[obama] when two sides come from different directions

There is a debate going on over at Alex Goodall's place where I am the lone hand putting the other point of view. Alex is a reasonable chap [and the only official "follower" of my blogrolling site, so he can do no wrong in my book] who tries to get at the truth ... but on this we disagree.

He began with:

Given all this, I’m going out on a limb. But I’m tempted to say that Barack Obama’s speech to congress yesterday night was one of his best. In terms of emotional range and sophistication of argument, I honestly can’t remember a speech like it. The intensity of the moment was no doubt magnified by the fact that its messages were delivered directly to an audience of people intimately involved in the process of negotiation.

I came in and said:

It's fascinating watching someone actually defend Obama and his policies. This shadowy figure whose antecedents are shrouded in mystery shows his dedication to the truth in this little exchange:

“I’ve always been a Christian,” the Illinois Democrat responded. “I have never practiced [Islam].”Note: The newspaper editors had to add the word, “Islam.”

In his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama mentions studying the Quran. He was enrolled in two Jakarta schools as a Muslim.

That's one little snippet.

This was intended to show that the man lies. One of Alex's readers came in and answered me this way:

James? Who gives a rat's ass what the man's religion is? And what does that have to do with health care reform? And NOW you have a problem with "debt"? Not a WORD about the trillions of dollars in debt his predecessor "plunged" us into in order to start a war with a third-rate dictator who posed no threat to America?

... then:

"Avoiding strong commitment" is not the same as lying ... But I'm a Christian. Does that make ME a liar? I would say your logic is full of holes, but then that would be assuming you employed logic in the first place.

You'll get an idea of the logic being employed by that esteemed reader. I replied:

Gentlemen, on this issue, I fear you have been deluded. Vox Day, of WND [Libertarian]:

"As for the "You lie!" comment, well, all I have to say is that there is no question that Obama was clearly lying about illegal immigrants receiving government health care. If Obama doesn't want to risk being interrupted, he should give a speech without a live audience. If he knows he's giving a speech to a live audience, perhaps he should consider not saying things that everyone knows is not true."

Slate said it and that's before we even start on the conservatives.

That did not go down well and so I posted this:

The thing is that we are arguing cross-purposes here.

DPD does not argue to the evidence [I've included in my comments what I base my view on but he bases his view on Obama's rhetorical ability, which I did not challenge.

I did challenge the word "good", as in "good speech" because a speech containing lies does not, to our side of politics, represent a good speech. I have a quote in an article on climate change later today which says:

"We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner."

Similarly, to misread the example of the religion [above] and call my argument religious is interesting, particularly when the person then attacks my logical faculties. In other words, a rush to judgement on a misreading then dropping straight into ad hominem ... and he calls that logical.

There are a great many people who do not buy Obama, particularly in America, less so in Europe, where he comes over well. His costing of the health plan was going to see health care workers initially out of work, to be compensated on the promise of dollars.

Those workers dispute Obama's figures and that they plunge the country into more debt. When a country is deeply in debt and borrowing from the IMF to stay afloat, when its citizens are suffering, one does not come in with a trillion dollar health plan where the money must come from more overseas borrowing.

One concentrates on getting industry, small and medium business back to full speed, thereby creating employment and thereby the ability to afford health insurance, without plunging the country into more debt before the green shoots become plants.

This is the fallacy of that side of politics which believes there is a "cake" to be cut and the only question is who gets what. That cake is an illusory thing, like the Cheshire cat's smile - as has been seen in the recession, with this government's policies, the cake has become a crumb.

A political view which does not encompass the notion that the productive capacity of the businesses needs support is always going to be unsustainable. To redistribute wealth, there must first be wealth.

There will always be fat cats, even under a socialized system - the apparatchiks etc. and there'll always be a poor. The question is the people in the middle. If the legal right and the facility to earn is removed by decree, then the society collapses, which is what's happening to us now.

Now to Obama. He is pursuing policies which assume a cake to distribute but he does not show how he is going to rebake that cake. His proposals include distribution but not creation of wealth. Borrowing does not equal wealth.

By his own admission, he will tax the top 1%. Fine. But he can legally only tax them so much and then they will go offshore. People like that work on incentives. It will not cover 270 million people for health care.

This is the crucial issue here. Even in our country, where are people going who can afford it? To France. The government then loses even more revenue. This is the thing the other side of politics can't seem to grasp. Capital flees.

So how does Obama's speech look, in the light of this? Quite rhetorical.

Therein lies the argument about Obama.