The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[ISiddiqui]

I think that's kind of a bad comparison. He's negotiating for a work-life balance. That's different than legislation providing for it as a matter of law.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think that's kind of a bad comparison. He's negotiating for a work-life balance. That's different than legislation providing for it as a matter of law.

What his actions show is that work-life balance is for people with the negotiating power to acquire it. Everyone else can go pound sand. Maybe it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of hypocritical, but it does say something about how he views others.

[molson]

Does Obama, Clinton, or even Bernie Sanders think that every perk they've ever gotten as part of a job also should be an entitlement for every American?

Do you think every American should be entitled by law to your salary and work benefits?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Does Obama, Clinton, or even Bernie Sanders think that every perk they've ever gotten as part of a job also should be an entitlement for every American?

Do you think every American should be entitled by law to your salary and work benefits?

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote, unless your goal is to propose some pretty wild-eyed false equivalence.

In no sane world does pointing out Ryan's consistent legislative record opposing family-friendly policies equate to a belief that my preferred candidates should unequivocally support any and all such legislation (which is what I think you're proposing I defend, from your post).

You continue to use this technique, which is misleading and not constructive.

[ISiddiqui]

I think it has everything to do with what you've wrote on this issue, to be honest.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote, unless your goal is to propose some pretty wild-eyed false equivalence.

In no sane world does pointing out Ryan's consistent legislative record opposing family-friendly policies equate to a belief that my preferred candidates should unequivocally support any and all such legislation (which is what I think you're proposing I defend, from your post).

You continue to use this technique, which is misleading and not constructive.

It's not a "false equivalence" to apply the reasoning someone uses to make a point to other situations. That's how to test a proposition for bias.

Here, you're criticizing a politician for negotiating for a benefit that he does not feel the general public is entitled to. The reasoning falls apart when you apply it to any situation that isn't blindly partisan, as is the case with most of your propositions.

If your reasoning only applies to one issue, which happens to involve a Republican and a policy view you disagree with anyway, all you're doing is criticizing that politician and his policy view, which is fine, that's just expressing a policy disagreement. But it doesn't hold up as a broader objective criticism of the underlying basis of his opinion and action if it can't be applied to anything that you don't have the bias against. And of course, you used "hypocrite" incorrectly anyway, the entire point was doomed to begin with.

[miked]

I think I generally agree, and the idea here is that it should be a common thing (paid time off for childbirth for example). The fact that he gives it to his staffers (on our dime), wants it for himself, but then opposes it for everyone is the issue. We keep hearing that we should just let companies decide these things for themselves because they will do the right thing, except that they usually don't.

[flere-imsaho]

So, if I understand you two correctly, if I criticize Ryan for consistently voting against what, for the sake of argument, we'll broadly term "family leave policies", I must also criticize any Democratic politician on the spectrum from Obama to Sanders for not consistently voting for said policies otherwise... what? I'm a bad person, or something?

There are several problems with this. The first is that you're arguing that an absolute stance (which is what Ryan's is) can only be compared to another absolute stance (which is the strawman molson created in post 25727 - which, by the way, jesus that's a lot of posts in this thread).

That's ridiculous, guys. The narrow example of Ryan's voting record vs. the broad example of voting records across the spectrum of Democratic politicians is the very definition of false equivalence.

Conversely, if you're suggesting that for my criticism of Ryan to be valid, I must be willing to compare his stance vs. voting record to, in sequence, the stances vs. voting records of any Democratic politician, you're forcing me to defend an argument I'm simply not making, or, colloquially, a strawman argument.

The argument you're putting forth, in essence, is that my criticism of Ryan is invalid if any Democratic politician can be found who does not boast a voting record that is consistent with their public words an actions on "family leave policies".

If that is going to be the test for the validity of arguments around here, then I've got really bad news for you....

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, if I understand you two correctly, if I criticize Ryan for consistently voting against what, for the sake of argument, we'll broadly term "family leave policies", I must also criticize any Democratic politician on the spectrum from Obama to Sanders for not consistently voting for said policies otherwise... what? I'm a bad person, or something?

You aren't actually getting Molson's position.

As he stated:

you're criticizing a politician for negotiating for a benefit that he does not feel the general public is entitled to

To focus on Ryan negotiating a benefit that he doesn't necessarily feel should be mandated by law seems hypocritical if you ignore other benefits that politicians may negotiate for but don't seem willing to extend to everyone by law.

The hypocrisy in your position basically makes it easy for the rest of us to ignore as blindly partisan as opposed to based on moral principles.

One can easy agitate for government mandated family leave policies. Whether or not someone negotiates for work-life balance has nothing to do with that at all.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You aren't actually getting Molson's position.

Then he should be more clear.

To focus on Ryan negotiating a benefit that he doesn't necessarily feel should be mandated by law seems hypocritical if you ignore other benefits that politicians may negotiate for but don't seem willing to extend to everyone by law.

By this definition, nothing is hypocritical.

Here's the thing, by his actions it is clear that Ryan understands the need for work-life balance but is also opposed to supporting it for Americans through legislation, preferring that this be handled on an individual or employer basis. This would be fine if everyone had the same negotiating power with their employers as Ryan has with what, effectively, will be his employers. Call it hypocrisy, call it cognitive dissonance, call it even naivete. The point is that it's just classic GOP "fuck you, I've got mine".

The hypocrisy in your position basically makes it easy for the rest of us to ignore as blindly partisan as opposed to based on moral principles.

There's no blindly partisan hypocrisy in my position until the moment you can produce an exact counter-example on the Democratic side that I won't similarly criticize.

One can easy agitate for government mandated family leave policies. Whether or not someone negotiates for work-life balance has nothing to do with that at all.

Except that in the absence of mandated family leave policies, one must absolutely negotiate for work-life balance. A point which seems lost on both you two and Ryan.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here's the thing, by his actions it is clear that Ryan understands the need for work-life balance but is also opposed to supporting it for Americans through legislation, preferring that this be handled on an individual or employer basis. This would be fine if everyone had the same negotiating power with their employers as Ryan has with what, effectively, will be his employers.

Except that in the absence of mandated family leave policies, one must absolutely negotiate for work-life balance.

Which is something that is key, and has been for ages, to GOP notions of the role of government. Individuals should negotiate for their own benefits. It's also a cornerstone to their anti closed-shop union policies. That isn't hypocrisy, it's actually fairly consistent across the board, whether you believe in that viewpoint or not.

[molson]

I'm just saying that every comparison is not a false equivalence. You're skipping a step. If someone makes a proposition, and then someone else applies that proposition to other facts, the first person can try to distinguish that application on some ground. Argue that the comparison doesn't hold up because the situations are fundamentally different in some way. But if someone applies reasoning to another set of facts, that's not automatically FALSE EQUIVALENCE! Hell, that type of thing - application of reasoning to different sets of facts - is the foundation of our entire common law system.

I don't see what the difference is here. You have an individual negotiating for a benefit that he did not want to provide to employees when HE was basically the employer. So are you arguing that employers should not seek benefits that they didn't offer to their own employees? Or is your position more narrow? If your position only covers Republicans that you disagree with anyway, it's not very strong. If it applies to everyone, it's very strong. I was just challenging you to see how strong your proposition was here, or if it was just an unfair attack on a Republican you don't like anyway that doesn't have any broader application.

And what is Ryan supposed to do at this point? As a guy in charge of a budget, he fought against certain benefits. That's pretty common for employers to do. So is he just morally and personally bound forever by his stances in those negotiations, even as they apply to him in completely different contexts? He's just not allowed to look for a "work life balance" anymore? He just has to live at the office? Is he allowed to retire?

[lighthousekeeper]

ewwww you guys are absolutely taking the fun out of political ranting. take the lawyer bullshit elsewhere.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Which is something that is key, and has been for ages, to GOP notions of the role of government. Individuals should negotiate for their own benefits. It's also a cornerstone to their anti closed-shop union policies. That isn't hypocrisy, it's actually fairly consistent across the board, whether you believe in that viewpoint or not.

Trust me, I get that. And to be fair I'm sure Ryan ardently believes this. However, at what point do you look at decades of evidence that your legislative philosophy does not produce its intended result and think to revise your philosophy?

Ryan clearly believes in a work-life balance. He clearly gives perks along these lines to his staff. Unless he's completely uninterested in the welfare (along these lines) of the general public (which seems unlikely, given his actions), why hew to such a consistent line against such legislation? Hypocrisy? Legislative Purity? Naivete?

Originally Posted by molson

I'm just saying that every comparison is not a false equivalence. You're skipping a step. If someone makes a proposition, and then someone else applies that proposition to other facts, the first person can try to distinguish that application on some ground. Argue that the comparison doesn't hold up because the situations are fundamentally different in some way.

That's fine, but there are two problems with your plan:

1. You do this to me pretty frequently. So I like to just cut to the chase with you at this point.

2. When the equivalence is so blatantly false, I don't really feel I should have to explain it. It is you who must be more circumspect in your choice of argumentation technique.

For example:

And what is Ryan supposed to do at this point? As a guy in charge of a budget, he fought against certain benefits. That's pretty common for employers to do. So is he just morally and personally bound forever by his stances in those negotiations, even as they apply to him in completely different contexts? He's just not allowed to look for a "work life balance" anymore? He just has to live at the office? Is he allowed to retire?

Yes molson, because Ryan has consistently voted against family leave policies I feel he should lead by example and never take a day off of work except for the average number of PTO days Americans have, which happens to be 7.6/year: Table 5. Average paid holidays and days of vacation and sick leave for full-time employees

My serious reply to your question is contained in my response to Imran earlier in this post. Which, honestly, I shouldn't have to articulate, since I kind of think it's the common-sense response to my objections to Ryan's actions in this matter.

But of course if we did that we'd all have less posts. So win-win I guess.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes molson, because Ryan has consistently voted against family leave policies I feel he should lead by example and never take a day off of work except for the average number of PTO days Americans have, which happens to be 7.6/year: Table 5. Average paid holidays and days of vacation and sick leave for full-time employees

I kind of think that's a ridiculous requirement. People will vote for things based on what they think is best for the country in terms of government mandates. That doesn't mean they should be subject to exactly what they voted for - it's akin to folks saying that Congresspeople should work for the minimum wage or that their children should be sent overseas to war if they declare it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I kind of think that's a ridiculous requirement. People will vote for things based on what they think is best for the country in terms of government mandates. That doesn't mean they should be subject to exactly what they voted for - it's akin to folks saying that Congresspeople should work for the minimum wage or that their children should be sent overseas to war if they declare it.

I WAS JOKING! JESUS CHRIST!

[ISiddiqui]

Are you really? Because I really don't think you are. Half-joking at best.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Are you really? Because I really don't think you are. Half-joking at best.

The fact that you read this:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Trust me, I get that. And to be fair I'm sure Ryan ardently believes this. However, at what point do you look at decades of evidence that your legislative philosophy does not produce its intended result and think to revise your philosophy?

Ryan clearly believes in a work-life balance. He clearly gives perks along these lines to his staff. Unless he's completely uninterested in the welfare (along these lines) of the general public (which seems unlikely, given his actions), why hew to such a consistent line against such legislation? Hypocrisy? Legislative Purity? Naivete?

But then choose to believe this:

Yes molson, because Ryan has consistently voted against family leave policies I feel he should lead by example and never take a day off of work except for the average number of PTO days Americans have, which happens to be 7.6/year: Table 5. Average paid holidays and days of vacation and sick leave for full-time employees

Especially when I then write this:

My serious reply to your question is contained in my response to Imran earlier in this post. Which, honestly, I shouldn't have to articulate, since I kind of think it's the common-sense response to my objections to Ryan's actions in this matter.

Says more about you than it does about me.

[ISiddiqui]

Please, read between your lines for a second, will you?

[flere-imsaho]

Why should I do that? How about you be explicit.

I infer from your posts that you (and probably molson) view me as some sort of blindly partisan loon. Fine, but as I requested previously:

There's no blindly partisan hypocrisy in my position until the moment you can produce an exact counter-example on the Democratic side that I won't similarly criticize.

Do you want to have an actual argument, or shadow-box around the assertion that I'm some sort of partisan hack?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

My serious reply to your question is contained in my response to Imran earlier in this post.

All right...

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Trust me, I get that. And to be fair I'm sure Ryan ardently believes this. However, at what point do you look at decades of evidence that your legislative philosophy does not produce its intended result and think to revise your philosophy?

Ryan clearly believes in a work-life balance. He clearly gives perks along these lines to his staff. Unless he's completely uninterested in the welfare (along these lines) of the general public (which seems unlikely, given his actions), why hew to such a consistent line against such legislation? Hypocrisy? Legislative Purity? Naivete?

That didn't answer my question of what you want Ryan to do now. Because of his votes, he's just morally disqualified from seeking a "work-life" balance for himself now? What would that entail? How could he go about that to your satisfaction?

Or maybe you're just using the new news about him seeking a work-life balance to criticize those prior votes. As for his motive with those votes, I'm sure it's just fiscal and pro-business. A lot of Republicans think that if you can get the same work from employees at a cheaper cost, you should try to, and businesses and government agencies should be free to do that. And we all agree with that to a point, the differences are just how far along that line we are. Some think employees are entitled to more, some think employees are entitled to less. I don't think where you are on that line says anything about what you're morally entitled to try to negotiate for yourself though. And if does, where is that line? Is it just if you don't think employees are entitled to some specific benefit, you shouldn't seek it yourself? You don't seem to be going that far, hence shooting down the Obama/Sanders comparison. So why is Ryan different? What is it about his views that make him a hypocrite as opposed to someone more liberal who also seeks things for themselves that they don't think the general public is entitled to?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

That didn't answer my question of what you want Ryan to do now.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

at what point do you look at decades of evidence that your legislative philosophy does not produce its intended result and think to revise your philosophy?

Originally Posted by molson

Because of his votes, he's just morally disqualified from seeking a "work-life" balance for himself now? What would that entail? How could he go about that to your satisfaction?

I never said that. You assumed that.

For the record, I am all in support for people who can negotiate whatever perks they can get from their employers (again, using that term loosely in this case). If Ryan can accomplish that and get his work-life balance, all the more power to him. I, too, believe in the value of work-life balance. Unlike Ryan, of course, I also support legislative support for those not in a position to realistically negotiate these perks.

Originally Posted by molson

Or maybe you're just using the new news about him seeking a work-life balance to criticize those prior votes.

In fact, that's exactly what I was doing.

Originally Posted by molson

As for his motive with those votes, I'm sure it's just fiscal and pro-business. A lot of Republicans think that if you can get the same work from employees at a cheaper cost, you should try to, and businesses and government agencies should be free to do that. And we all agree with that to a point, the differences are just how far along that line we are. Some think employees are entitled to more, some think employees are entitled to less.

IMO, it's not about entitlement, it's about societal benefit.

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think where you are on that line says anything about what you're morally entitled to try to negotiate for yourself though.

I agree. But this is about what happens to those not in a position to negotiate, which is the majority of working Americans. A fact that seems loss on the GOP in general and Ryan in specific.

What is it about his views that make him a hypocrite and not someone more liberal who also seeks things for themselves that they don't think the general public is entitled to?

Depends. Give me an example.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why should I do that? How about you be explicit.

Since molson already did so:

Originally Posted by molson

That didn't answer my question of what you want Ryan to do now. Because of his votes, he's just morally disqualified from seeking a "work-life" balance for himself now? What would that entail? How could he go about that to your satisfaction?

The clear implication of your posts is that since Ryan has refused to mandate family leave imposed on employers by the government, that he should refuse to negotiate his own work-life balance.

Frankly, I don't think you really understand the Republican position on this at all. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, this is quite a obvious consistent position that the party has.


In answer to your other question, an example of benefits gained by every Senator (at least) that the public does not is that all members of Congress who serve up to 5 years receive a pension (defined benefit) when they hit 62 years of age. Though, in order to qualify for Social Security, you must work at least 10 years (that's how long it takes for 40 quarters). There is, of course, no mandate that private companies pay a pension for employees.

[ISiddiqui]

Also, President Obama has on numerous times criticized wealthy folks for sending their kids to private schools. Yet he sent his own daughters to private school (which, btw, I think it's completely justified due to security concerns).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Since molson already did so:

And I answered that in the post above yours.

The clear implication of your posts is that since Ryan has refused to mandate family leave imposed on employers by the government, that he should refuse to negotiate his own work-life balance.

"Clear"? Really?

There are two potential implications to what I wrote in criticism of Ryan. One is that he should, as you say, refuse to negotiate his own work-life balance, and one is that he should review and revise his stance on related legislation. I have now on several occasions confirmed that I would prefer he did the latter, though at the time I was advocating for neither one.

Again, the fact that you assumed the less realistic of the two potential argument was the one I supported says more about you than it does about me.

Frankly, I don't think you really understand the Republican position on this at all. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, this is quite a obvious consistent position that the party has.

I understand it quite fine. Free market. Small government (except for interference in women's health, of course). But, again, as I wrote, the very fact that decades of legislation along these lines which has not produced the desired outcome (assuming, of course that Ryan and/or the GOP want an outcome of better work/life balance for working families) should, in a normal world, perhaps make people reconsider their positions.

It's not as if Ryan doesn't understand this, given the benefits he's given to his own staff.

In answer to your other question, an example of benefits gained by every Senator (at least) that the public does not is that all members of Congress who serve up to 5 years receive a pension (defined benefit) when they hit 62 years of age. Though, in order to qualify for Social Security, you must work at least 10 years (that's how long it takes for 40 quarters). There is, of course, no mandate that private companies pay a pension for employees.

Yep, that's bullshit, and especially given the fact that like 95% of Congresspeople are independently wealthy (or can easily become so after serving), there's no need for a pension.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Please, read between your lines for a second, will you?

So now it's a black/white thing

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

one is that he should review and revise his stance on related legislation.

Why, because he thinks the government shouldn't get involved in mandating leave policy? How is his position in asking for work-life balance in negotiations inconsistent with that?

Again, the fact that you assumed the less realistic of the two potential argument was the one I supported says more about you than it does about me.

It's nice that you think so. I'm sure when people assume the worst about MBBF's arguments he thinks the exact same thing. Doesn't mean it's true, of course.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Also, President Obama has on numerous times criticized wealthy folks for sending their kids to private schools. Yet he sent his own daughters to private school (which, btw, I think it's completely justified due to security concerns).

No arguments here. I should point out that prior to Obama being POTUS, the kids attended the University of Chicago Lab School, which is pretty typical for U of C parents living in Hyde Park, but it is a private high school. Obama is being hypocritical here in the sense that the Chicago Public Schools would certainly have benefited from a prominent parent like him, though presumably there would have been security concerns when he was in the Senate.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No arguments here. I should point out that prior to Obama being POTUS, the kids attended the University of Chicago Lab School, which is pretty typical for U of C parents living in Hyde Park, but it is a private high school. Obama is being hypocritical here in the sense that the Chicago Public Schools would certainly have benefited from a prominent parent like him, though presumably there would have been security concerns when he was in the Senate.

Exactly. Believing that certain things are good for society may not make sense for your own individual situation. It happens. And it's ok.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But this is about what happens to those not in a position to negotiate, which is the majority of working Americans.

I'm pretty sure Ryan wasn't in a position to negotiate his work-life balance when he joined the Senate, or even before when he was an aide to Senator Kasten (I'm positive he had no power to negotiate work-life balance while an aide) .

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why, because he thinks the government shouldn't get involved in mandating leave policy? How is his position in asking for work-life balance in negotiations inconsistent with that?

He clearly believes in the value of work/life balance. Decades of experience indicate the current legislative regime vis-a-vis work/life balance hasn't done much to actually improve work/life balance, mainly because most employees have very little to no negotiating power in relation to this. Yet, he's highly resistant to revisiting his view on related legislation.

It's not outright hypocrisy, although that's the easiest word to use. It's more like a certain blindness, adherence to ideology or simple naivete. Still, for a guy who's supposedly an outcome-focused intellectual, the fact that he can't address the disconnect here is, quite simply, something for which he opens himself to criticism.

It's nice that you think so. I'm sure when people assume the worst about MBBF's arguments he thinks the exact same thing. Doesn't mean it's true, of course.

Now you're just projecting. MBBF's reputation is built upon his penchant for ignoring actual facts. You would accuse me of the same except a) we're not dealing in facts, but ideologies (in this specific instance) and b) you two continue to misconstrue my argument to fit your own narrative.

And honestly, if you're going to call names, I'd prefer to be known as the liberal version of Jon.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm pretty sure Ryan wasn't in a position to negotiate his work-life balance when he joined the Senate, or even before when he was an aide to Senator Kasten (I'm positive he had no power to negotiate work-life balance while an aide) .

The situation of a single aide or young senator with a stay-at-home wife is not analogous to the situation of millions of Americans juggling jobs and kids who would benefit from more parental leave and/or family-friendly work policies.

Edit: And again, false equivalence. You're taking an atomic example and using it to support a broader argument.

[ISiddiqui]

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

[ISiddiqui]

I'm seriously. I'm a Democrat and I can easily see the argument here. Why can't you?

[ISiddiqui]

(I mean esp since the work-life balance he's asking for is not paternity leave or extra sick days)

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

(I mean esp since the work-life balance he's asking for is not paternity leave or extra sick days)

Which is why flere is the one making the false equivalence here.

Unless Ryan at some point voted against the general concept of people desiring work-life balances for themselves.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm seriously. I'm a Democrat and I can easily see the argument here. Why can't you?

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

(I mean esp since the work-life balance he's asking for is not paternity leave or extra sick days)

Per Politico, Ryan has clearly articulated what he is and is not willing to do in his new job:

Paul Ryan has been abundantly clear: As speaker of the House, he won’t spend all of his time jetting across the country to keep the National Republican Congressional Committee flush.

Read more: GOP moneymen: Ryan a fundraising juggernaut - POLITICO

He enjoys a negotiating advantage over his work/life balance far greater than the majority of Americans, whose negotiating power begins and ends at FMLA and some protections in non-right-to-work States.

So, Ryan clearly believes that maintaining a work/life balance is important (which is saying something for a sitting U.S. Rep), but not so important as to offer less-empowered Americans (which is to say, most of them) some sort of assistance in that pursuit. This despite the fact that his (I presume) preferred avenue of leaving it to the free market has not improved the situation for Americans, or, put another way, the people whose interests he supposedly represents. There's a disconnect here. It may be a conscious disconnect, but still, it exists. I'm kind of surprised you can't see it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Unless Ryan at some point voted against the general concept of people desiring work-life balances for themselves.

His legislative track record of voting against a wide variety of programs aimed at improving Americans' work/life balances and, as a result, society as a whole is, in fact, a vote against the general concept of people desiring work-life balances for themselves.

In the same way that a track record of voting for each and every DoD budget increase is a vote for the general concept of having a strong defense.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, Ryan clearly believes that maintaining a work/life balance is important (which is saying something for a sitting U.S. Rep), but not so important as to offer less-empowered Americans (which is to say, most of them) some sort of assistance in that pursuit.

So if something is important to me in my job, I have to support that thing as an entitlement for all Americans?

I'm sure you'll incorrectly call that a "false equivalence," but you still haven't explained what the difference is. To me, the difference is just that he's a republican and you don't like his position on these issues. Why isn't that enough? When you insist on attacking the underlying validity of his opinion is when your reasoning falls apart.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

He enjoys a negotiating advantage over his work/life balance far greater than the majority of Americans, whose negotiating power begins and ends at FMLA and some protections in non-right-to-work States.

I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans have protections over working 40 hours a week, which seems to be really what Ryan is asking for as Speaker - he doesn't want to work the 60-80 hour weeks that Boehner constantly had to.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

His legislative track record of voting against a wide variety of programs aimed at improving Americans' work/life balances and, as a result, society as a whole is, in fact, a vote against the general concept of people desiring work-life balances for themselves.

In the same way that a track record of voting for each and every DoD budget increase is a vote for the general concept of having a strong defense.

That's another false equivalence.

He's voting against a specific piece of legislation. That's a different act that personally desiring certain conditions if they're going to take on a role with a lot more responsibility. It's not hypocritical or even inconsistent for someone to believe that every American employee is not automatically entitled to a free candy bar (and that businesses aren't required to shell out for all those candy bars), for that person to also not be willing to take a certain job if they don't get a candy bar. Those are two different decisions with different considerations, and different implications on the economy, workers, and businesses. (And as ISiddiqui said, these two situations with Ryan don't even involve the same candy bar, so its even more of a false equivalence.)

He's voting for a specific DoD budget increase. He's still allowed to think that some other budget increase isn't worth the money. Just like how libertarians aren't "hypocrites" if they generally support a smaller government but still think stuff like public roads are really important.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

So if something is important to me in my job, I have to support that thing as an entitlement for all Americans?

Nope. I would hope that your personal convictions would be reflected in your voting record, though. Even more so if you had a greater ability to affect legislation such as, say, random example, a prominent member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I'm sure you'll incorrectly call that a "false equivalence," but you still haven't explained what the difference is.

What you wrote above? That's not a false equivalence. That's a deliberate mis-framing of my argument. I've already explained your previous use of false equivalences.

To me, the difference is just that he's a republican and you don't like his position on these issues.

Well, you know, we all bring these prejudices to our arguments. I don't think badly of you, just so you know.

Why isn't that enough?

Why indeed? You were the one who took my random potshot at Ryan and turned it into a 2-page semantics exercise.

When you insist on attacking the underlying validity of his opinion is when your reasoning falls apart.

Doesn't seem that way to me. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean my reasoning is unsound.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans have protections over working 40 hours a week

Do tell.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Nope. I would hope that your personal convictions would be reflected in your voting record, though. Even more so if you had a greater ability to affect legislation such as, say, random example, a prominent member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

It is perfectly ok for someone to believe the government shouldn't be mandating something, but to demand it yourself in negotiations. Such as... a clothing budget, or reimbursement for travel, or a super-ergonomic mouse & keyboard, etc. Can everyone demand such things? No. But that doesn't mean that someone who doesn't believe the government should be mandating it is acting opposite to his actual beliefs.

[flere-imsaho]

It kind of depends what you're demanding and why, doesn't it?

[ISiddiqui]

In which case, read molson's post #25766.

And compare and contrast what Ryan is asking for, specifically, with the bills you disagree with. Compare and contrast the specifics.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In which case, read molson's post #25766.

The one where molson talks about a specific piece of legislation when I'm talking about one's actions across multiple pieces of legislation?

And compare and contrast what Ryan is asking for, specifically, with the bills you disagree with. Compare and contrast the specifics.

So what you two are proposing is that poor Paul Ryan just hasn't seen the right bill yet to enshrine his support for working parents, and despite voting consistently against these benefits, if only just the right bill would come up to a vote, he'd get right behind it and everything would be OK?

That's your argument?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So what you two are proposing is that poor Paul Ryan just hasn't seen the right bill yet to enshrine his support for working parents, and despite voting consistently against these benefits, if only just the right bill would come up to a vote, he'd get right behind it and everything would be OK?

No, I think he's a pro-business conservative (much more so than me), who doesn't want to take a difficult job unless he's able to find some time for his family.

[ISiddiqui]

Point being that what Ryan is demanding is not to work exceeding amount hours in exchange for, what amounts to, a CEO level job. It is something most salaried employees (which is what Congresspeople are) tend to do from time to time. If Ryan was an hourly employee, his exceeding work time would be subject to overtime pay (which probably wouldn't be reached because most companies don't like paying overtime pay). He is not asking for extra 'leave' benefits or vacation time.

So which bill are you proposing that Ryan vote for that would be functionally equivalent of what he's asking? Some sort of salaried professionals negotiation bill?