<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: compromising yourself into the discussion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:09:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: A Quick Note on A Rigged Game &#124; The League of Ordinary Gentlemen</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-851</link>
		<dc:creator>A Quick Note on A Rigged Game &#124; The League of Ordinary Gentlemen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-851</guid>
		<description>[...] Freddie writes: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Freddie writes: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: y81</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-710</link>
		<dc:creator>y81</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-710</guid>
		<description>But the Democrats haven&#039;t proposed a bill that even a squish like Peggy Noonan or a good government type like Alice Rivlin can get behind.  So there seems insufficient evidence at present that the Republicans won&#039;t negotiate or compromise.  I at least had not expected that the new Obama foreign policy involved giving the Iranians a week&#039;s ultimatum and then cutting off further talks, but that seems to be the Yglesias/DeBoer method of dealing with Republicans.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But the Democrats haven&#8217;t proposed a bill that even a squish like Peggy Noonan or a good government type like Alice Rivlin can get behind.  So there seems insufficient evidence at present that the Republicans won&#8217;t negotiate or compromise.  I at least had not expected that the new Obama foreign policy involved giving the Iranians a week&#8217;s ultimatum and then cutting off further talks, but that seems to be the Yglesias/DeBoer method of dealing with Republicans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Freddie</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-664</link>
		<dc:creator>Freddie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-664</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;You state that your domestic political opponents do not negotiate in good faith and that there is no point in compromising with them: they are simply an obstacle to be run over.&lt;/i&gt;

No. I&#039;m saying that, as they seem committed to not voting for the stimulus no matter what the consequences, the Republicans make themselves an obstacle to be run over. If they were willing to compromise, there&#039;s reason for the Democrats to make concessions and work to a broader consensus than they have now. But if congressional Republicans won&#039;t vote for the stimulus &lt;i&gt;no matter what&lt;/i&gt;, why shouldn&#039;t the Democrats include whatever programs they find worthwhile?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>You state that your domestic political opponents do not negotiate in good faith and that there is no point in compromising with them: they are simply an obstacle to be run over.</i></p>
<p>No. I&#8217;m saying that, as they seem committed to not voting for the stimulus no matter what the consequences, the Republicans make themselves an obstacle to be run over. If they were willing to compromise, there&#8217;s reason for the Democrats to make concessions and work to a broader consensus than they have now. But if congressional Republicans won&#8217;t vote for the stimulus <i>no matter what</i>, why shouldn&#8217;t the Democrats include whatever programs they find worthwhile?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: y81</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-660</link>
		<dc:creator>y81</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-660</guid>
		<description>Why do you say &quot;Huh?&quot;  You state that your domestic political opponents do not negotiate in good faith and that there is no point in compromising with them:  they are simply an obstacle to be run over.  They are irrational people with misguided values that must be reformed by the kind of people who went to Dalton and Harvard.  At the same time, you (or Yglesias, anyway) state that we must negotiate with, say, the Iranians, recognizing that our unjust imperialist policies of the past century are the primary cause of the troubles between us.  I think those points of view qualify as venomous hatred for your fellow citizens and weepy empathy for foreigners who hate us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why do you say &#8220;Huh?&#8221;  You state that your domestic political opponents do not negotiate in good faith and that there is no point in compromising with them:  they are simply an obstacle to be run over.  They are irrational people with misguided values that must be reformed by the kind of people who went to Dalton and Harvard.  At the same time, you (or Yglesias, anyway) state that we must negotiate with, say, the Iranians, recognizing that our unjust imperialist policies of the past century are the primary cause of the troubles between us.  I think those points of view qualify as venomous hatred for your fellow citizens and weepy empathy for foreigners who hate us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Freddie</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-659</link>
		<dc:creator>Freddie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-659</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I’m always puzzled why people like Yglesias and DeBoer are so filled with weepy empathy for foreigners who hate us, and so filled with venomous hatred for their fellow citizens.&lt;/i&gt;

Huh?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I’m always puzzled why people like Yglesias and DeBoer are so filled with weepy empathy for foreigners who hate us, and so filled with venomous hatred for their fellow citizens.</i></p>
<p>Huh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: y81</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-656</link>
		<dc:creator>y81</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:45:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-656</guid>
		<description>Gee, you might have thought that the one who is going to negotiate peace with Hamas, Iran and North Korea could get in some practice by reaching agreement with a group of people who share his language and culture and live in the same country.  But you&#039;d be wrong.

More generally, I&#039;m always puzzled why people like Yglesias and DeBoer are so filled with weepy empathy for foreigners who hate us, and so filled with venomous hatred for their fellow citizens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gee, you might have thought that the one who is going to negotiate peace with Hamas, Iran and North Korea could get in some practice by reaching agreement with a group of people who share his language and culture and live in the same country.  But you&#8217;d be wrong.</p>
<p>More generally, I&#8217;m always puzzled why people like Yglesias and DeBoer are so filled with weepy empathy for foreigners who hate us, and so filled with venomous hatred for their fellow citizens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casino Politics &#124; The League of Ordinary Gentlemen</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-638</link>
		<dc:creator>Casino Politics &#124; The League of Ordinary Gentlemen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:34:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-638</guid>
		<description>[...] response to Freddie, Ross Douthat writes: The issue is the risk the Democrats are taking, period, by spending enormous [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] response to Freddie, Ross Douthat writes: The issue is the risk the Democrats are taking, period, by spending enormous [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-576</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-576</guid>
		<description>Max thanks for your comments.  

You write, &quot;I was under the impression that Yglesias’s failure to mention deficit spending was precisely the problem.&quot;  Perhaps so, but as you will see if you review my comment I conjectured that  Matt may well defend deficit spending, but that was not the case with the post Ross linked.   

After I said that I googled &quot;Yglesias deficits.&quot;   The result, almost 40,000 hits.  The first two selections confirmed my suspicion, Matt does see a case for deficit spending.  The posts are 1) &quot;Sucker&#039;s Bet&quot; posted 9/24/08 and 2) &quot;Deficits Only Matter When They Matter&quot; posted 12/1/08.  I recommend them for an insight to his thinking not only on deficits but also taxes.  I his September post Matt writes, &quot;...the case seems clear for wildly higher tax rates on high-income individuals than prevailed during the Clinton years. Are we afraid of stifling the kind of fat cat activity that’s brought us to our current situation?&quot;  Way to go, Matt!

Now I have no problem with Ross using Yglesias as a foil.  But I do have a problem with Ross misleading, my view, readers into thinking Matt was talking about deficits in that particular post.  Or even your view, that the criticism offered by Ross goes to the fact that Matt did NOT mention deficits.  The plain fact is deficits were not on the table.  And in general I have a problem with any criticism that focuses on what was not done, said, written.  And I think in the short form comments both Ross and Matt tend to use it is really unfair to criticize comments on what was not written.

On the matter of deficits. I think it is pretty clear that everyone, yes everyone, will find cases where deficit spending is necessary, from the most principled conservative to the most profligate liberal.  So in that broad sense deficits are not the issue.  It&#039;s just a question of which ox is being gored.

On the question, are the democrats and President Obama making a political mistake by backing a broad stimulus plan?  Are they being short-sighted?

I have no idea.  Especially since the plan remains in flux.  Maybe Obama will return to the Larry Summers view of a more targeted stimulus, give republican senators something they can vote for.  I will, however, go out on the limb and say if economic conditions in the summer of 2010 are not much improved republicans will have a lot of ammunition

But I hope I have made my by bitch with Ross a bit more clear.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Max thanks for your comments.  </p>
<p>You write, &#8220;I was under the impression that Yglesias’s failure to mention deficit spending was precisely the problem.&#8221;  Perhaps so, but as you will see if you review my comment I conjectured that  Matt may well defend deficit spending, but that was not the case with the post Ross linked.   </p>
<p>After I said that I googled &#8220;Yglesias deficits.&#8221;   The result, almost 40,000 hits.  The first two selections confirmed my suspicion, Matt does see a case for deficit spending.  The posts are 1) &#8220;Sucker&#8217;s Bet&#8221; posted 9/24/08 and 2) &#8220;Deficits Only Matter When They Matter&#8221; posted 12/1/08.  I recommend them for an insight to his thinking not only on deficits but also taxes.  I his September post Matt writes, &#8220;&#8230;the case seems clear for wildly higher tax rates on high-income individuals than prevailed during the Clinton years. Are we afraid of stifling the kind of fat cat activity that’s brought us to our current situation?&#8221;  Way to go, Matt!</p>
<p>Now I have no problem with Ross using Yglesias as a foil.  But I do have a problem with Ross misleading, my view, readers into thinking Matt was talking about deficits in that particular post.  Or even your view, that the criticism offered by Ross goes to the fact that Matt did NOT mention deficits.  The plain fact is deficits were not on the table.  And in general I have a problem with any criticism that focuses on what was not done, said, written.  And I think in the short form comments both Ross and Matt tend to use it is really unfair to criticize comments on what was not written.</p>
<p>On the matter of deficits. I think it is pretty clear that everyone, yes everyone, will find cases where deficit spending is necessary, from the most principled conservative to the most profligate liberal.  So in that broad sense deficits are not the issue.  It&#8217;s just a question of which ox is being gored.</p>
<p>On the question, are the democrats and President Obama making a political mistake by backing a broad stimulus plan?  Are they being short-sighted?</p>
<p>I have no idea.  Especially since the plan remains in flux.  Maybe Obama will return to the Larry Summers view of a more targeted stimulus, give republican senators something they can vote for.  I will, however, go out on the limb and say if economic conditions in the summer of 2010 are not much improved republicans will have a lot of ammunition</p>
<p>But I hope I have made my by bitch with Ross a bit more clear.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matoko_chan</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-556</link>
		<dc:creator>matoko_chan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:04:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-556</guid>
		<description>You don&#039;t get the basic dichotomy, yet do you?
The basis for small government is so that local churches can distribute welfare.  Once we have large government that distributes those services, the idea of small government is doomed.
Look at Great Britain.  Large government increases secularization of the population.  There is a strong negative correlation between IQ and religious belief, in every country&#039;s population in the world &lt;i&gt;except the US&lt;/i&gt;.....i think the hidden variable is small autonomous government.
Bush destroyed that model.
Now Obama is not only going to institute nat&#039;l healthcare, but he will steal the faith based initiative and bricolage local churches into welfare engines.
I for one welcome the endless reign of Our New Liberal Overlords.
They couldn&#039;t be any worse.
That is ended.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You don&#8217;t get the basic dichotomy, yet do you?<br />
The basis for small government is so that local churches can distribute welfare.  Once we have large government that distributes those services, the idea of small government is doomed.<br />
Look at Great Britain.  Large government increases secularization of the population.  There is a strong negative correlation between IQ and religious belief, in every country&#8217;s population in the world <i>except the US</i>&#8230;..i think the hidden variable is small autonomous government.<br />
Bush destroyed that model.<br />
Now Obama is not only going to institute nat&#8217;l healthcare, but he will steal the faith based initiative and bricolage local churches into welfare engines.<br />
I for one welcome the endless reign of Our New Liberal Overlords.<br />
They couldn&#8217;t be any worse.<br />
That is ended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matoko_chan</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/01/418/#comment-555</link>
		<dc:creator>matoko_chan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=418#comment-555</guid>
		<description>Not just teh Stimulous.
I think Nate gets it right.
He was right about the &#039;lections, durr.
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/republican-death-spiral.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Republican Deathspiral.&lt;/a&gt;
Read my lips.
What does any constituant want from their representatives?
Powerless pouting?
I dont think so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not just teh Stimulous.<br />
I think Nate gets it right.<br />
He was right about the &#8216;lections, durr.<br />
<a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/republican-death-spiral.html" rel="nofollow">Republican Deathspiral.</a><br />
Read my lips.<br />
What does any constituant want from their representatives?<br />
Powerless pouting?<br />
I dont think so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
