Against the people

Al Sharpton explains that Obama’s Socialist transformation of America has truly begun:

“This began the transformation of the country that the President promised when he was elected,” Geraldo interrupts, “To socialism?” Sharpton: “First of all, then we’d have to say the American Public overwhelmingly voted Socialism when they elected President Obama.” ~YouTube.com

The fact is that Obama didn't tell us the truth when he ran for president. He didn't run as the socialist he is so what Sharpton suggests is wrong. America couldn't have voted for socialism in electing him. Obama pretended to be a centrist interested in bipartisanship and promising tax cuts! Obama would have never won running on his true policy mission: something akin to a Hugo Chavez style transformation of America.

The heavy burden of taxation and control that this congress and President seek to put on American businesses and citizens will not result in prosperity. Democrats make the argument that higher taxes and higher spending will reduce the deficit and create jobs. The opposite is true. It will enlarge the government economy at the expense of the American economy. Unless you want to count the 16,500 new IRS enforcement agents to be hired to hunt down all the new criminals who may have failed to buy a government approved health insurance policy at the price the government sets.

Democrats Fundamental Transformation of America will, if fully enacted, result in the collapse of our economy. (79% fear US economy could collapse.) A good example is California. The same runaway spending, ever higher taxes, and Democrat special interest control will eventually bankrupt this state and the Federal government is being run in just the same manner.

Just the beginning

This healthcare bill has nothing to do with better healthcare. Pure and simple it is about controlling the people. It is a first step to universal healthcare. With its mandates, higher taxes, price controls, and far reaching arbitrary regulations this bill will result in destroying what's left of healthcare. Once the heavy hand of government is through 'fixing' healthcare by destroying it, the next step will be proposed: outright nationalization.

Thank God that the left is finally brazen enough to come out and admit the truth. Democrat Rep. Dingle says that the purpose of their policies is in fact, "to control the people."

Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.  ~americanthinker.com

Against the people

Democrats claim that everyone loves this legislation. That a majority of Americans approve of and want this bill. But that is obviously the standard socialist propaganda. The left believes, as a tenet of their faith in government, that everything they do is for the people and that the capitalist-oppressed-masses are all for their socialist liberation. However, this isn't true. Americans oppose this mess.

A CNN poll puts opposition to this Democrat takeover at a whopping 59%:

Washington (CNN) - A majority of Americans have a dim view of the sweeping health care bill passed by the House, saying it gives Washington too much clout and won't do much to reduce their own health care costs or federal deficits, according to a new poll released Monday.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.  ~politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com


Democrats counter by saying that other polling is higher for individual items of reform so really the people are just confused about the messy 'process'. Those poor ignorant masses will see what's in the bill once it's passed. Sadly, this is an unfortunate side effect of socialist

More destructive change coming...

If Democrats continue on this path and pass more of their socialist agenda to control America, like cap and trade, we will no longer be free, there will only be those who rule and those who are ruled. Government will be an ever present 'parent' guiding your every decision and controlling every choice. Between healthcare and the environmental power they seek there will be no limit on what will be controlled by the Federal Government. The constitution will cease to exist.

Once the government owns your healthcare they will decide how much you should exercise and what you eat. They will decide what treatments you receive. They will decide what medical research is necessary. They will eventually mandate all kinds of things like doctor visits.

Cap and trade covers everything we use energy for. Everything with emissions will potentially be under the control of the Federal government. How often you drive your car, and how far. How much energy and water you use in your home.

The left recognizes no limit on what is potentially under their direct control. They have no principles that would ultimately ensure your liberty in any area of life.

The cost

Spending trillions to save billions is logic that only congress could come up with. This new entitlement will require massive new taxes. There has never been an entitlement that cost what it was said to cost when the entitlement was enacted. We are headed toward national bankruptcy. They've spent all the money collected from social security, all that's left are IOU's. Democrats have a budget deficit this year in the trillions with no end in sight and their policy agenda is more and more spending and new entitlements.

The cost, my friends, will be our freedom.

Posted by Eric Simonson at March 24, 2010 12:04 AM
Comments
Comment #297786

Yawn. We’ve been Pinko Commies since the New Deal. Yeah, we know.

The real news here is that Eric now sees Geraldo and Al Sharpton as his new political idols.

Posted by: gergle at March 24, 2010 12:40 AM
Comment #297787

Eric,
Why you may not like the Empolyer Based Healthcare Insurance Policy established by the parents and Grandparents of the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s. Unable to break that Argument of Logic and Reason I do admit that President Obama electing to keep Americas’ Doctors, Nurses, and PA’s in change of Americas’ Institutions of Health and Medicine considering the number of Golden Healthcare Policies held by Americans leads to a Political Debate with an Informed Patient.

For why I do not believe the Republicans do themselves any favor by following the No-Nothing Party and Tea Party Talking Heads. I do wonder what the Far Left and Far Right would do if they knew the Healthcare Reform Law will actually help Informed Patients and Learned Doctors of Medicine work on building a Better Relationship while allowing those citizens who require of just want the Medical Professionals to tell them how to stay Healthy.

Yes you can believe there is a way to ensure every American Medically Self-Sufficient; however, having seen no presentation by a Leader of the Republican Party, No-Nothing Party, or the Tea Party that can prove they can excute such a plan. I hope the Coffee Club will stay sober long enough to see how setting aside say 10% of the Healthcare Premium for the Individual will lead to promoting Health among Americans by giving Labor and Management the opportunity to become Medically Self-Insured.

So please, why the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s may have followed their Patents and Grandparents advice blindly and gave all their money to the Healthcare Insurance Companies. Looking for something better for the Children of the 21st Century I do believe Americas’ Republican could make headway if they challenged the Democratic Ideology of a Better World or at least a Better Health Care System.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 24, 2010 3:09 AM
Comment #297794

“Al Sharpton explains that Obama’s Socialist transformation of America has truly begun”

Well Eric I made it all the way to your first link before realizing what a waste of time this post is. I went to YouTube and heard what Rev. Sharpton said but didn’t hear what you have attempted to spin. Remember just because Geraldo inserts the dredded socialism into the conversation doesn’t mean that it is what Rev. Al said, but hey why let facts get in the way of propaganda. Out of all the far right extremist conservatives spouting the nonsense I have heard only one say anything intelligent and I will pass that along for you.

“Frum: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party.”“


http://blogs.abcnews.com/nightlinedailyline/2010/03/david-frum-on-gop-now-we-work-for-fox.html

Posted by: j2t2 at March 24, 2010 8:45 AM
Comment #297798

Against the people or for the people is the question and according to the article it seems HRC is for the people.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business
/24leonhardt.html?hp

Posted by: j2t2 at March 24, 2010 10:37 AM
Comment #297801

j2t2,

That seems like a well researched piece. Good read…thanks.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2010 1:18 PM
Comment #297802

We’ll see how many apocalyptic predictions of yours actually come true. I think you’ll be disappointed.

As for the notion that this legislation will be unpopular? Don’t be so certain. There’s a difference between not everybody being satisfied with a law being drafted, and people actually being sorry about the law passing when it finally gets through.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2010 1:28 PM
Comment #297806

You know what makes this plan so great? We get to pay for it for 4 years before we can use it!
Would you go to the hardware store to get a light bulb and pay for it over a 4 year time span before you could take it home and use it? Or buying a car under the same terms. That is one of best high lights of the program.

Some other high lights:

2011-Drug makers face annual fee of $2.5 billion and rising every year thereafter

2013-Tax on wages will go from 1.45% to 2.35% on unearned income and 2.9% on the sale of medical devices

2014-People at 133% of poverty level (present $22,000 for family of 4) will pay max of 3% of income for coverage. People at 400% of poverty level will pay up to 9.5% of income.
An independent Medicare board will begin to submit recommendations to curb Medicare spending.

Where are the cuts? I will tell you where they are. They do not exist!

Posted by: tom humes at March 24, 2010 2:44 PM
Comment #297808


Eric, progression is slower than I would like but, we are getting there. The harder it becomes to make profit through exploitation, the less relevant capitalism becomes.

Don’t worry though, we will always have capitalists and when the workers, both collectively and as independents, own their production and compete in the free and fair market, capital will have opportunities for investment.

So, keep up the good fight because neither of us wants to see the liberal bourgeoisie turn this country into a socialist state.

Posted by: jlw at March 24, 2010 3:11 PM
Comment #297815

tom humes-
Your argument misses the large reapportionment of insurance company subsidies for carrying Medicare Advantage plans, subsidies that have little or anything to do with actual benefits, and nothing at all to do with the basic medicare benefits the progam supplements.

It also misses a change in emphasis in Medicare policies.

As for the length of time it takes the program to take effect?

I have to say, its one of the Right’s most ridiculous talking points. Sure, we could have it be set up faster. It would be more expensive to do so. Would the Republicans favor higher taxes, deeper digging for spending…

…or would they find fault no matter how we put the policy together?

That’s the problem. Even when we take up your own suggestions from a few years back, y’all claim it’s all socialism. The Republicans have taken their hatred of liberals to such levels that anything and everything they do, in the Right’s view, must be scorch-earth destroyed, even if Republicans were the ones whose idea it was in the first place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2010 5:01 PM
Comment #297822

Stephen,

Drowning people sometimes take their saviors down with them…that seems to be the current Republican policy…in desperation, they want to take America down with them…who’d a thunk it? Super patriots, uncaring about the nation, hanging on for dear life as they sink below the surface of reason.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2010 6:25 PM
Comment #297828

stephen
there are a lot of things I missed that are in this legislation. After all 2700 pages cannot be condensed to a few paragraphs. The main bone of contention for me is that it is another step the federal government is taking towards total control of all of the sovereign people of this country. It is not in their domain to have anything to to with health care. And yes it does go back decades to the legislation done over the years. It is not the “right” of government to do for me what I can do for myself. And yes, I find fault with any policy they put together.
Even now they have to do fixes to do what they perceive as wrongs in the legislation. They cannot even put together legislation that is correct to their own ideas.
As for myself, it will cost me thousands over the four year span before I can use it. Why do I have to partake in something that I don’t like or want? Where does it say in the Constitution that I must purchase a product whether it fits my situation or not? Why must I down grade my coverage because bureaucrats from the IRS say I must?
There are a lot of lingering questions that will just hang out there and the answers will be more intrusion into my life.

Posted by: tom humes at March 24, 2010 7:28 PM
Comment #297831

Marysdude,

If I feel any desperation it is that of a man watching people follow a lie.

I know that you believe this is a great deal but isn’t it possible that you could be wrong? I’ll admit that I can be wrong. I have a strong opinion, but I don’t know everything, there are many things that I don’t know enough about to say with absolute certainty. I could have adopted a belief system with fundamental flaws that would cause me to believe that socialism is an immoral economic system that enslaves countries to the extent they implement it.

But there are numerous examples and history to follow that says this is so.

To the degree that we put every facet of life under the control of government prosperity and freedom suffers. Just as I wouldn’t want private corporations having the kind of power government has I don’t want government to have it either. And there is a great deal of history to back up the idea that socialism, statism, authoritarianism, or however you want to define it leads to plenty of pain and hurt.

Posted by: eric at March 24, 2010 7:32 PM
Comment #297833

Stephen,

I want to know why you want to put everything in the hands of a monopoly.

What happens when every aspect of your life is literally proscribed by the Federal government?

When someone claims that the problem is evil corporations who ‘oppress’ and take advantage of people but then turn around and advocate a government monopoly instead I have to question the logic or the sanity of the left.

And let me be clear, I love ‘liberals’ as people. (All of the ones I personally know at least.) I have no hatred in my heart toward Obama or Pelosi etc, I think they are grasping for power of my life and the life of this nation. What you hear in my words is opposition to the ideology and the policies, not the people personally.

This idea that opposing liberals equals hatred is a strawman. Does opposition, even vehement opposition on your part equal hatred?

Posted by: eric at March 24, 2010 7:43 PM
Comment #297837

gergle,

I assume that your worldview is well informed by socialist ideology. I assume this from your many comments. Am I wrong?

Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Government run or private ownership? Maybe it depends. But on the whole I think Democrats are heavily invested in social and economic theories that are in whole or part derived from communist and socialist ideology. And there are a wide, varied, and plentiful bounty of social theories of this sort. Even the communists of dear mother russia were at war with one another and separated into schools of thought. But there is a core philosophy to that generic ideology. It is this that I am opposed to. I am an anti-socialist.

If it were anything else I wouldn’t care. But socialists seek to have the (our) government take control of society and serve the ideology they believe in. And that makes it a problem for me and my children and their children. This isn’t about whose ‘team’ is better, at this point my team is the team who will help get the government off my back.

I hate waiting in line at government offices to renew my license or enroll my kids in school. Why would anyone want to make everything something you have to talk to a government official about? Have you ever been hassled by an overzealous public official?

I thought liberals were all about stickin’ it to the man, living free, and not following the rules of society? No. Far from it. They want to have someone there to make sure their neighbor isn’t smoking a cigarette in front of children in their own home. Or to fine people who eat fatty foods, or salt, or whatever the latest fad prohibition will be. Will it ever end? Is there a point at which even liberals will say, “Enough! That’s too far?” I see no ideological or philosophical evidence that says there is a limit to what the government can do. Even the constitution is a living document and not absolute to follow. Just reinterpret it. No problem.

Posted by: eric at March 24, 2010 8:04 PM
Comment #297840

“Why must I down grade my coverage because bureaucrats from the IRS say I must?”

Tom,

Could you please explain how this health act will result in the IRS requiring you to down grade your current coverage? I find that charge hard to believe.

Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2010 8:16 PM
Comment #297841

dude, Those super patriots have always put the interests of the American people first. What they don’t want them to believe is the reality that those interests start at the top and work down from there. They remind me of duplicitous shift shapers that are able to transform at a moments notice to whichever ideology currently suits the best interests of the party. In other words, they have lost their way and are desperate to find it without presenting the appearance that they are totally lost.

Posted by: RickIL at March 24, 2010 8:17 PM
Comment #297842

tom humes-

there are a lot of things I missed that are in this legislation. After all 2700 pages cannot be condensed to a few paragraphs.

Well, if you’re not aware of how the bill actually works, your critique will be crippled by your ignorance of the subject matter. The bill raises or diverts the necessary revenue to pay for itself.

I knew about where some of the money was coming from, so I could affirmatively answer that you were mistaken. I didn’t have to rely on an an argument that said “it must be true.”, I could rely one that said “it is true.”

Throwing the page count at me is another example of where this lack of knowledge is a handicap. I know from reports I’ve heard that condensed to regular book formatting, the page count would be about 2-300 pages. So, waving the page count of a bill doesn’t intimidate me, and with that number of pages, nobody has an excuse among your leaders for not having read it, or had staff read it.

The main bone of contention for me is that it is another step the federal government is taking towards total control of all of the sovereign people of this country.

You know, you could draw us twirling a mustache, and this sentence couldn’t be more steeped in cheap melodrama. What are Republicans, now, the suitor who comes to untie the woman from the train tracks?

The Truth of the matter is, Obama won an election promising this, and now the balance of those who are glad the bill’s passed to those who aren’t is 48-40.

I think the American people, like Jack Welsh of GE said in a recent interview, are very capable of correcting things themselves. They don’t need their conservative nannies to deny them liberalism for their own good.

It is not in their domain to have anything to to with health care. And yes it does go back decades to the legislation done over the years.

It is not in their domain? We’ve had Medicare and Medicaid for the last Decade. Even today’s employer based system is a result of two Republican President’s efforts, Eisenhower and Nixon. Government has been intervening for quite some time now. The question of whether it’s able to, or should be able to is no question at all, as the Constitution gives broad powers to regulate Interstate Commerce. Healthcare in America is most decidedly interstate commerce.

The problem of relying on constitutional arguments as a crutch is that they only make your conclusions look good if you demonstrate actual knowledge of the constitution and it’s modern application. Too often, nowadays, people just repeat what a bunch of pitchfork pundits and irresponsible politicians say.

It may very well be the case that you are mourning the loss of freedoms that were never there to begin with. Government has been subsidizing insurance for decades.

But some people really don’t care whether you have a clear picture about how your government and the law were actually organized. They just care about getting you to vote for them, and keeping you distracted from their poor performance over the last decade.

It is not the “right” of government to do for me what I can do for myself.

Exactly what is it that you can do for yourself? Bargain as an individual for a policy, and come put with a deal as good as those who work for big companies? Prevent those companies from refusing you a policy for even just a minor pre-existing condition? Prevent them from rescinding your policy because of some BS oversight of yours in reporting your medical records?

There’s a lot in the bill that people can’t do for themselves.

And yes, I find fault with any policy they put together.

Even now they have to do fixes to do what they perceive as wrongs in the legislation. They cannot even put together legislation that is correct to their own ideas.

Let me address the first notion: really?

I would think that in analyzing the policy, it would matter less who was putting it together, and more what was being put together. The policy is what matters, what happens in fact. Our proposal mirrored both the Republican’s alternative to Clinton’s bill (back when Republicans offered real alternative policy instead of just saying no) and Mitt Romney’s recent Massachussetts healthcare plan.

But hey, you have to oppose Liberals. You know, slippery slope and everything.

Seriously, though, If you want to make it abundantly clear to everybody that the Republicans don’t want to actually help govern, be my guest. Because what will happen here is that Democrats can always triangulate your former policies, and look reasonable doing this, while your people paint yourself into a corner of nutty partisan extremes as you have to shun and run away from anything Democrats offer as policy. Because you can’t compromise, you can’t stop short of the line of political extremism.

And that only ultimately benefits the Democrats, who get to appeal to the center with less real competition for it.

As for fixing policy? Remember back to your civics class. The negotiations between the Senate and the House are what these corrections are about, with hundreds of political individuals and factions jockeying for control of the process. Each side is trying to have its influence.

Under normal circumstances, what would happen is that we would bounce around the policy in a conference, work out the differences, and pass it through both houses when the negotiations were finally a success.

Your people, though, turned the Senate into a no-man’s land for the ordinary procedure. Therefore, the use of reconciliation to change the bill and make adjustments, so Republicans couldn’t use 41 to sink what a majority of more than fifty would pass.

Believe me, most Democrats would prefer passing things the old fashioned way, but Republicans mysteriously enough have abused the Filibuster to the point where it doesn’t matter that Democrats are in the majority on most legislation. Kind of seems like a funny way to save constitutional government when you make up new supermajority barriers that the constitution never talks about.

What we’re doing is part of the normal process done through extraordinary means because of a totally abnormal political state of affairs.

As for myself, it will cost me thousands over the four year span before I can use it. Why do I have to partake in something that I don’t like or want?

This kind of complaining hardly gets me sympathetic. That’s Democracy. Sometimes things will cost you that you don’t like or want, because the majority wants or likes it. Sometimes, you’ll be able to force others to do what you want, as part of another majority.

But the agreement here is this: we let the other side’s majority rule, and that make our majority the legitimate power, rather than the hamstrung victim, when the majority votes us into power.

Why must I down grade my coverage because bureaucrats from the IRS say I must?

First, why the association of cost of policy with quality of policy? Policies don’t have to be expensive to be effective, and very often the cadillac plans don’t do much good. Second, do you actually have a plan that’s worth that much money? And if so, are you part of an exempt group?

You have a lot of questions, but the real question is, are you even in the right ballpark with your concerns?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2010 8:27 PM
Comment #297844

Eric,

From your many posts I realize nuance isn’t your thing, but perhaps some of us believe there aren’t simple black and white answers here.

The trumped up rhetoric serves the devisive types, but it doesn’t do much for the pragmatists who get things done. What works, works.

Healthcare has been deteriorating in this country in terms of being overpriced, and underserving for decades. That much should be obvious to anyone. I’d love it if there was some magical answer that would pop up from an Ayn Rand, or Grover Norquist. But that fantasy isn’t there.

So like leaders have in the past, We do what we have to do. If that is to form a Federal Government, or raise a standing army, or exercise some control over a monopolistic industry, as dreadful as that may be to some idealogues. If protecting the Nation means buying new territory and meddling in foreign intrigues, though we have in the past railed against this, we do it. If it means declaring a doctrine that foreign lands are not welcome on lands we now lay claim to in a far more colonial way than the nation we fought for Independence.

We don’t abandon our ideals, but we behave with our eyes focused on solutions rather than follow our hearts into dreamland.

Posted by: gergle at March 24, 2010 8:50 PM
Comment #297845

It is truly amazing the labels people place on others. The D-R labels in this case are so pronounced. Now if you want to take the D position have at it. I do not take either the D-R position. So to put me in the R camp lets you argue with yourself. So be it. In the above response you fixate on a question or supposition with the assumption that just because I oppose the legislation that I must be a R. WRONG.
So to argue from the R position I must seek their talking points which I don’t care to do.
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST.
Good nite all.

Posted by: tom humes at March 24, 2010 8:50 PM
Comment #297854

Tom Humes,
You asked “As for myself, it will cost me thousands over the four year span before I can use it. Why do I have to partake in something that I don’t like or want?”

Well, considering every American regardless of Income has been paying for the current Health Care System from the day they were born. I do believe that you shouldn’t have to pay for Mandated Community and Medical Emergemcy Procedures and Services; however, are you going to be the one to tell ypur children that they can np longer enjoy 911 Services, Emergenct Rooms, or even an Ambulance?

No, the Debate is not who pays for the Flawed Employer Based Healthcare Insuramce System built by the Parents amd Grandparents of the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s, but IMHO how does America use the Healthcare Reform Act to help every Citizen become Medically Self-Sufficient.

For personally, I want a Doctor in My Back Pocket and considering it is cheaper to build it using Americas’ Community Emergency and Health Services instead of spending millions a year for a Private Personal Doctor,Medical Facility, and Hospital just on an Educated Guess about My Health. However, to each their own, but don’t come crying to me when your Doctor is not allowed to use the Knowledge and Wisdom in the National Libary of Medicine to get their Degree in Medicine.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 25, 2010 2:20 AM
Comment #297856

All
The author of this post once said,right after the presidential election, that if Obama saved him from a burning building he would resent it.
Nuff said


Country ranking of health care,World Health Organization

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Nuff said.

Posted by: bills at March 25, 2010 6:03 AM
Comment #297862

tom humes-
Your problem is, while you may not hold yourself to be a Republican, the people you rely upon to get your information are working for them, in large part. You can’t help but repeat Republican talking points because that’s who you’re getting your information from.

That’s the whole point of this BS about Media Bias: make you, whether you are a member of the party faithful, or consider yourself independent, select actively against sources that don’t rely on the party line.

That way, you feel you have the benefit of being independent, and they have the benefit of having you nice and firmly stuck within their spin and propaganda operations.

If you truly want to be independent, you’ll have to get away from the conservative media, and discover the world the rest of us live in. Then you’ll have more than tired, familiar talking points to argue with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2010 9:11 AM
Comment #297870

bills,

“The author of this post once said,right after the presidential election, that if Obama saved him from a burning building he would resent it.”

???? What?

Posted by: eric at March 25, 2010 11:45 AM
Comment #297875

Stephen
Wrong again. I get most of my argument from the ones who source the situation. For example: when this bill was first put forth I went to the Constitution and tried to see how this fit into the control pattern. I later on went to the far left, the left, the progressive, and the liberal places to see how they were handling it. I then went back to the Constitution to apply the left of center argument. Far later in the process I read right of center positions and even a lot of those I oppose in the process. Again for instance the R’s want to go back to square one and draft a bill more to their liking. I do not think that is the correct way of addressing this situation.
So, you see I am not your stereotype of what you had in mind. I am an independent thinker. I do not need Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or the lame stream media to tell me how or what to think. I don’t need Rushbaugh, Hannity, or Colmes and Maddow to control my thinking.

Posted by: tom humes at March 25, 2010 12:57 PM
Comment #297877

Then, why does it sound like Republican talking points coming out of you keyboard?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2010 1:03 PM
Comment #297882

Whaat you are hearing is your imagination at work. If my conversation sounds like talking points from any organized institution that is because either you are interpreting them wrong or maybe someone agrees with me whatever flavor their thought process is concerning the Constitution. Too many people want to pigeon hole everybody into a D or R hole. There are millions of people that do not fit in either location.

Posted by: tom humes at March 25, 2010 1:48 PM
Comment #297883

tom humes:

So you are saying you are unaware of Republican talking points?

Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2010 2:01 PM
Comment #297884

tom humes,

To take it a step further, why haven’t you addressed any of the points Stephen made, in particular the Constitutional issue, since that seems to be the only statement worth mentioning.

If you cannot defend your argument, then it becomes very clear that you are repeating something you do not understand. Whether one calls them Republican talking points or uninformed and deceptive BS really isn’t the main point is it?

Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2010 2:13 PM
Comment #297896

Mr. Daugherty writes; “The bill raises or diverts the necessary revenue to pay for itself.”

“Diverts revenue”…what an interesting parsing of words. “Divert” actually means the taking of funds from Medicare, a huge entitlement program, to offset costs of a new huge entitlement program. Mr. Daugherty didn’t even use the phrase eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse to find the money. The lib/dem/socialist has become so emboldend that they no longer see the need to obfuscate.

“Revenue” actually means the premiums and payrole taxes being paid into Medicare.

Today I read in the NY Times that SS this year will receive less “revenue” than it pays out in benefits, something that was not supposed to occur for some time. Of course we all understand why that is happening. And, why would we not expect it to happen with our other huge entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the new HCR?

The lib/dem/socialists all would like to believe that these programs can be sustained in good or bad economic times. The truth, as just demonstrated with SS, is that they can’t. Now, will we see congress and the Wizard of Wash scramble to fix SS? They are already in deep doo-doo with Medicare recipients for robbing from their entitlement, will they now proceed to anger the SS entitlement crowd?

Or, will the lib/dem/socialist do what I would expect and call for taxing the rich? After all, their solution to nearly every social problem is always more taxpayer money.

For the lib/dem/socialist the problem is never too much government…for them, it’s always not enough “revenue”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 4:24 PM
Comment #297897

Eric, in the 1980’s, the Republicans wanted an open borders policy. GHW Bush wanted to sign it into law but, he was fiscally responsible, incurred the wrath of the conservatives and lost the election.

Bill Clinton signed the open borders policy, NAFTA into law.

The Republicans wanted deregulation of the financial sector. Clinton worked with Congress to pass financial deregulation.

The Republicans wanted a trade agreement with China. The Clinton Administration worked hard on the agreement. Congress passed it and Clinton signed it into law.

The Republicans said they wanted to reform welfare. Clinton and the Democrats obliged.

The Republicans said they wanted a balanced budget. Clinton worked with Congress to get a balanced budget agreement.

How could Republicans have had a better president than Clinton? Tell me please? Not even R.R. did as well.

When George W. Bush became president, he had the perfect setup for conservatism. He had a Republican Congress and the Democrats went along with virtually everything except the Cheney passed tax cut.

That is the only legacy Bush had, tax cuts.

Bush, the Republicans and the Democrats also created a massive new government bureaucracy, Homeland Security. They passed a big new entitlement program primarily for the benefit of the pill pushers. And, they started two unfunded wars.

What are the results of all of this great bipartisanship?

Millions of blue collar workers lost their jobs and many were driven out of the middle class.

Millions of illegal immigrants poured across our borders to be hired by conservatives and liberals alike, insuring that there would be no demand for higher wages.

A few fat cats stole a Trillion dollars or more out of the market. Put all of it together and it has nearly destroyed our economy. Instead of absorbing the pain and cleaning up our mess, we are passing it on to the unborn.

Now we have the HC bill. The liberals are trying to do their constituents a favor and trying to win back the support of those workers who were screwed over by the liberals legislative policies. The problem that the liberals have is that they had to make it as good or better for the health insurers than the people because they have helped create a political process that makes them dependent of corporate funding.

The liberals want to argue that it was the best they could do under the circumstances. This argument might have had legs if the Democrats would have at least tried to pass real reform but, they didn’t. So, the argument only has legs for the loyal liberal bourgeoisie.

What the workers need to do is take the liberal and conservative bourgeoisie behind the wood shed and give them a sound thrashing. Then they need to educate, agitate and organize.

The liberal and conservative bourgeoisie have made their deal with the corporations in an attempt to increase their respectability and success at the workers expense. Workers should have realized by now that “the worker class and the employer class have nothing in common” but, you know how workers are, to trusting, to uninformed, and to unorganized.

Liberals know that it takes a lot of deprivation before workers will organize and start lobbing off heads. That is why the liberals want to social engineer. Conservatives seem to think that no amount of deprivation will stir the rabble into action.

Posted by: jlw at March 25, 2010 4:24 PM
Comment #297905

gergle
repeating what someone else says as “so and so said and then repeating it only paraphraseing it is gossip and hearsay. You do have the skill to rework wording to fit what you are thinking without consideration of what someone else is saying. Bravo

Posted by: tom humes at March 25, 2010 5:01 PM
Comment #297914

tom,

If indeed gergle is talented in that art, you and several others are just as talented. You, again have pulled off a Republican coup…taking one of your own weaknesses and attributing it to someone else. And, then denying the part about being a Republican…hmmm…the best of both worlds???

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2010 7:54 PM
Comment #297922

If in your mind I am a republican because you want me to be, then i will refer you to be a socialist. Fair play?
I have stated enough time that I do not take the R position. I will be just as severe with the R position as I am with the D position. It just happens that the present bill in question is totally controled by the D’s and the R’s don’t offer anything that is worth calling an opposition.

Posted by: tom humes at March 25, 2010 10:22 PM
Comment #297963

tom humes,

And you have a talent for avoiding questions, much like many politicians. Thanks for a useless, name calling response. You’ve conceded my point, thanks.

Posted by: gergle at March 26, 2010 2:06 PM
Comment #297977

gergle, marysdude,

Accusing tom here of using ‘Republican talking points’ is in itself just a way to avoid the argument.

You are using ‘democrat talking points’. So? An argument, whatever the source, needs to be addressed directly. What you are doing in claiming he is not thinking for himself is attacking his integrity. Which doesn’t refute his arguments (per se). You have failed to argue against his points.

Besides which, none of us really have ‘original’ ideas, we all inherit worldviews and ideologies within which we interpret the world.

Posted by: eric at March 26, 2010 3:20 PM
Comment #297978

jlw,

I agree that Republicans have blown it many times. I certainly don’t agree with all the stances, positions, and legislation of the GOP. But given a choice between the left and the right I favor the right. Especially since the left has now fully embraced socialism and is intent on taking their policies to their logical conclusion rather than just proposing weak half measures.

When Bush was elected Democrats made the argument that since his election was ‘slim’ (in fact they said he wasn’t elected at all) that he had to govern as a moderate and give them equal power in essence.

Our country has been on a welfare state trajectory since the new deal. There has been no repeal, or attempt to repeal the core of that legislation.

Ronald Reagan saved this country by rolling back the multitude of state enterprises and regulation that was choking off economic progress. But he still didn’t go far enough.

Obama is intent on returning us to a time when the government controlled many industries and stagnation was the result.

Posted by: eric at March 26, 2010 3:32 PM
Comment #297982

eric,

No matter what Democrats said upon the ascension by Cheney/Bush, HE said he had a mandate.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2010 4:11 PM
Comment #297999
Especially since the left has now fully embraced socialism and is intent on taking their policies to their logical conclusion rather than just proposing weak half measures.

Oh, so the policy they enacted was full socialism, a Single Provider system like the NHS in Britain.

No?

Oh, so then it must have been a scaled-back Socialist approach like Single Payer, like what Canada has?

No?

Hmmm… I guess that means that they went with a Public Option, which would entail a government-run program that works within the free-market system. So, not really Socialist, but related.

No?

So they went with an incremental reform that keeps the current system in place but with more regulation and just government-organized free market exchanges?

Really?

Well, that’s not Socialist at all.

Huh. It looks like eric’s rhetoric is disconnected from reality.

Again.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 26, 2010 9:41 PM
Comment #298019

eric,

Good point, except I asked him to defend his points that Stephen addressed. He didn’t. Which was making the exact same point you just made. Thanks for the support?

Posted by: gergle at March 27, 2010 12:55 AM
Comment #298020

Eric,

Obama is intent on returning us to a time when the government controlled many industries and stagnation was the result.

When was that, exactly?

Posted by: gergle at March 27, 2010 12:57 AM
Post a comment