There is a simple solution to the current political showdown in Washington over the stimulus bill – pass Obama's stimulus plan. Pres. Obama campaigned and won the election. The American people saw the policies he was proposing. With the election, they gave Obama and those policies a mandate. The only problem – Pres. Obama is no longer proposing the stimulus bill on which he campaigned and was elected.
John Lott details the shift from candidate Obama to President Obama:
At the very end of the presidential campaign Obama “proposed
a $175 billion plan with tax-rebate checks for consumers as well as
spending on school repairs, roads and bridges, aid to states, and tax
credits for job creation.”The current bill is not only spending 4.7 times what he promised in
November, but gone are the tax-rebate checks and tax credits for job
creation. The new additional programs have nothing to do with roads and
bridges. Yet, a package that Obama never hinted at a couple of months
ago is now considered sacrosanct. The Associated Press described
Obama’s position on the stimulus plan this way: “Stopping just short of
a take-it-or-leave-it stand, Obama has mocked the notion that a
stimulus bill shouldn’t include huge spending.”
While Obama has drastically increased the size of the stimulus he is calling for, he has also taken to shifting the way he talks about pork spending and budget deficits. Even the AP calls Obama out for his changing language:
President Barack Obama had it both ways Monday when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana. He bragged about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills.
The AP goes on to detail at least three claims that Obama made in his appeal which seem to be at least not the whole truth – no "earmarks" in a bill that is essentially one gigantic earmark, setting a high standard for administration appointments while having several tax "screw-ups" along with lobbyist appointments, and claiming specific job numbers when even his own economists allow for major variations in jobs created and saved (which in itself is impossible to gauge).
It seems obvious that the easiest solution to the current political conundrum is for Congress to back the plan on which Obama campaigned and was elected, even though Obama himself seems to have abandoned it.
I'm sure the Obama-supporters reading this are already seeing an obvious out for Obama in his massively increased stimulus bill – Bush left the economy in much worse shape than Obama had thought.
Lott answers that objection:
What exactly did he learn immediately after the election about the
economy that caused him to go from a budget cutter to proposing the
biggest increase in spending ever? Prior to the election, Obama was
already regularly claiming that the economy was in the worst financial
crisis since the depression. Do you cut spending when you are in the
worst financial crisis since the depression, but massively increase it
if you can claim that things have gotten a little worse?
Isn't the fundamental shift in approaches the least bit troubling? It seems to be a matter of saying something popular during an election and doing something different once in power. If that's the case, then we have already seen that Change enough.
Hi Aaron:
Obviously Obama reacts to changing conditions and changes in his understanding of those conditions. I don't remember what the economic consensus was in October but the most economists now agree the economy needs much bigger stimulus than was proposed before because of the seriously deficient aggregate demand. Liberals and conservatives disagree about the mix between tax cuts and spending but not about the need for a big stimulus. It seems to me your complaint is like complaining that FDR never ran on a "I intend to bomb Germany" platform–he didn't propose anything like that until the world situation changed.
your friend
Keith
I am entirely skeptical of this whole enterprise, and shocked that Dems would put in so many social engineering projects that have little to do with the economy (although I'm sure they have some excuse). This is the type of pork, pet projects, and opportunism that Obama said he was against, but it looks like he's not above using his majority to steamroll the liberal agenda through. That won't, however, serve him well in the next elections.
Like the Bushies used their majority to steamroll the conservative agenda through? I'm shocked, shocked! that the conservatives disapprove! Apparently, we should just enact a new series of tax cuts for big business and the wealthy and everything will be fine!
We're on a precipice, and the Republicans carp and whine and obstruct on cue. No matter what Obama does or doesn't do, they will attack him. So, he should ignore them and do what he was elected to do – undo the disaster the Republicans left us. They lost, after all, and convincingly.
>> LOUIS: Like the Bushies used their majority to steamroll the conservative agenda through?
Yes, except that in this case, St. Obama has put on his halo and you all worship him, but he is doing the exact same thing. Why is it that when we point to your misdeeds, you respond with 'two wrongs make a right'?
Why defend your misdeeds with "well, you did it."
>> LOUIS: the Republicans carp and whine and obstruct on cue.
So when we do it, it's obstruction and unpatriotic, but when you do it, it's righteous?
A more intelligent conversation would be to define some principles to determine the difference between valid objections and principled resistance v. selfish objections and obstructionism.
For example, when the last GOP congress refused to change Congressional rules to disallow filibusters on presidential appointments, that was a good decision in favor of Democracy (though I think that such a use of the filibuster should be disallowed, but the GOP took the higher path). When the newly elected Dem congress changes the rules to limit the minority power to stop bills, you call it – progress?
When the GOP tried to stop the initial bill because it was full of unregulated pork, you cry foul, but when they try to pass a better bill, you want to take the credit? Then, when you fill the stimulus bill with unrelated pork and social engineering projects, and we object, you call that obstructionism?
I call it idiocy, hypocrisy, and dishonesty that makes the GOP misdeeds pale by comparison – because at least, when the GOP did it, they knew they were doing it. You, you don't see anything wrong with it, but justify it, a truly pathological problem.
You had fun calling the Bush/Cheney admin evil, but this admin is worse because it doesn't even KNOW it's doing evil when it does it. The Bush admin was dishonest and stupid. This one is morally blind and self-righteous about their own goodness.
Classic projection.
This Slate.com article says exactly what I think about the current stimulus package – Obama is NOT doing what he said he would, and this package is thoughtless rush politics.
Stimulate First, Ask Questions Later
>> LOUIS: Classic projection.
Classic denial on your part ;)
So, he should ignore them and do what he was elected to do – undo the disaster the Republicans left us. They lost, after all, and convincingly.
I agree, as I said in the post. Obama should do exactly what he campaigned and was elected on. The only problem is he didn't campaign on this omnibus spending bill euphemistically called a stimulus or recovery bill.
I don't remember what the economic consensus was in October but the most economists now agree the economy needs much bigger stimulus than was proposed before because of the seriously deficient aggregate demand.
Again, Keith, if we need a bigger stimulus that is understandable, but if that is the case why not work to cut out the wasteful spending and simply pass the things that specifically target the economy and not the congressional districts of Representatives and Senators with influence.
I'm still in doubt that a gigantic spending bill is the way to fix any economic problem. I'm also wary of the fact that this is the Great Depression II.
But once again, if we have to pass something, why not be a bit more bipartisan and cut out the pork?
It seems to me your complaint is like complaining that FDR never ran on a "I intend to bomb Germany" platform–he didn't propose anything like that until the world situation changed.
That does not seem a very apt analogy. With FDR, we had huge dramatic international events that pulled us into the war. No one really could misinterpret Pearl Harbor or Germany invading our allies in Europe.
Obama was campaigning on a messed up economy. He spoke about the terrible shape it was in as a reason to vote for him. If his judgments on the economy really shifted as much as his policy recommendations did from October to January then either he was completely ignorant of the situation (which why would we vote for someone who knew that little) or he was basically playing politics with the voters, telling them something popular while planning something much larger.
The economic situation has not changed that much in a few months. We did not go from a small targeted plan with tax rebates, limited infrastructure spending and job creation tax credits to the largest spending bill in the history of our nation with loads of pork and municipalities around the country submitting wish lists.
Andrew Sullivan <a ref="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/" rel="nofollow">writes today (after Sen. Gregg's surprise pull-out):
This much is now clear. [The Republican's] clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are. And the mountain of partisan vitriol Obama will have to climb every day of the next four or eight years.
I absolutely agree. The ugliness emanating from the conservative Republican camp is astonishing, especially after Obama's extended hand.
Any actual substance from Sully or just partisan name calling, which he pretends to eschew?
The use of the word "Sully" is, in itself, "name calling." If you cannot muster any respect, why bother to comment?
Pass.
"The ugliness emanating from the conservative Republican camp is astonishing, especially after Obama's extended hand."
I noticed that too. It doesn't speak well of them. I might disagree with Keith on religion, but not politics.
HURRY, FELLAS, LET'S VOTE, I AM OFF TO ROME!
Fri Feb 13 2009 09:18:52 ET
Rep. John Culberson, TX claims the "stimulus" bill must be urgently voted on today — because Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaving at 6:00 PM for an 8 day trip to Europe!
Culberson made the charge on Houston's KSEV radio.
Pelosi is hoping to lead a delegation to Europe; there's a meeting with the Pope and an award from an Italian legislative group.
Calls to Pelosi's spokesman went unreturned.
In the rushing, Democrats have now broken their promise to have the public see the $790 billion bill for 48 hours before any vote.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted that none of his Senate colleagues would 'have the chance' to read the entire final version of the 1,071-page bill before it comes up for a final vote.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our 9% approval rated leadership at work.
"I noticed that too. It doesn't speak well of them. I might disagree with Keith on religion, but not politics."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
2 wrongs do not make a right.
>> LOUIS: This much is now clear. [The Republican's] clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot).
This is just liberal spin on the real issue here – the Republicans are not taking a partisan stand, but a PRINCIPLED stand. The fact is, no one knows if this will work (not even Bill O'Reilly), but in principle, this has no real promise of working, and plenty of signs of being something other than a real stimulus package – an 'omnibus' bill full of social engineering projects.
Those who claim that the Republicans are sabotaging are looking at things through conspiratorial glasses, and entirely miss the point that Republicans are in many other ways trying to support, speak well of, and work with Obama. But thank God they are standing up against this collosal boondoggle.
I'd say that those who accuse the republicans of sabotage are fringe partisan idiots, including Sullivan. They entirely ignore the ideological divide here – one of spending money wastefully rather than allowing the market to correct itself, which it will do whether or not we spend this money, and perhaps more quickly if we don't.
>> CIN: I noticed that too. It doesn't speak well of them.
What you fail to 'notice' is that your perception is skewed by your bias. You've missed the difference in principle, not partisan politics. It speaks volumes as to their conviction that irresponsible big government spending will not save us.
The use of the word "Sully" is, in itself, "name calling."
Really? I call Cineaste, "Cin" Is that name calling? Do you really want to go down the path of pulling out all the names that you have thrown Daniel's way (or mine on occasion)? In those cases you were specifically and admittedly engaged in name calling. Does that mean that nothing you have said in those contexts were worth responding to? I wouldn't think that was (or is) the case.
If it makes you feel better to ignore my point (that there is no specifics to Sullivan's charge, just partisan politics) and focus on who's calling who names, then go for it. But next time just say that you don't have an answer to my question.
This whole thing is comical, while Cineaste, Louis and Keith all complain about the dreadful way the Republicans are treating Obama (as if the opposing party should just roll over), they are ignoring any and all serious discussion of the bill.
Keith comes the closest to engaging in any debate over the value of the stimulus, but even then it amounts to Obama and liberal economists say it is good so we should do it. There's a big debate among many economists as to the amount of help it will provide and the timeline of that help.
Also, I still think it is worth while for bill supporters to explain exactly how money for Planned Parenthood and NASA climate change research is going to bring any kind of stimulus to the economy, especially in the short term.
If any one still wants to discuss the actual merits of the bill and the need to pass it right now, we can do that. I still contend that we should be bipartisan and get behind the economic stimulus plan on which Obama campaigned and won.
>> AARON: The use of the word "Sully" is, in itself, "name calling."
Really? I call Cineaste, "Cin" Is that name calling?
You do realize the meaning of the word 'sully', don't you? It could easily be misunderstood as a nice insulting play on words, interestingly, just as the use of 'Cin' (sin) could be.
>> AARON: I still think it is worth while for bill supporters to explain exactly how money for Planned Parenthood and NASA climate change research is going to bring any kind of stimulus to the economy,
If they say 'it will provide jobs' I'm going to puke. How about giving money to Catholic schools and allow for vouchers, which are exempted from the bill, while we continue to pour money into the failing public school system without any real reforms.
I am aware of the double entendre with both of the words, but that was not my intention. Even if it was (which again it wasn't), that still does not relieve the burden of actually defending the claims, instead of simply asserting them as fact – both Sullivan's (evil GOP) and the actual policy discussion (Obama the candidate's plan vs. Obama' the president's plan).
BTW Aaron, your profile image has a striking resemblance to CS Lewis ;)
For your information, Sullivan is a conservative. Of course, not the radical theoconservatism you guys embody, so I guess that, along with his sexual orientation, leaves him open to the kind of snide attack we see here.
Also, "Sully" used to refer to him usually takes on a belittling tone. I've seen it used to exclusively in the media.
Other than that, I have nothing else to say.
So the Republicans are just taking a "principled" as opposed to "partisan" stand? Get a load of this:
That's when Texas Rep. Pete Sessions compared House Republicans to the Taliban, the fundamentalist Muslim terrorist group that has targeted U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Sessions' staff insists he wasn't lauding the Taliban's goals, only their tactics. See what you think:
"Insurgency we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban — I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban — no, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their front line message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."
For your information, Sullivan is a conservative.
Based on his defining the term. I could define myself as a liberal, but what would that mean?
Since you obviously read Sullivan a good bit, could you please explain one conservative principle or policy he supports? On every major policy issue in the last 5 or more years, he has sided with liberals.
Yes, he used to be a conservative (which had and has nothing to do with his sexual orientation), but he has long since left that behind. He trots out that label occasionally to illustrate that he alone is the paradigm of conservatism, which has come to mean whatever position he takes at the time.
Do you not find it odd that those who are liberal quote and agree with Sullivan, a "conservative," on virtually every issue?
I apologize if my referring to him came across as belittling that was not my intention. While I find his ideas worthy of belittling, he as an individual is not.
However, you managed to ignore all of my points. One the actual topic of the discussion and two, your own lapses into name-calling, which according to your stated logic here would make those statements not worth responding to. Again, I don't find that to be the case, but I would like to see a common standard applied to all discussions.
As to the Rep. – it was a stupid choice of words, but that speaks of an initial strategy, at least in his mind, that does not say what any of the current votes are about.
Is there politics involved? Obviously. But did you not applaud and call for more of the same tactics when the Democrats were in the minority? That goes again to my point of asking for a level playing field. To use another sports analogy – having the ref call the same fouls on both teams.
Aaron, your profile image has a striking resemblance to CS Lewis ;)
What?!?! ;) If you are going to copy someone, copy the best.
It's a measure of just how far right conservatism has gone that you think of Sullivan as a liberal. It seems that, to be "conservative" now, you must hew to the radical right's views on everything from the war to social issues. Thus, "conservatives" like Aaron and seeker can accuse Sullivan of the heresy of liberalism because theirs is, in reality, theoconservatism.
See here for Sullivan's discussion of his conservatism.
As to your criticisms of me, they follow what I call the "Aaron Defense" – a variation of "I know you are, but what am I?" It's always the same, whenever you are criticized you blow a cloud of ink to blind and confuse your opponent by charging him with doing the same thing. I've watched you do this for years. So we're pretty much at a draw. I'm trying to recall when the Democrats voted unanimously against anything in the House as has now happened twice. Can anyone here? I find it exceedingly suspicious that not one Republican broke the the pack to vote for the stimulus bill and only 2 or 3 in the Senate. It's also telling that you brush aside Rep. Sessions' screed whereas I – and many others – see it a a revealing glimpse into the Republicans' strategy. The Taliban indeed! Words were never more accurate nor more inadvertently revealing!
"…whenever you are criticized you blow a cloud of ink to blind and confuse…"
The dreaded evangelical octopus defence! Seeker favors the typical conservative head in the sand strategy, AKA the ostrich maneuver.
An interesting gloss on my question on the lop-sided vote in Congress re: the stimulus package:
With zero House Republicans voting for the stimulus — and with just three Senate Republicans expected to vote for it later this afternoon — it's worth noting that 28 House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats voted for the final passage of Bush's big tax cut in 2001. (And remember, too, that Bush had barely won the presidential election the year before.)
The size of that 2001 tax-cut package? $1.35 trillion.
Louis, I simply point out that you repeated use name calling in many of your points, but you want to automatically dismiss someone else’s point if they engage in the same. That is “a cloud of ink to blind and confuse?”
If it is confusing, how about I say with a little less tact – you have a double standard when judging the opinions and statements of others that you do not apply to yourself and those that agree with you.
No hate – except Christians, they deserve it.
No name calling – except by you, then it’s fair.
No obstructionist tactics – except by Democrats, because it’s important.
That’s not a blot of ink, that’s the way you choose to operate on most occasions. You have the ability to make well reasoned arguments and points that make me think and rethink my positions. You do that on many occasions, but too often you choose the easy route of refusing to allow principles to interfere with your points.
As to Sullivan’s conservatism. Again, I suppose you were blinded by my cloud of ink, but I simply asked you for once conservative principle or issue that Sullivan has expressed or supported in the last 5 years. That should be fairly simple.
Words mean things. The word conservative means something. I didn’t say Andrew Sullivan was a bad person. I did say he was liberal because he was gay. I said that he does not have the right to define conservatism to fit his own personal views. Go through his archives and show me one post where he is defending a conservative position or even criticizing a liberal one.
Again, how is it that a “conservative,” Andrew Sullivan, agrees with “liberal” pundits on basically every issue of importance? I’m not asking for all conservatives to agree on every issue – war on terror, tax cuts, government spending, limited government, gay marriage, abortion, energy independence through our own resources, on and on.
Again, I know many conservatives who disagree on a whole host of those, I know only one self defined conservative that disagrees with all other conservatives on every one – Andrew Sullivan.
The size of that 2001 tax-cut package? $1.35 trillion.
The horror of $1.35 trillion (and I doubt that number) going back to the people who actually earned it!
There is a sizable difference between giving people many back that they earned and taking more money from people to send $1 billion to ACORN, several hundred million to buy new government cars and every other pork project they could lard up this bill with.
One gives money back to the people who make up the economy, the other takes money from people and spends it how the government sees fit.
David Frum makes a comparison that should resonate with liberals and Sullivan conservatives:
To your question of Democrats united against Bush, here’s one article I found (I can find more) praising the Democrats for “unity.” The LA Times says that every Democratic Senator voted against Bush’s 2006 budget. Here’s one about all the House Democrats leaving town, so as to not have to vote on a bill concerning telecommunication immunity.
You probably agree with those united moves. I have no problem with that. The issue arises when you praise those moves by one party, while accusing the other party of treachery when they do the same.
I think a better question would be why was there a bi-partisan vote AGAINST the bill in the House. Are those Democrats being “taliban” as well?
>> LOUIS: It's worth noting that 28 House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats voted for the final passage of Bush's big tax cut in 2001.
The reason is clear. It is economically smarter (and politically safer) to vote for SAVING money rather than spending it. This shows, not that dems are less partisan, but that some recognize the wisdom of tax cuts, while it seems that NONE recognize the wisdom of avoiding big government spending.
Hi Daniel;
We are right now suffering from inadequate aggregate spending. Under THESE conditions it is NOT economically smarter to vote for more saving. When aggregate spending goes down, businesses lay people off and some go OUT of business, because you can't STAY in business when people aren't buying things.This is why we NEEDED stimulus, it's why tax cuts are not as effective as spending would be, and the huge gap between potential GDP output and actual output is why the stimulus package is quite likely too SMALL. As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says, we are in Depression economics where classic Keynsianism applies. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it is a technical scientific one. Ideologues on the right who think tax cuts are the universal cure for every problem are in the way of the technical fix we need.
your friend
keith
your friend
Louis,
I have a heard time calling someone pro-life who speaks of it as ending a life, but then saying we should compromise on it. If it is always ending a life, how do you leave Roe v. Wade alone or proposes some of the other compromises Sullivan does.
Having said that, I was not aware that Sullivan regarded all unborn life that way. So, I will gladly take your correction on that issue.
That being said, I still think my point remains – Sullivan (or Harry Reid, which he references in his column as being pro-life) are not conservatives.
As in spiritual matters, you don't get to define the labels and positions to suit ONLY your views and ideology.
You are entirely correct. Neither I nor Sullivan have that right. But the issue here is who lines up with the stated goals and beliefs of the disputed term. Conservatism means something. Christianity means something. It cannot simply be redefined to suit an individual or even a group of individuals.
But Sullivan's self-described conservatism has nothing to do with Obama deciding to change his mind on the stimulus bill.
As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says, we are in Depression economics where classic Keynsianism applies. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it is a technical scientific one.
Keith, you can add that in front of Krugman's name, but it doesn't make him any less ideological. It does not surprise me to find that he does not believe tax cuts would help in the current environment. Is there a time when he believes tax cuts would help? Is there a time when he believes government spending would be bad, particularly when a Democrat is in office?
This is not a technical scientific issue. Economics are much more complicated than that.
If we need more spending in the economy, why would tax cuts not help? They would give people more money to spend. They would give business more disposable income with which to hire or retain more workers. They would allow individuals and businesses the freedom to act in ways that benefit them and the economy as a whole the best, instead of having the government dictate which things deserves to have money spent on. More freedom is a good thing.
Spoken like a true theocon.
What exactly was that in reference to? Pithy general comments don't shed much light, but do have the tendency to generate more heat.
I find it odd that Sullivan that you use it in reference to Sullivan who uses his own faith to influence his politics. I could give you links of atheist conservatives who dispute Sullivan's claims of conservatism as well.
As to the "theocon" label, wasn't this whole rabbit trail started by an issue of name calling which you said makes comments worthless?
I direct you to Sullivan's blog, 16 Feb 2009 04:56 pm:
The critical definition of conservatism, by which I mean that political tradition Burke founded, rests on a distinction between theoretical and practical wisdom. Burke insisted that abstract ideas of the Truth should not be our guide in political thought and action. He foresaw what would happen when tradition ceded to absolutism in the French Revolution. He prized experience, the wisdom of time, and the adaptation of existing institutions to new social realities. So for conservatives, the core political virtue is practical reason and common sense, not ideology, theology or absolutism.
Now check out the latest Pew poll question:
When it comes to questions of right and wrong, which of the following do you look to most for guidance?
Most Americans have a healthy respect for religious teaching but in their lives give greater preference to common sense and practical experience. That includes almost all religious groups as well – Catholics, in particular, show conservative tendencies. The exceptions? Evangelicals and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses – who are trained to forego practical reasoning for abstract truths based on unquestionable authority. Evangelical Christians are much less conservative than American Muslims, for example.
The Republican party is not, at this point in time, a conservative party, as Burke would understand it. It's a fundamentalist religious party. Until the influence of evangelicals and Mormons is reduced, it will find these tendencies reinforce each other.
We'll simply have to disagree on Sullivan's conservatism and the role of faith/reason/experience in forming thought with evangelicals and the GOP.
I suppose, but my thought is that different kinds of conservatism can coexist (if not peacefully) as can different kinds of Christianity – and I don't think any one variety gets to claim a monopoly. The very fact that you seem to deny this tends to support Sullivan's analysis.
I agree that there are various branches of conservatism that can peacefully coexist. Social-cons, financial-cons, military-cons, etc. can all unite on areas on which they all agree and disagree peaceably on the areas where they don't. I still don't believe Sullivan's politics fall under the conservative banner, as he spends most of his time agreeing with and being praised by liberals.
That's the issue, not that I don't think there can be people who believe varying things in conservatism (or Christianity), but at some point someone has left the camp (or tent, depending on your metaphor of choice).
I understand the reality of and the need for a "big tent" when discussing a political party and a ideological movement, but I also contend that their most be defining walls for the tent that can identify who is under the tent. Otherwise, anybody anywhere can claim to belong to any group or movement.
I could say that I'm a liberal socialist because of some various position I hold. Obviously, when you look at my positions on all the issues, you would say that is not the case. I can't claim that mantle because my beliefs don't line up with it.
Again, I agree that people can believe different things and still fall under the same category, but I also hold that at some point the disagreements become so frequent and wide that the people must understand that they fall under different categories.