Poverty of results

There is a place in public policy for providing a safety net and for regulating commerce. But what the left has always wanted can never be. It just doesn’t work. Demonizing corporations as heartless bureaucracies while advocating every aspect of life be controlled by government monopoly is illogical and irrational. Nevertheless, that seems to be what Democrats are planning to do in fundamentally transforming America into a socialist state.

Democrats and the left seem unable to recognize that their policies need to be moderated (at the very least). Because enacting their full-scale ideological driven socialist state as fast as they can, while they still hold onto power, and against the wishes of at least half the population, is going to seriously disrupt this country, causing untold pain and adversity.

Entitlement programs do not create wealth or prosperity. They dilute it. Government control of health care will increase unemployment, drive up costs, create scarcity, and decrease the wealth of Americans. The more of the economy the government takes over the less there will be to divide and redistribute. Governments who follow these policies cripple their economies to the extent that they implement them. Just look at Greece for where we are headed.

Government control of Health Care

I guess what Pelosi said was true, we would only get the truth from them about this bill after it was passed. Obama admits it now, the truth... this bill is merely a first step toward a socialist system that will follow in the footsteps of Fidel Castro's dictatorship:

So, yes, this is a common-sense bill.  It doesn’t do everything that everybody wants, but it moves us in the direction of universal health care coverage in this country and that's why everybody here fought so hard for it.  ~whitehouse.gov

The promises about the efficiency and benefits of government monopolies are based on socialist ideology. In other words, pure fantasy. The claims made about this legislation are obvious to everyone. (62% Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill.) This is not going to create jobs and reduce the deficit. Quite the opposite. Ask yourself when any government program ever costs less than projected. Never. Ever. It always costs more.
Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation.  ~online.wsj.com

Empty promises, naive pie-in-the-sky, or outright lies? Pelosi: Health Reform Will Create 400,000 Jobs "Almost Immediately"
A dire warning from Bay State medical-device companies that a new sales tax in the federal health-care law could force their plants - and thousands of jobs - out of the country has rattled Gov. Deval Patrick, a staunch backer of the law and pal President Obama.

“This bill is a jobs killer,” said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford’s Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. Many of those employees work in Zoll’s local manufacturing facility making heart defibrillators. ~bostonherald.com


At a time of economic downturn we are expanding government spending beyond what is sustainable. Entitlements like social security are already on the brink of insolvency, the budget deficit is now in the trillions, and Democrats and the left want to double down with more spending, more taxing, and more entitlements. The ideology of socialism has a firm hold on the Democrat party and they now have the power to take us from the slow half-measures of our venerable New Deal welfare state to a full-on re-distributive socialist state.
In an unusual speech on the Senate floor moments ago, Max Baucus declares that the "healthcare bill" to be "an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans." Baucus continued, "[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America." ~hughhewitt.com

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Takeover agenda

What's next? Well, I forgot to mention the Student Loan takeover in the Health Care bill. Cutting out private lenders from selling government backed loans. Expect some job losses in the banking sector from this as well.

Posted by Eric Simonson at March 26, 2010 7:57 PM
Comments
Comment #297993

Don’t forget the Value Added Tax (VAT). You can’t run a good old fashioned big-government state w/o the big bucks produced by VAT.

Posted by: C&J at March 26, 2010 8:21 PM
Comment #298003

Yes, and don’t forget the big O that Obama and Oprah will now force you wear.

May I suggest that those worried about such things take a trip here?

Posted by: gergle at March 26, 2010 10:07 PM
Comment #298005

gergle,

Now, THAT was funny…thanks for the laugh…oh, you say you weren’t joking…hmmm…my bad!

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2010 10:52 PM
Comment #298014

Eric
The noteriously slanted Rasmussen poll does not jibe with other respectable polls like Gallup.
The HCR bill is a moderate piece of consumer protection. It does not even include a public option.
If you want your party to run on repealing this piece of moderate overdue protection,please please, by all means do. If you really believe that keeping insurance companies from deying coverage to children with birth defects or women victims of domestic violence is some evil socialist plot then push for repeal. If you really believe that seniors just do not pay enough for drugs or that keeping children on their parents policy until they are old enough to finish school and get established will destroy America as we know it, then it is your solemn reponsibility to push your party into removing these and other attempts to destroy our precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: bills at March 27, 2010 12:39 AM
Comment #298018

Eric
According to your link Social Security is fully funded until the year 2037. Not good but not “on the brink of insolvency” either.

Posted by: bills at March 27, 2010 12:55 AM
Comment #298022


Eric, I hope you are including such notable liberals as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. While you are at it, I hope you have included the liberal Republican Congress that created a huge prescription drug entitlement program, a huge new government bureaucracy called Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act which allows the government to spy on their own citizens.

If you want to blame someone or something, blame the sixteenth Amendment and the 42 out of 48 states that ratified it. Since then the federal government and every state government has grown in size.

Also, you could blame the American people for being to prolific in producing children. There is a correlation between the size of population and the size of government.

Posted by: jlw at March 27, 2010 1:09 AM
Comment #298030

This article seeks to ignore history and reality. America has a long history of socialist federal policy. The Louisiana purchase and land grants to specific individuals, groups, states, local governments, and companies was as socialist a policy as Medicare and the health care reform law are today. The only difference is that the federal government had more land than money to hand out then. Still the people bore the debt of the purchase and that purchase was parcelled out to the demands of select individuals and groups.

Federal aid to states and localities after natural disasters was no different in the 18th century than FDR’s public works projects and social security were in the 20th century.

Only then, there weren’t the paranoids divining evil in the practice. In fact, Republicans were knee deep in socialist policy during Reconstruction. In ten Southern states, coalitions of Freedmen, recent arrivals from the North (Carpetbaggers), and white Southerners who supported Reconstruction (Scalawags), cooperated to form Republican state governments, which introduced various reconstruction programs, offered massive aid to railroads, built public schools, and raised taxes to aid those communities and people decimated by the war.

Republicans don’t even know their own history having rewritten it so many times, and continue to make false arguments and assertions to this day as a result of their morphed ideology brought on by their intense desire to restore the industrial baron age and their own dreams of being one of the barons instead of servants or slaves.

Socialist policy has been enormously successful in a host of ways in other democracies just as it has here, and capitalism thrives very well in those other nations as it continues to here. It is only the ideologically blind on both the right and left who cannot allow themselves the education to the reality that we and nearly all other successful modern democracies in the world today are and have been successful due to their MIX of socialist policy and capitalism.

It is the ideologues and their blind followers that keep America from achieving an even brighter future than its present and past. Ideological extremes exist as a polarization process with but one purpose, to divide the electorate in the game of acquiring power. Which goes a long way to explain why ideologues who acquire power never live up to their ideology. It is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

Objective and empirical education is required to grasp this understanding, which is why the ideologues remain so prominent in our political processes. Voters are not educated in these means by which they are persistently duped into voting for results that ultimately disappoint them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 2:47 AM
Comment #298034

Eric in those evil socialist countries with universal health care per capita spending on health care is around half of what we spend in this country. Further, the extra burden placed upon employers providing health insurance is not needed freeing up resources for the employers. It is sad the far right types that buy into your way of thinking are so against universal health care when none of the propaganda used to frighten them is based upon the health care systems of other countries.
I was discussing the HRC with an uninformed TRC (talk radio conservative) while on jury duty this past week. He was mad and of course against the HRC because of all the changes that has affected him. I asked him what changes and of course true to form he couldn’t name one but instead told me the PM of Canada came here for some health care, which meant that this system was much better. When told that some Americans went to Costa Rica for health care to save money I asked him if that meant the Costa Rican health care system was better and if we should adopt their system. No answer, of course, as that was not a talking point on talk radio. I asked him about death panels and if he really believed such foolishness, which he was too embarrassed to answer but instead started talking about how are system is the best in the world. When asked according to who he had no answer and when informed that according to the WHO we ranked 37th in the world his eyes sorta glazed over as once again he was required to think but was lacking any talking point to spout. It was actually sad to think that he is but one of many that has been propagandized with misinformation, half truths and outright lies from the far right, but it is no surprise that 55% of people would answer yes to repealing HRC.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2010 7:52 AM
Comment #298036

I noticed the author never mentions Medicare and Medicaid. Limited mention of Social Security. The three biggest SOCIALIST programs around!

Could it be Eric Simonson is afraid of losing support if anyone figures out evil socialism includes these things?

Posted by: Henry Jones at March 27, 2010 9:08 AM
Comment #298040

j2t2 etal

Here is a remarkable Harris poll.It shows that fully 24% of Republicans believe that Obama may be the anti-christ among other absurd notions. This shows just how dangerious it can be to systematically construct an alternate universe to win political conflicts instead of relying on facts and logic. It also shows that the more education one has the less likely to believe this twaddle. A caveat here,I have met some brilliant people with little education and some real dopes with plenty of degrees, but there is a pattern.

http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

Posted by: bills at March 27, 2010 9:58 AM
Comment #298048

pfft…

Ross Perot thought Obama was a Muslim 3 months before election.

Posted by: Henry Jones at March 27, 2010 12:40 PM
Comment #298049

Well Ross finally got something right.

eric
toward the end of your post their was a phrase “income shift”. Was that a typo and should have read income shaft. lol

The evil insurance companies and pharmacuticals love this new HRC. They are in the pocket of the HRC bill.

bills
Nobody knows how long SS will be around. When the illegal aliens are given their amnesty, they will get immediate funding from the SS funds (which are not there). All the polls are slanted. The ones you can have any confidence in are the ones who do not load up the polling question. As an example: Is it wrong to beat your wife? For a Muslim the answer is no. For most American citizens their answer would be yes.

I think as the spring comes and goes and we enter the summer months the number of people who want to have the HRC go away will dramatically increase. That would just show that the people really are smart enough to know what is and what is not good for themselves. Government has never in the life of this country been able to sustain a program for the people that is not screwed up to begin with and not necessary at all.
Lately I have been called a R and spewing the R point of view. Of course there were errors made in making their accusations, but that is bygone. But here is something to chew on. When was the last time any R and or course D effected legislation to remove the EPA, or departments involving housing, education, agriculture just for starters. The federal government has no business in those areas. The state governments or the private sector should be doing those activities.
I am probably digressing here, but the whole picture is at what level of government should our day by day activities be controlled, and if any level of government should be in control.

Posted by: tom humes at March 27, 2010 1:13 PM
Comment #298052

Tom Humes wrote: “I think as the spring comes and goes and we enter the summer months the number of people who want to have the HRC go away will dramatically increase. That would just show that the people really are smart enough to know what is and what is not good for themselves.”

Of course these statements directly imply that if the public still favors the HCR bill in the Summer months, then they are too stupid to accept what you think, as what they should think. This kind of myopic projection always alienates the public one seeks to curry favor with in the end, as the elections in 2006 and 2008 more than adequately demonstrated.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 2:06 PM
Comment #298053

Entitlements are the greatest domestic challenge the nation faces. The middle class retirement programs, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, will cause federal spending to jump by half, from the historical average of twenty percent of the economy to thirty percent by 2033. This required spending is a major threat to limited government because it runs on auto-pilot with automatic increases locked in by each program’s governing laws. While other programs are constrained through annual budgets, entitlements get the first call on resources. Other goals such as defense, education, infrastructure or national security must compete for an increasingly smaller share of what’s left. This “locked in” spending is steadily undermining the economic future of younger generations who face a debt burden of $200,000. The moral and ethical challenge from the entitlement tsunami is undermining our democratic system as more Americans become dependent on the government and other priorities are automatically preempted.

Europe, in addition to high income taxes and fees for nealry every human activity, also averages a 20% value added tax according to the London Times. Socialists never tire of finding ways to spend other peoples money for what they perceive to be the common good.

Some on this site claim that the US is a socialist society. Their claim appears to be based upon the assumption that whenever people provide money for a community project it is socialism. There many types of socialism practiced now and in the past, among them are:

1. Marxist Socialism
2. Utopian Socialism
3. Scientific Socialism
4. Market Socialism
5. Socialist Planned Economy
6. Socialist Market Economy
7. Parcipitary economic socialism

and on and on. I have no idea of what type of socialism some writing on this blog prefer.

In one sense, the fact that I pay taxes into some form of central government to be used for the common good upon which the majority of us agree makes me a socialist.

And, I know that some believe that if a little socialism is good and necessary, a lot of socialism must be better and required.

Upon this we vehemently disagree.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 27, 2010 2:41 PM
Comment #298055

Royal Flush

We should always keep in mind that the difference between a life-saving medicine and a deadly poison is often in the dosage.

Posted by: C&J at March 27, 2010 2:47 PM
Comment #298056


It is to early to tell if we are being poisoned by the Democrats but, I suspect we are. The people have no doubt that they were poisoned by the Republicans and they are totally O.D.ed on corporations running their government. Ask them if you have doubts.

Posted by: jlw at March 27, 2010 3:11 PM
Comment #298057

drr
smart and stupid is vis-a-vis the congress which thinks the citizenry is stupid on all fronts

Posted by: tom humes at March 27, 2010 3:44 PM
Comment #298060

RF, that last commentary of yours was one of the most insightful and true commentaries I have read from you in quite some time.

The mix of capitalism and socialism is what centrists and moderates absent ideological extremes need to be debating and deciding upon. Clearly, as you say, the entitlement programs in their current state, will destroy our economy and tear apart the fabric and glue that holds this nation together.

There are many steps that can be taken to modestly diminish our spending in other areas than entitlements, like avoiding elective wars, reducing the size of our military footprint over the globe, and educating our public to cost saving ways that increase their metabolic rate and reduce their convenience costs, and earnestly collecting the billions of dollars owed the American people in unpaid and dodged tax revenues. But, none of these, and others combined would come close to balancing the revenue and spending equation of current entitlement laws projected forward, though they would help.

The challenge is not without solution however. Only the political consensus to enact solutions. Converting the Soc. Sec. program to one of pure insurance against poverty and paying no benefits to those in retirement who do not fall into poverty, will insure the solvency of the Soc. Sec. system. That one is simple, conceptually.

Moving to an entirely non-profit universal health care system which provides basic preventive care and care for illness and injury up to certain limits will make the Medicare/Medicaid system solvent. For those who can afford it, (incentive) additional private sector insurance can be purchased to to supplement the universal health insurance for coverage beyond the limits of the universal non-profit system. Combined with intense educational efforts promoting healthier lifestyles and less risky living behaviors, such a system would not bankrupt the nation, nor tear its fabric apart. All that remains is the political consensus to enact it.

I view the current new HC Reform law as a down-payment on such a system going forward, and I give Democrats credit for taking the heat and effort to make a move in that direction. Whether Republicans and conservatives will impede further steps toward fulfillment of a sustainable solution, remains to be seen, and ultimately depends on the majority of voters rebuking them on election day for embracing their for profit - not everyone deserves health care in America approach.

We shall see which way the majority of voters want to go.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 5:05 PM
Comment #298061

jlw, your comment presents a rational assessment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 5:06 PM
Comment #298062

C&J, quite right. It is the ratio mix of socialist policy and well regulated capitalism that is the center of any rational and educated debate over the economic sustainability of our nation going forward. Either, Or, arguments are uneducated and irrational, identifying the extremist ideologues unmistakably.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 5:10 PM
Comment #298065

Royal Flush hit the nail on its head. We are a mixed economy with socialist & capitalist elements. The big political question of our time is what is the correct ratio of capitalism and socialism? The ratio that we had from the 1980s until 2008 (Reaganomics) proved to be inadequate as shown by the recent economic crisis. The economies of the USSR & its allies shows the danger’s of too much socialism and social planning. I’m a believer in the pendulum hypothesis of politics. We will swing back and forth around the ideal equilibrium point, each time coming closer & closer to the optimal point.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 27, 2010 6:16 PM
Comment #298069

Warped Reality said: “We will swing back and forth around the ideal equilibrium point, each time coming closer & closer to the optimal point.”

Until debt and deficits halt the entire process, bringing depression instead with no borrowing capacity to rescue it. The pendulum passes the center balance point but once en route to the extremes of left and right debt and deficits. That’s twice as much debt and deficits as equalibrium, and that precisely describes how we got to where we are.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 7:23 PM
Comment #298070

David, that is another equally valid interpretation of the metaphor as well. Hopefully the Dems will follow Keynesian economics completely and cut spending during the economic growth we experience when the recession is over. The recession needs to be over by 2012 in my opinion. I’ll cast by 2012 Presidential ballot primarily based upon whether the Democratic party demonstrates it has the gusto to cut spending in the mid 2010s. If spending is only accelerating in 2012, I’ll start shopping for a GOP or 3rd party candidate.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 27, 2010 8:50 PM
Comment #298071

Shorter Eric Simonson: Any advancement by the Democrats constitutes the end of American Democracy as we know it.

How long can you keep arguing this?

There’s going to come a point where people are so used to the relatively moderate brand of liberalism that modern Democrats employ that this kind of rhetoric will hardly merit a yawn.

The truth is, we’ve lived through more liberal times than today, and your prophecies of doom did not come true then.

The truth of the matter is, Republicans, by not solving problems, helped make Demand for the Democrats, and the kind of policies they would bring.

Until Republicans become more practical and pragmatic, they will not be able to do the kind of good, with Democrats and without them, that will increase demand for their side, for their policies. You cannot simply tell people they’re on their own when you’re telling millions of Americans the same thing. There are some problem that cannot be solved with the axiom “Ignore it, and maybe it will go away.”

If you ignore it, and it doesn’t go away, then maybe it’s time for a change of plan. In a Democracy, if you don’t create the change of plan yourself, somebody else will.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2010 8:50 PM
Comment #298109


Stephen, if this were 1968 and Obama was running against Nixon, Obama would be the Republican nominee. That is how far this country has swung to the right. Nixon was a better Democrat that Obama and the Democratic Party is now the equivalent of that older Republican Party. The health care bill is a perfect example of how the left has lost the battle.

You sound just like a DNC Democrat who knows where the campaign and party power bucks are to be had.

I think this is what makes the Republicans so crazy. The Democrats have stolen their moderate Republican positions and their corporate dollars with it. The Republicans have been forced to chose between being right wing ideologues or become a faction in the Democratic Corporate Party.

Posted by: jlw at March 28, 2010 3:25 PM
Comment #298132

jlw,

What you say has validity, but them damned old bully Democrats have not pushed the Republicans to the fringes…they had to go there because the old white boy system was running out of players…the shrinking demographic is pushing the GOP farther and farther right. If they would widen the tent a little…be somewhat more inclusive…nah, it wouldn’t work, because then they’d be Democrats.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 29, 2010 5:39 AM
Post a comment