different things. World police is a referee for displacement prevention. World mama is taking everyone in after the displacement.

Given that even a very liberal country like Germany has rebelled against taking on large numbers of refugees - why would any politician touch that third rail? Do you think if the next Democrat Presidential Candidate would get elected if they advocated to take on a million refugees?

[bsilver]

Read on Twitter

Rep. Labrador and other R's opposed Obamacare because they wanted so called "market based solutions".
They've had plenty of opportunity before Obama to tackle the problem but never even tried. Now, they can't come up with these market based solutions, so will end up tweaking Obamacare.

It's really difficult to come up with a market solution for insuring millions of poor people and those with pre-existing conditions. Single-payer would have been simplest, but was torpedoed by conservative Dems. The Obamacare alternative was bound to have issues. These issues could have been addressed, R's only wanted it to fail.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

The larger issue though is the refugee crisis. This is THE problem facing humanity besides climate change. Terrorism contributes to it, but its honestly huge. There really needs to be well thought out systemic responses to stop the flow of refugees. This is a worldwide issue, not just from North Africa to Europe.

And the US is responsible for the solution? Bush tried the all-in and that didn't work. Obama tried the all-out and that didn't work. What makes you think that we can have a positive affect?

I think Obama and now Trump have essentially been moving toward isolationism. How would you sell that to an American public that doesn't want to be engaged with the problems of the world? Both the Ds and Rs are trending toward nationalism vs. globalism.

Obama didn't move toward isolationism at all. He was all about strengthening the international order, sometimes to a leadership fault. Agree with the nationalism on both the left and right versus globalism. Its more properly called populism. Bilateral relationships often lead to instability or even war. Involving entire regions dramatically increase stability as the implications for breaking the agreement are worse.

Point of the matter is, if you can buy a 48" TV for $300 dollars from Taiwan or $500 in the US, most are buying foreign (which is why there are no TVs or other basic commodities made here). This isn't going to change, no matter how many protections we put up. The problem of course is those protections slow down the economy. The better answer is rethinking our training and education process, and overtly teaming government investment with industrial growth in future growth industries like clean energy and geospatial.

EDIT: If its not clear (it is) I am definitely an institutionalist, a multiculturalist and globalist on the populist scale. Anarchy usually leads to pretty poor results.

EDIT: Regarding selling globalism, someone has to do a better job. Nationalism is in essence advocating we stick our head in the sand and act like the events of the rest of the world won't impact us. Even though we are more connected economically, politically and socially with the rest of the world than at any time in human history.[/quote]
Yes, Obama advocated that the international order do the work. And not surprisingly nothing got done. You could call it unintentional isolationism?

And you could argue that free trade has lifted more than 1B out of poverty.

And you hit the nail on the head with education in the US. We will need competition for our education dollars and to quickly shift education priorities. Do you think the next Democratic candidate for President will advocate for competition or advocate for public unions?

[Kanyewest]

Do you think if the next Democrat Presidential Candidate would get elected if they advocated to take on a million refugees?

A democratic candidate could win for taking on more refugees . You are right in saying that there is treshold for the number of immigrants that the US can take on. I think a more important issue is for the candidate to be likable and charismatic since a large portion of Americans vote, especially the ones that swing election, vote on that rather than any actual policy issue.

[tontoz]

Yeah, Trump isn't worse than Bush because of the Iraq War, yet anyways unless the Russian allegations turn out to be true. Although Bush is better than Trump on some issues. Bush is far from a liberal though which is why I thought that his comment was relevant, especially since he's calling for Trump to be investigated

Bush was a Katrina level disaster. If Trump ends up impeached it really wouldn't bother me, or surprise me. It would just mean someone more sane taking over.

But Bush can F off.

[dckingsfan]

Do you think if the next Democrat Presidential Candidate would get elected if they advocated to take on a million refugees?

A democratic candidate could win for taking on more refugees . You are right in saying that there is treshold for the number of immigrants that the US can take on. I think a more important issue is for the candidate to be likable and charismatic since a large portion of Americans vote, especially the ones that swing election, vote on that rather than any actual policy issue.

There you have it... Trump was more likeable than Hillary

I think your statement that it will be a threshold issue is really one of location. In CA, I think a candidate could get away with saying, "yep, we are going to take in a million...", not so much in Ohio.

And I think this is where the Democratic message gets muddled.

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

Rep. Labrador and other R's opposed Obamacare because they wanted so called "market based solutions".
They've had plenty of opportunity before Obama to tackle the problem but never even tried. Now, they can't come up with these market based solutions, so will end up tweaking Obamacare.

It's really difficult to come up with a market solution for insuring millions of poor people and those with pre-existing conditions. Single-payer would have been simplest, but was torpedoed by conservative Dems. The Obamacare alternative was bound to have issues. These issues could have been addressed, R's only wanted it to fail.

I agree with you, but to be fair - Obama never paid for his grand plan. In fact, entitlement spending has continued to accelerate. He was happy to put the plan in place with gimmicks (yes, you could say that about Rs and their tax cuts as well). Are you like the rest of the Ds in congress that don't advocate fixing the problem (this is a spending problem, not a tax problem - so tell me what cuts you advocate?).

[Kanyewest]

Yeah, Trump isn't worse than Bush because of the Iraq War, yet anyways unless the Russian allegations turn out to be true. Although Bush is better than Trump on some issues. Bush is far from a liberal though which is why I thought that his comment was relevant, especially since he's calling for Trump to be investigated

Bush was a Katrina level disaster. If Trump ends up impeached it really wouldn't bother me, or surprise me. It would just mean someone more sane taking over.

But Bush can F off.

Pence could be worse than Trump. So I'm not exactly fine with it.

[FAH1223]

Thom Hartmann was talking about this on his show

The ACA was proposed by GOP in 1972. Go to 17:55 here.

Watch on YouTube

[tontoz]

Yeah, Trump isn't worse than Bush because of the Iraq War, yet anyways unless the Russian allegations turn out to be true. Although Bush is better than Trump on some issues. Bush is far from a liberal though which is why I thought that his comment was relevant, especially since he's calling for Trump to be investigated

Bush was a Katrina level disaster. If Trump ends up impeached it really wouldn't bother me, or surprise me. It would just mean someone more sane taking over.

But Bush can F off.

Pence could be worse than Trump. So I'm not exactly fine with it.

Based on what I have seen so far that is hard to visualize lol.

[Kanyewest]

Read on Twitter

Rep. Labrador and other R's opposed Obamacare because they wanted so called "market based solutions".
They've had plenty of opportunity before Obama to tackle the problem but never even tried. Now, they can't come up with these market based solutions, so will end up tweaking Obamacare.

It's really difficult to come up with a market solution for insuring millions of poor people and those with pre-existing conditions. Single-payer would have been simplest, but was torpedoed by conservative Dems. The Obamacare alternative was bound to have issues. These issues could have been addressed, R's only wanted it to fail.

I agree with you, but to be fair - Obama never paid for his grand plan. In fact, entitlement spending has continued to accelerate. He was happy to put the plan in place with gimmicks (yes, you could say that about Rs and their tax cuts as well). Are you like the rest of the Ds in congress that don't advocate fixing the problem (this is a spending problem, not a tax problem - so tell me what cuts you advocate?).

I would say it is also a tax problem given that the Bush tax cuts are still in effect.

[dckingsfan]

Rep. Labrador and other R's opposed Obamacare because they wanted so called "market based solutions".
They've had plenty of opportunity before Obama to tackle the problem but never even tried. Now, they can't come up with these market based solutions, so will end up tweaking Obamacare.

It's really difficult to come up with a market solution for insuring millions of poor people and those with pre-existing conditions. Single-payer would have been simplest, but was torpedoed by conservative Dems. The Obamacare alternative was bound to have issues. These issues could have been addressed, R's only wanted it to fail.

I agree with you, but to be fair - Obama never paid for his grand plan. In fact, entitlement spending has continued to accelerate. He was happy to put the plan in place with gimmicks (yes, you could say that about Rs and their tax cuts as well). Are you like the rest of the Ds in congress that don't advocate fixing the problem (this is a spending problem, not a tax problem - so tell me what cuts you advocate?).

I would say it is also a tax problem given that the Bush tax cuts are still in effect.

Nope, its not. We are back to our historical average. Our spending is above our historical average but it is misleading because entitlement spending continues to crowd out other spending.

This is a spending problem - Obama knew about it and kicked the can down the road:

[Kanyewest]

I agree with you, but to be fair - Obama never paid for his grand plan. In fact, entitlement spending has continued to accelerate. He was happy to put the plan in place with gimmicks (yes, you could say that about Rs and their tax cuts as well). Are you like the rest of the Ds in congress that don't advocate fixing the problem (this is a spending problem, not a tax problem - so tell me what cuts you advocate?).

I would say it is also a tax problem given that the Bush tax cuts are still in effect.

Nope, its not. We are back to our historical average. Our spending is above our historical average but it is misleading because entitlement spending continues to crowd out other spending.

This is a spending problem - Obama knew about it and kicked the can down the road:

Hey I said also!

[dckingsfan]

Or another way to look at the spending problem, historically we have never been able to get much over 20% of GDP without going into recession, so there is a limit to the tax. But even if you argue that we could tax the 1% one hundred percent of their income we would still outstrip revenue.

We have a spending problem:

[dckingsfan]

Hey I said also!

Ha, ha, ha - must have felt like piling on, sorry!

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Shocking...

Read on Twitter

[bsilver]

Read on Twitter

Rep. Labrador and other R's opposed Obamacare because they wanted so called "market based solutions".
They've had plenty of opportunity before Obama to tackle the problem but never even tried. Now, they can't come up with these market based solutions, so will end up tweaking Obamacare.

It's really difficult to come up with a market solution for insuring millions of poor people and those with pre-existing conditions. Single-payer would have been simplest, but was torpedoed by conservative Dems. The Obamacare alternative was bound to have issues. These issues could have been addressed, R's only wanted it to fail.

I agree with you, but to be fair - Obama never paid for his grand plan. In fact, entitlement spending has continued to accelerate. He was happy to put the plan in place with gimmicks (yes, you could say that about Rs and their tax cuts as well). Are you like the rest of the Ds in congress that don't advocate fixing the problem (this is a spending problem, not a tax problem - so tell me what cuts you advocate?).

You're lumping Obamacare spending together with all other entitlements, which changes the original subject, which was R alternatives, and why do they oppose Obamacare. As far as the cost of Obamacare, I would agree there was probably "smoke and mirrors". OTOH, you have to make a moral decision as a society. If you had about 40 million people without medical care, should you spend money to fix it. I would say yes.