November 06, 2009
The Stakes Could NOT Be Higher
Failure in Washington is not an option. America last year finished its long circular journey from 1940 to return to the precipice of national collapse. Unlike 1929, however, instead of taking that next drop off step, we sidestepped along the edge of the precipice, where we still remain today; at the edge.
The stakes could not be higher in Washington D.C. and for the American people. This much, the Tea Baggers get very accurately, along with the Federal Reserve and economists, and some, but, possibly not enough, in Wash. D.C.'s halls of government. We shall see.
All political and legislative policy issues now lead back to the Economy. Whether it is Afghanistan policy, missile defense in E. Europe, or education and law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services at home, the cost of addressing these issues will impact upon our long term economic future and our ability to survive that future without 1930's type desperation and futility experienced by 100 million Americans or more. Even debates over whether 9/11 planners are warriors or criminals, are costing America precious time. America has far more pressing and consequential demands placed upon our nation, such as, more than doubling the national debt in 9 years and how to stop that growth, fighting wars on multiple fronts against all wisdom of military history, and untold numbers of failures to address domestic economic and infrastructure needs, roadways, education, and waste and water transport,
in a timely, and far less costly fashion.
Those hoping for a divided Congress in 2010 have very short memories. The Congress between 2006 and 2008 was a politically divided Congress which killed Pres. Bush's legislative agenda, and caused both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to wear the despicable label in the press of the "Do Nothing Congress". And every indication to date indicates another Do Nothing Congress is precisely what we will have in 2011 and 2012. Which means, if any of America's difficult long term systemic problems are to be resolved, they must be resolved in the next 12 months. One year is a pitifully short period of time to attempt to restructure oversight, accountability, and transparency on Wall St., restore jobs and economic activity for approximately 14 million unemployed, and create health care reform which will avert the disastrous consequence of bankrupting the middle class and poor in the future and the American economy along with it.
The delay and obfuscation tactics of Republicans in Congress are wasting America's precious time and resources to address our nation's major priorities. The Democrat's succumbing to the corporate interests and lobbyists is so compromising reform efforts, as to render some of them more harmful than helpful; as in the case of Banking System reform which, current Committee bills utterly and completely fail to reform at all by reinstating the essential provisions of the Glass Steagal Act, and overturning the economically lethal provisions in the Gramm Leach Bliley Act. These bills also completely fail to address breaking up these Too-Big-To-Fail financial institutions, which only perpetuates the threat they posed to our nation, and the world, in 2008.
Rep. Boehner is right when he said this week that there is a rebellion occurring in America. However, his political myopia completely misses the mark in attempting to identify that rebellion. The thrust of his argument is that Americans are moving toward the GOP and conservative ideology. The empirical evidence doesn't support his argument. The empirical evidence coming from polls and off year elections demonstrate that the rebellion underway is against BOTH the Democratic and Republican Parties, and toward a more individual candidate choice not based on party affiliation but, voter's confidence in that candidate's proposed solutions to the problems voters face locally and nationally. The dramatic increase in Independent voters and losses of momentum in growth of registered Democrats and Republicans stands as stark evidence of this fact.
The problem for America in addressing solutions to its challenges is that this new majority of self-identified Independent voters lacks any cohesive or consistent approach to political solutions. They even lack any kind of cohesive Independent Party to represent them as a new voter block majority. This does not bode well for the direction of America's future in the short term. It would appear the only common traits Independent voters share as a voting block is their growing propensity to vote anti-incumbent, and their rapidly growing distrust of both major political parties. How does America build a consensus in policy approach based on this paucity of shared Independent voter traits?
Pres. Obama has come closest to answering this question in any kind of meaningful way when he built his campaign on the concept of change. Change in policy did appeal to the majority of independent voters in 2008. But, now that changes are taking shape in the form of legislation, that unity behind change has quickly splintered, especially amongst independent voters. A majority of Americans acknowledge and agree that health care reform is mandatory to saving their own middle class financial future as well as the nation's economic future. But, finding a 50% plus one majority amongst Independents for the current legislative proposals for health care reform is like finding a dropped penny in Mammoth Cave without any light, whatsoever.
Historically, in times of great peril and threat to the nation and her future, Americans have in 5 years or less, found resolutions that could rescue that future for all. While such history offers up hope that Americans and their leaders will once again rise to the occasion before it is too late, one is hard pressed to identify the mechanics of just how such a rescue is even conceivable, given the current political lack of will by America's leaders to even embrace the changes which are called for by the challenges facing the nation and people.
The wealthiest in America will be largely immune from the collapse of the American economy and its devastating effects on the America public. Yet, it is a common perception of the non-wealthy population that these very same individuals are in control of the process of designing America's future direction and fate. The anxiety and sense of foreboding which this creates in the American public is why the polling of government policy and direction are so negative. And the public is rebelling in a several ways.
The Tea Baggers represent one form of rebellion. The 8 fold increase in the savings rate is another, which is in many ways a very positive form of rebellion except for the drag it places on climbing away from the economic recession experienced this year and the 10.2 percent falsely stated unemployment number which in reality, considering all categories of the unemployed, now rests around 22% give or take a few percent. Desertion from the registered voter rolls of the GOP and Democratic Party are another form of rebellion. The growing number of American citizens choosing to live overseas is another form. And the most devastating form of rebellion shows up in the rising drop out rate from our schools, employment system, and the rise of homelessness which increasingly represents a rise in hopelessness amongst American citizens, a percentage of which is made up of former armed forces veterans.
These are the signs of our times, which the media does not want to cover, the government and politician's don't want voters to be aware of, and which extremists wish to exploit for their own power and recognition development. Hopelessness preceded the decimation of the American Indian tribes by Manifest Destiny. Hopelessness preceded the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and grew throughout the Viet Nam War. Hopelessness pervaded the Jim Crow era, and founded the fear base for the rise of the Red Scare and McCarthy era in the 1940's and 1950's when Americans feared those they could not identify but feared were walking amongst them in disguise.
The stakes could not be higher. If Americans embrace hopelessness, America's challenges will go unsolved and our future will be horribly diminished by it. The alternative is that Americans shun hopelessness, and begin making demands and holding to account the leadership of our nation using their email, their phones, and their votes.
The hope lies in Americans rediscovering their power over their leaders by revoking such leadership roles until the replacement leaders respond to the American people's demands for better. I disagree with the information base and premises of the Tea Baggers, but, I must admire and commend their activism and taking charge of their own fate and future in this country as American citizens. If the majority of Americans in this country will allow themselves to become equally active in demanding better than what we are now getting from our leaders, hope can yet guide the design of America's future.
Mr. Remer wrote; “The hope lies in Americans rediscovering their power over their leaders by revoking such leadership roles until the replacement leaders respond to the American people’s demands for better.”
With this statement I agree completely. In fact, this is one of few articles I have read by Mr. Remer that I can agree with. He has identified many of the serious national problems we are faced with. And, he doesn’t present a political solution by one party or another but rather, rightly states that our future is, truly, in our own hands as it has always been.
And Mr. Remer, that is why many of us who identify ourselves as conservative or libertarian want a return to our original founders thoughts and writings which gave good direction for many decades. We weathered and survived many crisis in those years with a nation held together by a common bond of mutual respect and cooperation based upon our founding documents.
If we can’t come together as Dems or Repubs for the good of the nation how will we survive what we face? The answer of course is that we must no longer pledge allegiance to any party, but rather to the principles of our founders. In our founders wisdom we find our answers.
In attempting to find new rights in these documents we have encouraged new problems. In usurping states rights and replacing them with national rights we have served all our people poorly. By instilling in our youth the notion that the individual is subject to government rather than government being subject to the people we have foundered.
A return to our successful origins is a hateful thing to some as many seem to derive their self-worth, well being and safety from being governed rather than governing. Liberty as imagined by our founders is an unalienable right and as such, even though not exercised, can not be taken away. It belongs to us as a gift of God. Let us once again teach our children of these rights so they may become adults with knowledge of their individual importance in shaping our nation’s future.
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2009 12:47 PMRF said: “The answer of course is that we must no longer pledge allegiance to any party,”
Couldn’t agree with you more. If by original founding principles, you refer to the objectives of a representative democracy with effective checks and balances upon those in seats of power to prevent their abuse of the rights of the people, and their enforce their obligation to protect and defend the union of the United States, then I also agree with you entirely. I suspect, however, that your definition of original principles and mine, may differ in part.
Returning to the 1700’s as a nation is a physical impossibility in physics, and a practical impossibility for today’s requirements of government. The Constitution of the 1700’s was not written to address 50 states with 330 million people all interdependent on each other in myriad ways, and the union interdependent upon the affairs and direction of other nations in the world. This libertarian argument leaves me flat everytime I hear it, as it makes a monumental leap of ignorance of the history of our nation over the last 2 centuries. That history CANNOT and WILL NOT be ignored, as a practical political matter. That is reality, and facing and accepting reality is the first step to effectively gaining control of the future.
This is what separates pragmatism from ideology, and why America can no longer afford ideologues from the Left or Right. I am pleased however, that we have found some common ground in this conversation.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2009 01:03 PMDavid:
Those hoping for a divided Congress in 2010 have very short memories. The Congress between 2006 and 2008 was a politically divided Congress which killed Pres. Bush’s legislative agenda, and caused both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to wear the despicable label in the press of the “Do Nothing Congress”. And every indication to date indicates another Do Nothing Congress is precisely what we will have in 2011 and 2012. Which means, if any of America’s difficult long term systemic problems are to be resolved, they must be resolved in the next 12 months. One year is a pitifully short period of time to attempt to restructure oversight, accountability, and transparency on Wall St., restore jobs and economic activity for approximately 14 million unemployed, and create health care reform which will avert the disastrous consequence of bankrupting the middle class and poor in the future and the American economy along with it.
I agree with much of your post. However could you comment on 1995-2001? It would be an interesting discussion when their is a Democrat in the whitehouse and a Republican congress. With Republicans not letting a democrat spend (Republicans seem to have no problem letting a fellow republican spend), and a Democrat not allowing republians to cut taxes, it appears from a fiscal policy point of view as the best combination unless you know of another.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 6, 2009 06:12 PMI agree with the overall thrust of you article David. I’ll throw in the FHA, who keeps delaying the bad news, and Fannie Mae, $19B in the red and no profit since 07. I saw not one mention about the only thing that can save this country from itself, a 3rd party, specifically a 3rd party with a different political attitude. I’m amazed that you would ignore the potential of a 3rd party to reform government. And, I’m dumbfounded that you recommend emailing and phoning your congressperson as a solution to our political problems. Think amnesty and how many minds that experience has changed. Zero, IMO. I agree that voting incumbents from office would be helpful. But, I am left with the same perplexing dilemma. If, as you say, the only common trait among voters is to vote em out how does that help to reform government with any purpose or cogent, coherent plan of reform? Nope, gonna take a 3rd party and a whole lot of concentrated effort.
Mr. Remer wrote; “Returning to the 1700’s as a nation is a physical impossibility in physics, and a practical impossibility for today’s requirements of government.”
Well Mr. Remer, it’s quite obvious changes have been made considering the amendments to the constitution. Should I understand you to mean that our founding documents are no longer applicable to our nation’s governance? Or, are you saying that the founding documents are OK as long as they are interpreted in a way that pleases you?
Could you please tell us when this monumental change you write about occurred? When did we abandon the constitution in favor of our present enlightenment? I find it interesting that our supreme court still goes back to that document in rendering its decisions. Is this just for show or does it still matter?
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2009 07:39 PMRF
The Constitution,as originally written, allowed blacks to to be counted as three fifths of a person,had senators elected by state legislatures, did not allow women to vote and a great many differences from the document as it is understood legally today. DR is likely to give you more examples. He knows his stuff.
What you are doing is the political blog equivelent of Bible thumping. By siteing the Constitution or the all,knowing,all seeing Founders to support points of view that may or may not be supported by susequent legal interpretations or additions to the Constitution you run the risk of cutting off forthwright debate and in effect debase the wisdom of the aforementioned Founders in providing mechanisms for orderly change.I have been involved with this site for ,for good or ill, for some time and have never run across anybody that does not have a high regard for the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
DR
I still cant follow your logic. You state that we only have 12 months to solve a huge number of problems facing the country,ostensibly because the mid-terms will weaken the power of the Democrats and make it harder for an administration that you claim to support implement an agenda you also claim to support,at least for the most part (address climate change, HC reform etc.)
The logical thing to do is to support the party that is moving the country in the direction that most agrees with what you believe we should be doing and actually has a chance of making progress on those goals,given enough support. At this point in history that is the Democrats. At some other time it might be a third party but that is not the case at this time. It appears to be more an issue of style preference than a political calculation and at best,un-helpful.
Royal Flush;
The left believes in evolution and in the case of the Constitution; it is an “evolving” document. Which means, it don’t mean the same thing today as it did when it was written. And the founders were conservative in their day, but if the lived today, they would be liberals! I know this sounds confusing, but, welcome to the world of liberals.
Posted by: dembs at November 7, 2009 08:06 AMMany of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Nonetheless, this is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for the current Democratic Party leadership is tainted by corruption and being taken over by Socialists. These Socialists are clearly a threat to everything we hold sacred in America, and they are gaining evermore control over our Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people.
Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to patriotic and honorable Democratic Party candidates that are not corrupt and/or Socialist.
So please help spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats. Also, don’t forget to contact and request the Unions and other outside contributors to follow our lead as patriotic Americans.
Thank you, and God Bless America.
Web site: http://www.democraticreformparty.com
Blog site: http://blog.democraticreformparty.com
“The left believes in evolution and in the case of the Constitution; it is an “evolving” document. Which means, it don’t mean the same thing today as it did when it was written. And the founders were conservative in their day, but if the lived today, they would be liberals! I know this sounds confusing, but, welcome to the world of liberals.”
Posted by: dembs at November 7, 2009 08:06 AM
Well said dembs. That we have added amendments to the constitution is evidence that it is capable of change authorized in the very document itself.
I luv your use of the word evolution as it pertains to liberal thinking and our founding documents. The image it presents to me is one where liberals consider our founders as Neanderthals and themselves as highly evolved in political awareness. They prescribe throwing away the quill pens, ink bottles, and individual liberty which inspired and provided the method to write this great document in favor of their superior brains, wisdom, morality and keyboards.
Bills wrote; “What you are doing is the political blog equivelent of Bible thumping.”
Thank you Bills…you are correct. In the Bible God laid down his plan for mankind, which if followed, would lead to peace, prosperity and happiness. It’s the same with our constitution. Not following God’s plan and our constitution leads to conflict, poverty and misery.
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2009 12:06 PM
The unemployment rate is around 17.5%, 10.1%officially. The corporations have layed off several million people. As a result, corporate productivity has soared and the corporations have no plans to rehire those people.
David, I agree with most of what you are saying. However, don’t you think that giving the left equal billing in what has happened is rather illogical?
I mean really, can you produce a list of leftist or progressive legislation that has been enacted into law in the last three decades?
Bipartisanship is why we find ourselves in this mess and it was all one sided. The right never gave an inch.
Where once there was political representation for the left, there is now a great void.
Posted by: jlw at November 7, 2009 01:00 PMI would like to say, I am in complete agreement with dembs statement about how liberals look at the Constitution. I would also like to say I agree with Royal Flush, the view of our founding fathers, by liberals, is one of contempt. But I would also add, liberals feel that way about anyone who does not agree with their socialist agenda. It is with great personal deliberation that I say, if the liberals are successful in passing a national healthcare system, it will be another nail in the coffin of our nation. Every legitimate poll taken shows majorities of American people do not support this bill. I live in a Republican district, that has had Republican congressmen for as many years as I can remember, and we voted in a Democrat one year ago. I have been trying to contact him for 2 days, the phone goes straight to voicemail, if you don’t get a busy tone, and the voice mailbox is full, so you can’t leave a message. I’m really curious as to what kind of pressure he is under?
RF, I also agree with you concerning God’s plan for mankind, but you do realize the vitriol and hated you will bring upon yourself for even invoking the name God and associating it with the Constitution? Expect a volley of insults.
Eric Pearson, I must say, I am proud to listen to the words of your comments. As a Republican who dropped support for the Republican Party a few years ago, I understand exactly what you are saying. Yes, liberals have hijacked the Democratic Party, just as liberals have hijacked the Republican Party. I dropped financial support and went so far as to send their requests back to them with notes telling them I will support the party when they start fighting for those things written in the Constitution. On this blog site, there are many liberal Democrats who constantly tell those of us who are conservatives what we need to do to win elections. I realize it sounds hilarious, but they are actually telling us we need to allow moderates (code word for liberals) to run our party, well I don’t think so. Ever since the early 90’s, all the buzz is the partisanship of congress. I submit to you, if freedom and constitution loving Democrats could again gain control of the Democratic Party and conservative Reaganites could again gain control of the Republican Party, we would again be able to experience by-partisanship. I pray to God, for the sake of our Republic, we as well as you are successful. If not, then the only thing we have to look forward to is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
propitiation wrote; “On this blog site, there are many liberal Democrats who constantly tell those of us who are conservatives what we need to do to win elections. I realize it sounds hilarious…”
Agreed…it is hilarious. Does anyone actually believe that liberals want conservatives to win anything? The spin and hyperbole is clumsily designed to convince those, with mush for brains, believe that conservatives can win by becoming less conservative. HUH…does that make sense to anyone?
Can one become more saintly by sinning just a little more; fit and trim by eating just a bit more fat and exercising less; become healthier by smoking just a bit more? Silly….Silly…Silly.
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2009 01:36 PMRelative to our past we have lost our moral compass. Parents not instilling good citizenship in their children. Religion being pushed out of government, learning institutions and the work place. Learning institutions that are complacent about greed or infer or teach that greed is good. With government folding their tent as to oversight and regulation and pursuing an economic policy of ‘greed is good’ its become a receipe for disaster. Education could play be key to saving us from ourselves. But, look around. In some areas 50% of students do not graduate high school. Fully 50% of college students seeking graduate degrees are foreign. It is not uncommon for Virginia students with 3.8 or 4.0 grades to be rejected at the major universities in the state. And, the cost of an education has become prohibitive for many. Just consider that 90% of black children and 50% of white children receive subsistence in the form of food stamps.
People seem to want to flail around in the morass of a failed government rather than look for a way out of this ever distressful situation. Finger pointing ain’t going to do it. Smokes me that this column is for ‘third party and independents’ but we don’t see much third party interest. What is wrong about independents, supposedly 35% of the electorate, and disaffected others coming together around a populist center and taking government back from the far left and right? Following reform we could all go back to finger pointing or whatever. Maybe a few hundred more bank failures will get the attention of some.
Third party sounds good, but it will never work. Ross Parot finished off any national bid for a third party. I fear the only successful option is for both Democrats and Republicans to regain control of their own parties.
Posted by: propitiation at November 7, 2009 02:31 PMThat is lame propitiation. We’ve got some real problems. And thats why we need to stand up a party with a different political attitude. I wholeheartedly agree that a Ross Perot, flash in the pan party will not succeed. There are dead or dying parties all over the landscape. A 21st century party has to offer something to the voter. The voter is tired of status quo, being lied to by the left and right, etc. TRUST is DAID in politics. A new party has to win the confidence and trust of voters. A party should provide a means by which politicians can be held accountable for their actions, or inactions. A new party must be established in rules that defines the relationship between members and elected/appointed officials. Rules that set the party in motion and are very hard to change, edit or delete. We need way more than change. We need reform.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 7, 2009 03:50 PMThe Times has a good graphic on unemployment.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/06/business/economy/unemployment-lines.html
While the numbers are significant, it is the trends that I find more telling.
I don’t exactly feel we are on the verge of lapsing into hopelessness, but this is a critical time.
A safety net for healthcare and housing IS critical at this time as well as forthright economic reforms. Economics says we can’t endure futile protracted wars. unless it becomes a war of economic acquisition of resources, but being a superpower makes that likely to trigger bigger and more expensive wars, unlike the situation of our forefathers.
Most importantly, non-productive financial markets must be regulated to encourage productive markets. Riverboat gambling may be profitable in the short term, but is an unreliable method for producing a stable national economy.
Posted by: gergle at November 7, 2009 04:13 PMI got a good deal on a can of shaving cream at WalMart this afternoon.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 7, 2009 06:01 PMI will read through this thread tomorrow. I just read the first line and was compelled to write “OMFG You’re saying that now?”
Posted by: bandman at November 7, 2009 06:19 PMRF
The Bible has been used to justify all manner of social positions. One can find scriptural support for slavery and poligamy,to name only two examples.Those in the habit of mis-useing the Bible without regard to relavent facts or allowing for the possibility of different interpretations are not engaging in dialoge. They are attempting to be bullies. I doubt if that was God’s aim in creating it.
And speaking of God, may we now give thanks that the House has finally after a 60 year struggle, passed sweeping health care reform that will insure millions more of our fellow Americans.
Thy will be done.
RF asked: “Well Mr. Remer, it’s quite obvious changes have been made considering the amendments to the constitution. Should I understand you to mean that our founding documents are no longer applicable to our nation’s governance?”
My meaning is a statement of empirical and unrefutable fact. That the original Constitution both contemplated and provided for changes to itself as this nation grew, and those changes in society and to the Constitution by both Supreme Court rulings and Amendments, are now integral to the Constitution. Our founding documents no longer have relevance, absent the changes and rulings on it that have been added to it over the last 200 years.
To ask for the original Constitution today is like asking a senior citizen to return to his/her state at birth. The Original Constitution gave birth to a nation and a process for that nation. 200 years later with many amendments and rulings added, today’s Constitution and body of law emanating from it, is all we have. Which means our choices in responding to its efficacy are limited to 3.
1) Scrap the Constitution by a Constitutional Convention which creates a new one from scratch.
2) Amend it further.
or 3) Accept what it is and has become and work with it going forward to meet our nation’s future needs.
(I guess another civil war over the issue is conceivably a 4th option as secessionists and anarchists in Alaskan, Idaho, and Texan seek, but, I fail to see how any such attempts could possibly be successful, and therefore reject this potential 4th option.)
Abandoning 200 years of nation building, women’s suffrage, abandonment of slavery, the bulk of Interstate Commerce rulings which have served our nation’s growth enormously, to return to the original Constitution’s verbage and interpretation is, in my opinion, a ludicrous notion for these obvious reasons.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 01:00 PMbills, we have too long placed short term election goals and politics ahead of solving the systemic and potentially imploding long term challenges which now plague our political system, our government’s ability to address long term challenges, and our electorate who are given virtually no choice but to vote for Dinosaur A or Dinosaur B political parties, both of which are responsible for the long term challenges we now face as a people and nation.
I commend Democrats for taking on the health care issue, but, Democrats have created this health care crisis along with Republicans by pandering to the health care corporate interests, lobbyists, and election campaign contribution bribery. That is the underlying and more fundamental issue which must be addressed if our nation is position itself to meet and surmount the challenges ahead.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 01:06 PMjlw asked a good question: “David, I agree with most of what you are saying. However, don’t you think that giving the left equal billing in what has happened is rather illogical?”
jlw, see my response to bills just before this reply. It answers your question. Thanks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 01:09 PMpropitiation partisanly said: “I would also like to say I agree with Royal Flush, the view of our founding fathers, by liberals, is one of contempt.”
That’s rich, in light of Republicans circumventing the Constitution to torture, surveil American citizens without due process, and imprison individuals with trial, or any other due process, not to mention abandoning the whole construct of separation of state and religion, funding with federal dollars activities of religious organizations predominantly, if not exclusively, Christian, in a clear attempt to foster a national religious preference, contrary to the original intent of the Constitution.
Both parties are equally to blame in creating the challenges which now beset us as a people. Which is why independent registered voters now outnumber either Democrat or Republican voters, and now control the outcome of elections.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 01:15 PMgergle, well said, and I agree.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 01:16 PMDear Guvermint;
The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have ha d 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars
AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??
Received the above in an email this morning. This government is not only broke it is a failed government and must be replaced. No more tautology as to the cause. The only way to reform, IMO, is through a 3rd party with a different political attitude.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2009 01:52 PM
Roy,
You also forgot the ‘war on drugs’ which has cost us trillions of dollars and accomplished only to put millions of otherwise productive members of society into jail and created the new mobs/violence we see today and ‘The Department of Education’ that has overseen the test scores of the American youth decline every year since it was put into place…
I understand though, really how long can you make the list without crying?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2009 02:06 PMRoy and Rhinehold…thanks for the partial list of government abominations, none of which were ever envisioned or espoused by our founders.
Some writers above view your lists of failed government programs as an accomplishment; to be viewed with reverence, awe and expansion. Never will they argue to discontinue failed, bloated and financially ruinous programs, but rather, ask American’s for more of the same.
While the logical thinking person would stop that which causes so much pain and misery, the liberal appears to believe such failure came because we just didn’t do it right or spend enough money on the program. They live in a dream world where the next government entitlement will be perfect and they will be vindicated.
At the core of every liberal you will find a fanatical need to “feel good” about themselves, not by what they have done, or at their expense, but by the work and expense of others. For them, charity begins in the halls of congress.
I’ve read that nearly 50% of our adult population now pay no income taxes. Some even get tax refunds while having paid no taxes. They truly have “no skin” in the game, and as one would expect, demand even more from those who are productive. In the imaginary world of liberals, we can gut the goose laying the golden eggs with no adverse consequences. We are already witness to the results of gutting our constitution.
If all the liberals in this country were living together on an island with unlimited resources, and a liberal/socialist government I predict that within a generation or two all would perish.
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2009 02:56 PMRoy said: “Relative to our past we have lost our moral compass. “
That’s what happens when our nation eroded wages to the extent that both parents must work to provide a middle class opportunity for their children. Rather ironic, but, the middle class traded moral/ethical upbringing for maintaining consumption capacity in the electoral decisions from the 1950’s forward. (Though most were not aware of it.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 03:39 PMRoy,
Postal service was the best in the world until business figured out how to lobby politicians to skew the entire system to their financial advantage.
Social Security worked great providing 100’s of millions of Americans over the decades with a quality retirement life they otherwise could not and would not have enjoyed. It is only the malfeasance of Congress and Presidents since Ronald Reagan that have created a FUTURE scenario for Soc. Sec. that requires either an increase in taxes or a diminishment of benefits. It wasn’t called the 3rd rail of politics for nothing, you know.
Same for Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Worked marvelously to create a broad middle class home owner society until this last decade when Glass Steagal was overturned for Gramm Leach Bliley Act that resulted in Fannie May holding so many toxic assets on its balance sheets, largely unknown to the executors of Fannie Mae until mid to late 2007. This was a political error, not a design flaw in these two organizations. One doesn’t throw out the human DNA just because some humans make horrid decisions.
Poverty has been dramatically diminished in America over the decades, and the price was right until the late 1940’s when the urban design policy of congregating the poor into ghettos proved to be a failed urban design policy by the late 1960’s.
Roy, you lie. Medicare and Medicaid ARE NOT BROKE. They have been solvent for 44 years relieving Americans of enormous pain and suffering and extending their lives all those years. Medicare and Medicaid are on course to run deficits in the coming decade. Get your facts straight. Then opine.
Finally you get one we can both agree on: “The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.” As the corporations gained control of our government instead of the American people, this kind of waste, fraud, and abuse of the public trust was inevitable, and to grow to monstrous proportions.
Actually, government sponsored health care insurance for the uninsured will receive direct feedback into the media and Congress if it fails to provide affordable health care insurance to those 37 million Americans. Ergo, it is just as likely to succeed in its first couple decades as Soc. Sec., Medicare, the Postal service did. Until Republicans are elected to the majority that is, and they once again have the power to wreck these programs in the name of their self-fulfilling prophecy that government under their control will have negative consequences.
Please remember that it was Republicans who drove the national debt up from 5.65 trillion to over 11 trillion, and that if more than half of that debt had not been incurred, we would not now be facing the interest challenges on our debt that are now looming on our horizon or the dollar devaluation we are currently experiencing as a necessity to float our economy.
The total cost of Katrina, 9/11, and Afghanistan invasion was less than 2 trillion. Republicans are responsible for more than 3.5 trillion dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse of tax payers accruing to our national debt. One can legitimately claim that some of the spending since Democrats took control has been wasteful, but only a percentage, as rescuing the banking system, stimulating the economy, and rescuing the housing sector and unemployed were mandates on whomever might have had power from Jan. of this year. Therefore, the majority of the additional 1.5 trillion in spending this year would have been necessary in response to economic meltdown last year regardless of who was in office, except Libertarians, who would have allowed a Depression to ensue rather than attempt to rescue the situation and American citizens.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 04:05 PMRhinehold said: “You also forgot the ‘war on drugs’ which has cost us trillions of dollars and accomplished only to put millions of otherwise productive members of society into jail and created the new mobs/violence we see today”
Excellent catch, Rhinehold.
As for the education system, it was the best in the world until reactionaries to the 1960’s like Nixon and Reagan and the Southern state’s Democrats rejected quality liberal education as a threat to their power base and reelection potential. (that’s small L liberal, not capital.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 04:09 PMDown with tautology - up with reform!
Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2009 04:36 PMRF,
“If all the liberals in this country were living together on an island with unlimited resources, and a liberal/socialist government I predict that within a generation or two all would perish.”
I could only assume that those unlimited resources were controlled by a greedy conservative that expected them to subsist on only the coconuts that trickled down from the trees behind his barbed-wire fence.
Rocky
Roy Ellis,
$1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.
Huh? Citation please.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion just not their own “facts”.
Jack,
If you don’t see healthcare as long term goal, then you are a victim of your own short sightedness. This is one of the biggest drags on US competitiveness worldwide. While I do not think this is the proper bill to solve this problem, it’s a step in the right direction.
Posted by: gergle at November 8, 2009 06:03 PMLOl, Rocky. People sometimes say the weirdest things.
Posted by: gergle at November 8, 2009 06:06 PMjack, there was a mandate that came with the Constitutional Amendments granting universal suffrage and popular election of the president (mostly) and the Senate. That mandate was that our educational systems provide for ever increasingly more knowledgable, educable, and vested electorate. Therein, lies the erosion of the ideals set out by Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and a host of other founders.
One cannot hope to have a viable and effective democratic government or, democratic republic based on democratic elections, if too large a base of that system is uneducable, ignorant, and rejecting of empirical scientific methodology which has the potential for creating consensus and robust checks and balances on deviations away from consensus.
America has lost its bearings. Not its moral compass. America has lost its priority system prerequisite for a viable democratically elected government. National defense, Education, commercial and consumer infrastructure to effect the free flow of goods and trade, and rigorous Fiscal and Financial discipline over national and public resources. This is the priority system required for a sound and effective democratic republic in the 21st century. Similar, but, not the same as in the 1700’s when we were more Republic than Democracy, and when education was not anywhere near the priority it should have become throughout the 20th century.
Of course, electing politicians without objective public review and intelligent assessment by that public of each representative’s actions and effectiveness, has led us to a political system which places reelection as the top priority, Party support and affiliation as the second priority, and campaign financing as their 3rd priority, over all others. Is it any wonder then, that our future is so gravely in doubt.
You pegged it on the short-sightedness such a political system engenders. And it is only a sweep of anti-incumbent sentiment across the electorate that has the potential to force a reprioritizing in favor of the nation and the people’s long term interests. That or revolution which wipes away all, and begins anew from scratch. The latter is what I call the Mad Max option.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2009 06:56 PMDRR said:
“That’s what happens when our nation eroded wages to the extent that both parents must work to provide a middle class opportunity for their children.”
What wages did they erode? It sure wasn’t government employee’s wages; they seem to get their pay raise every year. Until Obama and his cohorts took government control of private companies, the government has never had the constitution right to raise or lower wages. The only thing I can think that you are talking about is “Minimum Wage Laws” and since government has never voted to lower the minimum wage, your statement doesn’t make any sense. You might want to revise and explain how the government eroded wages since the 1950’s?
Also, I would like to ask this question of you Mr. Remer. When you made this statement to Roy Ellis, “Roy, you lie. Medicare and Medicaid ARE NOT BROKE”, were you critiquing the message or the messenger? Sounds like you called Mr. Ellis a liar.
To everyone on the left who is rejoicing at Pelosi’s victory in the dark of night: it is dead on arrival. The only thing Pelosi managed to do was press her congressman to follow her lead and when she did; the American people have seen who to get rid of next year. It will be a slaughter in 2010 and she gained nothing. What a stupid woman. She needs to yake that stupid grin and go back to lala land.
Forgot to add the link:
By the way Remer, You are really stretching it in your answers to Roy’s list of governmet waste.
Posted by: dembs at November 8, 2009 07:19 PMI would like to add a link for those on the left who were rejoicing about the great victory of Congressman Bill Owens in NY,23rd.
He lied to the people of the 23rd and 1 hour after being sworn in, he did everything he told his constiuents he would NOT do. I want to make a prediction; Owens will be a 1 year congessman. Don’t you just love it. Liberals cut off their noses in spite of their face.
Posted by: propitiation at November 8, 2009 07:51 PMDavid,
I could not agree more that the Stakes today are high; however, I do believe it is not because of personal beliefs or political views, but based on the idea that the Children of the 70’s was charged with building a “Better World.” For why it is easy to blame the Other Person for the problems that has plagued Mankinds’ Governments and Societies for 30, 60, and 1,000’s of years. I wonder how many of My Peers and Community Elders could stand the idea that their children can build a Better World that has the potential to stop hunger, prevent poverty, and lead the Global Economy to a healthy lifestyle full of renewable energy.
For why the Post Office could again be made profitable simply by increasing the price of bulk mailing (unwanted advertisement) and healthcare insurance costs could be brought under control simply by redefining the meaning of a Medical Procedure, I do believe that most citizens over the age of 30 have replaced their right to be ignorant with the idea that somehow the Status Quo (We have already built the Best World Possible) will save them.
And why that is far from Reality, will the Individual Citizen continue to elect their Incumbent and tell their children that they have no hope of building a Better World or can My Peers and Community Elders raise above the Establishment built by the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s and their indifferences to lead Americas’ Elected Officials in the 21st Century.
Because one thing is certain, your children and those who choose to lead them in the 21st Century could care less about the Argument of Stupidity held by Their Parents and the Present Status Quo. Especially since they already have the knowhow (technology) to create the jobs of the future, provide Health Care for All, and provide the Renewable Energy needed to keep the Wheels of Commerce and Industry moving for years to come.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 9, 2009 02:41 AMdembs, you asked a great question: “Also, I would like to ask this question of you Mr. Remer. When you made this statement to Roy Ellis, “Roy, you lie. Medicare and Medicaid ARE NOT BROKE”, were you critiquing the message or the messenger? Sounds like you called Mr. Ellis a liar.”
You asked a question. Is this critiquing the messenger or making a statement about what you typed? You did, in FACT, ask me a question. Stating that fact is NOT critiquing the messenger but commenting on what was typed.
I did not say Roy Ellis is a liar by nature. I stated in regard to his specific statement about Medicare and Medicaid being broke, that he lied. Which means he either intentionally lied or passed on a lie which he thought was true. My statement takes no position on whether Roy Ellis inadvertently promoted a lie thinking it was true, or intentionally lied to make his point. Therefore, no critique of Roy was made, only a critique of his statement which is FACTUALLY UNTRUE, and therefore misrepresents the truth and we call such misrepresentations, lies regardless of the motive for passing them on.
The Tea Baggers pass on lies they got from the corporate and lobbying interests, doesn’t make them liars, it makes them ignorant of the truth. Same can be said of the socialist idealogues who state as truth there is proof government control of all of a society and its people’s actions results in a better society. It is a lie, even if they believe it to be true.
Having said this, any FURTHER discussion of WB’s rules and their application, according to WB rules, should be addressed to editor at watchblog.com. Thanks for asking the question.
Jack, this comment will address yours, which is being deleted for violating WB rules. Please read WB’s rules and comply with them.
Jack,
Why I agree that the current Congress is unable to give the American Public a Pre-Paid Health and Medical Care System; however, keeping alive the idea of insuring Every American can pay for their Individual Health and Medical Needs is a Principle and Standard worthy of the American Dream.
And why Our Grandparents and Parents believe the best way to achieve such a goal is through Employer Based Health Insurance and access to Community Based Hospitals, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes. I do believe the idea of kicking the Health and Medical Industrial Leaders in the Butt once and a while is a good way to keep them on their toes.
For how does one go about increasing the income of Doctors, Nurses, and Medical Staff while lowering the cost of Health insurance? Especially since it is “We the People” who has the Final Word on what is a Medical Procedure!
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 9, 2009 10:28 AMRoy, as a point of clarification, I seriously doubt you intentionally passed on the lie made by many on the Right and even a few on the Left, that Medicare and Medicaid are broke. I have never observed you intentionally misrepresenting the facts. This lie that they are broke has been stated by Rep. Boehner, Rush Limbaugh and others, and it is a lie. What is true, is that Medicare and Medicaid will sooner than anticipated, begin to run deficits for which revenues cannot be anticipated or budgeted for.
However, as of 2008, Medicare and Medicaid revenues and allocations from General Revenue funds, equaled Medicare and Medicaid expenditures by the federal government. For the deficits run this year, you will have to look to the economic, bank, home, and auto recovery measures, not the budgeted and paid for Medicare and Medicaid programs and S-Chip.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported in Sept. 2008: “By law, the standard premium is set to cover approximately one-fourth of the average cost of Part B services incurred by beneficiaries aged 65 and over. The remaining Part B costs are financed by Federal general revenues. The income to the program from premiums and general revenues are paid into the Part B account of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust fund, and Part B expenditures are drawn from this account.”
There was no unexpected loss in 2008 federal revenues and therefore, the budgeted revenues and expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid were such that revenues still met or exceeded expenditures.
GW Bush states in his 2009 budget:
Spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford, and there are painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits.NOTE the word “IF”. Which means these programs were NOT YET creating deficits, and that tax increases or drastic cuts in benefits were not yet needed to balance the budget for these programs. But, they would be required in the future when those programs began running deficits.
In Sept. of 2008, the CBO reported the 2008 deficit would be around 407 billion which was attributed to lower than expected Corporate tax returns due to the recession, and spending hike which is partly due to efforts by the government “to cover the insured deposits of insolvent financial institutions”. No mention of Medicare or Medicaid cost overruns accounting for the deficit.
The 2009 year ended just over a month ago, and I am not versed in those figures yet, but, suspect they will tell the same story with larger figures.
From the CMS quoted above: “2008 Total estimated budget authority………………………………………………………………………………… $3,266,652,000
(Obligations)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ($3,266,652,000)”
If you go to CMS’s website you will see how these figures were computed, and that the Medicare and Medicaid budgets were balanced in 2007, 2008, and projected to be balanced in 2009, although, revenues from payroll collections will be lower than expected in 2009, and in 2010, we may learn that there was a small deficit in 2009. But, that is projection, and the amount will be small.
The problem is that in just a few short years, either benefits will have to be cut, or premiums for these programs substantially increased to offset a 2% increase in these programs bite into the total federal budget, estimated in 2008 to occur in 2013. In light of the recession and unemployment now being experienced, that 2013 date will likely actually become 2010 or 2011.
It is therefore a falsehood or lie to state that these programs are currently broke, and those who pass these lies on to others are engaged in lying, whether intentional, or not.
I will however, chastise myself, here, by saying that my statement to you could be regarded as flame baiting, and that was not my intent. I therefore apologize for not having stated that your comment lied, instead of employing the word, ‘you’.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2009 10:58 AMJack,
If you see my comment as a personal attack, you are very sensitive indeed. Being a victim of short sightedness is what leads to shortsighted conclusions and comments. I don’t know you, made no comment about you personally, I was simply commenting on your post. How that amounts to a personal attack is beyond me.
It was largely how you lead in with:
Too many people are worried only about getting their healthcare, or fullfilling their immediate wants, servicing their ever increasing debt, and running in hopeless circles, while ignoring reality which reveals their collective ignorance and reveals how futile and ridiculous those shortsighted goals and desires actually are.
That led to my comment. It’s a gross misinterpretation of motive to make that statement. That is what revealed your short sightedness.
My point was getting cost down to make us competitive with the rest of the world IS the goal of this bill. Will it achieve it? Given that no one knows for sure, I have no idea. But it places more pressure on insurance companies to become cost effective, and stops the game of cost shifting. If insurance companies fail (which may be likely) the pressure to go to a public option or even single payer option will have a much improved chance of being passed.
Posted by: gergle at November 9, 2009 11:15 AMjack said: “What is completely delusional is to believe that the current legislation in Congress is going to accomplish that.”
I wouldn’t call it delusional, but, ignorant, to expect that the current legislation, which is budgetary in nature designed to manage the costs of health care while insuring more uninsured over 10 years. As anyone with accounting 101 under the belt knows, a budget is a projection of future events and such projections are nearly always flawed to a smaller or greater extent when the projected period has been recorded into history.
So, yes, you are right. The current legislation will not perform as intended. But, whether it will outperform or underperform, would itself be a projection and prediction of future events which are unknowable. Such is the nature of budgetary decisions, but short of an accurate crystal ball, they are the best tool any entity has to manage their resources and future needs and expenditures.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2009 11:20 AMJack, gergle said: “If you don’t see healthcare as long term goal, then you are a victim of your own short sightedness.”
The word ‘If’ should not be ignored. Do you see health care as a short term goal only? Are you suggesting that health care should only be provided for the next 10 years and not after that? If not, then gergles comment is not applicable to you.
If so, is that not by definition, short sighted, since longevity is something nearly all people wish and hope for and health care by definition extends longevity, which is in itself, a long term goal?
A conditional statement only applies if the condition is true. And if the condition is true, then the statement is true, if its premises are.
Gergle’s statement was fairly logically made. I think for a debate site, those participating should be capable of donning a thicker skin to rebuttals which are made in a logical fashion.
It is short sighted to postulate that health care is not a long term goal of the American people and our government’s representatives. Both the Republicans and Democrats have proposed long term health care proposals, 10 years or more. Atop a history of our government and people providing health care to those who cannot afford it dating back decades, it is a logically true statement that health care is a long term goal of the American people and our government.
From my post in question: “Received the above in an email this morning. This government is not only broke it is a failed government and must be replaced. No more tautology as to the cause. The only way to reform, IMO, is through a 3rd party with a different political attitude.”
That sorta takes me off the hook and the word ‘broke’ is subjective in itself.
As for the USPS, Medicare, and Social Security, they’re all in big trouble.
The USPS has been losing money for years.
Social Security is completely broke, and pay-as-you-go.
Medicare is possibly in the worst shape, pay-as-you-go, and running hundreds
of billions in annual deficits.
And the approaching 78 million baby-boomer bubble is also not good news for
Social Security and Medicare.
Those systems are dissintegrating, and have been for years, and are only
being barely kept afloat with massive borrowing and growing debt of
nightmare proportions.
Medicaid is welfare, and an estimated 33% of illegal aliens receive some
form of welfare.
Therefore, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the USPS are broken, and
there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples and evidence to prove it.
As for a failed government, I think I can recognize one when I see it. But, why not listen to Thomas Jefferson when he says we’ve got to be vigilant and revolutionize every twenty years or so. Heck, we haven’t had a serious 3rd party effort in over 50 years, excluding Perot’s flash in the pan thing. We should want to change for change sake alone. But, let’s not make it a fruitless effort. Let’s go for a party that can reform government, provide oversight for elected/appointed officials and structured in a way whereby the party can’t be overtaken by the influentials, etc. Add in the fact that we have a failed government in every sense of the word as I can tell, then we really need a revolution at the ballot box.
Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 9, 2009 11:35 AMHenry, I agree. We were to create a more perfect union, and a union of states which fosters health care for all and minimizes pain and suffering of its people, is a more perfect union that one that does not.
Ignorance and lack of education and information are no base upon which to foster a more perfect union. When the Supreme Court ruled there was no legal redress for politicians lying to their constituents, our nation took another turn toward another major crisis down the road.
Would the founding fathers have assented to the legality of lying to the people as a methodology of governance? I rather doubt it. But, that is what our Supreme Court ruled just a year or two ago. Europe is looking more appealing to me with each passing year, with their focus on quality of life, instead of quantity as is largely the case in America. It is a fundamental philosophical difference with dramatic long range implications politically, economically, and culturally.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2009 11:40 AMDavid,
A good note to go to sleep om; however, I do believe that why the Supreme Court ruled that a poltician could not be held accountable for their personal ignorance on a subject, it could be said that the Founding Fathers of America gave every American the Freewill of Common Knowledge and Common Sense to know when someone is trying to pull the “Wool” over your eyes.
Besides, I may not be able to do nothing about the Ignorance of the Left and Right when it comes to their Democratic and Republican Leaders. It sure is fun catchimg them taking a dip in the Creek of Stupidity every once in a while.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 9, 2009 12:01 PMHenry, the S.C. did NOT rule that a politician could not be held accountable for ignorance. They held that a politician could not be held accountable for lying to the public or the constituents. That is a very different result.
Sure, the founders understand the benefits of “caveat emptor”. They also knew the consequences of living under a King who could not be held accountable for anything, including his word.
In America, we used to have laws regarding ‘Truth in Advertising’. To a very large degree, our nation abandoned such laws as too costly to enforce and conduct business under. I would posit that the costs we now incur from abandonment of that policy are far higher than enforcement would have ever been today.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2009 12:43 PMRoy, you are once again disseminating UNTRUTHS when you say: “Social Security is completely broke, and pay-as-you-go.”
No, it is not. The revenues for Soc. Sec. premiums exceed benefits being paid out. That is an empirical fact. That will not be the case in the next decade. It is important to the credibility of one’s arguments to assert factual representations. Change the word ‘is’ to ‘will be if nothing is done to reform it’, and you have a true statement.
You said: “Medicaid is welfare, and an estimated 33% of illegal aliens receive some
form of welfare.”
Medicaid is welfare. That is true. It is also a society’s demonstration of compassion and humanity for the ill and suffering of destitute means. As for your your claim about illegal aliens, please provide your source. I don’t believe your claim, but will keep an open mind till you provide a link to your source for review.
You cannot found a third party on misinformation, Roy. It just won’t sell. Hell, look at what has happened to the GOP as a result of misinformation over the last 8 years.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2009 12:49 PMjack, it depends on whether one uses the Republican definition of surplus, meaning idle dollars sitting in Ft. Knox allocated as Soc. Sec. Revenue waiting to be spent on benefits, or the more educated and financially sophisticated definition of surplus defined as revenues exceeding expenditures to date, with excess revenues invested in the nation’s future which will provide for Soc. Sec. expenditures as and when they are needed.
I will take the latter definition. Funny how some folks can maintain mutually contradictory definitions in the same brain, depending on whether the word surplus is used in their bond and equity investments or, whether it is used by the government. No wonder so many are so confused and fearful of the future. Predictability becomes tenuous at best when one lacks reliable and consistent definitions, or the sophistication to recognize that if the country fails, so does Soc. Sec., which justifies using surpluses to insure the country does NOT fail after 8 years of Republican destruction and malfeasance, which a large number of Republicans even acknowledge was the case from 2001 through 2008.
Woulda, coulda, and shoulda’s are all you have to launch on the topic of delusional, jack? I think delusional is working to preserve a defunct status quo, expecting a different outcome from it. I also think it is inhumane and highly unethical as well as unenlightened in the Adam Smith definition ((Theory of Moral Sentiment) for those who can afford health insurance to take the position that 10’s of millions of fellow citizens who can’t afford it, should “just eat cake”, to paraphrase the notorious French rich bitch of history who would most definitely be a Republican today in America.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2009 05:38 AMJack,
The idea $12 trillion dollars is a lot of money compared with the money that can be made by making Every America Energy Independent is a wager I am willing to make with My Brothers and Sisters of America; however, first I do believe that both the Left and Right needs a Civic Leson in Generational Change.
For why I suppose in a Trickle-Up Economy it is possible for every American to purchase affordable healthcare, knowing the Ignorance of History I do believe Americas’ Democratic and Republican Ideology needs to be allowed to change from their position of the Status Quo of the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 11, 2009 03:20 AMJack,
Being broke at some point in the future, is not the same as being broke today, no matter how you twist it.
Long term projections are nonsensical at best, given that none of us know the future. Economic growth will wipe out or reduce those debts. If you do not understand this, you do not understand macroeconomics. The difference between debt in the aggregate and personal debt is something you should read about.
David has railed long about long term debts, so your arguments against what he is pointing out as fallacy are a bit misguided.
It is you who wants to pile all the blame on Democrats while ignoring the obvious more immediate problems created in the last ten years.
David has argued about both sides irresponsible behavior.
The party of NO is currently offering nothing but political opposition, siding with an industry monopoly that is bankrupting America for personal gain. It hasn’t had a solution for anything in ten years and isn’t likely to have anything but opposition in the near term.
Again, what you do not seem to understand about the health care problem, is that WE are already paying for it. Whether you can comprehend that fact or not, all that is happening is an attempt at a more equitable solution and a realistic attempt to make the political moves to position the US into a place where real solutions may be sought. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.
Republican rhetoric may make you feel better, but it has been moving away from a solution and driving us toward a catastrophic cliff. While that may be a fine solution if you are wealthy enough to weather it, the reality is the vast majority of people would be devastated and may choose to simply take back what was stolen from them like the French did during their revolution. If it comes to that, you’ll find little sympathy from me.
Posted by: gergle at November 11, 2009 05:23 AMGergle,
Well said; however, do you realize that some Americans believe they pay for their medical bills with their health insurance premium. And why I won’t say that many of the Members of Congress are in the same boat, I wopuld like to hear the experts talk about the total cost of Americas’ Community Hospitals, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes since that is the biggest chunk of money needed to keep our current healthcare system running.
And BTW, how about adding the savings in using the Innovations of the 21st Century. Because I do still believe that an Enhanced Community First Resoinders 911 Call Centers could become the Patients’ Best Friend in accessing their Community Health and Medical Providers for answers to Their Health.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 11, 2009 09:18 AMJack said: “We’re already broke,”
Jack, if that is true, then so is nearly every American corporation which sells stock to borrow money for capital formation or expansion. Because, by your definition that the Nation’s Federal Gov’t. is already broke, anytime current debt obligations exceed CURRENT year’s revenues, that entity is broke. It simply is a fallacy.
Broke means unable to meet current debt servicing obligations in every bankruptcy court in the Free World. Your attempts to use Republican rhetoric by redefining terms to make your argument true is simply fallacious. The U.S. Gov’t, is CURRENTLY meeting all its debt service obligations. Ergo, CURRENTLY, the U.S. Gov’t. is not broke, anymore than I am broke because my debt obligations exceed my monthly income THIS MONTH.
To address real problems, one must begin by accepting reality. By attempting to assert that the U.S. Gov’t. is already broke, you are avoiding the reality that our debt exists within a complex framework of present and future obligations and revenue streams, all subject to change by policy makers, which proffers the potential that our debt is entirely manageable from here.
Your argument appears to be predicate to creating yet another fantasy, that current policy initiatives by Democrats, therefore, must be wrong because “we are broke” and they haven’t remedied that situation yet. And worse, they are increasing debt in order to address the cratering of our economic growth under Republican rule. It’s a fallacious argument. WWII created enormous debt for America which spawned the greatest expansion of economic growth our nation has ever witnessed.
Want to resolve the Debt? Changing parties in the majority won’t do it. Spending is the meal ticket of both parties to reelection. To resolve the debt, the American voters must vote to remove incumbents and continue to do so in ever larger numbers UNTIL the debt reverses. That potential now exists with the growth of registered independent voters exceeding either registered Democrats or Republicans. Facing growing anti-incumbent voter behavior in response to the debt growth and the future liability it creates, politicians of both parties will stop the rhetoric over reducing the debt, and actually begin to craft policy and vote for reducing the debt going forward. Bending that health care inflation trajectory South is a major step in that direction. Fighting health care reform to accomplish this via the public option to competitively drive down private sector health care premiums, are Republicans, and Conservative Democrats. That pretty much encapsulates who is serious about debt these days.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 11, 2009 11:03 AMDavid,
I personally think the “trigger” idea for a public option is even a better idea, as it focuses attention on where the real problems lie in reducing costs. Going straight to a public option may result in high cost patient dumping. I want there to be a cost for insurers associated with such behavior from insurers.
A single payer system would have to deal with this issue as well and seems to be politically impossible, at this time. Americans need to take small steps forward.
Maine’s problems are associated with limited resources, cost shifting, and a lack of competition..even with a public option. Real competition is only going to occur when we begin to require hospital’s and doctor’s to be rated in a public manner, as well as insurers, if they are still in the mix. Competition requires a “market” that is transparent. While research facilities could be exempted, one has to be careful that this doesn’t simply become a loophole. Most medicine could be much cheaper. McDonald’s doesn’t try to make fine cuisine.
Separating patients out by triage and diagnostics could be streamlined. In US hospitals, this doesn’t really seem to happen efficiently. They simply use less ill patients as a means to cost shift for patients with more serious issues.
Longer term more straightforward policies that deal with the realities of an aging population and the healthcare costs associated with that is needed. People do have a tendency to want something for nothing, which is untenable.
Posted by: gergle at November 11, 2009 12:18 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
