Quantcast FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Republicans -- Not Obama -- More Often on Wrong Side of Public Opinion

2.09.2010

Republicans -- Not Obama -- More Often on Wrong Side of Public Opinion

One of the more commonplace assertions among pundits on the center-right -- made rather carelessly by Victor Davis Hanson and more thoughtfully by Jay Cost, is that agenda put forward by Obama and the Democrats is overwhelmingly unpopular and that Democrats are simply getting their comeuppance for having pushed such a liberal set of reforms forward. These claims, however, rely on selective evidence, invariably citing policies like health care and the GM bailouts which are indeed unpopular (strongly so, in some cases), while ignoring many other issues on which Obama has been on the right side of public opinion.

In fact, a more objective and equivocal evaluation of public opinion on more than two dozen specific issues finds that the Republican Congress has far more often been on the wrong side of it. Attempting to be as comprehensive as possible, I've identified 25 issues that Obama and the Democrats have made an affirmative effort to push forward since taking office a year ago, and summarized public opinion on each of them. Most of the numbers that I've cited come from PollingReport.com.

Afghanistan Troop Escalation. An average of seven polls taken since President Obama's speech on Afghanistan in December show a 54-41 majority of the public in favor of escalating troop commitments. However, Obama appeared to get a bump from his speech, as an average of four polls conducted in November, prior to the speech, had shown a 49-46 plurality opposed to greater troop commitments.

Bank Tax. An NPR poll found a 57-39 majority in favor of the bank tax proposal, which the Congress has yet to consider, after being read arguments both for and against the program. (An ABC/Post poll found a 73-26 majority in favor of taxing financial sector bonuses over $1 million dollars, although the White House has not advocated for that measure.)

Ben Bernanke. The only poll on Ben Bernanke, from NBC/WSJ, found a 37-34 plurality opposed to his reappointment; Bernanke was approved by 22 of 40 Senate Republicans and 48 of 60 Senate Democrats.

Bush Tax Cuts. Although this polling is somewhat out of date, a CBS/NYT poll in April found 74 percent in favor, and 23 percent opposed, to raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year, as Obama's budget would do. A Newsweek poll in March, with somewhat different phrasing, found 49 percent in favor of letting the tax cuts on the wealthy expire and 42 percent opposed.

Campaign Finance. The only poll to have asked directly about the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is from FOX News, which found voters disapproving of the decision 53-27. A Gallup poll conducted last month found that, while most Americans consider campaign finance to be a form of free speech, they nevertheless by a 52-41 margin felt that the ability to place limits on political contributions was the higher priority.

Cap-and-Trade. The last five organizations to release polls on cap-and-trade (AP/Stanford, ABC/Post, CNN, Pew, Rasmussen) actually show it favored by the public by a 51-40 margin, on average. It is likely that a significant fraction of the public does not understand what cap-and-trade is; nevertheless most of these polls provided descriptions of the bill's contents. Eight House Republicans voted for the climate bill in June; the Senate has yet to consider the measure.

Cash-for-Clunkers. The only organization to poll on this was Rasmussen, which found voters opposed to the program 35-54 in June, but a 44-38 plurality favoring the program in retrospect after it had been implemented.

Credit Card Protections. 77 percent of respondents favored the Credit Card Protection Act, according to a poll by Open Congress. The bill was approved 90-5 by the Senate in May, as well as by a 105-69 majority of House Republicans.

D.C. Voting Rights. 58 percent of the public favored, and 35 percent opposed, giving an a House seat to D.C. in a nationwide Washington Post poll conducted last February. The Senate approved D.C. voting rights by a 61-37 margin last February, with 6 Republicans voting in favor and 2 Democrats voting against, although the measure subsequently died in the House.

Fair Pay. Congress approved the Liddy Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last January; it received the support of 3 Republicans in the House and 5 in the Senate. A Rasmussen poll conducted shortly after the legislation passed found that Americans by a 66-24 majority do not believe that women earn equal pay for equal work, although it did not ask about the legislation specifically.

Financial Regulation. A Time/SRBI poll in October found that 59 percent of the public favors more regulation of Wall Street versus 13 percent favoring less and 22 percent the same amount. A CNN poll two weeks ago found 62 percent in favor of greater regulations and 35 percent opposed. House Republicans opposed the financial regulation bill unanimously.

Gays in the Military. Four organizations -- FOX, Gallup, Quinnipiac, and CNN -- have released polls on Don't Ask Don't Tell since Obama's inauguration. They show an average of 58 percent saying that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be repealed and that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, and 35 percent opposed. No votes have yet occurred on DADT in either the House or the Senate, although the House's repeal legislation has just one Republican co-sponsor.

GM/Chrysler Bailout. Quite unpopular: an NBC/WSJ poll in early June showed 39 percent of the public in favor and 52 percent opposed to the bailout, and a CNN poll in April found that 22 percent of the public favored additional assistance to GM and Chrysler while 76 percent would have preferred to let them go bankrupt. (There was no specific vote on GM in this Congress; instead, its funds came by way of the TARP program.)

Guantanamo Bay. Four organizations to release polls on Gutantanamo Bay between last February and last June found an average 55 percent of Americans opposed to closing the detention facility and 39 percent in favor, with the number of those opposed tending to increase over time.

Hate Crimes. Although there have been no recent polls on the subject, a Gallup survey in May 2007 found a 68-27 majority in favor of expanding hate crimes statues to include sexual and gender identity. The Matthew Shepard act, a hate crimes measure, passed the Congress last year, receiving the support of 18 House Republicans and 5 Senate Republicans.

Health Care. It has clearly become unpopular; the latest Pollster.com trendlines show 38 percent in favor of the bill and 55 percent opposed. One Republican voted for the health care bill in the House and none did in the Senate.

Jobs Bill. A CNN poll in December found 74 percent thought Obama should concentrate on creating more jobs "even if it means less deficit reduction." A Bloomberg/Selzer poll, also in December, asked about specific measures that might be undertaken as part of a jobs bill and found 68 percent in favor (and 28 percent opposed) to tax credits, and 66 percent in favor (versus 32 percent opposed) of spending on public works projects, although just 48 percent were in favor of additional assistance to state and local governments. House Republicans unanimously opposed a $100 billion jobs bill in December.

Mortgage Relief. Senate Republican unanimously voted against the Durbin Amendment to provide mortgage relief in April, as did 12 Senate Democrats. However, four organizations which polled on mortgage relief in February through April found an average of 60 percent of Americans in support of additional assistance versus 34 percent opposed.

PAYGO. There is no specific polling on Congressional pay-go rules, which Senate Republicans recently voted against 40-0., but in the abstract moves toward balancing the budget are almost always popular, such as a CNN poll in November which found 67 percent preferring balanced budgets to deficits "even when the country is in a recession and is at war."

SCHIP. Although there have been no recent polls on SCHIP (children's health care), an ABC/Post poll in September, 2007 found it supported 72-25 by the public, and a CNN poll in October, 2007 found that the public wanted by a 61-35 margin for the Congress to override President Bush's veto of the program. Nine Republican Senators voted to extend SCHIP in February as did 40 House Republicans.

Sonia Sotomayor. The last five polls to be released on Sonia Sotmayor in advance of her confirmation showed 52 percent in favor of her confirmation and 30 percent opposed, on average. Senate Republicans opposed her confirmation 31-9.

Stimulus. The stimulus has become somewhat unpopular now -- although most individual elements of the program remain popular. However, the stimulus was somewhat popular at the time of its passage. An average of the last five organizations to release polls in advance of the Senate's vote on the stimulus on 2/9/09 showed 50 percent in favor of the bill and 38 percent opposed. House Republicans opposed the stimulus unanimously; Senate Republicans gave it 3 votes.

TARP. The TARP program began under Bush and was extended before Obama took office, but Obama nevertheless actively lobbied Democrats for its extension. TARP was unpopular from the get-go, and Americans opposed its extension 56-32 last January, according to a poll then from Diageo/Hotline. All but 6 Senate Republicans voted not to extend TARP.

Terrorist Trials. An average of two recent polls from Rasmussen and CBS had 38 percent of the public in favor of terror trials in civilian courts, but 55 percent opposed.

Torture Memos and Investigations. Four polls conducted in April showed an average of 43 percent of Americans in favor and 51 percent opposed into an investigation of Bush-era torture policies. The only poll to ask about the release of the Bush torture memos, from ABC/Post, found 53 percent in favor and 44 percent opposed.

*-*

Of these 25 issues, Obama's position appears to be on the right side of public opinion on 14: the bank tax, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, campaign finance, the credit card bill, D.C. voting rights, fair pay, financial regulation, gays in the military, hate crimes, the jobs bill, mortgage relief, PAYGO, SCHIP, and Sotomayor. It would appear to be on the wrong side of public opinion on five issues: the GM/Chrysler bailout, Guantanamo Bay, health care, the extension of the TARP program, and terrorist trials. On the other six issues, the polling is probably too ambiguous to render a clear verdict.

Republicans, on the other hand, have been overwhelmingly opposed to almost all of these measures with the exception of Ben Bernanke and Afghanistan troops, both of which poll ambiguously, and the credit card bill, which polled well.

Obviously, this analysis is superficial in certain ways. All issues are by no means created equal, and health care in particular, which is unpopular, has weighed heavily upon the public's perception of the Democrats. In addition, there is probably another layer of 'meta-argument' that goes beyond specific issues, and at which the GOP has tended to excel.

Nevertheless, it runs in contrast to the objective evidence when one asserts, as Hanson does, that "On every issue ... the Obama position polls 5-15 points below 50 percent." Rather, the votes taken by the Republican Congress have far more often been out of step with those of the median voter.

This is not to give a mulligan to the White House or to the Democrats -- as I've written before, their meta-strategy has necessarily had to be somewhat terrible so as to take what has been a fairly popular and centrist agenda and have it regarded as overwhelmingly contentious and partisan by so much of the public.

EDIT: What about EFCA/card check? I didn't forget about it; rather, I excluded it because it's something which the Democrats abandoned early on and which the White House never lifted a finger for. Obviously, there are a lot of policies that the Democrats theoretically have in their arsenal -- card check, legalizing pot, gay marriage, nationalizing the banks, a radically more progressive tax code, etc. -- which are both quite liberal and (with one or two possible exceptions) quite unpopular. But the Congressional Democrats didn't spend much of any effort on those issues, and the White House spent essentially none. The agenda they've spent their political capital on, rather, has been quite centrist -- which is sort of the whole point of this article.

If you did include card check, by the way, the verdict would be rather ambiguous. Ignoring some amazingly crappy (and contradictory) partisan polling on both sides of the topic, the closest we have to a neutral poll is this one from Gallup, which shows 53 percent in favor of a "new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers" but which is probably too vague to be useful. To be clear, my hunch is that card check would indeed prove to become unpopular if it were debated more vigorously -- but that's just a hunch, and we're trying to rely on the objective evidence for this exercise.

156 comments

steve said...

I don’t blame them; that’s the way the system is set up. That’s why the system is wrong. This bill tries to regulate that system, but it winds up reinforcing it because it strengthens the underlying structure by making private insurance companies even larger.”

Does this mean it doesn’t matter if the Republicans do shut up now, because they have won a result for the insurance companies anyway.


bariatric surgery

mogando said...

look how convenient nate left out the unpopular "card check" bills that destroys the sanctity of the secret ballot box to satisfy the union mob bosses (and their political contribution).

Unlike a politician, if a private citizen's vote is made public, that can subject them to harassment or retaliation.

and of course Nate just HAS to skip this one cuz that's one more count against his own guy. and i'm sure others can think of other examples. Bringing up the whole DADT is purely a ploy to distract the public from how the health bills are about to die in Congress.

Nate Silver said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Joseph said...

mogando:

And what's 1000x even more convenient than that is the way you ignored all 25 issues Nate listed and instead focussed on just 1 that fits your narrative. Suggestion: turn brain on.

isafakir said...

republicans honestly believe in power, in wielding power, in profiting from power, in getting power in any way they can, without regard to the republic or the people. they are bold faced shameless about it. democrats at least don't want to appear power maddened. there is no honor among thieves, and they are happy to eat each other up as in ny if they think they can exploit it. so now we have a 41-59 republican majority.

Nate Silver said...

Mogando,

I excluded card check because it's something which the Democrats abandoned early on and which the White House never lifted a finger for. Obviously, there are a lot of policies that the Democrats theoretically have in their arsenal -- card check, legalizing pot, gay marriage, nationalizing the banks, a radically more progressive tax code, etc. -- which are both quite liberal and (with one or two exceptions) quite unpopular. But they *haven't* spent any effort on those things. The agenda they've spent their political capital on, rather, has been quite centrist -- this is my whole point.

Also, if I were to count card-check, it wouldn't make a difference in the overall tally as the only two polls on it are partisan and crappy (and contradictory).

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/poll_v_poll_how_each_side_desc.php

isafakir said...

since newt, cut any deal as long as it's 50%plus. ram it thru if you've got the power. i honestly can't figure out why bending over to pick up the soap is a strategy that will molify bullies.

isafakir said...

@mogando. there is no sanctity of the secret ballot in industrial elections. union workers just get fired. you can't have fair elections when one side can't talk for fear of losing their job. hundreds of billions of dollars is spent by industrialists and wall marters to supress union organizers and when the union finally does win they close the plant the store the hospital or the office. tghat is not the sanctity of the secret ballot. that ois bolshevism.

Rudy said...

Again and again, it needs to be pointed out to Nate that issue polling results are highly dependent on how questions are asked and whether they are asked in a vacuum, or in context of the potential downsides of a policy.

On the surface, most potential government programs will sound attractive to many people because they are crafted so that people will naturally identify with the objective. It takes further reflection about the cost/benefit and the unintended consequences before people can make more than a knee-jerk reaction.

Most of the items Nate lists receive only cursory media coverage, and that coverage is usually affirmative of the rationale rather than analytical and balanced in viewpoint. So, of course, you're going to see positive knee-jerk polling results, just because of how legislation is postured.

Just as in health care, the more exposure people get to the contrary view, the knee-jerk support deteriorates markedly. Such would be true for most of the items on the list if they received similar scrutiny rather than just the feel-good version.

JF said...

Nate, you said "Obviously, this analysis is superficial in certain ways." Why not correct those superficialities? This is the kind of thing you could do really really well if you wanted. Is there a reason you don't want to?

Jacob said...

"look how convenient nate left out the unpopular "card check" bills that destroys the sanctity of the secret ballot box to satisfy the union mob bosses..."


It's also worth noting that much like Cape and Trade, people don't seem to understand EFCA (or as the above comment suggests, there are people who know absolutely zilch about the labor movement in general).

Jacob said...

"An NPR poll found a 57-39 majority in favor of the bank tax proposal, which the Congress has yet to consider, after being read arguments both for and against the program."


Kinda unfair to Republicans if we only poll people who understand these programs--and certainly unrepresentative of the total electorate.

Arthur said...

This is an example of "fighting the tape." Slipshod analysis at best. Sotomayor, the SuperBowl, Bernanke, who should win American Idol, second guessing the SCOTUS... These aren't issues. To the extent that you've addressed issues, you've selected ones that favor Democrats and aren't salient to the public.

Bart DePalma said...

Let's concentrate on the important issues that folks are or would follow:

Closing Gitmo and extending Miranda and US civilian trials to foreign al Qaeda - Nate mostly overlooked what Scott Brown found to be the highest polling issues in his campaign in bluest MA. Last month, IBD/TIPP found that Americans oppose these policies by nearly 2-1. This is a no win for Obama. If he reneges on closing Gitmo and returning to treating al Qaeda as a criminal justice matter, then the left will abandon him.

Spending & Deficits: I am surprised that Nate missed these two main drivers of the Tea Party movement. In the last Rasmussen polling, 59% of likely voters asssumed correctly that Obama was going to raise spending again in 2010, as Obama's budget confirmed a few days later, putting the lie to his fiscal restraint spin.

Cap and Tax: Dems have been running from this legislation recently and it has dropped off the public radar. However, this is Obama's only remaining major domestic policy priority now that Obamacare is dead. The polling last year is completely stale now that the Obama Administration's own projection of a $1700+ cost per family was leaked, Climategate has broken, the IPCC scandals using several fraudulent studies have broken, another tough US winter is underway and concern about "global warming" has collapsed to the bottom of public concerns. PLEASE bring this Frankenstein back from the grave before 2010. Unlike Obamacare, it is nothing but downside.

Card check: The Dems are currently talking about trying to sneak this anti-democratic legislation through as an amendment in a "jobs bill," hoping the GOP will not want to vote against a "jobs bill" (sic). Thus, this issue is hardly dead. As Nate correctly observed, framing is everything in this poll. However, opponents have the most appealing framing ("right to a secret ballot"). If this issue is not rushed through in a 1 am vote, it is a complete dog for Obama.

Nate covered the loathing the American voter has for TARP, Porkulus, the nationalization of GM and Chrysler and Obamacare.

Obama polls well on socking it to banks. However, this simply does not rank very high on the list of voter concerns. It is an applause line in a speech

On what matters, I am not seeing the sunshine here for Obama and the Dems, Nate.

obelix said...

Somebody stage an intervention here.

2/4-2/9 headlines at fivethirtyeight.com

Republicans -- Not Obama -- More Often on Wrong Side of Public Opinion
Is It The Process, Stupid?
Sarah Palin Needs Help
Go For It! Saints Understand Value of Aggressive Play-Calling
Super Bowl Thread: Take the Points
What if Senators Represented People By Income or Race, Not By State?
Instant Run-Off Proposed by Brown
President Rallies Fellow Democrats
A Look At Employment
A Few Questions about #QuestionTime


2/4-2/9 polls released on pollster.com

NH: 2010 Sen, Gov (Magellan 2/4)
OH: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 2/5-6)
CO: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 2/4)
US: National Survey (DemCorps 2/2-4)
NV: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 2/3)
US: National Survey (Marist 2/1-3)
OH: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 2/5-6)
US: National Survey (Economist 1/31-2/2)
NV: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 2/2)
NH: 2010 Sen (Kos 2/1-3)
CO: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 2/2)
CT: 2010 gov (Rasmussen 2/1)
US: National Survey (Kos 2/1-4)
FL: McCollum 41 Sink 30 (McLaughlin 1/13-14)
US: Palin, Tea Parties (CNN 1/22-24)
US: National Survey (Fox 2/2-3)
KY: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 2/2)
KS: 2010 Sen Primary (SurveyUSA 1/29-31)


Why isn't our handicapper working thru these polls instead of pushing his head deeper into sand, picking on retarded kids (Sarah Palin), and delivering ineffective leftist pep talks? C'mon, I want to know what's going to happen in these 2010 races!

Rudy said...

Jacob (and Nate), you misread that NPR poll result. The question was still biased by the way the for/against arguments were presented by the questioner, begging for an affirmative response, specifically by tying the logic for the tax to excessive banker pay. In reality, of course, the tax is unrelated and would have no effect on banker pay.

You'll also note that that NPR poll overall was not at all favorable for the Obama agenda. Doesn't the obvious disparity on this particular item raise even a hint of likely question bias?

Cooper said...

ATTN: mogando

If you had even bothered to learn whats in the EFCA bill, you would know that it does not, in fact, abolish the secret ballot.

It doesn, however, take the power out of corporations' hands to rig labor elections in their favor.

Rudy said...

The EFCA bill specifically lowers the threshhold for eliminating a secret balot election. By doing so, that effectively eliminates the secret ballot, no matter how proponents try to obfuscate that fact.

Juris said...

@Nate: The word "equivocal" doesn't mean what you may think it does. It's not "fair" or "even handed." Instead it means "Open to two or more interpretations and often intended to mislead; ambiguous."

Similarly, to "equivocate" means to mislead, speak in two voices, be ambiguous.

parksie555 said...

@obelix - Or how about this one?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125678/Obama-Approval-Economy-Down-Foreign-Affairs-Up.aspx

Healthcare: Disapprove-Approve 60-36

That's because of the misinformed electorate, dont'cha know...

Or this one...

Economy: Disapprove-Approve 61-36

Clearly Bush's fault...

Fed budget deficit: Disapprove-Approve: 64-32

Probably that danged misinformed electorate thingy again...

The issues he does well on (relatively) are those where he has clearly tacked to the right since his election (Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, foreign policy)

Obama's signature achievement so far IMHO:

Nobel peace prize acceptance speech in which he told the European peaceniks (and I paraphrase) "We bailed you out twice already, we are doing it again, and I don't want to hear any of you nancy boys complaining about it anymore"

Brian Jenkins said...

Nate, with apologies to Monty Python:

It's not pinin,' it's passed on! This agenda is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late agenda! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-AGENDA!

Barry and his acolytes in the media have spent a year trying to cram this down Americans' throats and failed miserably! What makes you think another speech or photo-op is going to reverse the judgment of the American people?

Of course, examining the massive numer of Democratic dead men and women walking isn't fun for you- but that's your job as a political analyst. If you don't want to do it, ask the folks at BP to take you back so you can go to spring training.

wes said...

your articles are always a pleasure to read Nate/538! I appreciate the well thought and unbiased writing, especially when dealing with critics such as "mogando" (Who, as another commenter put it, ignored the 25 things you put up and focused on one that you didn't)

Your rebuttals are professional and well thought out, no matter if the commenter is polite or rude. That is what we need now. So thank you.

Please keep writing like this! it helps keep some clarity in the muddled political world :)

-wes-

Tony C. said...

It's Tough To Beat Liars.

Warning: Liberal Speaking.

Republicans have nearly mastered the art of telling lies that the mainstream media will repeat endlessly. They flub it once in a while, but their eagerness to tell outright lies that demonize liberal policies from every angle, everything from they aren't popular to they will KILL you, more than makes up for those rare instances in which the media balks at repeating one of their lies.

The media loves the lies; they are dramatic (death panels!) and give pundits something to shout about. And since the vast majority of Americans have zero time to check and see if a claim is just a lie, the lies work: Because even if one does not believe in death panels they can still wonder and be concerned what legislation is getting that moniker; it doesn't even occur to them it is a pure fiction. Despite all the jokes about lying politicians, we still naively accept that if somebody is speaking publicly there may be bias and exaggeration, but we don't expect every news outlet to be repeating bald faced lies, or remaining neutral while showing us politicians telling bald faced lies.

The environment makes it hard to beat the liars; they play by no rules anymore. That is what Nate's research shows.

Kennyb said...

Yeah, yeah. And if the administration is on the same side as the public, they are "playing to the polls" like they said about Clinton.

Kennyb said...

Yeah, yeah. And if the administration is on the same side as the public, they are "playing to the polls" like they said about Clinton.

parksie555 said...

@TonyC -
Just a question, if you really believe this, then how come all the smart liberals out there haven't been able to figure this out? Why can't they make outrageous claims about Republican policies and reap the same benefits of all the dopes in the electorate? So by your analysis, the dumb ones are the liberal political operatives and the electorate at large, correct?

Walker said...

538.com Brethren,

For the sake of argument let's take Nate's assumptions at face value, i.e., that a clear majorioty of Obama and the Democrats policy objectives have majority support among the American people.

If that is the case, the current administration and the congressional Democratic leadership are the biggest bunch of screw-ups in the history of American politics, bar none.

You have to go back to the corrupt, dufus governments in the late 19th century to find such incompetence.

Bad argument, Nate.

jslater said...

While Nate is right about the political prospects and national (lack of) focus on the card check provision of EFCA, it is worth underscoring that this provision would not get rid of secret ballots.

Indeed, it would not change any right that any *employee* has to a secret ballot. All it would do is eliminate the *employer's* right to choose between a card check election and a secret ballot.

Opponents misrepresent what the bill would do so routinely and so fundamentally, it really must be intentional dishonesty.

Sacto Joe said...

WAY too quick to blame the Obama administration for a "meta-strategy" that "has necessarily had to be somewhat terrible".

Progressives continually underestimate the power of the Great Right Wing Propaganda Machine.

Rudy said...

Slater, what twisted logic leads you to conclude that opponents misrepresent the card check effects? You seem to think that eliminating employer rights to a secret ballot election is OK? That's not a weakening of the secret ballot?

You blithely ignore that union organizers could strongarm a card check majority and legally end-run the employers ability to counteract the pro-union argument. Under EFCA, the secret ballot could only be invoked if the employees specifically voted to ask for it. In reality, the intentional dishonesty is by those who use that fig leaf to pretend that the secret ballot would still exist.

Tim said...

It seems that just about any idea gets less popular as it goes along. Consider the Republican's proposal to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Sounds good huh? I'm a dem and I like it. Except until you hear what they really want which is no Federal regulations. Now consider what that would mean. Say State X decides that it's insurance companies do not have to cover mammograms. Insurance costs would be lower and men would flock to the plan. The plan would therefore have a large percentage of men and it's cost would be even lower -- because they would not have to pay out for pregnancy, gynecological exams, etc. Women, of course, would be stuck in plans that are way more expensive. It would also be way cheaper for businesses that employ men -- and ultimately might cause businesses to hire less women. Dems have not explained this fully, which leaves the republicans out there looking like they actually have a good idea -- when the idea actually sucks -- unless you include government regulations -- which I would be fine with, but the republicans would yell and scream that that was a "Government takeover of healthcare". The point I am making here really is that it is always harder in any debate to overcome the status quo - and that's what the dems are up against -- and on a very complex issue wherein each step needs a great deal of explaining.

jslater said...

Rudy:

Beneath your bluster, you have the law wrong. 30% of the employees could still demand an election if they want one, even if the card check provision was passed. And under the Dana Corp. case -- which I'm sure you're familiar with, being so into this issue and all -- 30% can get an election even after a majority card check.

Second, you -- and other EFCA opponents -- keep skipping over the fact that, as I noted in my earlier post, under current law, *employees* don't have any other "right" to an election beyond the 30% rule. You do understand that employers can voluntarily agree to a card check recognition under current law, right? The only "right" that's being taken away is the employer's right to choose an election -- if that's what the employer wants. No right of employees is being changed.

That's all quite clear in the bill, which again makes me wonder if opponents are even trying to be honest.

Daniel said...

I'm not sure that we really want to give each of the issues equal weight in determining whether the administration is pursuing a popular set of policies. It seems strange, for instance, to count the cash-for-clunkers program and an overhaul of the nations healthcare system equally when determining whether Obama has supported policies that have widespread support. Healthcare is simply a bigger deal than short-term federal incentives to buy cars.

Think of it this way: would you say that you had a bigger disagreement with someone who disagreed with you on healthcare but agreed with you on the cash-for-clunkers program or with someone who agreed with you on healthcare and disagreed with you cash for clunkers?

Jeff said...

God what nonsense. The analysis ignores difficult issues for the Dems (Card Check, Amnesty), and conflated minor matters like Bernake and Sotomayor (dead issues now), fair pay and hate crimes (hardly on anyone's radar screen), and - most risably - DC voting rights. WHO CARES? This admin is all about the stimulus, the health bill, and cap and trade. Those were the big issues. They are all toxic now. Not to mention issue number one (also ignored here): deficits and debt. The questions on most of these polls are obviously slanted as well. As in, for example, "do you support more jobs even if it means less deficit reduction?" Sure. But what if the reality is more stimulus, almost not new jobs, and NO (not "less") deficit reduction but instead exploding deficits. Come on - wake up folks. Head in the sand syndrome. This is like a GOPer saying, well sure people hate the war in Iraq and privitizing social security, but hey - look - they like more Aids cash for Africa and Bush's pet dog. He's batting .500!

The proof is in the pudding. People don't like the Dems in Congress, are souring on Obama, and - at least at this juncture - are planning on jettisoning as many of these folks as they can in November. Convincing yourself that everyone loves you agenda is utter folly. Silver is in full spin mode now.

parksie555 said...

@jslater - Even congressional supporters of EFCA are already dropping the card check portion of the bill because they know it's a non-starter.

Under the current law employees in practice have the right to an election because no sane employer will allow the card check results to pass. Knowing that the workers want a union they will present their side of the story and then an election will be held. I just went through it three years ago - I know.

You are the one being dishonest, my friend.

slasher14 said...

@walker -- you mean an administration has screwed up when a minority faction in the Senate, which itself is skewed to small, rural states, is able to block legislation the public wants? You sound like those morons on the left who think that saying the Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate means something in the face of the opposition of a party that votes reflexively to oppose anything the majority supports.

The system is gamed to make change as difficult as possible. One can argue that this is good, but one can NOT argue that those who are unable to get change past the minefield of the filibuster rules are somehow to blame for that.

jslater said...

Parksie:

Did you even read anything I wrote? I began my first point by agreeing that card-check is, politically, dead in the water. My only point was that opponents misdescribe it.

I take your second paragraph to implicitly agree with me that the option is the employer's, not the employees, under current law. I would only repeat that under current law OR under EFCA-with-card-check, 30% of employees can get an election scheduled.

So I'm being entirely honest. Again, it's opponents who aren't. And by the way, I've been in labor relations for a long time, so I do understand that employers prefer elections. And if opponents of EFCA would just say, "but it would take away the EMPLOYER'S choice, and that's bad," I wouldn't call them dishonest. But the claim that card check would take away the employee's choice is simply false.

Taft said...

Funny to watch the right-wing extremists twist on this one.

"But, but, but...popular opinion doesn't matter."

"But if you only look at the *important* issues..."

"But Nate is leaving out INSERT_WINGER_ISSUE_HERE..."

I love it when Nate pulls out numbers and logic and you guys reply with fear, ignorance, talking points and anger. Way to win over the moderates, guys. :rolleyes:

Taft said...

Also: it is amazing how much concern the right-wingers here have for the electability of Obama, all of a sudden. All this free advice from the far right about how Obama could save the Dems in Nov. if he just gave up all of his ideals and acted like a Republican. What selfless, logical advice!

You couldn't possibly have anything to gain from it, could you? No, no, no...that would just be cynical of me...

Trochilus said...

Nate, could you please make a prediction here that no Republican could possibly win the "special election" to fill the remainder of the term in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania vacated as a result of the untimely death of Congressman Jack Murtha?

Given your record of prognostication in the run-up to the election of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election, you could view this up-coming race as an opportunity to come out 50-50 on special election predictions -- that is, if you believe the Democrat is most likely to win!

No?

Rudy said...

Tim, that's a discussion worth having, and there are many facets to the pros and cons of interstate insurance. Most of the anti arguments focus upon the so-called race to the bottom, and there is some truth to that logic. The more productive discussion is whether that's really undesirable.

Responsible consumers and consumer advocates could easily point out the flaws of bare-bones states or plans within those states. Rule number one for any consumer is, "there's no such thing as a free lunch." Any consumer purchasing a low-cost plan should be able to readily identify the features that make it such, and regulation should support that sunlight.

Coverage mandates are different in diffferent states, and people should be able to choose what coverage they're willing to pay for, rather than be forced to subsidize coverage of conditions they oppose, like elective abortion, transgender surgery, and many others.

People should also be able to choose whether they want to pay extra for availability of all possible high-tech care, or whether they'd rather pay much less for generic drug coverage only, or low-priority provider availabilty.

Choice empowers consumers, but heavy regulation detracts from choice and costs people extra money whether they like it or not.

Presently, anyone having coverage purchased in one state must change coverage when they move to another. That creates another whole set of issues re pre-existing conditions and the fairness issues inherently involved.

I think you can give states a little credit that they will be motivated to properly address important consumer protection. If not, consumers would be free to avoid insurance from those states.

There are so many other issues that have no simple solutions, but are best solved by sunlight and consumer education and transparency, enabling choice to drive the marketplace rather than authoritarianism. This is a long overdue debate and not one that should be short-circuited by invoking the heavy hand of government.

slasher14 said...

Obama's real problem, IMO, is that he's forgotten the lesson of his days as a community organizer, which is that FIRST, you have to get the community mobilized, and only THEN do you take on the powers that be.

Long before the teabaggers showed up to reinforce the misconceptions about health care reform to the point where the public believed them as much as not, there should have been mass demonstrations in Washington DEMANDING health care. AARP and the unions should have been told that if you guys want this, you're going to have to fight for it. Don't think that the 2008 election was enough.

Civil rights was also filibustered successfully for a long time, but in the end that public pressure for it overcame enough Republicans in the Senate to get it past the rest of the Republicans and the Dixiecrats. It's going to take that kind of pressure again.

If I'm Obama right now, I put health care on the back burner but begin a campaign which lets people see what the alternative to reform really is, starting with the massive premium increases which WellPoint is beginning to phase in now that it thinks reform is dead and it's full speed ahead. And then, in the fall, get groups sympathetic to Democratic policies to start MAKING NOISE about the fact that 41 Republicans in the Senate have cost the average INSURED health care consumer $XXX dollars. Vote Democratic or continue to pay through the nose.

henwy said...

Nate's obviously mistaken. In every single case where polls show the public doesn't agree with a GOP position, it's obviously because they don't know enough about it. It's clear that democratic misinformation and the ignorance of the public has twisted the polls and if only the dems would stop lying and people weren't so stupid, the polls would show they love, LOVE I say, all of the GOP initiatives.

*snicker*

Persuter said...

This issue polling is getting ridiculous. 50% of the respondents to any statistically valid poll have a double-digit IQ. To believe that the average person has an even vaguely reasonable position on any complicated issue is absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of representative democracy is to get people who actually have the time and the brains to make reasonable decisions to make them for us.

The only thing these polls show is who has had the more effective propaganda, issue by issue. It tells you absolutely nothing about the relative merits of the issues. NOTHING.

Polling people on a decision they can actually make, i.e., voting for someone, is one thing. Polling people on a decision they cannot affect in any way is silly.

Rudy said...

Slater, we don't disagree on the facts of what is in the EFCA legislation, we disagree on the effect. In short, the secret ballot would be compromised by reducing the employer's ability to rebut the pro-union argument. Sure, there would still be provision for employees to ask for a secret ballot, but if they've not been able to hear the employer's logic, they would have low likelihood of doing so.

Regardless, the union strong-arming would be clearly evident in efforts to monitor the cards submitted and knowing who asked for a secret ballot. That alone undermines the secret ballot.

As I said earlier, EFCA proponents engage in deliberate obfuscation of the undermining of the secret ballot.

Walker said...

Apart from issues as it relates to fiscal policy and the Treasury as well as the Supreme Court, as a true, small-government conservative, I can almost stomach the thought of a 2nd Obama term.

The guy just doesn't get stuff done, even more so when he will face greater numbers of Republicans after the mid-term elections.

Small Government Conservatives for Obama!

This time, let's let Incompetence Pay Off For YOU!

Tim said...

Rudy,
My point was not that there should not be lower priced plans that people can choose to buy into -- I certainly like the idea of competition. The point that I was attempting to make is that without overall regulations certain groups of people -- notably women whose health care cost are much higher than men's -- would be disproportionately impacted. Since we're on the subject, one of the things in the bill that has gotten much less attention than it deserves is the requirement that insurance companies must put 85% of the money that is paid in for insurance must actually be paid back out in health care costs. I would actually like to see them go farther on this and require that insurance companies must disclose the precise percentage of money that actually goes back to health care costs. If I'm paying into something, I'd like an easy way to see what exactly I'm buying.

Juris said...

@Taft: Yep, you've got the Winger M.O. right on. Divert attention, change the argument, misrepresent, state non-facts as facts, etc.

Persuter said...

as a true, small-government conservative, I can almost stomach the thought of a 2nd Obama term.

The guy just doesn't get stuff done


Heh, well, makes sense, since small-government conservatives specialize in guys who don't get stuff done. Have you guys even gotten anyone elected since Barry Goldwater?

Small-government conservatives are, in essence, a third party linked to one of the two main ones, kind of like the Green Party. Of course you want Washington deadlock, since absolutely no one in Washington is listening to you anyway.

Rudy said...

Tim, I'm all for sunlight into insurance company financials and practices, and, in fact, it's largely available today in stte insurance commission filings and SEC documents. Sunlight and information empowers choice.

I understand your point about people cherry-picking coverages, but I largely disagree. By empowering people to select the coverages most important to them, costs can by best managed and waste eliminated. People shouldn't have to subsidize coverages that they have no possibility of using, or to subsidize someone deliberately choosing more expensive treatment options when less expensive options would suffice.

For the pregnancy issue, women of child-bearing age do already face higher insurance costs versus men of the same age. They are also generally part of a family that has a man in it, so the overall family effect is negated. They could also choose to buy coverage that would not cover pregnancy.

Most importantly, empowering consumer choice would make people more cognizant of how they could save money on their health care costs and insurance coverages. That's the only way, other than heavy-handed rationing, to reduce systemic costs.

parksie555 said...

@Rudy - Ding ding ding - winner. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Also I think Obama's naked pandering to union interests late in the health care debate (dropping health care tax on those with collective bargaining agreements) and during GM bailout (favoring UAW interests over those of secured creditors) has helped stir political backlash against unions in general.

Paul Stamler said...

Nate, twice in your piece you used the phrase "Republican Congress." What Republican Congress? Have you bought into the "41-59 majority" meme?

Stephen said...

It seems everyone is forgetting about the elephant in the kitchen. If Obama was on the right side of most important issues, his poll numbers would reflect it. No polls are perfect and following public opinion is not always the right course but there is unmistakable trend in all polls showing a growing unhappiness with this president. Trying to show why the public SHOULD like him is non-productive.

asdf said...

I think this is really misleading analysis:

, Obama's position appears to be on the right side of public opinion on 14: the bank tax, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, campaign finance, the credit card bill, D.C. voting rights, fair pay, financial regulation, gays in the military, hate crimes, the jobs bill, mortgage relief, PAYGO, SCHIP, and Sotomayor.

Ok lets see:

Sotomayor - Sure. But keep in mind the American people supported Sam Alito as well.

PAYGO - The Democrats PAYGO is a farce, as evidenced by the stimulus. You can't put PAYGO in the yes column without putting the jobs bill, mortgage relief, and the stimulus in the no column, since they're utterly unconsistent.

Hate crimes - Sure. But the Republican position that these can and should be handled by the states is likely equally valid and popular.

DC voting rights - Sure. But it might be unconsitutional.

Campaign Finance - Given that it was John Mccain who wrote the CFR bill, its a bit much to tally it either way based on a Supreme Court opinion poll.

Financial Regulation - The fact that the GOP opposes this particular regulation bill is not indicative of opposing the general concept of financial regulation.


You have a point on some things: The bank tax, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, fair pay, and gays in the military are all areas where Obama has taken a stance that is favored by the public while the GOP has taken a stance that is unfavored by the public.

Unfortunately for you, I think the flipside issues of health care and Guantanemo are more important to the average joe.

jslater said...

Rudy:

If your argument is "But the employer couldn't run an anti-union campaign unless 30% of the employees requested an election!" fine. But that's not what EFCA opponents say. They say it abolishes secret elections (see the intial posts on the topic here) or takes away the right of employees to an election. Those are, simply, lies.

Wally said...

Tim,

Why should men subsidize the choices of women? Or why should single people of any gender subsidize the choice of those wishing to have kids?

If I want a cheap plan that only covers catastrophic illness or injury, why should the mob force me to pay for a plan covering mammograms (especially if I'm a man), flu vaccinations, a yearly check up, and wart removal?

Having personal choice is not only good economic policy as Rudy explains, its a fundamental right. The mob forcing me to buy something I don't want is tantamount to slavery.

Richard said...

Bart:

First of all, you know as well as I than foreigners on our soil are entitled to Miranda warnings and some due process considerations. Frankly, its been settled law since the very first time it came up.

Second, if Obama actually did act to support civil liberties and increase the transparency and procedural protections of our antiterror campaign, would that be a popular idea? No. But then again, how many people in this country support those sorts of rights for regular American criminals? These sorts of rights are entirely inappropriate for politicization, mostly because people are stupid. That is why they are enshrined in our Constitution, and not left up to the whim of the majority.

Also, although the term you sued to describe your constitutional interpretation escapes me, though i know you are strong on the actual language of the document, would you agree that the use of the word "person" in the Bill of Rights (as opposed to the use of the word "citizen" as in the qualifications to be president) would explicitly extend those rights to noncitizens?

joe said...

TONY c
i am SHOCKED at how some news agencies perpetuate what they know is "clearly" wrong(fox news) the republicans struggle,lieing and fighting tooth and nail for short term gains. if this doesn't work for them(and i don,t think it will) i would expect that the republican party will never be trusted again for anything!they have no interest or concern in the people,but a ruthless tunnel vision for greed!

Rudy said...

Slater, you're right that someone saying that EFCA would ABOLISH the secret ballot would be untrue, but I re-looked at the posts above and the only person who was saying "abolish" was Cooper, using that word to set up the straw man on your side of the argument.

Mogambo was invoking the "sanctity" of the secret ballot being compromised, which I agree with, but that's different than "abolish."

My argument was clear in both of my posts here. I didn't say abolish, and I clearly invoked the infringement of employer rights, which you then twisted into employee rights. Perhaps you just misread my words in haste, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The case against EFCA is easily made without using "abolish" as it is readily apparent that the secret ballot would be undermined, as I outlined. You seem copacetic with that argument, so I think we understand each other.

Wally said...

In regards to the article, I question if Nate is cherry picking to make a point. Here are two issues explained by Nate:

Cash-for-Clunkers. The only organization to poll on this was Rasmussen, which found voters opposed to the program 35-54 in June, but a 44-38 plurality favoring the program in retrospect after it had been implemented.

Stimulus. The stimulus has become somewhat unpopular now -- although most individual elements of the program remain popular. However, the stimulus was somewhat popular at the time of its passage. An average of the last five organizations to release polls in advance of the Senate's vote on the stimulus on 2/9/09 showed 50 percent in favor of the bill and 38 percent opposed. House Republicans opposed the stimulus unanimously; Senate Republicans gave it 3 votes.

In one case Nate emphasizes the newer (singular) poll to illustrate how C4C is popular. But in the other he wants us to buy into how the stimulus was popular and now is not?

First, C4C was part of the stimulus. Seems kind of goofy to ask about the whole thing and a small subset of it without some explanation. Along those lines, the two trend lines don't match. The Stimulus is going down but C4C, which is over, is going up, but C4C is part of the stimulus. So this should probably be interpreted to mean no cares about C4C anymore. And if you read the rest of the poll, 44% think it was a good idea but 54% think it should have stopped at the initial ~$1B price tag and 51% to 37% think it will hurt future car sales. So this seems odd. Most people think it should have ended earlier and will hurt future sales, but more people than not think it was a good idea? I think we're on the far end of the error bars here. And the truth really resides towards the first poll. Which of course is unlike the stimulus, we have pretty much weekly polls on that issue showing increasing unpopularity. But lets go with the one about a year ago in one case, and lets go with the current singular poll on C4C.

Sorry Nate, this is cherry picking. And it leaves me skeptical of other issues where you point to one poll to prove your point. First, its only 1 poll. Second, you often don't even bring up the possibility of other polls, which of course some posters have pointed out.

Persuter said...

I specifically said that much of my disgust centered around "ne'er do well teenagers" who have a problem with "theft." I threw in a gratuitous reference to their "pants hanging down past their butts" yet in a comment further down you made it like their attire was my sole reason for being disgusted and completely ignored my comment about actual crime taking place.

Sorry, hon, there's a three-day statute of limitations on manufactured indignation.

Bart DePalma said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Bart DePalma said...

Richard said...Bart: First of all, you know as well as I than foreigners on our soil are entitled to Miranda warnings and some due process considerations. Frankly, its been settled law since the very first time it came up.

Foreign enemy combatants in general and those tried by military tribunal - in or outside the US - have no due process rights under the Bill of Rights. Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). Only those charged and tried as civilians are extended such rights.

As a matter of policy, telling a captured foreign enemy combatant during a war that he has a right to silence is pure insanity. Under the Geneva Conventions, we have every right to interrogate an enemy combatant using all means fair and foul short of torture.

Tim said...

Rudy -- why does 'some Federal regulation' translate in your mind to 'heavy handed rationing'? Minimal standards of what must be included in coverage is not an extremist position. The federal government is not going to insist that insurance companies cover things like transgender surgeries.Take a look at minimum wages for example -- most states actually have higher minimum wage requirements than the federal government. But some don't. You made a case that States should be trusted to provide consumer protections -- but it only takes one State out of 50 to decide that's it's ok for their insurance companies to offer coverage that does not include something like mammograms. Just one. As far as 'subsidizing' other people's choices -- as a single man I have subsidized insurance for married folks and their kids all my adult life. I don't mind so much paying for the kids, but it is a little bit difficult to run into the spouse of a co-worker who sits at home on his or her butt all day and gets the exact amount of insurance as I do. That's the status quo as it is now. I'd love to see that change, but nobody is proposing it because married folks are the majority -- and so us single folks end up subsidizing them. Saying that women pay more for health insurance now than men do is true - but just because that is the status quo, it doesn't make it right. Many of the measures in the bill equalize the price of insurance for men and women -- and for most people this won't make a big difference - as you say, most people are couples so it levels out. But it would, however, be a staggering increase for single women. So basically what you're saying is that it's okay to stick it to a group of people as long as it's a relatively small group of people. Last point -- if you included some minimal federal oversight, and a state did not wish to meet that oversight, that would be fine-- the companies in that state would just not be able to compete across state lines.

Persuter said...

Clearly, for you, there's no statute of limitations in hiding behind a bald-faced lie.

I fully expected you to take the cowardly way out. Duly noted for future discourse.


lol, yes, I'm "cowardly" because I'm not going to get in an irrelevant screaming match with you over the semantics of a four-day-old comment in another thread which no one cares about, including you. Sounds about right.

shrinkers said...

Not good news for either the teapartyers or the Republicans -- and it comes from Ras --

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/02/poll-tea-party-candidates-come-in-last/1

But I'm sure we can spin it so it's good for John McCain.

Joe said...

Nate Silver said: "One of the more commonplace assertions among pundits on the center-right -- made...more thoughtfully by Jay Cost, is that agenda put forward by Obama and the Democrats is overwhelmingly unpopular and that Democrats are simply getting their comeuppance for having pushed such a liberal set of reforms forward."

That isn't really what Jay Cost wrote. Cost was largely criticizing the process (eg "policy has consistently been built from the left" & "stubborn insistence on comprehensive reform"). Cost highlights the problems by observing Democrats can't even get their own centrist members on board. Even in the Senate, they could barely get their own members to not filibuster!

Cost suggests that liberal reforms can be achieved incrementally and through compromise - not that a liberal agenda is inherently poisonous.

And that is what your polling sample show - that as a general matter, a good number of liberal reforms have public support. But that doesn't mean the public will support the most liberal incarnation of such reforms. In other words, there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve liberal reforms and Obama has been doing it the wrong way. Or as Cost concludes, "Barack Obama has so far failed to govern."

T. Duffy said...

I just wish the Dems could do a better job of promoting their agenda.

http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/

jslater said...

Rudy:

I don't want to continue arguing when I agree that we understand each other (and that card check ain't happening in the private sector), so I'll let this be my last comment on the subject.

First, I really don't think the right to an election would be "undermined," given that 30% of the employees could still demand an election were the card check provision of EFCA to pass.

Second, I note that at least six states have enacted mandatory card check recognition for their public sector labor laws, and none of the parade of horribles predicted by EFCA opponents has happened in those states in public sector union organizing campaigns.

In sum, card check was easy to demagogue, but it's not actually such a big deal.

Matthew said...

Let's not go too crazy over this, 14 out of 25 is only 56%. Additionally, I think many of these issues could easily be swung the other way just based on the way a question is asked. For example the mortgage assistance -- I've yet to meet even one person in favor of helping people pay for mortgages they shouldn't have gotten in the first place. If you frame the issue that way, the public is opposed. If you frame it as helping people taken advantage of by predator lenders, I'd guess the public is in favor.

Nate touched on this a bit when he noted that not all issues are created equal. I have a feeling that if you were somehow assign a weight to each issue to reflect how much time/effort Democrats have spent promoted them (or even the amount of time the issues were in the news), the results would be far different (though not necessarily in favor of the right). Obviously health care has dominated for quite some time, but I think it's fair to weigh that far more heavily than something like Sotomayer -- because health care is what democrats have decided is going to be their issue.

Pan said...

@Persuter

Agreed that most issue polling is useless for determing what the "correct" side of an issue is. But it is more likely to determine how "popular" it is, and when someone is using their claims of its unpopularity as a tactic against you, I guess it's not such a terrible thing.

@Shots

That bridge must be awful lonely.

ArcadeFire said...

@Bart DePalma

Because we're at war with Yemen and/or Nigeria right?

Bart DePalma said...

ArcadeFire said...@Bart DePalma Because we're at war with Yemen and/or Nigeria right?

No, because we are at war with al Qaeda and its allies. Well, at least most of the country is.

Mainer said...

Boy does the concept of not wanting to pay for some thing that does not directly benifit me sound reasonable. Lets start with my poor state having to continue to subsidize the New Confed-Rats-ee so that they can lay claim to being masters of the economic universe. Easy to do on some one elses dime.

Trust the states? Not very damn likely. All too many of them would beggar their neighbor in a heartbeat. All those business types register business in Delaware just because it is convienent. Credit Card companies locate in the Dakotas because it is the center of the banking world. Would that we had a nation where we all saw the need for unified action just because it was the right thin to do. I keep thinking my bible must be getting old because it doesn't seem to have any thing in it about lauding selfishness.

And on issues such as Gitmo. Our elected leaders are too busy misinforming to maintain fear to sit back and seriously think how we might actually put ourselves in a position to better protect the nation. But hey as long as they can call it a war they can thump their chests and sound all patriotic and keep padding their campaign chest with donations from the defense industry.

Hu Chi I am thinking that doom is the winning option. Confusion can't even compete in this false environment.

shrinkers said...

@Bart DePalma

Since we have not declared war on anyone, it is hard to legally justify use of the concept of "enemy combatant". But I'm sure you'll come up with something. Would it include Richard Reid? David Koresh? The Unibomber? Those two snipers in DC a few years back? The guy in his house in Idaho? Richard Speck? The guys who carry weapons to presidential town hall meetings? Secessionist governors of southern states? How about secessionist governors of southern states in the 1860's?

Tim said...

Wally,
Far from suggesting that you should have to subsidize " the choices of women?" I said that basically there are health care cost that are intrinsically higher for women. Regardless of whether a woman has a child or not - her health care cost on average are much higher than men's. Now, why do I think that we as men should share those costs -- I guess because we wouldn't be here if women didn't have the reproductive systems that they have. It doesn't seem reasonable that simply because somebody is born female that she should be fundamentally disadvantaged. Particularly when this disadvantage is a basic threat to her health. Secondly, what I said in regard to kids is that as a single man with no children, I have for my entire adult life -- because I work in a business that provides health insurance to both the spouses and children of my co-workers- subsidized the health insurance for my co-workers children, which I don't mind doing, and their spouses who choose not to work-- which I do mind. And Wally, as somebody who make over 250K per year -- unless you are somebody who makes more than I do -- I subsidize your costs-- I pay more than my share for those bombs that we use in National Defense, I pay more for our soldiers bullet proof vests, I pay more for their health care when they are injured -- So Wally, if you are one of those people who is not richer than I, or even richer those who are richer than I am, I might ask, why should we continue to subsidize you? If all you can afford is a crappy National Defense, then maybe you should not get the benefits of that defense? By the way, I in no way said or implied that any form of cosmetic surgery -- like 'wart removal' should be subsidized by anybody -- or viagra for that matter. That's an optional thing. Mammograms and Pap Smears aren't. They're like food. We don't let our citizens starve -- even if they are worthless scum. We certainly should make being a woman something that will put women's lives at risk.

Rudy said...

Tim, "some Federal regulation" and "heavy-handed rationing" are obviously two different things. However, as we could plainly see in the ObamaCare ligislation, there would be high risk of the former leading to the latter. The greater control exerted via regulation, the lower the opportunity for consumer choice, and the greater the propensity for further regulation in the future.

Minimal standards of coverage, in practice, have proven to be not so minimal. I agree with your logic that there should be minimal standards, but that they are better addressed by consumers refusing to buy substandard coverage, and thus insurance companies competing on the basis of product quality.

Where do you draw the line on what constitutes "minimal" standards? They have an understandable habit of growing, and never retracting. Ever. Each individual mandate is positioned as having only a minor effect on cost, but cumulatively, they have become so unwieldy in many states that curing the market displacements they've caused are increasingly relentless and intractable. That naturally leads to the call for further government intervention.

Any federal mandates, as opposed to state mandates, would leave consumers with nowhere to go if they were opposed to such a mandate and wanted to avoid paying for it or being governed by it.

Your mammorgram example is a good case in point. Perhaps some state (hopefully many states) would choose to not mandate its coverage. Would that really cause people to make a beeline for insurance coverage from that state? In itself, no. In fact, people are making their coverage decisions based upon what they're likely to need, so an insurer not covering mammograms is limiting its market potential. Desirable coverage is likely to be fairly standard, regardless of mandate.

Insurance isn't about subsidization, it's about protection from the unanticipated and catastrophic by spreading the risk among large groups of people.

You're mistaken that you, as a single man, are subsidizing coverages for families and kids. You (or your employer) pay a different rate based upon the actuarial assumtions based upon your demographic, so your rates are much lower than, say, for a 60-year-old couple, and much higher than standalone coverage for kids. ObamaCare would have created age-based subsidy, which would have been a huge tax upon the young.

I'm not in favor of "sticking it" to any group of people. In fact, I'm arguing the opposite. Consumer choice, flexibility in coverage options, and minimal mandates (state or federal) helps people avoid having it "stuck to" them.

Rudy said...

Slater, fair enough. We could have a real interesting discussion re the pros and cons of public sector unionization, particularly in view of the apparent fact that no one's been looking out for the taxpayers in many such negotiations. Could be the death of California and a multitude of municipaliites.

Wally said...

Tim,

>Far from suggesting that you should have to subsidize " the choices of women?"<

Why the quotations Tim? Pregnancy and birth control, two huge medical costs are choices in all but the rarest of situations.

"Now, why do I think that we as men should share those costs -- I guess because we wouldn't be here if women didn't have the reproductive systems that they have. It doesn't seem reasonable that simply because somebody is born female that she should be fundamentally disadvantaged."

And men die early, suffer from more genetic diseases, the list goes on for both sides. Life isn't fair. Attempting to make excuses to take away a personal freedom from one group in order to attempt to make up for a perceived or real "disadvantage" is still taking away someone's rights. And please, women wouldn't be here with out men either. Unless we want to get all scientific, and then we really don't need either sex.

"Secondly, what I said in regard to kids is that as a single man with no children, I have for my entire adult life -- because I work in a business that provides health insurance to both the spouses and children of my co-workers- subsidized the health insurance for my co-workers children, which I don't mind doing, and their spouses who choose not to work-- which I do mind."

That's nice of you to do, but the problem comes when we force this upon everyone through the power of government.

"And Wally, as somebody who make over 250K per year -- unless you are somebody who makes more than I do -- I subsidize your costs-- I pay more than my share for those bombs that we use in National Defense, I pay more for our soldiers bullet proof vests, I pay more for their health care when they are injured"

Congradulations! Is that what you want? Because this point has absolutely nothing to do with topic. I make less than 250K, but I do make enough that I too carry more than my share of the tax burden.

"why should we continue to subsidize you?"

I don't think you should, if we pretend you actually do for a moment. Sorry, I'm not here to force others to pay for me. If you make more than me, great. You probably earned it and you should keep it. I'm not jealous, and I don't want your money.

"Mammograms and Pap Smears aren't. They're like food. We don't let our citizens starve -- even if they are worthless scum. We certainly should make being a woman something that will put women's lives at risk."

We aren't putting their lives at risk, we're making them pay for their services. And yes mammograms and pap smears are optional services.

jslater said...

Rudy:

We probably could have an interesting discussion about public sector unionism in general. I think there's a lot more going on in Cali than union obligations, but they certainly are an issue.

Without getting into all that, however, and trying to be consistent with my "this is my last word on the matter" last post, I will just note I brought up the public sector only as an example of mandatory card check rules not leading to the parade of horribles (e.g., union-goons-forcing-recognition) that at least some EFCA opponents predict would happen in the public sector -- not as a general endorsement of all things public sector union.

It's kind of like saying, "hey, legalized same-sex marriage in various states and countries hasn't led to legalized man-dog sex. But that's even more off-topic.

Mainer said...

Bart and the rest of the chest thumpers will never get it. Their John Wayne version of world history is pretty simplistic. But Bart etal. assuming you actually do wish to have this society prevail in our efforts to beat the Islamic radicals that threaten us would you at least consider a couple of things?

How will conventional use of the military across the board afford us success when the very application of that force brings more recruits into their ranks? This is a clash of ideologies. The only way to control and perhaps eventually put ourselves on a long term secure footing is to use intelligence, guile and effective propaganda coupled with very targeted and small scale military action. Every time your ilk wants to call this a war it plays into the hands of those who would be holy warriors. Things like Gitmo give them ammunition with their own to show why we should be bombed. Why is it we can not stop long enough in our political bickering to figure out how to do this right other than one side seeking advantage over the other and that is inside our own society.

This needs to be rebranded. I think those that would attack us have either been worthless religiously radical scum or brainless followers. Ok so why would we wish to call them any thing even approaching "enemy combatant"? Call them what they are "Scum" and criminals. Why does our side think they should be glorified? Every time we stoop to their level we just aid them and denigrate tha which we profess to be. If we catch them then have enough faith in our system to try them and then stuff them in a hole for the rest of their lives, no martyrdom, no glory just common treatment of scum. Beyond that use targeted action to kill the ones we can before they can forment any thing. To do other wise is to lock us in war against 1.8 billion Muslims for eternity.

Tim said...

Wally, you silly boy. The defense budget is about 954 billion dollars a year. The adult population of the US is about 217 million. That's about 44 thousand a year per adult in taxes. If you make less than 250K and your paying that much, then you need to get yourself a tax attorney. The people who make more in this country subsidize those who make less -- get over it. Now why is it relevant to the discussion? Because that is how society works -- it is both a mix of personal responsibility as well as taking upon ourselves some share of the responsibility for our general welfare as a society. And Wally, Pap Smears and Mammograms are not really 'optional' for women. It's true, you won't necessarily die if you don't have them, but your chances of dying are greatly increased. As far as men needing more care when they are older -- that care already IS subsidized you don't pay more into Medicare because you are a man Wally.

Shacklett said...

Nate,

Was it you who posted a poll last year (maybe around January?) showing that expressed policy preferences and beliefs barely lined up at all with party identification?

Considering the post above, and the one about your RI restaurant-owning (carpetbagger?) Brown supporter, its clear that for many voters rational analysis of policy alternatives has nothing to do with party allegiance.

Regrettably, my grandfather was a single-issue voter for 20 years. His issue? His perception that "The s are taking over!"

To the extent it is about policy, Republicans, in particular, are ill-informed and highly selective in their attention. I get about 10 right-wing "send-it-around" emails a day from my uncle, many of which claim the US spends $1 trillion on welfare programs for minorities. Depending on what you count, this is off by a factor of 10-50. Your points about criminal GOP process in pass Part D are also well taken, and generated nary a peep from the teabagger crowd.

If we could only tax stupidity and hypocrisy, we could eliminate the deficit in a couple years - and somewhat correct the current, massive balance-of-payments problem wherein the federal government takes disproportional amounts of money from blue-states and spends disproportional amounts in Red States...

Wally said...

Tim,

I'd rather be a "boy" than a liberal. When I say I pay more than my share, I mean I'm in an income group paying well above the average. right now we're running trillion dollar yearly deficits, obviously as a whole, our population in general isn't paying for its share. But if you were more interested in having an honest debate about the issue at hand then attempting to score meaningless points by saying things like "silly boy" or "put women's lives at risk." Which are both fallacious statements. I'll leave it to our liberal brain to figure out why.

"And Wally, Pap Smears and Mammograms are not really 'optional' for women."

Yes they are. You need food, water and shelter to live. Eating healthy and working out would be a better analogy to Pap Smears. While having regular pap smears may help you to stay health and live longer, you need food/water/shelter to live at all. So, do you also suggest paying for things that simply improve the quality of life such as red wine, broccoli, gym memberships (oh and of course we'd have to mandate they go)?

"It's true, you won't necessarily die if you don't have them, but your chances of dying are greatly increased."

"Greatly" huh? Got some numbers for me?

"As far as men needing more care when they are older -- that care already IS subsidized you don't pay more into Medicare because you are a man Wally."

Oh you silly boy Timmy, I don't care. I'm not happy with medicare just because I may get a good deal out of it. I'd rather not have it all. What exactly is the point of this argument anyway? "Looky you might get subsidized health care, so you're wrong?" Uh, that's stupid Tim. I don't want anyone subsidized my health care. (And you'll get extra points if you point out what fallacy you're committing here)

boombox said...

shots, you are one miserable woman!

Bart DePalma said...

shrinkers said...@Bart DePalma: Since we have not declared war on anyone, it is hard to legally justify use of the concept of "enemy combatant".

Congress has reserved declarations of war for wars against major nation states. The vast majority of our wars have been against non-state groups (Indians, guerillas, pirates and terrorists) or smaller nations (Haiti, Nicaragua, etc.). Captures in those undeclared wars were treated as enemy combatants or the lesser category of pirates.

More to the point for our discussion, a declaration of war is not a prerequisite for the laws of war to apply. If you are in a de facto state of war, the law of war applies.

Would it include Richard Reid? David Koresh? The Unibomber? Those two snipers in DC a few years back? The guy in his house in Idaho? Richard Speck?

Traditionally, there were three categories which might apply in a war: a brigand/pirate, a common criminal and an enemy combatant.

Being treated as an enemy combatant was a privilege because it generally protected you from punishment for acts of war like killing other combatants and destroying property.

The next most protected status was a common criminal. You could be prosecuted for acts of war, but at least you were provided some process before they hung you. The Geneva Conventions were set up to protect lawful combatants from being treated as common criminals.

The least protected status was as a brigand/pirate. Usually, they were summarily executed by military authorities once it was determined they fell in that category, unless the government wanted to make a show of a civilian trial for the people.

The last category has fallen into misuse because brigands (unlawful soldiers) largely disappeared when mercenaries gave way to national armies in the 18th Century. Pirates largely vanished some time afterwards.

Today, piracy has been promoted to a statutory crime with due process protections.

However, brigandage and its modern counterpart terrorism have not really been addressed directly by the current international law regime. Rather, they appear to fall into the crack between the non-combatant population of a civilian state and enemy combatants privileged as POWs under the Geneva Conventions. This undefined category between the two is what US law now defines as unlawful enemy combatants. Unlawful enemy combatants do not qualify for POW privileges, but they are granted extensive due process never before granted to brigands under the common law of war back in the 17th and 18th Centuries.

Does that dissertation answer your question? The reason I know this is that I have been researching and discussing this subject in deep detail on multiple legal blogs and somewhat on my own blog for 3 years now.

Bart DePalma said...

Mainer said...

How will conventional use of the military across the board afford us success when the very application of that force brings more recruits into their ranks?

I would commend Gen. David Petreus' counter insurgency manual to you or at least a detailed summary of it. As Mao poetically noted, guerillas are to the people as fish are to the sea. Counter insurgency's aim is to separate the people from the guerillas and hunt down the guerillas who would be like fish out of water.

Counterinsurgency requires conventional military force to provide the security for the people.

The use of conventional military force only helps guerilla recruiting if it cannot protect the people from the guerillas and worse still harms the people in the crossfire of war.

This is a clash of ideologies. The only way to control and perhaps eventually put ourselves on a long term secure footing is to use intelligence, guile and effective propaganda coupled with very targeted and small scale military action.

No, No, NO! You can only defeat a guerilla campaign by separating the people from the guerillas. That takes boots on the ground. Small scale military action usually assists guerilla recruiting by failing to protect the population and instead killing civilians. It is worst of both worlds.

The anti-military left prefers this option as a second best alternative to open surrender because it involves the least use of military force and allows Dems who must run for reelection to say they did something. Thankfully, Obama decided against this cop out and is going for victory instead.

Boing said...

The obsession you guys have with the popularity of policies is quite surprising. In Britain no-one really gives a shit whether policies are popular until it's time to elect a new government. Or if the policy's gone spectacularly wrong, like Iraq. Or, once in a while, if there's a quandary about whether or not to have a referendum on something.

Is it an artifact of mid-terms or what? It's a representative democracy, the people aren't meant to get to vote on every policy.

Tim said...

Rudy,
My benefits from work include a health care benefit that is about $10,000 that the company pays in for me. My married co-workers get that same $10,000 plus half that amount for each child plus their spouse. Now, they can choose not to accept it, but when they do, they are in reality being paid more than I am -- that's me subsidizing their cost. What do I mean by minimal standards? Since I am not in the health insurance or medical industry, my inclination would be to look at what an average plan covers. I would also provide a low risk plan for people that are younger, non-smokers, and not drastically overweight. I would mandate coverage and start first by considering what we now pay in subsidies for non-emergency care emergency room visits. The problem that I see with what you are proposing is that basically it will drive anybody who is higher risk into plans that are totally unaffordable. Another thing that I would add is that Heath Insurance companies charge a mandated per person rate for their services - rather than a percentage which is tied to the rate of health care costs themselves. In other words Health Insurance Companies should not make greater and greater profits simply because the cost of health care itself goes up - they are not providing an additional service. And it gives them no real incentive to be part of the solution in driving down actual health care costs.

Rudy said...

Tim, it is your employer subsidizing the extra insurance coverage, not you. It is completely independent from what you are paid or from what it costs to insure you. I understand that you feel that's a de facto pay difference, which is true, but it is still a totally independent issue from the cost of insurance.

On your wish list for coverages, I agree with some of your thoughts, such as financial incentives for healthy behavior and for using the most appropriate provider. Higher risk people shouldn't have meaningfully higher costs, all other things being equal. They benefit by the large pool effect, and even they could help control the cost of their coverage by not buying more coverage components than are applicable for themselves. This is where mandates add to cost without providing value to consumers.

Insurance companies have incentive to control costs because they are in competition for customers and for profits. But if they are not customer-friendly and people don't want to use them, that hurts their business. Government mandates interfere with their ability to provide the best-value products to customers, hurting everybody except whoever is being subsidized by the mandate.

Please take the distinction between insurance and subsidies to heart; I think it would help you better conceptualize the objectives of each, and why mixing them together is a recipe for inefficiency, frustration and inaffordability.

Persuter said...

Shots:
Not looking for a screaming match.

Sure you're not. That's why you're calling me a "coward" because I won't get into one with you. And accusing me of "bald-faced lies". Honestly, Shots, do you think anyone believes the "I'm-not-a-troll" game out of you?

You're well aware that you're cherry-picking your own comments, even to the extent of dropping the adjective "petty" from "theft" - you're also well aware that no reasonable person could possibly claim that what I said is a "bald-faced lie" or a "complete misrepresentation" of what you said. I have no intention of screaming at you about it - I equally have no intention of apologizing to you for it. I could not possibly care less about your affected indignation. You want a fight - you're not getting one. Next time reply to the comment in the thread.

And unfortunately, troll-feeding time has come to a close. Let's wait another couple of months to have another pleasant discussion like this.



Pan:
Agreed that most issue polling is useless for determing what the "correct" side of an issue is. But it is more likely to determine how "popular" it is, and when someone is using their claims of its unpopularity as a tactic against you, I guess it's not such a terrible thing.

But I still think it's a rather meaningless thing to measure, particularly given the ease of manipulating the results with verbiage. Look at the points people made earlier about a Rasmussen poll where cash for clunkers polled 10 points worse before it passed. This suggests to me that people are not making their decisions based on the facts of the case.

Let's just put it this way. If you poll what people think of "health care reform", what people think of "Obamacare", and what people think of a hypothetical, described bill which is actually the exact same as the Senate bill, you'll get wildly different results.

The real kicker for me is an article Nate did in early October talking about bias in a Fox News poll. My favorite was this "hypothetical" question:

In order to have enough money for government spending, the Congress must soon vote to raise the country's debt limit from $7 trillion dollars to $9
trillion dollars. Which of the following is closer to your opinion on this?

SCALE: 1. In times of recession and war, we have no choice--we have to raise the debt limit to fund necessary government spending; or 2. Federal spending is out of control and we must take a stand now and not raise the debt limit.


86% of Republicans said 2. Of course, the debt limit was actually raised to 9 trillion on March 16, 2006, by a majority-Republican House and Senate, and signed by a Republican President.

So fundamentally, again, the polls don't seem to be measuring anything meaningful. The "popularity" of any given issue is wildly subject to change - look at the people accusing Nate of dishonesty for not using the Rasmussen poll showing the popularity of cash for clunkers being ten points lower.

Persuter said...

Bart:
brigandage and its modern counterpart terrorism have not really been addressed directly by the current international law regime.

This is, of course, factually incorrect. Did you really think 9/11 was the first international terrorist incident, Bart? It wasn't even the first international terrorist incident against the World Trade Center. Yet somehow we managed to arrest, indict, and convict the 1993 WTC bombers (or most of them), including Mahmud Abouhalima who was extradited from Egypt.

Indeed, it's not even a question of whether international law covers "enemy combatants" - the commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention makes it quite explicit:

[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status

Khaled Sheikh Mohammed is an international criminal who was arrested by civilian police in Pakistan. He could have been, and SHOULD HAVE BEEN legally extradited to the United States. To call him an "unlawful enemy combatant" is absolutely ludicrous - at no point was he ever in any location that could even vaguely be considered an active battlefield and he was not detained by the military or even the United States, nor is it a class recognized by the Geneva Conventions.

Tim said...

Wally, saying that you pay above the average is simply false. The average cost per adult is about 49 thousand a year -- and you're not paying it. My point isn't that you should have to pay more. My point is that we share the expense - I have more, and much of what I have was paid for by the taxpayers who came before me -- my public education which my parents certainly could not have afforded to pay their 'fair share' of, infrastructure that was essentially paid for by the wealthier citizens of the past, etc. My point is basically this -- if you slice and dice health insurance up into slivers wherein those with the least risk and lowest costs are all in one pool and those with the highest risk (through no fault of their own) are in one pool -- then the people with the highest risk will not be able to afford health insurance. And is that really what we want? Everybody who is born autistic should have to bear the brunt of their own health care costs? Anybody who has a history of breast cancer in her family should have to pay an enormously higher expense than you do?

Persuter said...

You (or your employer) pay a different rate based upon the actuarial assumtions based upon your demographic, so your rates are much lower than, say, for a 60-year-old couple

Rudy, this is in fact completely incorrect. (Amazingly, despite the fact that employer health insurance is the most common way to be insured, I have seen this exact mistake in almost every single thread on health insurance.)

In the United States, employer-based health insurance is (nearly always) what's called "group insurance", in which everyone pays exactly the same amount regardless of age. Similarly, wives and kids cost exactly the same amount regardless of their age or any other factor.

This is true both for the amount you pay and the amount the employer pays. The insurer does not do an individual rate for each employee.

Bart DePalma said...

Bart: brigandage and its modern counterpart terrorism have not really been addressed directly by the current international law regime.

Persuter said...This is, of course, factually incorrect. Did you really think 9/11 was the first international terrorist incident, Bart?


In 1979, the left recognized that terrorists were wartime enemy combatants and attempted to amend the Geneva Conventions in 1979 to extend POW protections to terrorists, but thankfully failed. Thus, the twilight zone between civilians and lawful enemy combatants remained.

Yet somehow we managed to arrest, indict, and convict the 1993 WTC bombers (or most of them), including Mahmud Abouhalima who was extradited from Egypt.

There is nothing under the law of war prevents trying enemy combatants in civilian court for war crimes. Alternatively, nothing requires it.

Indeed, it's not even a question of whether international law covers "enemy combatants" - the commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention makes it quite explicit:

every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status


This is Red Cross commentary on the GCs, NOT language from the Fourth Convention as you misrepresented. Red Cross would like to extend POW privileges to all combatants, but this position was expressly rejected during the negotiations for every convention and the attempt to amend the POW requirements in 1979. It is exceedingly bad policy to reward those who intentionally violate the laws of war the same way we do those who follow it.

Daniel said...

How can you really trust anything that Americans say about ourselves when poll after poll shows that 25% of Americans think they're in the top 10% of earners, that while a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life, 82% want abortion to remain legal, and government run healthcare is extremely popular until you call it "government run healthcare"? When old people scream "keep your government hands off my Medicare," and Fox pundits can talk, unchallenged, about the dangers of letting the federal government run Social Security and Medicare, you've got a clear, very dangerous, information gap that any schmuck can fill in with whatever crap he feels like. And that information gap is indeed filled with crap. How many of these ludicrous Tea Party memes (i.e., "death panels," "Obama's birth certificate") not only became part of their own "platform," as it were, but worked their way into popular consciousness and have become part of the litmus test for being considered a true Republican?
There is a terrible disconnect between what we believe, and what we believe we believe.

Tim said...

Rudy,
I do understand the difference between subsidies and defacto pay difference, but all in all it boils down to the same thing as things now stand since virtually all businesses provide at least some coverage for spouses. As to your point that high risk people would control costs by purchasing plans that are applicable to themselves -- not so much. The cost occur when somebody actually gets health CARE. People don't get health CARE that is not applicable to themselves - regardless of what kind of plan I have, if I'm a man, I'm not going to get a pap smear & therefore don't increase actual costs a whit.

filistro said...

Bubby (also "Bubba" and your other two equally childish alter-egos...)

Why on earth should anybody talk "about Shots?" What does Shots ever contribute to any discourse, other than a relentless effort to get the grownups to pay attention to him by goading, insulting and being rude to his elders?

What amazes me is that so many of the smart people in here actually fall for it.

keetz4 said...

Nevertheless, it runs in contrast to the objective evidence when one asserts, as Hanson does, that "On every issue ... the Obama position polls 5-15 points below 50 percent." Rather, the votes taken by the Republican Congress have far more often been out of step with those of the median voter.

I continue to believe the major cause for the public misconception re Obama's position on the issues is because the Rs continue to control the message, allowing them to muddy up the waters and confuse the public. Of course, that's just as much the Dems fault as it is the Rs.

filistro said...

@Daniel... There is a terrible disconnect between what we believe, and what we believe we believe.

Oh, that's SO true. Add to the cognitive dissonance the fact that it is considered "patriotic" to cheer wildly when some know-nothing nitwit suggests your state might secede.

The mind just boggles, doesn't it?

Persuter said...

This is Red Cross commentary on the GCs, NOT language from the Fourth Convention as you misrepresented.

I explicitly said "commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention", but hey, hardly expecting the slightest bit of honesty at this point.

And the commentary has previously been found to be relevant in the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998:

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;

[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.296

This position is confirmed by article 50 of Additional Protocol I which regards as civilians all persons who are not combatants as defined in article 4(A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention, and article 43 of the Protocol itself.


As you can see, this international court, at least, believed that the statement applied.




In 1979, the left recognized that terrorists were wartime enemy combatants and attempted to amend the Geneva Conventions in 1979 to extend POW protections to terrorists, but thankfully failed. Thus, the twilight zone between civilians and lawful enemy combatants remained.

Can you find any court case in which this "twilight zone" is mentioned?



There is nothing under the law of war prevents trying enemy combatants in civilian court for war crimes.

Strange - I thought people being taken as enemy combatants without POW or civilian protection hadn't "really been addressed directly by the current international law regime." Odd how suddenly it has been addressed enough.

brian said...

Persuter-

Employer HC is not really insurance. Its more socialism than insurance really. Thats why defending employer plans as free market is kinda dumb. Its really little better than Medicare.

Wally said...

Tim

"Saying that you pay above the average is simply false. The average cost per adult is about 49 thousand a year -- and you're not paying it."

True enough, how's median work for you? And how much of this $49 thousand/year is into programs that I don't support or don't even use? I pay into Medicare and Social Security, but given my age, I'm likely to not see a dime of that money unless we have another babe boom, and fast. This is money I pay in, that you are counting as my "share" to which I will more likely than not never see any benefit from. So what exactly is my share again? Only what I use. That's all I or anyone else should be forced to pay for.

"if you slice and dice health insurance up into slivers wherein those with the least risk and lowest costs are all in one pool and those with the highest risk (through no fault of their own) are in one pool -- then the people with the highest risk will not be able to afford health insurance."

I don't think that is true at all and you haven't come close to providing even enough evidence to suggest such a thing. First, you have a very flawed concept of "pooling risk." To the insurance company each individual has specific risks based on age, gender, habits, weight, history, and what have you. The insurance company then prices you (or a group with a certain average risk) accordingly. You don't just form a group of low risk people and magically become cheaper to insure.

Second, subsidies are nothing more than some else's labor. So, by mandating a certain level of coverage and subsidizing the cost to high risk groups, we are effectively enslaving a group of people to produce the value of their health care.

"Everybody who is born autistic should have to bear the brunt of their own health care costs? Anybody who has a history of breast cancer in her family should have to pay an enormously higher expense than you do?"

More or less, yes. This is what we have charities and/or family for. I don't want a government that forces me, effectively at gun point, to pay for someone else to buy something. Not retirement, healthcare or even food. This is a violation of my liberty and effectively turns me into a slave for some portion of labor. If you want to help these people, make donations, volunteer, what ever. If I choose, I may do the same.

Wally said...

Persuter

"This is true both for the amount you pay and the amount the employer pays. The insurer does not do an individual rate for each employee."

I don't think that's what Rudy was saying. What insurance company actually do is take the demographics of the group as a whole into account when pricing the company. So if you had two companies each with the same number of people, but one had an average age of 60 and the other 25 the rates for the two companies would be very different.

Northwest said...

Daniel said... "How can you really trust anything that Americans say about ourselves when poll after poll shows that 25% of Americans think they're in the top 10% of earners, that while a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life, 82% want abortion to remain legal"

I don't think the pro-life stance and such a huge majority of Americans wanting abortion to remain legal are at odds with each other. You can be pro-life for yourself and still not want Big Government to decide the issue for everyone. If you favor limiting government's power over our lives and rights, then you support the right to an abortion. It's only the Religious Right Wing of the Republicans that want government to decide that issue for women, and they are in no way like Tea Partiers, Goldwater Republicans, or Libertarian leaning Republicans. The Religious Right want Big Government to decide all kinds of issues for us, they could care less about smaller government or fiscal responsibility.

Mainer said...

Bart in terms of Afghanistan we do need to move to protect the population base inorder to take away the support net for the other side. Not much choice I fear and yes I have read the generals writings. More as well especially some of the material that came out of the UK that looked at the Malaysian campaign. My comment should have more closely identified that we can not occupy the entire Muslim world to expand that seperation. So if we can not occupy that world then through the use of intelligence we need to identify and neutralize those such as in Yemen. In order to get information that has actionable use we need to have locals that accept the fact that the ones we want are actually the scum they are and drop the dime that lets us deal with them.

Bart it isn't about anybody wussing out and Republicans are not the only patriots but rather using our heads to be more effective in our efforts to take out those that would harm us. Some of this or even much of this is going to deal with perception in the Muslim world if they see us treating terrorists as common criminals and using our systems in just that manner then over a period of time we should prevail on enough of the other side to be effective. Nothing pie in the sky nothing warm and fuzzy about a well aimed rocket from a drone and not many other viable options once you get the image of John Wayne out of your head.

Tim said...

Wally,
Once again, that 49 thousand is for the defense budget only. Are you saying that you don't want to pay your fair share for National Defense? So much for individual responsibility. Should those folks who didn't want to go into war in Iraq be exempt from paying for those costs?

filistro said...

Mainer... you are talking to a man (Bart DP) who is a big fan of Sarah Palin... who told Chris Wallace this weekend that if Barack Obama wants to "change the narrative" and "support Israel" and "show his toughness" he could "declare war on Iran."

Declare war on Iran. My God. 77 million people, a powerful modern air force, the most fiercely dedicated army in the world... the poor old boggled mind just boggled a bit more.

People like this are beyond the reach of your calm reasoning and good sense. They truly are. They are stuck permanently on what you aptly call "the image of John Wayne."

They are not just misguided. When/if they get into power, they are dangerous.

Mainer said...

Tim I suspect many on here don't like the idea of paying for my really great health insurance either. But you know what? Having been under a number of private plans over the years I find Tricare to be the best run of the lot. No hassles, a few restrictions based on service availabity (really really rural here) and some providers are just not set up to work witht the system. But am I paying correctly for it? Probably not but it was a part of a contract I signed many many years ago.

Bart, Prag I'm enjoying you too and while I see disagreement I also see a kick butt discussion. Hey it has made me go back and look at some stuff. Don't get mired in too many weeds though. I kind of kicked this off (sorry) my comment was one of perception over strict legal terms. If the Muslim world sees us lighting our hair on fire every time there is an attempted attack then don't they win at some level? Doesn't that make some miserable goat hearder in the big sandbox more attracted to doing some thing that is grand and glorious and makes the great satan light his hair on fire....sure beats hearding goats. Harder sell when we revert to being the Americans of my youth when we ducked under shcool desks to defy the Soviets and their A-bombs and simply appear to take it in stride, haul the clown off as a common criminal, try them and stuff them in a hole for the rest of their days. Perception boys and girls perception. This is as much about effective propaganda as it is about any thing else and right now one side of this in this country appears to want to give the other side every thing they want. Wars arewon as much my smarts as by bombs and bullets.

filistro said...

shots, here's your teddy bear, time to go to bed.

And don't forget to brush your teeth.

Tim said...

Mainer,
Not quite sure what your point is. Can you clarify?

GbThrone said...

Whole lot of billy goat meat being thrown to trolls on the right and left ends of the bridge today.

Rudy said...

No, Persuter, it is you who is wrong, although there are aspects in which you are correct, and I understand how you could be confused. Large group insurance is "experience rated," menaing that The insurer bases the premium on the actual utilization for the entire group. That premium is initially estimated based upon the aggregate demographics of the group, but thereafter is tied to results. It is true that a separate premium isn't calculated for each individual, but not entirely so, as the aggregate premium reflects the characteristics of the group's utilization..

Most large companies are "self-insured," meaning that they directly pay for the actual utilization out of pocket rather than paying for insurance, thus eliminating the risk spread for the insurance company. Instead, these companies pay and insurance company or a third-party administrator to process claims for them, typically a flat fee per claim, or a flat fee per individual covered by the plan. Some companies self-administer, too, but those are in the minority.

In my discussion with Tim, I was quoting standalone individual insurance premiums as the proxy for the actual cost within a group plan.

There are no insurers that sell group insurance on a flat rate per head without demographic consideration, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Hence, the source of your confusion, which hopefully is now cleared up.

Mainer said...

No the reality is that we could obliterate most nations in the world and not leave the confines of our great nation to do it. One of the problems is that MAD works with rational people, you know like those terrible commie Soviets, much less so on people that believe their great savior lives at the bottom of a well and will come waltzing arm and arm with Jesus on judgement day and if they could just speed things up a bit it would be oh so wonderful.

Palins comments had to leave many a little queezy. I don't hate the woman, I don't like the woman and what she represents. Daft flippant comments such as hers just add fuel to an already over stoked fire. I would also ask about her hand motion. I know a small thing, very small really but did any one else have a whisky tango foxtrot moment when she did it above and beyond the off the wall comments that were with it?

Iran really does not have that great an airforce. Has one yes, great no. It does have significant anti aircraft capability. Some of the best SAM's money can buy. Maybe not all the the reloads they might want (remember that lumber ship that never got there) but it would certainly do bad things to some of our people. Land forces are some thing else. Included in those are some 40,000 individuals that are reported to have signed up to be suicide bombers. Probably a good number considering the number of Basji. But she of limited geographical knowledge base probably hasn't thought through that whole Strait of Hormuse thing and what would then happen with oil prices or she has and believes Alaska can make up the difference.

Rudy said...

Tim, your math on the defense budget is off by an order of magnitude. Take a zero off.

filistro said...

Mainer... I just have to tell you how much I enjoy your posts. Everything you say always makes so much sense.

You're not excessively partisan, not harsh, or over-the-top, or exaggerated (something I'm often guilty of, I admit it :-)... you just write straightforward, down-to-earth, good sense.

A pleasure to read... and food for thought.

Persuter said...

Persuter, it is pretty clear that you were being dishonest with what you said about Shots. Of course, he's being a petty dick for coming back a week later whining and trying to engage you in a flame war about it.

No need to apologize but you can stop trying to play innocent.


Oh FFS. Now I feel compelled to answer.

Did you even read the comments in question? I completely, absolutely disagree that I was being "dishonest", because changing my comment to acknowledge "petty theft" doesn't change anything about the point. Shots mentioned the "theft" in passing, with exactly as much emphasis as he put on the pants hanging down past their butts. To simply not bring up both every time when the point remains the same either way doesn't make it "dishonest" in the slightest.

My point was not "Shots said he hated his mall for no other reason than low-hanging pants, ha ha ha what a douche", my point was that Shots hates his mall for ridiculously petty reasons and the attempt to suggest that it's reasonable to hate all of America for those same ridiculously petty reasons is offensive at best.

The words "petty theft" were the only time in four paragraphs that he mentioned anything relating to crime. He said that the "ne'er-do-well teenagers that are interested in nothing but petty theft and wearing their pants below their butts" infesting his nearby mall may be coming from "an America that is increasingly becoming more mealy-mouthed, whiny, delusional, naive, etc.". To claim that the two words "petty theft" was his main point and that even referencing "wearing their pants below their butts" without the "petty theft" is a "bald-faced lie" is patently ridiculous.

And yes, he is being a petty dick - don't you get that that's the point here? If he had said something at the time, as I've said several times in this thread, I would have been happy to at least discuss this with him. But bringing it up four days later? All he wants is a fight with me because he doesn't like me personally, because I suggested in response to one of his first posts on this board that his definition of non-anecdotal evidence as having talked to lots of people was wanting. That's literally exactly how petty this is. He simply wants an excuse to scream at me - he has never, ever made any attempt at rational discourse with me. If I had said "petty theft" he'd be screaming at me about the pants thing. It makes absolutely no difference and he knows it.

He is a troll, plain and simple, and all he wants is for people to devote paragraphs of text to him. Get it? Don't feed the troll and for God's sake, don't make me feed the troll, PLEASE! :)


Filistro:
I totally agree. I've learned my lesson. Startiiiiiing... NOW! :P

filistro said...

Persuter... Shots is a lonely, rude, attention-starved adolescent who knows nothing at all about politics. He posts here (under four different user-names) during school lunch hour and on snow days.

He should go back to playing video games, and the grownups in here (including me ;-) should not be goaded into wasting their time on him.

Truly.

Mainer said...

I wish I could always be an impartial voice but I too get wound up in some of this. Tim, to be honest there was no real point, just as I stated me getting caught up in the moment. Still I thank all my fellow citizens for seeing that my good wife and I do have great health insurance and that is not meant to be cheeky just a sincere thanks from a veteran.

Fillistro, not sure if I contribute any thing on here or not. There are some pretty interesting folks on here. Some pretty sharp ones too. I have learned from being on here. I have had people get frustrated with me when I have shown my ignorance and asked what were probably pretty basic questions and yes I can make bone headed statements as well. A good friend lurks here often. He knows who I am and he is amazed at how I have mellowed. Ahhhhh with age comes wisdom.......aching bones, poor eye sight, memory loss.....

Earlier on here when we were talking about Federal money going to red states from blue states after I had rambled about it and the discourse that it was because it was going to rural states so they could feed the urban states. Sorry does not hold water. If my state isn't rural and providing food and fiber to the urban areas then no one is. I live in one of the least densly populated states in the union and we pay Southern red states. No this is more about the system being rigged by Southern politicians. Even that wouldn't be all that bad becaue there is poverty on that end of the Applachians too. But it winds me to no end to then have to listen to them try and say us Northerners are all kinds of things we are not and never have been. I don't take lectures well about how my state and region should conduct our affairs from people we have to bankroll. Hell even my good Southern friends know how I feel about it and are careful not to go down that road.

Persuter said...

In my discussion with Tim, I was quoting standalone individual insurance premiums as the proxy for the actual cost within a group plan.

Ah, ok. Here's what I saw. Tim said:

what I said in regard to kids is that as a single man with no children, I have for my entire adult life -- because I work in a business that provides health insurance to both the spouses and children of my co-workers- subsidized the health insurance for my co-workers children, which I don't mind doing, and their spouses who choose not to work-- which I do mind

You then said:

You're mistaken that you, as a single man, are subsidizing coverages for families and kids. You (or your employer) pay a different rate based upon the actuarial assumtions based upon your demographic, so your rates are much lower than, say, for a 60-year-old couple, and much higher than standalone coverage for kids.

That certainly seemed to me to explicitly say that Tim's employer pays a different rate for Tim than for families and kids, and that the difference is based on Tim's demographic. I apologize. Either way it's a point worth making. :)

filistro said...

Mainer, I hear what you're saying. I'm mellowing with age too... though not nearly as fast as I should. And I learn every day from the smart people at this site. It's good to be forced to consider the other point of view, because we can all get stuck in our own mindsets if we don't make an effort to understand what the other guy thinks...and why.

Only two things drive me nuts: those who don't listen at all... they just wait impatiently for you to stop talking so they can repeat their memorized points. And those politicians who look on the whole thing as a game in which you just look to score points. It's NOT a game. It's deadly serious. It should be treated that way.

Oh... and one more thing that drives me more nuts than anything: people who think religion should be mixed in with politics... and THEIR religion should dictate MY choices.

I just hate that.

Gatordad said...

@Mainer

Evening Mainer. First a question for you re: Iran. You have extensive military background, so my question is, do you see us prosecuting future wars with much emphasis on ground troops and conventional tactics, or more a 'hands off' approach using primarily technological advantages? Seems like we're kind of doing both right now.

As far as Iran as a threat, they really aren't. They have an extremely limited ability to enrich uranium. They have only been able to achieve 3-4% enrichment levels, well below the level needed for weaponization. And they only have one enrichment facility, which they can barely keep functional. All this sabre rattling they are doing is really aimed at their own people. As the Green uprising has gotten stronger, the government has tried to externalize the threat, hoping to focus the anger elsewhere. It's not working, and they are on the edge of a revolution. What the US and western powers need to do is wait. Do not give them an external target to incite nationalistic fervor. The internal divisions will weaken or destroy the regime, if we stand back and let it happen. If we become involved, it would be a tremendous mistake. There may come a time for involvement, just not yet.

Persuter said...

do you see us prosecuting future wars with much emphasis on ground troops and conventional tactics, or more a 'hands off' approach using primarily technological advantages

I'd suggest the second. I work at a company that makes military simulations, and I can definitely tell you that UAVs are the topic of discussion virtually any time a military guy comes in the office. Everyone loves them except the guys who signed up for the Air Force to fly F-22s and are now stuck in an office building in Nevada flying prop planes in circles. :P

It's like someone, maybe you, were saying in this thread or an earlier one about "boots on the ground". You don't need nearly as many boots on the ground if you've got loitering UAVs strewn all over Afghanistan. A Reaper with external fuel tanks can stay in the air for 42 hours with multiple pilots taking shifts. And Boeing's developing an automated UAV-to-UAV refueling system - eventually the Air Force will be able to keep an entire fleet of planes continuously in the air with only a few tanker UAVs having to refuel at bases.

The basic idea is ridiculous amounts of surveillance, extremely fast battlefield communication, and extremely mobile units, so that the "boots on the ground" can go wherever the enemy is.

brian said...

I feel like I'm getting mixed messages from the libs:

On one hand people are too stupid to understand policies and need someone to make decisions on their behalf

On the other hand, everyone should vote even your random homeless person and Tom Tancredo is a racist for suggesting that actually only competent people should vote.

Why is having "smart" people representing you OK, but "smart" people voting for you not?

Gatordad said...

@Persuter

You work for a militry contractor? I must say, I'm a bit shocked.

I have wondered how quickly the shift would be made to a substantially technology driven combat force. I would think that our days of fighting front line, combat driven land wars is on the wane. Virtually no one can really pose a signifigant threat to us except perhaps Russia and China, and China is a far more formidable economic enemy, rather than a military enemy. Russia is an uneasy ally (sort of) but not a militaristic threat, IMO. Seems as if we're going to be involved in a lot more of these small (relatively) conflicts with groups, rather than nations. This would seem to fall right into the technology universe. Gamers will be fighting our wars for us. So buy your kids an XBox. You may be saving the country! LOL

Gatordad said...

@Persuter

BTW, nope. Wasn't me that said 'boots on the ground'. Don't think I've ever said that. Sounds like a line from a cheesy war movie.

Unless it was Mainer. Then it would be legit. But not a line someone who hasn't been in the military should ever use.

:)

Mainer said...

I think Bart used it first tonight and actually it is a commonly used phrase to denote on the ground presence. No cheesy movie just a simple descriptor.

Gator I think you already got your answer. No service chief is going to offer up troops for an invasin of Iran. Ordered to go they will go but not until they have exhausted every other viable option. It is just not a good scenario any way you slice it. Stand off weapons, remote control weapons maybe also as a last resort but we have much else we should do before that time.

A good start would be to enhance our efforts to beam information into the country. We have made half hearted atempts but what we have is no VOA or RFE. An informed Iran is more likely to free itself and by connection us from such drastic actions.

Wally said...

Tim,

"Once again, that 49 thousand is for the defense budget only. Are you saying that you don't want to pay your fair share for National Defense? So much for individual responsibility. Should those folks who didn't want to go into war in Iraq be exempt from paying for those costs?"

49 thousand times 310 Million is 15 trillion dollars. We don't spend 15 trillion dollar on defense a year. Last year we spent about 700B on defense. Even if we use 100M tax payers that's 7000 dollars a year. What exactly were you talking about again? I guess they didn't teach arithmatic in the liberal school you went to huh?

And I guess that teaches me to not double check a liberal's math....

Gatordad said...

@ Mainer

Yeah, I was a little unclear in my wording. I didn't mean the question literally regarding Iran, more a general question on how the new military will work.

As I said, in my opinion the best thing to do with Iran is wait a month or two and see what happens. We could certainly persue sanctions in the meantime, but I have a feeling that if we sit tight, it may resolve itself.

Persuter said...

On one hand people are too stupid to understand policies and need someone to make decisions on their behalf

On the other hand, everyone should vote even your random homeless person and Tom Tancredo is a racist for suggesting that actually only competent people should vote.

Why is having "smart" people representing you OK, but "smart" people voting for you not?


Wow, I so nearly responded to this without looking up what Tancredo said. I was going to talk about representative democracy versus direct democracy, yada yada yada.

Brian, people are calling Tancredo a racist because he seemed to be referring to "civics tests" that were used to deny African-Americans the right to vote.

Here's what he said while kicking off the Tea Party convention, for those who haven't seen it yet:

And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. People who could not even spell the word "vote," or say it in English, put a committed socialist idealogue in the White House, name is Barack Hussein Obama.

shrinkers said...

@Bart DePalma
Does that dissertation answer your question?

It gives me your view of it, yes.

Today, piracy has been promoted to a statutory crime with due process protections.

As well it should be. America is supposed to stand for something, and due process is one such thing.

None of the categories you list provides us with the right to torture, or to hold someone indefinitely without charges, or to sequester in secret prisons without representation. I hope we can agree that humans are humans.

However, brigandage and its modern counterpart terrorism ...

These have not been legally defined as being equivalent. That you hold one to be the "modern couterpart" of the other does not make it so, in either American or international law.

This undefined category between the two is what US law now defines as unlawful enemy combatants.

"US law"? No, absurd and unsupported memos from legal hacks hired by the Bush Administration and tasks with the duty of inventing justification for senior officials to do whatever they pleased and pretend there was a defense for what they wished to do. These definitions you propose have not been held in court, either domestic or international. Indeed, when the consequences of these definitions have been challenged in court, they have been almost wholly held to be without foundation -- even by the conservative SCOTUS we have now.

Fortunately, the Underwear Bomber --just like the shoebomber -- was read his Miranda rights, which means the things he has said since then can be legally used against him in court.

We have a fine and capable legal system. And I am glad we are returning to the rule of law.

Lord Calvert said...

Rudy said: Again and again, it needs to be pointed out to Nate that issue polling results are highly dependent on how questions are asked and whether they are asked in a vacuum, or in context of the potential downsides of a policy.


And we found that out rather bluntly back in June over the same-sex marriage issue, over which Nate did an exceptionally solid write-up. When you place the argument in big-government terms ("Should government legalize gay-marriage?") the polling was relatively even but when you put it in limited-government conservative terms ("Should government have the power to prohibit gay-marriage?") the support skyrocketed to nearly 2-1 in favor, largely because limited-government conservatives believe that consensual marriage cannot legally be regulated by the state as that would be an unconstitutional expansion of government power. Nate speculated (and I agree) that the Prop 8 supporters biggest mistake was that they presented the proposal as demanding a right instead of presenting the right as one inherent in the Constitution and that the government overstepped its legal authority when it criminalized it, such as the Iowa Supreme Court ruled. If they had done it that way, it is very likely that the result of the referendum would have been very different.

Persuter said...

You work for a militry contractor?

Well... yeah, but it sounds scary when you put it that way. :P

I must say, I'm a bit shocked.

Heck, I like the military, I've gotten to know a lot of active-duty guys over the years. Military guys are usually pretty worldly and tolerant, at least in my experience.

Actually, though, I will say, I don't like it largely because I don't like the whole contract process. I've heard it used to be different, but the military research contracting process these days is a morass of soft corruption - all about who knows who. We're getting lots and lots of money from the government to develop something that they could just buy off the shelf or develop themselves for way cheaper. And I know they've got several other contracts doing the exact same thing.

Obviously there's always going to be duds in research, and equally obviously, there's certainly a lot of successful contracts, but you don't want to spend money on a company just because your buddy owns it. You want to make sure that companies are rewarded for good products, not good connections.



(And yeah, sorry, "boots on the ground" was Bart. My deepest apologies. :))

Geoff said...

Wow.

Just like your buddy author Tom, you now have earned your Baghdad Bob moniker.

Henceforth, Nate shall be known as Baghdad Nate.

Do you realize the left is sliding in all polls and on all issues?

Your selective look at polling, and not at approval of handling by either party or by Obama of a given issue, is completely misleading.

Just yesterday, Gallup, who is worshipped by 538 because they poll all adults, which helps your lefty views, put out the public's approval of Obama on various issues.

All three have Obama in the 30's approval and 60's disapproval -

health care
economy
deficit

And you're carping on about some Court decision or a made-up rhetorical ploy to call Son of Stimulus a "jobs bill", despite the substance being simply an extension of the Stimulus?

You really think that is more important that how the public grades Obama's handling of the economy and health care? And its not like he's burning it up on terrorism policy either.

This article is a complete joke.

538, your owner is now named Baghdad Nate for this ridiculous head in arse, koolaid addled, skittles laden, unicorn riding fantasyland article claiming Obama and the Dems are riding high on the key issues of the day.

Nate, you're either retarded and don't know how incredibly stupid and incompetent you sound in this article, or you're lying and you know it and you're doing it for face-saving, loyalty inducing reasons, and that makes you:

BAGHDAD NATE

brian said...

Well you should support a civics test then, as it ensures smarter voters. Why would you not trust someone's opinion in a poll, yet trust them to vote?

This is why Rasmussen uses likely voters, he weeds out more uniformed people. Yet libs rip on his polls. We should actually only poll people who pass a civics test.

Persuter said...

Geoff:
Your selective look at polling, and not at approval of handling by either party or by Obama of a given issue, is completely misleading.

Just yesterday, Gallup, who is worshipped by 538 because they poll all adults, which helps your lefty views, put out the public's approval of Obama on various issues.

All three have Obama in the 30's approval and 60's disapproval -

health care
economy
deficit


Gallup polled nine issues - two were over 50% approval, three were essentially tied, and four were 42% approval or less. That's obviously not particularly good but it seems ridiculous to rip on Nate for his "selective look at polling" and then claim that "all three" of the "various issues" polled were under 40.


Brian:
Well you should support a civics test then, as it ensures smarter voters. Why would you not trust someone's opinion in a poll, yet trust them to vote?

Is this in response to me? What are you referring to? Did you understand the point about Tancredo and literacy tests, which have been outlawed for about half a century?

PeterAtJET said...

>>Brian:
Well you should support a civics test then, as it ensures smarter voters. Why would you not trust someone's opinion in a poll, yet trust them to vote?

>Is this in response to me? What are you referring to? Did you understand the point about Tancredo and literacy tests, which have been outlawed for about half a century?

The idea has an impeccable racist heritage, but you have to see the funny side. Considering the spelling seen on their signs, and the patchy-at-best understanding of what's actually in the constitution they fetishise. (summed up by the Onion's classic "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be"), a civics test would largely exclude the Tea Party from the political process. Instant kharma.

crisismaven said...

Look, does it still matter?

retireniwnelgyroc said...

Metaphorically, if you can't save a sinking ship, you may very well be blamed for it hitting the iceberg in the first place even if you replaced the incompetent captain.

Of course, the worse insult that the polls may be reflecting, is that people may now be wishing for the same incompetents that led them into this situation.

Mainer said...

Maybe the saddest thing about the tea convention was that a group of people missed a golden opportunity to assert themselves to a much broader audience as what the prosess to be. Instead they came away with what really is an even less strong position in terms of attracting additional support from the middle ground.

I had the chance yesterday to talk to an individual that was there. This individual and his wife are pretty darn conservative both in terms of money and social issues. But both are also individuals with educatioonal backgrounds and experience that may make them more pragmatic than some on their side. I found them energized from having had the opportunity to engage other individuals similar to themselves. I also found them deeply disapointed at what appeard to them to be a movement that has attached itself to some of the more base elements in American life.

They had questions. Why was not some one like a Ron Paul there? I would ask how it is that Ron Paul is being challenged by the tea's? In some ways didn't he actually start this parade? How can a Breitbart and his rants and posturing represent any kind of new populist movement. (not my words). Being educated and students of history they did quickly see Tancredo's smirky presentation for what it was and felt flat out that such views would never play well in areas outside of some very narrowly defined geographic regions. Where I was really surprised was on Mrs. Palin. I didn't realize that my friends wife finds the exgovoner as being slightly less appealing than a snake (aain not my words) and maybe not all that surprising considering that my friends wife is a professional woman that has fought her way up through the business ranks and eventually through what has been a very serious glass ceiling in conservative male dominated rural areas such as our own.

Where they had the worst comments though was in regard the breakout sessions. They went to a couple and then decided to not waste their time deciding instead there was more value in informal networking. I guess their big take was that the convention was a show ring for anyone with an anti government rant to deliver and that the rants did not necessarily have to have much basis in fact.

My last question to them was what now. The answer was onward and upward and that Northeast conservatism was alive and well but that it would most likely not be taking a lead from the group they had seen leading the parae in Nashville. Now that is just two people, no scientific polling or even that sharp a set of questions and much that may have gone unsaid as we stood and chatted in the aisle of the local grocery store.

Tony C. said...

@Parksie:

then how come all the smart liberals out there haven't been able to figure this out?

I think smart liberals have figured it out; we just don't have more than a handful of people that are actually smart and demonstrably liberal representing us in Congress.

As to why we don't just do the same: The liberal argument is less amenable to scare tactics and lies. For example, one thing that liberals and libertarians agree upon is that the "war on drugs" is a waste of money and human lives.

But it is far easier to construct lies about the dangers of legalizing pot than it is to construct lies about the dangers of not legalizing pot; even though the latter actually poses the greatest danger to people and their families.

Liberty, inviolable civil rights and freedom are all necessarily dangerous to citizens. If our laws were less stringent we would be more certain to punish or imprison more guilty people; and also more certain to imprison more innocent people.

It is easier to lie to secure termination of rights and liberty than it is to lie to keep them. The reasons for keeping them are generally the truth. Take eavesdropping on American phone calls and e-mails with impunity: It violates our rights to privacy. The lie is that the government won't abuse it (they already have). What lie do you produce that convinces people that preserving our right to privacy will keep us safe from terrorists?

There are no plausible lies to support it; a right to privacy in your communications is an American "prime value," meaning it does not have to be justified in terms of other values, it is valuable in and of itself.

As for other liberal ideas; they make sense logically and financially, but they are easy to lie about. Social Security and Medicare, for example, are wildly successful, but scare tactics and lies were used to rail against them. Even Republicans now vote to keep Medicare while they rail against a "public option" for all citizens as the road to hell.

Medicare IS government run health insurance; it is the perfect public option! Operating with 1% overhead instead of 30%, no less, and loved by a super-majority of seniors that get it automatically. Medicare proves the Republicans are lying. What lies do you tell to scare people into supporting government run health insurance? It is hard enough to sell the truth, that it will wreck the economy and bankrupt families if we don't get it. I don't see how lying will help.

Mainer said...

Tony maybe an even bigger question would be how did we get to a point where unrepentent lieing is now considered to be just part of the political game? I'm not a religious person. But it seems that the conservative folks I know who happen to be generally quite religious don't much like the lieing either. They believe that they can sell that which they espouse with the truth. I think one of the unstated thoughts that the couple I mentioned earlier took away with them from Nashville was how easy it was for some of the speakers to flat out lie to move their message. These folks and I often disagree on matters of principal and how we should move to protest this union but I can not ever remember them lieing to me.

Lehman said...

Tony C.,

So your answer to the current health care "crisis" (in quotes because it is in no way shape or form a crisis for the vast majority of Americans) is Medicare?!?!?!

So a government program that will be insolvent in 6 years is your answer? Are you Joking?

Here are some simple truths: Are their uninsured in America? Yes, but a very small minority of people. Are health care costs rising? Yes, but nothing in the current HCR bill or any proposals made by the Dems control costs in any real way. Can these things be helped by small fixes and not need "comprehensive" transpormation? Yes. Proposals made by independents and Republicans will do more to control costs and help the uninsured, without torpedoing the health care that most people like and most people have.

If it weren't so conter-productive and time wasting, I would say keep banging this particular drum, as it will surely hasten the end of the so-called "progressive revolution."

In the negotiations and compromise that often accompany summits (as will happen at the end of the month), People need to check their ideology at the door if they truly want to achieve anything. Maybe jettisoning the desire for something "tranformational", "historic", or "comprehensive" in favor of the "realistic", ""pragmatic" , and "targeted" is in order.

Bart DePalma said...

shrinkers said...

BD: This undefined category between the two [noncombatant civilians and lawful combatants] is what US law now defines as unlawful enemy combatants.

"US law"? No, absurd and unsupported memos from legal hacks hired by the Bush Administration and tasks with the duty of inventing justification for senior officials to do whatever they pleased and pretend there was a defense for what they wished to do.


The Military Commissions Act provides this definition to distinguish between lawful combatants entitled to UCMJ and unlawful combatants entitled to a military commission. A heavy bipartisan majority enacted the MCA.

filistro said...

brian, the so-called "literacy tests" were used in the South specifically to deny the vote to black people (who were the only ones required to take them).

Here are three sample questions from an actual "literacy test" administered in Alabama in the early 60's.

"If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted?"

"If a president does not wish to sign a bill, how many days is he allowed in which to return it to Congress for consideration?"

"If the United States wishes to purchase land for an arsenal and have exclusive legislative authority over it, consent is required from [fill in the blank]."


The answers (in case you, too, might be an "illiterate voter") would be "2", "10", and "the legislature."

What a fine and noble heritage you teabaggers have. Kind of makes you feel all misty and teary-eyed, doesn't it?

brian said...

I agree that civics tests can be gamed, so they wouldn't work. The concept though makes sense to me. I think pollsters at least should screen people more so polls reflect more civic minded people. Course, that would be racist to libs I bet.

Krazen said...

Medicare IS government run health insurance; it is the perfect public option! Operating with 1% overhead instead of 30%, no less, and loved by a super-majority of seniors that get it automatically. Medicare proves the Republicans are lying. What lies do you tell to scare people into supporting government run health insurance? It is hard enough to sell the truth, that it will wreck the economy and bankrupt families if we don't get it. I don't see how lying will help.

All that proves is that people support receiving other people's money.

I'd frankly prefer a single payer rationing system to this boondoogle of a bill. A single-payer, however fundamentally flawed as far as health care is concerned, at least fiscally works.

All Obamacare does is toss enormous amounts of welfare checks (read: affordability credits) to his chosen populace.

brian said...

Tony-

Medicare is going insolvent in 6 years! So you can spout all these wonderful things, but thats the reality. Its a financial disaster...and you just want to ingore that and expand it.

I may love my GM car, that doesn't mean GM is a viable enterprise.

David said...

Why do people hate health care reform? We spend more than any other country, have less to show for it, and are losing jobs to countries that mange theirs more efficiently. I just don't get it. Are people really afraid of Sarah Palin's death panels?

Rudy said...

David, have you been hiding under a rock for the past six months? Your comments reflect complete ignorance on the issue. Everyone wants health care reform, but not very many are intersted in the ObamaCare approach.

Clint said...

I think I came in on a laundry mat.

"spin, spin, spin"

Clint said...

I think I came in on a laundry mat.

"spin, spin, spin"

poloshirts said...

nice post!! There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
We have
nike femmes chaussures
nike chaussures basket
nike chaussures hommes
chaussures pas cher nike
nike chaussures air max
nike chaussures shox
nike chaussures air jordan
with excellent quality!!Welcome to our store.

poloshirts said...

nice post!! There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
We have
tennis rackets
babolat tennis rackets
wilson tennis racquets
tennis racquets
wilson tennis racket
cheap babolat tennis racquets
cheap tennis racquets
with excellent quality!!Welcome to our store.

poloshirts said...

nice post!! There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
We do kinds of casual clothing wholesale online, welcome to visit!!
winter clothing
winter jackets
winter clothes
ski jackets
north face sale
discount north face jackets
north face coats
men's down jackets
cotton polo shirts
polo shirts
cheap polo shirts
ralph lauren polo shirts
discount polo shirts
polo shirts wholesale
columbia jackets
the north face jackets
columbia sportswear jackets

poloshirts said...

nice post!! There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.

We do kinds of casual clothing wholesale online, welcome to visit!!
Polo Shirts On Sale
Cheap Polo Shirts
Burberry Polo Shirts
ski jackets
The North Face Clothing
Mens ski jackets
Womens ski jackets
Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts
men's down jackets
cotton polo shirts
polo shirts
cheap polo shirts
discount polo shirts
polo shirts wholesale
womens polo shirts
mens polo shirts
polo clothing
polo long sleeve shirt
short sleeve polo shirt
long sleeve polo shirts
embroidered shirts
discount north face jackets
winter jackets
short sleeve polo shirt