-
The Man With the Plan: April 2010
August 11, 2012 | 0 comments
-
A Wonk in Sheep’s Clothing
March 25, 2011 | 293 comments
-
Scapegoating Mitch Daniels
March 17, 2011 | 150 comments
-
Money Train
March 1, 2011 | 109 comments
-
The Race for Comparative Advantage
February 14, 2011 | 87 comments
Special Report
Single-Payer or Bust
For liberal activists, ObamaCare is just the end of the beginning. Live from Netroots Nation.
LAS VEGAS — The new national health care law may represent the largest expansion in the role of government since the Great Society, but for liberal activists, it was just the appetizer.
Here at the annual Netroots Nation conference for self-described progressives, organizers discussed their strategy for pushing toward their ultimate goal of a fully government-run, or single-payer, health care system.
To reach the promised land, they first have to protect the gains they’ve already made.
“People really want to run from the (health care) issue because of what happened with the populists, because of the way people were attacked, and it is the number one attack being used by conservatives on the right against anyone on the left, whether they voted for the bill or not,” explained Melinda Gibson, an organizer for the liberal group Health Care for America NOW!
HCAN was founded in 2008 as a coalition of unions and other groups, pledging to spend $40 million on grassroots organizing and advertising campaigns to push national health care. Despite their best efforts, at last August’s town hall meetings, liberal groups were out-hustled on the ground by a surge of Tea Party protesters who raised hell about the pending legislation.
“We have to make sure we don’t lose August,” Gibson emphasized. “August is crucial. People who experienced August last year will remember that we lost the media narrative for a long time, things were blown up on the ground, our organizers were in a defensive posture, and so it’s very important that we go on the offensive.”
It’s a long road ahead for liberal activists, she said, referencing data from the group Working America, which has been doing voter contact with Americans for the left.
“The health care conversations they’re having are very difficult,” she explained. “People are very defensive and afraid, and it’s taking a long time to break through some of that with various constituencies.”
While she predicted that the health care law would become more popular as Americans begin to receive government checks and enjoy other new benefits, in the meantime, she argued, liberals were planning on changing the “frame” of the conversation.
“The moral of the story at this point is we have to attack back,” she said. “And we have to attack and pivot. The question is not, ‘let’s get into a discussion of the nuances of the bill, or the implementation of it’ on the ground at this point.”
Instead, she put the issue in Bush-like terms: “Either you’re with the American people, or you’re with the insurance companies.”
At one point, Gibson suggested tactics such as following an insurance executive from her “fancy” house to “fancy” lunches to make her hated by Americans.
The new anti-corporate message, she said, could be deployed throughout the battle over implementation of ObamaCare, and “hopefully” lead to another push for the public option “that will get us further and further toward where we want to go.”
Another organizer on the panel, Andrew McGuire, expressed skepticism that any real change could happen at the federal level. As executive director of the California One Plan campaign, he’s part of the drive to bring single-payer health care to the Golden State.
His strategy involves getting Hollywood actors, writers, musicians, and comedians to join the fight along with grassroots and online activists. He predicted that single-payer would become a reality in California within the decade, and that other states would follow.
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Letter to the Editor View all comments (157) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Philip Klein
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/23/single-payer-or-bust
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Average Infidel| 7.23.10 @ 7:17AM
So We the People were lied to during the supposed debate of the H/C legislation and now they come out acknowldeging their true intent was in fact to bring us all into a single payer program. Now we are suppposed to think they have good intentions of the outcome by not allowing/wanting this to be a National debate. WOW talk about the horse being out of the barn already.
There appears to be great concerns from the left that their lies are not holding or carring water for their part. Well duh. As if we even believed their initial lie in the first place-not. It is one thing to bring your lies to the table and pawn them off as truths, it is another to pawn the truth off as lies and then acknowledge them in (their) truths.
We do not need or desire to have an already dead debate on the truth, what we need here is to repeal this monster before the arms, legs and brains come upon us like a tidal wave. What I have always feared about setting the narrative by these folks is they always lie first, scream racist second and third try and convince themselves they know best all the while We thinking people know them to do so, we allow them to set the narrative, why?
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:29PM
Single payer is preferred by most Americans and has been for some time : http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
With Single payer HCR, you are in the minority kiddo
Liberal Reader| 7.23.10 @ 11:51PM
Purplegay should have voted for Nader. Obama has really let him down. He never even tried to argue for single player. He let Reid and Pelosi make their shakedown deals. What a disappointment. Still in Iraq, still operating gitmo, still have don't ask don't tell, still doing rendition, escalating the war in Afghanistan, executing innocents in Afghanistan and Pakistan with those warrant-less drones. Obama is a traitor to the cause. He will probably allow the Bush tax cuts to remain. Vote for Nader. He wouldn't let you down like this. I can see why purplegay is so depressed.
Rush's cigar smoke| 7.24.10 @ 7:50AM
Libtard Reader:
Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder
February 17, 2010
Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder
As a clinical and forensic psychiatrist, Lyle Rossiter has treated over 1,500 patients and examined over 2,700 civil and criminal cases. Turning his hand to political psychopathology, the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, has diagnosed an alarming percentage of the population as suffering from the grotesque form of mental derangement known by some as moonbattery.
Among Rossiter's observations:
Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do.
The roots of liberalism — and its associated madness — can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.
Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health professional will facilitate the search for a cure.
Liberal Reader| 7.24.10 @ 9:20AM
Great points. I couldn't agree more. I have been helped in a troll rehab facility and now am living a more normal life.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:33PM
This Quack is a political shill, so of course, he downgrades the left ... and that's important how?
Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., like Michael Savage, thinks that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Unlike Savage, however, Rossiter is a psychologist and is actually serious when he says that. He has written this book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, which claims to trace the psychological factors causing people to become liberals.
In a nutshell, the book's thesis is, "My political views are so obviously correct that anyone who doesn't accept them just has to be nuts." It presupposes the truth of a right-wing political outlook and then tries to plumb the reasons why other people do not accept this truth, the conclusion being that they have to be in massive denial.
Joan Swirsky, a fan of the book, notes that it "avoids all the usual psychobabble." This is because the book does not contain any actual psychological study, but instead political ranting.
See his other books:
Following the Rules
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD (Oct 21, 2008)
For some time now, we have heard news of failed economies and failed com-panies, failed markets and failed marriages, failed domestic and foreign policies, failing cities and... more
Competence and Freedom
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD (May 26, 2008)
Imagine that you have raised your child be self-reliant, self-directing, honest, law abiding, considerate of the rights and feelings of others, and committed to cooperating... more
Subprime Immaturity
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD (May 13, 2008)
Headline stories about the now infamous subprime mortgage mess and its associated credit crisis have been on the media front pages since late last summer; its tremors are... more
Images of Barack and Hillary
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD (Feb 15, 2008)
With pop psychology now decades old and a comfortable part of our everyday conversation, it is not surprising to find pundits and pollsters psychoanalyzing the current...
His book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness contains references from Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes!, and Hayek - all so well known Psychiatrists, huh?
It's just a political trash rag using his credentials as a physician to make a political point .. what a hack!
Osamas Pajamas| 7.25.10 @ 4:09PM
PurpleGuy, you're just another lying shill and spewing hatred, envy, and resentment on behalf of Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew. But I look at it this way. I see scummy you on every page of "Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour" by Helmut Schoeck, and on every page of Ayn Rand's political novels, "Anthem," "We The Living," "The Fountainhead," and "Atlas Shrugged." Ta ta!
Alamitos Bay| 7.25.10 @ 4:10PM
The Democrats have this "enemies list" --- denominated in epithets aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a “Racist!” and you can be a “Homophobe!” and you can be a “Teabagger!” --- a homosexual man taking his partner’s scrotum into his mouth. You can be “Selfish!” and you can be a “Hick!” and you can be a “Rube!” You can be a “Right-wing-nut!” and you can be "Unenlightened!" and you can be a “Fascist!” --- although no one more closely approaches the precise description of “Fascist!” than the usual Demo propagandist --- either official, or self-appointed.
So all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Demos” enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech. Insist on all these good things - and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum --- by The Friends of All Mankind --- by a gang of lying, thieving, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thugs --- by the Democrat party, in other words. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction.
Fort Sewall| 7.25.10 @ 4:12PM
What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!
But the Democrats believe in "statism" --- not "liberalism."
They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology ---- we say "the government" here in the USA ---- rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism ---- this last is sort of a mix of fascism and socialism.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government ---- it is a constabulary ---- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the inalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ----The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago ---- and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.
It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.
Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?
Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity! Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then ---- and kick over the bloody coffee tables --- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2010 and 2012!
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 4:04PM
Bullpuckey. Anything you don't like must be a Democrat, huh?
Carol| 7.24.10 @ 8:25AM
I see you didn't read the comment you were responding to.
If single payer is so popular - why didn't your messiah just sign it into law like he did with so many other things he isn't allowed to do?
The majority want this monstrosity overturned.
Carol| 7.24.10 @ 8:26AM
Rush's cigar stroke:
Sorry - my reply was for PurpleGay.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:13PM
I believe he honestly thought the Republicans would compromise with him and actually negotiate in good faith. That's where his lack of experience shows, unfortunately. But, he's learning in the crucible of the Oval Office. And, as he learns, the lessons your side has taught him will sharpen him and polish his skills and you will have to deal with the terrible weapon you have wrought... if only you had cooperated some. So sad, too bad - for your side.
flyovermark| 7.24.10 @ 10:14PM
I take comfort knowing that by the time the marxist-in-chief gets his OJT and is ready to govern responsibly, he will be a lame duck. As to expecting more compromise from the GOP, his inexperience really shows. When Democrats come out with boilerplate progressive legislation so radical that no Republican, conservative republican or progressive-republican alike, could in good conscience possibly support while expecting to retain their seat, and then expect them to compromise, there is no opportunity for bipartisanship. If they want to govern for ALL of America, Democrats must learn to approach the loyal opposition for their input BEFORE the bill is written, and get what they can by mutual agreement. Even Bush knew this, and invited Ted Kennedy to write legislation that later became "No child left behind". Ultimately, how legislation is achieved is secondary to whether it actually does what it says it will. So far, all we've seen is legislation doing everything it says it won't.
Marblehead Light| 7.25.10 @ 4:11PM
OhBummer is a boob and a fool for attacking the American Tea Partiers. He is annoyed that they’re not grateful to him for hijacking the American healthcare system --- the greatest act of vandalism perpetrated upon the American people since a gang of jihadi frootloops and loonytoons hijacked some planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, and made a failed attempt to crash into the White House and instead drilled a hole in a Pennsylvania farm thanks to some very courageous American passengers.
And --- now widely seen for what he is --- the president presents a problem for the Democrat-captured media. They pump out his propaganda for him --- and, like the opinion monitors in Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” --- they are dodging brickbats and rotten vegetables.
He’s pompous, pampered, and pretentious --- a pseudo-intellectual fop. He’s a glorified, smooth-lyin’ dandy, and slicker than Sick Willie Clinton. He’s a dictator-on-the-make, a bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thug, and a low-down skunk.
He’s a fraud and a swindler. He lies when he inhales and he lies when he exhales; his oxygen is the falsification of reality. He lies, placidly and laconically, as if deception were a soporific drug.
He’s a friend of the poor and the downtrodden --- indeed, you can hear the milk of human kindness sloshing around inside of him when he walks.
He declares himself the post-racial leader --- “Let me be clear!” he intones --- and he hides behind his race, daring his critics to put their reputation for fairness at risk.
He pauses to ponder the portent of his propaganda --- and it is fakery; he smiles and his mendacity comes shining through. Shake hands with Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer --- “The Mistake of ‘08” --- the illegal alien squatter in the White House --- and America’s first and last Arab president. Now count your fingers.
JimE| 7.25.10 @ 6:21PM
Purpleasswipe, your posts are hilarious, I feel sorry for your parents wasting all that money college tuition.
Nancy in NC| 7.24.10 @ 10:00PM
I checked out your link...some of the stats are rather old. I really couldn't ascertain who was polled, except to assume they were readers or viewers of the left leaning unit doing the polling which would skew the results.
After all, statistics are easily manipulated to get the desired outcome. I wasn't impressed. I'm sure with a little diligence I could come up with some stats that will show opposite results.
PolishKnight| 7.25.10 @ 6:42PM
hahahaha!
Purpleguy's choice of the term "single payer" indicates his/her own lack of confidence in their position. Why not just call it CommieCare? Or Socialist medicine? Is communism "bad?" Or Socialism?
I love to show liberals copies of a certain socialist agenda: Free healthcare, extensive public transportation, building lots of bridges and then I show them the source: Mein Kampf. Then they don't like it anymore. People support fascism when it's presented in pretty terms. Especially when it's certain unPC groups paying the price for it. "But.... it's not ok when they come after ME!!!! I'm CARING and EMPATHIC so I should be able to give the shaft to others because they're hypocritical jerks" That's the thinking behind cool-aid leftism.
martin j smith| 7.23.10 @ 7:52AM
When Democrat Party were in the minority, Republ;icans let them behave as if They were the majority. That meant that the Democrat Party ran ruffshop over Republicans. This should have been a wake up call --but no, things just plodded. Fast foward, we see that the Democrat Part was then and now really is a Left Radical Socialist-like ( or even Marxist-like)Party . So, is their Healthcare( Obama care really a surprise. Of course they lied. When will you ever learn that is how these people behave. I believe too many America voters do not grasp what this measn for them. I am not talking about the Obama base--they are a lost cause. But those who claim to be uncertain should be educated in this general way: If something is too good to be true--it is.
And,you for what you get and you may get even less.
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:30PM
Where have you been? The Democrats got no legislation passed during the Bush years over Republican majorities... are you high?
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 7.23.10 @ 8:23AM
Andrew McGuire “predicted that single-payer would become a reality in California within the decade, and that other states would follow.” He might be right about that, ten years from now, there might only be one single person left in California that still has a job, and some money left to pay all the Bills. I almost feel bad for him (Psst!! Hey Pal, leave now, while you still can!!).
Lies, lies, and more lies coming from the Lefty Commies!! Let them try what they will come August, let them “attack back”, I want to see it!! I want them to show their true face, the fat SEIU Thugs with their stupid red (commie) Union T-shirts, and their version of compassion (stealing from the rich and giving to the poor-I hate Robin Hood now because of them). It looks like we’re going to be split into two groups, those who are for Freedom, and those that are for the Communists!! Pick your side!! But remember, the Commies always lose to America!! So pick wisely!!
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:31PM
People on the left are no more Communists then people on the right are Nazis. Otherwise, not worth commenting on ...
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 7.23.10 @ 9:36PM
Purplepeoplepieceofsh*t: I'm hurt, that my post is not worth commenting on, really I am, especially coming from you. You know how we all look for your approval about what we think? I'll try to do better next time!! Oh yeah, by the way, I know you know this (because you're so friggin' smart), but the Nazis? They were from the Left, not from the Right!! I'm sure that was just a simple typo error on your part, and not an attempt to re-write history!!
The Left goes like this: Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis, Commies!! I'm not exactly sure where the KKK fits in on that chain of death, but it does (that's your Party's creation too).
Was that worth commenting on? I sure hope so!!
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:06PM
Unless you can show me a similar progression from Republican to Nazi, no.
But I can do it too. Try Republican, Corporatist, Libertarian, Fascist, Statist, Nazi !!! isn't this fun?
And, you call the Left Commies? Who lines up behind their Party and votes as a block - not the Democrats... Who votes for the Presidential candidate who's "turn" it is next? Not the Democrats. Who wants a strong, autocratic leader? Not the Democrats... And, who live in the RED Commie States following like sheep what their leaders tell them to think? Not the Democrats...
No, Chuckles, is you and your party and your RED states and your tough, strong leaders that would rather shoot and ask questions later. The RED Commie states, that's where the real communist party is. Remember, China is communist, RED, and capitalistic ... hmmm, sounds Republican to me.
JimE| 7.25.10 @ 6:23PM
Purpleasswipe only shows up to shill for obama. He is incapable of independent thought.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 12:42PM
And, where, pray tell, have you heard this from someone else? Link please ...
No? I didn't think so... you have no facts, you can refute nothing ... go away.
Clinton nee Publius | 7.24.10 @ 12:53PM
What a stupid liberal. Everyone knows that Nazis were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS except stupid liberals like you. Calling people on the right Nazis would be like calling you educated - a non sequitur.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:10PM
If you really knew something, you would know that socialism didn't work for the Italians and switched to facism, same with the Germans. The full name was the National Socialist Workers Party - Hitler did put people back to work - preparing for war. He cuddled up to Corporations and Big Business, not unlike the Republicans of today ... that, my dear, is fascism. You can name something anything you want - like the Tea Party is somehow supposed to represent the Boston Tea Party or the Sons of Liberty revolting against a despotic King.
Go learn something.. then come back
Tim*| 7.25.10 @ 12:12PM
Do your homework ObamaBoy .
" After the 1936 economic crisis, German industrialists were increasing excluded from the decision-making process.
After 1936, the German state came to play an increasing dominant role in the German economy both through state-owned companies and by placing increasing larger orders ."
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Can See November From Our Houses .
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 12:32PM
Yee have little knowledge, excepting that which promotes your own point.
By 1936, Hitler and the Nazis had total control of ALL of GERMANY - but he got there through manipulation of the elected and the industrialists of the day, who thought THEY could manipulate HITLER. They were wrong and you are now.
Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. On March 23, 1933, Hitler was effectively voted in as Dictator of Germany with the enabling act, but the final act was the death of President Hindenburg on August 2, 1934 left Hitler in charge as the Fuhrer. After that date, everything in Germany was controlled by Hitler and the Nazis, until the end of WWII.
Jeff| 7.25.10 @ 10:39AM
Conservatives are not Nazi, socialists are NAZI (National Socialist German Workers). Hitler was the second leader to move to socialized medicine, Lenin was the first. As Harry Reid stated, "how else can we control them".
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 12:37PM
You're wrong - Germany had universal healthcare since the 1870's, when Bismarck was Chancellor. Go look it up. Lenin wasn't around that long to do much but the revolution, only a few years.
A name for a party does not describe it's roots or it's cause - the TEA PARTY today has nothing to do with revolting against "no taxation without representation" ... as the Boston Tea Party did.
But for the record, it was the National Socialist German Workers Party - the Nazis... they were fascists, not communists. They hated the communists and fought against them before Hitler came to power. Go learn something.
Louis Jenkins| 7.23.10 @ 8:23AM
"His strategy involves getting Hollywood actors, writers, musicians, and comedians to join the fight along with grassroots and online activists."
What a winning combination!
Bleeding Heart Communists| 7.23.10 @ 8:59AM
This article is yet another example of what the liberals in this country have become. They feel self-righteous in their desire to "help everyone" when, in reality, if they were to have an ounce of logic within themselves they would know that these over-arching government policies they wish to implement are 1) fiscally unsupportable, 2) more prone to corruption than anything in the private sector (just as government always is), and 3) merely an extension of their individual inability to be successful and support themselves. Our country (with the exception of a growing number of Americans who are beginning to see the truth) is becoming one of entitlements. martin j smith was right, educate those who are ill-informed, it's up to us to do so.
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:33PM
Proof of your assertions please? Your opinions are not facts, Chuckie.
Liberal Reader| 7.23.10 @ 11:42PM
The assertions are pretty obvious. Nobody should waste a lot of time proving things to high school drop out trolls.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:58PM
Thanks for proving my point.. you can't prove the assertions, 'cause the facts ain't on your side of the argument. Sooo, " The assertions are pretty obvious" ... enlighten me with your factual knowledge base - otherwise they are YOUR opinion, and altho you are entitled to it, it has that stench...
Liberal Reader| 7.25.10 @ 3:39PM
"Nobody should waste a lot of time proving things to high school drop out trolls. "
Clinton nee Publius| 7.24.10 @ 12:54PM
We know you never have any...
NavyBrat | 7.23.10 @ 9:23AM
In reading this article, I'm reminded of wise words from a wise writer. Too bad no one reads this guy in school anymore. I guess its all part of the progressive MO to whitewash & re-write history & culture.
"If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intent of doing you good, you should run for your life."...Henry David Thoreau
Stan Redmond| 7.23.10 @ 9:51AM
I can't, for the life of me, understand what a liberal thinks when they fight for someone else to control all aspects of their own lives. Is your life so meaningless and useless that you must depend on the government for everything? Even your health? Talk about losers.
DonDuke | 7.23.10 @ 10:33AM
You know Stan, I appreciate what you are saying. What you may be missing is that it is all about power. It has nothing to do with "good intentions" or anything of the sort. It is the "Progressives" desire to dominate the people with their agendas and thus, control the people. That's why they go hand-in-hand with socialists. BTW- interestingly enough, most are the wealthy class (ie. entertainers, George Soros type business people, etc) who do not have to live with the consequences of the liberal agenda when it comes to Health Care, etc.
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:36PM
I guess you're ignorant of GW Bush's comments when attending a swanking crowd gathering for the White House Press dinner. "Welcome to my base, the haves, and the have mores." And, it was so true. Republicans are for the wealthy and fool the poor to believe the opposite, while Democrats are for the people, but can't match the propaganda machine of the Karl "Goebbels" Rovian types.
Tom Osterman| 7.23.10 @ 11:28PM
"...can't match the propaganda machine..."? Give me a break! What do you call the broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, NPR etc., not to mention the NY Times and Washington Post, but propaganda machines for the Left?
You know as well as I do that when "W" made that crack about the "haves, and the have mores" he was throwing a common trope the Left likes back in its face. The Democrats are no more for the people than they are for the Second Amendment.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:56PM
What irritates the right so much is that the Democrats have learned how to play your game, not as good yet, but you are teaching them well. And, since they ARE for the people, when the people see it, you are lost... case in point - unemployment insurance, financial reform, healthcare reform - of the 3, unemployment insurance you cannot argue is 100% for the people, is it not? so sad, too bad - for you.
Rmm| 7.24.10 @ 11:20AM
Your assessments are odorous and so biased as usual. "while Demos are for the people", nice try, but this crop of Dems is for more big govt. control and intrusion into people's lives. Most Americans still believe in the free market system. And want nosey government out of their lives.
FTM| 7.24.10 @ 6:00AM
Actually DonDuke, the healthcare issue is all about helping the helpless for the eight out of ten people that Keynes was talking about when he said that most people are too poorly educated, disintrested or inattentive to take care of themselves and need a strong central government to take care of them. These are the mindless sheep that would rather emote than think. The twenty percent that you have to look out for are the ten percent that are "us" and the other ten percent that are the President Obama, George Soros, Rahm Emanuel types. These are the people that have made up their minds for us and we're just in the way. Beware, that's when the barbed wire goes up and they start building crematoriums, just like they always do.
DanBronx71| 7.23.10 @ 10:29AM
"At one point, Gibson suggested tactics such as following an insurance executive from her "fancy" house to "fancy" lunches to make her hated by Americans."
"His strategy involves getting Hollywood actors, writers, musicians, and comedians to join the fight"... who we all know for a fact do not live in "fancy" houses or eat "fancy" lunches.
mike ames| 7.23.10 @ 10:39AM
Excuse me - if your eyes were open it was clear that the intent was to step (progress!) our way to single payer. If this is not repealed, and quickly, we will have a bloody war on our hands and rightly so as recommended by Jefferson long ago.
Since Woodrow Wilson we have been moving far away from a Constitutionally Limited Republic to a collective Marxist society which is what we are now - hopefully this can be reversed through the ballot box but I doubt it very much. Keep your arms ready.
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:40PM
"Keep your arms ready. " - yeah, that's right, break the law, you moron. That is not what the Founders gave you this government for.
Tom Osterman| 7.23.10 @ 11:32PM
Break what law? The law that says that the People have to submit to tyranny as long as their would-be masters claim a counterfeit legitimacy?
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:53PM
A duly elected President and Congress - what are you talking about? If you knew what you were talking about you would know the people are the masters, period. Last time I looked, we still decide the elections, don't we? Anyone who tells you different is lying for another purpose.
Liberal Reader| 7.23.10 @ 11:38PM
Just call it civil disobedience. No justice no peace. This is fun.
FTM| 7.24.10 @ 6:13AM
Purpleguy, honestly, what do you make of the quote by Thomas Jefferson who said, "the tree of liberty must perodically be watered with the blood of tyrants and the blood of patriots."
I'd just as soon as not, really, honestly never ever have to bring harm to someone else. I've been in that business and truthfully speaking I want no part of any of it.
When Jimmy Carter was the president and the Iranians grabbed the hostages we were loading weapons, cruise missiles, onto the submarines, fast attacks, and the people that I was working with were celebrating. I don't like being around lunatics. Submarine warfare is about as challenging as machine-gunning a daycare. The people that you are attacking don't know that you're there and can't protect themselves from you if they did. Our Navy can't find our submarines, nobody else can either.
The point being, in the event of a national rebellion, on which side do you expect the majority of cops and military to be on? For real man, no kidding, you might as well be standing out someplace in your skin with a big "shoot me here" target painted on your chest.
Even if the cops were on your side thery're outnumbered something like 1700 to 1. Count in the military and the odds improve to something like 500 to 1.
I mean you nor anyone else any harm. Why is it that you feel ethically and morally empowered to inflict your will on me? What did I do to you?
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:50PM
First, let me address Thomas Jefferson:
Yes, he said that - he also violated the Constitution when he engineered the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. You see, when it was logical and expedient, even Thomas Jefferson broke his own principles. And, where would we be without the land that doubled the size of the United States then?
He also said:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." - Notice that the resistance can be wrong, which the Tea Party is now, but I would defend their right to their wrongness, as would Tommy Jefferson.
He also said this:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - do you agree with him?
Now, let me address what my point really was:
"Keep your arms ready. " - yeah, that's right, break the law, you moron. That is not what the Founders gave you this government for. " --- the Founders gave you the tools to have a bloodless revolt - you don't have to take up arms against a government you can vote out of office. The fact you don't like something isn't a reason to revolt.
Elect the people you want, and if you are in the majority, you will win. If you are not, so sad for you. But that's the way the rules work, and for 230 years, it's worked fine. And, NOW you think you are the only generation that is unhappy with government - please?
Even Adolf Hitler figured out that revolt doesn't work ... he took over Germany through the democratic process ... surely you can figure that out now, can't you? He appealed to a nation that was downtrodden and humiliated - and then used it against them for his own mean. That's why everyone turned against Bush after 911. Right after 911 the country was behind Bush - right/left/center - but he squandered the goodwill, and used it against us to win elections using fear, and it when his ineptitude in Iraq and Katrina played out, it ultimately backfired on him and the right wing.
So drop the military, revolution, gun toting screed ... go to the ballot box, make your choices and hope you win. If you lose, be a man and take it. If you win, then I will. It's just that simple.
BillyG| 7.25.10 @ 12:15PM
Revolt doesn't work? Do you know how we became an independent country? And how did the Louisiana Purchase violate the US constitution in 1803?
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 12:14PM
I didn't say revolt doesn't work - but there is no need. Even if you don't like who wins or if I don't like who wins an election, we have a peaceful transfer of authority .. From Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, Bush to Obama, Obama to ? ... no revolution is needed; the ballot box takes care of it.
We became an independent country revolting against the King, an absolute Monarch. What you are advocating is a revolution against your own people, not a King, not a tyranny. You might prefer a Conservative States of America - but we tried something like that in 1861 - it didn't work out so well. And, you want to do that again?
Regarding the Louisiana Purchase:
The US Constitution does not specifically empower the federal government to acquire new territory by treaty, Jefferson concluded that the practical benefits to the nation far outweighed the possible violation of the Constitution. The Senate concurred with this decision and voted ratification on Oct. 20, 1803. The Spanish, who had never given up physical possession of Louisiana to the French, did so in a ceremony at New Orleans on Nov. 30, 1803. In a second ceremony, on Dec. 20, 1803, the French turned Louisiana over to the United States.
BTW - The US Constitution does not empower the Federal Government force States to cooperated in order to create the Interstate Highway either - a similar fact that James Madison fought for regarding the transcontinental railroad at the end of his life. Now, because they were unconstitutional, do you want to give back the LA Purchase? The Transcontinental Railroad? The Interstate Highway System? I would think not.
FTM| 7.26.10 @ 4:30AM
Purpleguy,
I see your point , agreee and thanks for the further education in regards to Jefferson.
Believe it or not a I had a chat with Mr. Jefferson one time. Actually it was an actor at Colonial Williamsburg. The actor had just finished making one of Jefferson's speeches verbatim and when he concluded asked for questions. I asked about his intent in regards to the word "People" as used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, wether "people meant individual people or "people" in a collective sense. Hung the guy up for a couple minutes, he stopped and looked at his shoes and then gave me about a ten minute lecture in regards to the language used in the Constitution and the like, attempting to answer, of course, as the actor believed that Jefferson hould have. According to the Jefferson Actor guy, the framers of the constitution used the word "people" in the sense of the individual.
In regards to questioning the existence of God, quoting the old testament in the Bible, "The fool says in his heart there is no God." Qualifying the statement by saying that I believe that God is a reasonable, rational God. Acknowledge God and as best you can obey God and you need not fear God. Otherwise be afraid, most people, me included have a lot to be afraid for.
Now, lastly, in regards to majorities and minorities in elections, election cycles and the like, suppose that the majority decided that it was OK to abuse the minority in some fashion or another. Jim Crowe type/style laws for example. You realize that Martin Luther King Junior said that a riot was the language of the unheard don't you?
Now, realistically, most all folks realize that in the event that some level of civil government is percieved to have impeded on a civil right in some fashion that the individual or the collective has recourse to the judicial branch for relief. True enough. Suppose that the judicial branch has been stacked, one way or the other as Roosevelt managed during his administration in founding what would ultimately become the modern welfare state. Just an example.
What if there is not time to wait for an election? Take as an example the nuts in Waco, Texas when the government kicked the doors in and started shooting, remember that you're only getting one side of the story. The other side of the story is all dead. What actually happened at the front door before the cameras started recording? Who invited the press to start with, to videotape what should have been a routine service of a warrant and subsequent arrests? The local Sheriff testified that if the FBI had wanted to arrest Koresh that they could have picked the guy up easily when he went out for his morning jog or went into town to buy guitar strings and the like. Are you just supposed to stand around waiting to get shot?
How about the Ruby Ridge Fiasco where the BATFE attempted to trap a licensed gunsmith, claiming that he cut a couple shotgun barrels down too short. Actually the BATFE guys misread their own law, the barrels were cut over the legal limit and ask the judge for a continuance. Mail the guy a court summons when they decide that they might finally have their act together, then somebody, we'll probably never know who, according to the mailman apparently intercepted the guys mail so he doesn't show up for the court appearance. The BATFE send a sniper team out to the gunsmith's farm, which has all of a sudden become a compound, shoot the kids dog, when the kid shoots back they kill the kid. When mom comes to the door to see what all the shooting is about with her patently dangerous, locked and loaded assault baby the shoot her in the head. The reason for the attention to the gunsmith to begin with apparently had to do with wanting the guy to be some kind of informant against the Arian Nation of some such other collection of goof-balls.
In both of these cases government agencies went way, far way out of their way to settle a dispute in the most violent fashion possible and after the smoke settled and the dust cleared got out their bucket of whitewash and the biggest brush in their inventory and dismissed the whole affair. The gunsmith got bought off to the tune of a couple million dollars. There was nobody left alive from the Waco affair to buy off. Everybody on the government side of both of these messes were allowed to retire with the full ride, government Cadillac pensions instead of spending the rest of their natural lives in a Federal Priison someplace.
Remember the MOVE nuts in Philadelphia (If I remember correctly) and when these jokers barracaded themselves in a building and were shooting at the cops they dropped a bomb on their roof setting fire to the building and killing everyone inside.
Now me personally I think that the MOVE situation was warranted, these folks were given a chance to surrender. The other two cases you have American Citizens that were patently denied due process by their government, summarily executed and the perpetrators walked away Scott free.
This is getting to be a rather windy rebuttal, but do you honestly believe that if the Federal Government thought that they could get away with using the American Military against American Citizens under the right set of circumstances, that they would hesitate to do so? Kent State anyone? Whiskey Rebellion anyone?
So, the question is in my mind, at what point is armed rebellion against an established, duly elected government and/or administration warranted? True enough I think that there are a lot of folks that are way too ready to start fights. Me personally, when somebody someplace decides to do something as stupid as to shoot at somebody else, I'm going to try my best to be someplace else as soon as possible.
So, how about you PurpleGuy? What is the broken-back camel point. When is revolt/rebellion warranted?
FTM| 7.26.10 @ 5:16AM
I really ought to quit but what about the OJ Simpson fiasco in LA? Realistically, attitudes and opinions in regards to Simpson aside, had OJ Simpson been a janitor instead of a multi-millionaire athlete he'd be on death row there in California and nobody would care. Instead, his "Dream Team" legal defense pretty much proved that the cops completely bungled the murder investigation and even went so far as to attempt to frame the guy that they had already decided was guilty. In the end everyone involved was allowed to retire and no really hard questions were asked.
Didja hear about the cop in Chicago that was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a drug dealer by a couple FBI guys? The cop spent eighteen or so years on death row awaiting execution. Finally after retiring one of the FBI guys gets the God-Awful crud and confesses literally on death's door to framing the cop. The other cops rounded up the other retired FBI guy and got him to confess too. Imagine that, eighteen years when just any 'ol, day that comes along could be your big day. How do you compensate someone for something that horrific? How come the surviving FBI guy wasn't stood up against a wall and shot?
Really, when does one get to say that enough is enough?
Paevo| 7.23.10 @ 10:54AM
"At one point, Gibson suggested tactics such as following an insurance executive from her "fancy" house to "fancy" lunches to make her hated by Americans."
So she advocates stalking?
Richard| 7.23.10 @ 11:01AM
Yes, because she is a leftist thug.
RCV| 7.23.10 @ 4:34PM
Unless it was James O'Keefe, then he'd be a conservative hero.
Progressives S*ck| 7.23.10 @ 11:13AM
Having trouble understanding Progressives? Try reading DailyKos, motherjones, or reddoglake...their hang-outs. Warning - don't do it right after a meal.
These idiots are as anti-American as they come...and their "citizens of the world" mentality fuels the gimme-mentality of illegal aliens and all other entitlement-minded people. That's a lot of people.
The biggest threat to us right now are our elected officials, who aren't smart enough to understand all the bills written by lobbyists. We must demand that they cease and desist in passing any more legislation. We must now be about the business of dissecting the sewage that has been passed and trying to salvage a country.
John II| 7.23.10 @ 12:51PM
Ohio Republican Congressman John Boehner has suggested a new rule requiring every congressman and senator to read any bill before he (she, it--whatever) votes on it. Good idea, but the only way to enforce the rule would be to quiz the dolts on the content of the bill.
So imagine this: a bill is cobbled together by the usual cabal of fanatics and lobbyists and ideologues and busybodies and all-around degenerates. The bill stretches to well over a thousand pages, even two thousand, whatever.
Every member of Congress is given one week to read and study the bill, with whatever professional help is needed by those who can't read very well. A special 90-minute session of Congress is set aside for every member to sit and take a no-brainer objective exam: if you've truly read the bill, you can't help scoring well on, say, 200 or so multiple choice and true-false questions. If you haven't read the bill or have only skimmed it half-assed, you can't help flunking because there are no bullshit opinion questions.
Anyone with a score less than, say, 90 percent is disqualified from voting on the bill. Anyone who neglects to take the exam is disqualified. Anyone caught cheating is expelled permanently from Congress.
Since the cheating would be rather a strong temptation for a body that includes so many liars and miscreants, certain not-so-extreme precautions would have to be taken. Two or three versions of the exam would have to be distributed in a staggered fashion throughout the assembly, for example. A rotating committee of honest and apolitical high school math and science teachers could be tasked with preparing and administering each exam--intelligent, but also highly skilled at dealing with unruly students.
Of course, if a formal bill needs to be passed to impose this enforced rule of reading, we're once again screwed. Should the Republicans take over in November, would they have the cajones to impose such a rule? Anybody? Anybody?
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 7.23.10 @ 7:07PM
John II: I love your idea, it's great, but it'll never fly, and you know this man!! An example of why it won't work is; "The controversy over whether standardized tests like the SAT and the ACT are fair to ethnic minorities continues to rage. There is considerable opinion that the standardized tests are unfair to African Americans and other minorities".
So now you want to test Congress about the Bills they read, and intend on voting on? And they can't score less than a 90% on these tests? Okay!! Do you really believe that after the first minority Senator/Congressman who fails to get a 90%, isn't going to throw a sh*t fit right there on C-SPAN? Come on now!! You really want them to read these Bills, really understand these Bills, really be able to pass a test about these Bills, and really be able to score above a 90% on these tests? Really John? What have you been drinking today?
And to make matters worse, you actually think they won't still try to cheat? Ha, ha!! They will buy off these so-called "math and science teachers" who set up these tests, with a few Billion dollars stolen from you and me, just to score a 90%. John, "Just Say No, to thinking that you can bring integrity to Washington."
John II| 7.24.10 @ 1:58PM
I think you're right, of course, Lullie--but what if we make 75 percent a passing score? You know--deference to the spirit of grade inflation and all.
Franklin| 7.23.10 @ 8:42PM
Republicans aren't any better than Democrats - throw 'em all out. They are for themselves, not us. Tea Party rules!
John II| 7.24.10 @ 2:04PM
You need to refine your proposition, Franklin. Even some Democrats are better than most Democrats, and quite a few Republicans are better than all Democrats as well as better than most Republicans.
On the other hand, we WOULD be playing it safer if we threw them ALL out.
Oldefarte| 7.23.10 @ 11:15AM
Conservatives MUST UNDERSTAND that this is a WAR. Liberals want to increase governments' legal/political influence over American taxpayer-voters in any way, shape or form that they can [and health insurance is just one example of same]. Conservatives, moderates and other SANE PEOPLE should establish within themselves a warlike mentality to fight liberalism; by [as business owners, managers, executives] hiring, promoting only those potential employees that are NOT POLITICALLY INSANE, IE LIBERAL. Companies and corporations hopefully now are seeing the error of their way in providing campaign money/support of these extreme radicals now running outr government. Banks should have learned their lesson in 1977 with Frank's, Dodd's, Schumer's Credit Reform Act and with their mortgage purchasing of subprime loans by Fannie/Freddie in order to promote their AFFORDABLE HOME welfare schemes, but obviously/sadly did not. Banks, insurance companies, and any/all corporations should now withhold their campaign donations to these liberal extremists-radicals, not only for their own survival, but the survival of this country as a whole. As to single payor WELFARECARE, it was/is nothing but the liberal radicals successful attempt to provide health insurance to 30 million indigents at the expense of the taxpayers having to pay for it!!!!!
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:45PM
Let me guess - an Oldefarte is on Medicare .. go away. 1977? Schumer , Frank and Dodd weren't in Congress then.
Liberal Reader| 7.23.10 @ 11:32PM
It is time for all Democrats to go to Greece. It is the corrupt mecca that they all hope for.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:31PM
I'll go to Greece when you go to your nirvana - Somalia - no government to bother you there .. how about it? No? Why, 'cause you enjoy what this country provides you - you just don't want to pay for it .. I see. Well you will.
Liberal Reader| 7.24.10 @ 5:46PM
Somalia is a little farther down the line from Greece. It is a total kleptocracy. By that point pusses like purplegay figure they may have went a little too far.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:55PM
So you want the government to protect your ass, your property, your livelihood? How about the fire dept, the police, the sanitation dept? How about the schools, the transportation dept? How about the military, the CIA, the FBI? How about the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol? How about Grandma and Grandpa? Wanna throw them to the curb? How 'bout your nephew who was hit by a drunk driver and is on Disability for Life - wanna put him to sleep? How about your autistic child, wanna toss them out, or you want special education and care for them?
Yep, there's a reason you don't want Somalia - but you're a selfish, greedy bastard if you don't want to pay for all the advantages our society brings you.
And, I'll bet the estate tax will never touch you OR your family, nor would a 70% tax rate.... now would it? Those who benefit the most, must pay the most - period. Not equal, more.
Liberal Reader| 7.24.10 @ 7:05PM
Somalia is at the end of purplegay's road. He works for the Charlie Rangels of the world. We provide the money for his shakedowns. There is lots of talk about compassion but behind the scenes is the greed and incompetence of Chicago.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 11:57AM
Pick your poison - you want to go back to the greed and incompetence of Bush? - John Boehner does ... so prepare for another fiscal meltdown if Republicans pick up enough seats to control Congress...
Average Infidel| 7.24.10 @ 7:27AM
Yup, purple turd, you just told us your age. How's that diaper rash going these days, red-diaper-doper baby?
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:29PM
See - your right wing spin machine has hornswoggled the older generation into believing your propaganda, but the youngin's coming up know better. They know you've ruined this country - killed the middle class, alienated the world, piled mountains of debt on us .. and we're wise to you. We aren't so vocal, but when we vote, you know it ... and we're silent now, but 11/02/2010 is right before our finals - and we will pass the voting exam - wait and see.
Purplelemming| 7.25.10 @ 4:17PM
your right wing spin machine has hornswoggled the older generation into believing your propaganda, but the youngin's coming up know better."
The young one's get brainwashed by academia.
The weak-minded get brainwashed by liberal media.
Those who work and produce eventually figure it out, which is why the majority of college graduates vote republican.
The willing accomplices to socialism stay in academia and become part of the Termite Class, eating America's foundation.
Purple-lemming is a shill for what is wrong with America. 4 million jobs lost under Obama, and he blames someone else. 8 millions jobs lost under the Democrat Congress and he blames someone else. $5 trillion in debt under the Democrats....
"They know you've ruined this country - killed the middle class, alienated the world, piled mountains of debt on us .. and we're wise to you. " America IS wise to the FAILURE OF THE DEMOCRATS.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 11:54AM
"The young one's get brainwashed by academia.
The weak-minded get brainwashed by liberal media." - now WHO's blaming someone else?
"Those who work and produce eventually figure it out, which is why the majority of college graduates vote republican " - you ought to check your demographics, Chuckie - it's the college educated "elites" who vote Democratic, those making over 100,000/year. It's the low information voter that votes Republican, since they fall for the bumper sticker mentality, and the Rich. But, it is also true that as people age, they have more, and want to keep it, and tend to be Republican - but not the young'uns ... they are idealistic, not selfish, not greedy - until they are taught by y'all to be so....
Interestingly, you completely left GW Bush out of the mix ... where was he while the Democrats were doing all these bad things? They could do nothing without his signature, or didn't you know how bills get passed in Congress?
Spin it how you like, but the deficits and national debt came from Republican rule over the last 30 years ... take the Republicans away, and we'd be at 35% National debt to GDP, approx. 4-5 Trillion - not 14!!!! Read it and weep, you are wrong - http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So much for conservative fiscal discipline - there ain't no such animal ... hahaha
Oldefarte| 7.24.10 @ 1:43PM
No, Purple Fag, I'm not on Medicare, BUT I'VE PAID FOR IT MY ENTIRE DURING MY 35 YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT! I did not state that Dodd and Schumer were 'in Congress then', MORON; only that they used the CRA as a basis for shoving AFFORDABLE HOUSING welfare down taxpayers' throat. Go back to bowing on hands and knees to your CHOSEN ONE!!!!
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:26PM
"Banks should have learned their lesson in 1977 with Frank's, Dodd's, Schumer's Credit Reform Act" - now how would you interpret what you meant? Huh? Come on, you can apologize ... It's okay, we know, you're an OldeFarte.
Interesting how Dodd and Schumer and Frank shoved anything down anyone's throat when Republicans held the Congressional control of the regulatory and purse strings from 1994 until 2006, which IS the time YOUR TALKING about; a Senior moment, I guess.
And, actually, you didn't actually pay for Medicare until the 1983 overhaul of Social Security under RONALD REAGAN ... so not 35 years; another Senior moment I guess.
Clinton nee Publius | 7.23.10 @ 12:57PM
The reality is this is never going to work. The structure of the economy will not support a single-payor system. I have studied this problem for more than 9 years and here is what I can report:
(1) Government cannot run a single-payor system cost-efficiently. NASA, AMTRAK, Medicare, Social Security and the Post Office are government-mandated monopolies that are always broke, always over budget and always inefficient. They simply exist as a means of patronage for the political class. Remember; government is the only business in the world that has a 100% failure rate in running a MONOPOLY.
(2) Government spending can't be made efficient unless government is structured "exogenously" - as an "outside player" to our economy. For the unlearned amongst us, a rough analogy would be the Queen of England stopping by once a year and handing us a check for the costs of all government spending and requiring nothing in return. This would have the happy results of being "new money" to the economy (that would replace the need for taxation), preventing a recession from ever occurring again (as all that money would be a real stimulus to the economy instead of an added cost burden to the economy) and allowing us to balance spending with the actual fiscal resources.
(3) The current structure of our economy means that government-run health care (single-payor) must be every bit as discriminatory as the commercial banking system. This means some will get it and some won't and the current plan is about discriminating against everyone who is not part of the political class. It's just a corrupt election that you will not be able to change once it is made. Government plans always try to rationalize cost instead of providing rational revenue resources, so it always creates shortages as the primary outcome (look at what's happened to energy production in oil-rich Venezuela and you will see this point amply demonstrated).
The only real solution is to create a system that makes the government our "white knight" (as it does not follow that the Queen would be able to do this favor for us on an ongoing basis, great lady that she might be) and make investments in the private-sector economy (using newly-minted currency for this very purpose) under controlled conditions so that government can't harm our interests in the economy or corrupt our society, and use the resulting income streams these investments provide to pay all our costs of government in the future.
Why this method?
There are only three ways for you to get money and the government has to use these same methods (just like you, me and everyone else). The first is gifts and we know it's not realistic to assume we will give gifts to the government to pay for it - won't happen. The second is theft and the government steals our money and calls it taxation. Stealing is a limited activity and won't work (otherwise we would not have $13 trillion in deficits). This leaves earning. We know government will never earn the money it needs to pay the costs of government (look at NASA, AMTRAK and the Post Office), so there is only one choice - one way out of this mess. There are no other alternatives and this is the most important part to understand as what we are otherwise talking about all MUST end in failure.
We have to have an investment income method that will work and the only one that offers all of the protections we would need and all the benefits we would seek is provided through Lovellian economics. In terms of the outcome Lovellian Economics provides for health care is a program that provides 100% coverage and pays all costs on a fiscally-responsible basis with no deficits and no rationing of care. The cost per person works out to $30 per month and a copayment of 2% on all care, therapies, tests, medicines - electives have a copayment of 7%. You can't get that with the current structure of the economy; you can only get that by making government exogenous and that can only happen within the free-market structure provided by Capitalism Version 2.0 (Lovellian Economics).
At least you have a choice now. The rest is about actually doing something about it or accepting the consequences of your own lack of purpose in this matter.
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:48PM
Your first 3 points are wrong, so the rest is so much confusion that amounts to nothing, least of all a choice.
Liberal Reader| 7.23.10 @ 11:29PM
Single payer is unsustainable. Only those who live in a total fantasy world believe that it could work. Anybody that can add sees big trouble for our country due to already existing entitlements. Adding more entitlements reflects mental illness. The lefty class will bring poverty and collapse. It is time to rid ourselves of these parasites.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:19PM
Spoken like one with good healthcare -- you got yours, so f__k everyone else. Problem is, what we had was unsustainable, and you too eventually would be priced out of your healthcare... you should take your head out of the sand. Private enterprise isn't going to take care of you or yours, unless they make plenty off of you. They spend 33% of their dollars in overhead, marketing and sales ... while Medicare spends 4% on overhead... now tell me which is more cost effective - just that one comparison ought to make you wonder ...
Liberal Reader| 7.24.10 @ 5:50PM
It never occurs to morons like purplegay that he and his fascist buddies are guaranteed to make things worse. It is the fantasy land he lives in. Lefties have never done well at running anything except shakedown operations.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:48PM
No, it means you will be made to share, like good little kids - you know we have to be taught that to live in this society. You would prefer the dog-eat-dog society, only because you think you are a Big Dog and will keep yours. But, you are so wrong - trouble is when your rude awakening occurs, it will be too late, and you will have to go on public dole and eat your words and live down your shame that you didn't help others when you could. Not to mention when you meet your maker - if you go the right direction, if you get my drift.
Liberal Reader| 7.24.10 @ 6:52PM
Purplegay thinks that stealing money from his enemies and giving it to his friends will get him into heaven. Typical shakedown artist.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 11:40AM
Now, we're enemies? I thought we're all Americans? What American ideals are you following? Can't we agree to disagree, amicably?
Clinton nee Publius | 7.24.10 @ 12:56PM
As if anyone would believe you to be an arbiter of truth. Here's a news flash for you: your opinions - like your life - don't matter to anyone but you.
Doug Foote | 7.24.10 @ 9:28AM
Investment income is the way out, but not for the government to do it. Government involvement in an activity always scews it.
The investment income should come from the individual, such as HSAs (Health Savings Accounts). Insurance is about protecting against future events, not prepaying for the common. So, insurance should be high deductable. Monies put into the HSA is kept by the person tax free, to be used for medical needs, not controled by some government entity.
I trust the decisions made by indiduals for their own sakes versus the decisions made by one bureaucrat for the rest of us.
Clinton nee Publius | 7.24.10 @ 12:59PM
Good point and the beauty of the Lovellian model is that it is self-regulating and self-sustaining in nature, so government is forced to undertake policies in strict conformance with Rational Choice Theory. This means if government screws up it only hurts government, while the rest of us benefit. In this system, government makes no decisions for us and can only exist in an "at-risk" role - if it can produce a service on a more cost-efficient basis than the private-sector then it can obtain revenue. If it doesn't then the private-sector automatically garners the business.
This outcome is completely consistent with our goals and requirements for both fiscal appropriations and macroeconomics as the system provides the structure to allow the provision of all entitlements by the private sector. Part of the problem is that whenever the government has a monopoly, then the corruption and stealing always ensue. Lovellian economics puts an end to these problems.
dw| 7.23.10 @ 1:04PM
E-GADS.... The sum of their brain power couldn't run that stupid bunny. But the bunny is smarter...
Sorry about insulting the bunny...
dw| 7.23.10 @ 1:06PM
The health care bill is designed to ruin private insurance leaving the government option as the only option. Why don't they already know that?
JP| 7.23.10 @ 1:24PM
The President virtually assured rationing on a grand scale on account of the huge budget defecits he and his allies in Congress are running. I posed yesterday that for FY2011-12, Medicaid obligations for the first time will be more than what we pay for defence. And by 2015, the combined Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security spend will top $3 trillion combned. Next, add in the interest payments on our $13+ trillion debt (almost $1 trillion) and the remainder of the federal budget. By 2015, the federal budget alone will consume between $7 and $8 trillion of our GDP. That is a recipe for financial collapse painted over a very large canvas.
In that case, no matter what any future president or lawmaker decides the downside will be catastrophic. Since by 2015, the federal government will be the biggest game in town, any attempt at austerity could send us into a deflationary recession. If taxes are increased in proportion of our obligations, the GDP will also recede (since the government cannot create wealth, but only consume it). The Federal Reserve can only keep quantitative easing going for another year tops. And such a long period of 0% interest will only result in inflation and bubble creations. Inflation consumes wealth as much as taxes do.
The Netroot wingnuts haven't yet realized it, but the party is over; the gravy train left the station 2 years ago. Sure they can nationalize health care all they want. There just won't be any health care to left to control.
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:50PM
Economic mish-mash and scare tactics. Did you worry about the deficits that 3 Republican presidents and Congresses ran up over the last 30 years? Of course not... just a ploy, enjoy your toy
Liberal Reader| 7.23.10 @ 11:22PM
Purplegay spews the typical corporatist nonsense. He might have some kind of point if it weren't for Obama. On all government fronts Obama reaches new levels of incompetence. He is just a loser shakedown artist from Chicago. No number of dim wits like Purplegay can change that.
John II| 7.23.10 @ 11:28PM
Surely not, Purp. Those measly little Republican deficits were a far tinier proportion of the GDP. (That's scientific economic talk, Purp: it means God Damn Pretensions.)
Let me make it relatively simple even for you, Purp. Suppose I purchase my house in 1979 for $70,000. About ten years later, when I owe less than $60,000 on the house, someone tells me that my house is now worth $190,000. Meanwhile, my income has gone from, say, $16,000 per annum to $40,000 per annum, and my wife, not being a low-IQ feminist, announces that she wants to stop working and stay home with the kids--or more precisely, she simply informs me: "Guess what? You're now the sole support of the family."
Things having changed, as they are wont to do in a dynamic market economy, I suddenly realize that I can be a man and support my family--with the slight boost of a loan against the acquired equity on the house. I incurred a debt of $70,000 to buy the house, the balance of the debt is somewhat under $60,000, and the new value of the property is $190,000. Suddenly I realize, indeed, that I have a small fortune of $130,000 in addition to an income that's increased almost threefold.
So I refinance the house in such a manner that my debt obligation increases to $100,000, from a relatively modest $60,000. In other words, I now owe a whopping $100,000. And yet that new debt is a much smaller portion of what the secured property is worth than was the old debt relative to the purchase price of the house.
Now (wake up, Purp--I know this is boring, but you need to learn something), suppose instead that, under really bizarre laws foisted on lending institutions by lefty fiat, I borrowed, say, $300,000 against a secured property with a market value of $190,000. Suppose as well that I only needed $40,000 to supplement our income over several years so that my wife could stay home with all those kids. But I wanted the extra $260,000 so that I could buy extra cars, a boat, plush vacations, and a cash-down vacation house, and use whatever is left to make the payments on the original mortgage in order to . . . well, in order to, as the saying goes, live beyond my means.
In this brief anecdote, I offer to your struggling intellect a two-fold explanation: (1) why a deficit of itself is meaningless unless measured against productive capacity and real obligations, and (2) how the recession that started in 2007 ballooned into the catastrophe of 2008 and is being severely worsened and prolonged by the imbecilities of 2009 and 2010.
Simple, no?
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 5:15PM
No! Because of course you're wrong, but you ignore the facts. You're simply listening to spin an you have drunk the Kool-Aid - your little scenario notwithstanding. Deficits do matter - but -
Unemployment causes people far more pain. And remember, unemployment (and business being off) make the debt go up -- that's what they call an automatic stabilizer. That has been built in because politicians are too slow to help out (especially Rs).
Economy goes down ==> tax collection goes down automatically ==>
(1) This helps the economy and limits unemployment, but ...
(2) It increases debt.
Then when we get well -- when the economy recovers -- we are supposed to pay for the medicine. Problem is, that after the Reagan and GW recessions we didn't. This time we better -- after we get well. All the rest is blather, interesting, but doesn't address the real problem.
If you look at a National Debt to GDP ratio graph - and let me make this simple for you - you just have to Google it and presto ! in 2 seconds you will have the answer; really u should try it.
Now back to the debt. From the end of WW II, the % ratio went down from 122% to 39%.
In the Reagan and Bush I years, the % debt to GDP went up from approx. 39% to a whopping 66% of GDP ! Now that's an eye opener. Did you care then? Nope.
The % national debt to GDP went down from 66% to 55% under Clinton.
But up we go again under Baby Bush. from 55% of National Debt to GDP to 75% !!! Did you care then? Nope.
Now, of course, the debt % to GDP continuing to rise under Obama, approx 87% National Debt to GDP - but that is temporary and now is NOT the time to scale back - until people go back to work.
And, tax cuts for the wealthy are NOT what generates economic growth - the rich will always have their money. Trickle down economics doesn't work - it's been tried for almost 30 years, and we have a less prosperous middle class than ever. FDR's policies laid the framework for the growth of the middle class.
What is the engine of economic growth then? It's innovation folks - that's what America excels at - Innovation. Whether it's the cotton gin the telephone, the electric light, the assembly line, the airplane, the aircraft carrier, the radio, the computer, the transistor, the television, the space program, the personal computer or the Internet, it was always innovation coming from America that drove our economy.
We're near unstoppable now as an economic engine, but if we ever get our collective heads screwed on right, and have a joining of business and government into an overall industrial policy to create America, Inc. no one will ever challenge us. We should lower the Corporate tax rate, but raise the tax rates on the wealthiest, keeping tax rates modest on the majority of Americans. The Bush tax cuts for the top 5% of the country should expire, and the estate tax should be reinstated. There are plenty of ways to pass a small business to your child without them inheriting it directly, so that's a red herring in the estate tax argument - and that is the only argument presented.
Single-payer healthcare would be a good thing, ask anyone on Medicare today - yeah, we need to pay for it, sure, but then we would make business more competitive as well, not just a healthier society.
Liberal Reader| 7.24.10 @ 5:53PM
Purplegay can no longer control his inner fascist. Like all lefties before he plans perfections while delivering nothing but shakedowns and incompetence.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:45PM
Blah, blah, woofie - did you say something ?
Liberal Reader| 7.24.10 @ 6:54PM
I know you are all enthused today after Obama's feeding of the trolls but you need help. Try troll rehab. There is still time to have some kind of meaningful life. It can't be found goosestepping behind leftist clowns like Obama.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:59AM
You really ought to read something NOT promoted by Fixed News... Commies are on the left, Fascists are on the right ... go learn something and stop showing your ignorance of world and American history.
BillyG@aol.com| 7.25.10 @ 12:30PM
Purpleguy, you like to say you support facts, but you're what you're saying is just more lies.
Fact: When Bush left office, debt-to-gdp was 61%, not 75%. Fact, when Bush entered office, it was 58%. Fact, the middle class grew under Reagan, and Bush 1 and Bush 2. Trickle down economics? Reagan and Bush 2 cut taxes for EVERYBODY, not just the rich. Fact, the estate tax also harms Farms and even for small businesses there is no way to inherit a business directly or indirectly without getting taxed for it. There's more I could do to disassemble your wild claims, but I'm bored reading your vitrol.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 10:12AM
Go look it up for yourself - if you can read the graph
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html; learn something, then spout real facts.
Wrong on inheritance ... A co-owner of a business does not pay tax when a partner dies, it is theirs, lock, stock and barrel.
The small farmer is a small and shrinking factor in American life .. Corporate farming is the norm, and they are not poor, by any means.
Trickle down? You mean Voodoo Economics, don't you? Even David Stockman - you remember him - agreed with Papa Bush, and was "taken to the woodshed" by Reagan ... You can look that up to while your at it.
All you are spouting is the carefully constructed narrative of the conservative view of history, presupposing they are 100% correct - as if they have no agenda to indoctrinate y'all to be good little Bundists to march in lockstep to your Republican masters. Keep repeating endlessly their drivel, and because you want to pay NO taxes, it appeals to your greedy, selfish parts. The same parts apparently that are happy to throw the unemployed into the streets by not extending unemployment, and throwing Grandpa and Grandma into the streets by repealing Social Security and Medicare, as long as you save on your taxes.
But also by oh so increasing the military budget (as if 10 times more spent on defense than ANY other country in the world is not enough -( talk about waste, fraud and abuse), but not through taxes, no, through BORROW and SPEND... the Republican party is the BORROW and SPEND party ... that's fer sure. Yeah, you had 2 seconds when Reagan pushed for smaller government, and then gave up and spent, spent, spent ....
You can dissemble my wild claims, but please present facts, backed up by links ... or it's all just blather coming out of your you know what....
Clinton nee Publius | 7.24.10 @ 1:00PM
Somewhere a communist village is missing its idiot.
BillyG| 7.25.10 @ 12:21PM
"3 Republican presidents and Congresses". Um, Reagan never had a Republican congress, neither did Bush 1. It wasn't until Clinton with a Republican congress that we had a surplus and it wasn't until we had a Democrat congress again that the deficit ballooned.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 11:22AM
So let me see ... when we have a Republican President, 20 of the 30 years since Reagan started (and he did have a Republican Senate for part of his term), they have to sign the bills, spending and all, into law, or veto them - now I'd say they went along to get along, wouldn't you? When we had a Democratic President - Clinton, he signed what the Republican Congress passed, and that left us, from Reagan thru Baby Bush a deficit of 12 Trillion dollars - and NOW you're complaining, after the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression? Take your head out of your a__. Go look up WHO created the deficits before you open your mouth and prove your intelligence... http://zfacts.com/p/318.html;
FeralCat| 7.23.10 @ 2:32PM
Now Obama is hot on health care
He’s made it his personal affair
National Socialist the country will be
As he goosed-stepped all over the Constitution, said he
‘cause you see, if it brings more power to me
Then the misery it brings, is something you must all just grin and bare
John II| 7.23.10 @ 6:07PM
The lyrics aren't bad but I'm drawing a blank on the rhythm--which is what? Is it from Gilbert and Sullivan? As in . . .
Taken from Chicago's wards
By a set of curious messes;
Liberated from the bards,
Who normally control the presses;
Wafted by the slobbering sense
Of a culture cut away from mooring,
The people truly can be dense,
If you dazzle them with rhetoric soaring;
Surely, never had a pol,
By producing idiotic trances,
So adventurous a ball,
With such empty songs and dances.
Defer-r, Defer-r . . . to the Lord High Demo Huckster!
Defer-r, Defer-r . . . to the Lord, to the Lord, to the Lord High Bama, to the Lord Obama High!
John II| 7.23.10 @ 10:55PM
I can't remember the rhythm either, but the last verse is clearly in need of a revision:
Defer-r, Defer-r . . . to the Lord, to the Lord High Bomb, to the Lord O-bama High!
Pat Fields | 7.23.10 @ 8:12PM
I put my foot down about a decade ago and I'm literally prepared to die rather than succumb to this slavery. I will NOT 'contribute' a picosecond of my labor in support of this 'health-care' boondoggle! If no doctor will dare to address an ailment that might befall me ... so be it.
There will be NO MARK in my forehead nor on my hand!
Purpleguy| 7.23.10 @ 8:52PM
Okay, don't ... bye!
John II| 7.23.10 @ 10:31PM
Purp! What an unpleasant surprise! You pop out of your hole at the most unexpected times!
Anyhow, I wanted to respond to your insulting reference to me as "Ms. Grammarpus" or "Miss Grammarpuss." Have you made up your mind yet on the correct spelling?
Select one or the other, Purp, but have a care. With more than enough evidence of a hate crime, I must warn you to anticipate reception of a letter from my attorney, as soon as she gets out of law school.
Pat Fields | 7.24.10 @ 9:31AM
In retort to ‘Purpleguy’ …
You write with the smug confidence that no one would rise up behind me in similar revolt ... but your confidence is purely delusional.
The People recognize that Collectivism is another name for Slavery by clever substitution of euphemism. The unfolding rejection of this Administration’s Marxist agenda is only the early budding re-birth of genuine Capitalist social structure.
To paraphrase one of your ‘heros’ … it is rather We The People who will bury YOU!
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:44PM
You mention mark on your forehead, so I presume you are a religious man. Is this how Jesus would want you to consider your fellow man, your brother. Are you not your brother's keeper? Are you not supposed to be charitable to the poor and indigent? Do you think you can take it with you?
Why is it okay to tell a woman, and be forced, she cannot have an abortion, or that 2 people in love may not marry because their plumbing is not right, but it is not okay for you to be told you must join all and pay for your healthcare by that same government?
You're right, We the People, rule! You simply don't like the rules ... and that's so sad, and too bad - for you.
Liberal Reader| 7.24.10 @ 6:58PM
Purplegay represents about 20% of the population. When you take out the mentally ill and sub normal IQs that leaves about 1%. Being a troll he is not part of the 1%. Seek help purp before it is too late.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:54AM
Wrong, I represent the silent majority sitting back and watching what's happening ... Screeds of violence if you don't get your way, wanting to return to the policies of GW Bush (John Boehner just announced that in so many words), running extremists like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul ( have you heard things they've said - actually HEARD them speak? OMG), the obstructionist policies of the Republicans in Congress - and on the other side, the Recovery Act which, with the TARP program passed by Bush together stopped another Great Depression, the HCR bill, and Financial Reform package, the 20Billion Oil Spill Fund, Strategic Arms treaty with Russia, 2 Supreme Court Moderate Justices, and you think they are voting with you ? HA! 11/02/2010 can't come soon enough for me.
John II| 7.25.10 @ 6:41PM
Gospel of Purp: And Jesus responded: "Amen I say to you, unless you kill your children you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."
I dunno, Purp. That just doesn't sound right.
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:54AM
What???
Crooz8er| 7.23.10 @ 11:26PM
Purplefag must get paid by the post. Man what a douche.
Purpleguy| 7.24.10 @ 6:38PM
No, you people are just so wrong and uninformed in your right wing echo chamber, this is ripe and easy targets for the actual facts ... I wonder how many of you actually research any facts or do you just nod your head like good little Bundists when Rush or Glenn or Sean spew forth their pearls of destruction (laughing all the way to the bank at your ignorance of your own history, I might add) ... There's a reason we've had only one possible conservative President since the 20th Century began. And it wasn't because the media of the day was owned by Corporatists with an agenda like today....!
Oldefarte| 7.25.10 @ 10:38AM
No, PURPLEMORON, it's because the liberal Democrats have controlled our national government [senate, house and presidency] for my entire lifetime, until Reagan. And why is that, you ignorant imbicile asks? Simple, because most taxpayers were too busy spending 24-7 working, raising families, paying taxes, building public schools, attending churches,etc to be concerned with politics. Furthermore they were daily brainwashed by the MSM likes of each/every newspaper that they read and TV news programs that they watched [ever heard of Huntley/Brinkley, Murrow, Kronkite,Smith, etc dumbars?]. Alternatively, the liberal, extremist domestiv terrorist networks in this country, being not so encumbered by having to work for a living [but rather only having to go to their nearest government offices to collect their welfare goodies provided by same taxpayers] wer busy plotting, scheming,etc to elect these liberal idiots like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton,etc, along with the multitudes of liberal Democrat congressmen. That should 'SPLAIN IT TOS YA, IMBICILE!!!!!
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:45AM
Then please 'splain it to me - y'all long for the America of the Founders. What "America" do you long for? What is it you want to go back to? Since Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses have ruled America for the last 30 years, what is it you miss of America - you miss the America you lived in most of your life, that's what, left to you by FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ. You are now living in the America that Republican control and policies have wrought - the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, a dirty environment, unsafe food, and even unsafe toys for our kids, few allies in the world and loss of standing in the world as well, and stagnant living standards for most (but not the Rich, that's fer sure).
What you long for is the America before that idiot Reagan ... who started us down the deregulation path that hurt us now... where he raised taxes 6 times, but did not cut the size and government and increased the % debt to GDP from 35% to 5o% !! He even said deficits don't matter ! And, now the Chickens come home to roost. In fact, the % National Debt to GDP went from 35% to a whopping 75% under the Republicans!!! Yep, good stewards of the financial house, huh?
In addition, we don't have journalism on display nowadays on 24 hour cable, or the internet blogosphere - we have a good slice of infotainment and punditry. Hard news is hard to find on cable, but you knew that, right? And, so what you get is a stilted view of your history, your life, and current events. You can listen to what you want to hear, and many of the conservative outlets appeal to the worst in people - "what's mine is mine" - you teach your kids that?
"arming yourself against the government man at the door" - Really? - another great lesson for your children?
"All liberals hate America" - so you would promote that to your children? You do know that the Madrasses teach Islamic children to hate America, right? You want to promote the idea that Americans should hate other Americans? Is that even Christian?
So 'splain it to us, dittohead, yeah, go ahead.
Boldhawk| 7.24.10 @ 12:52AM
The Oligarchy is alive and well; it continues to keep the rank and file blind to the fact that THEY are driving the two sides of the discussion down at the rank and file level, while the real issue isn't even addressed, and the bulk of the chatter is name-calling and personal attacks.
How about what the public wants? versus what the Oligarchy wants? They want to keep control, so they count on the innate small mindedness of a segment of the population, to distract the rest of us.
What is best for the American People so every one can have good health care that is not dependent on corporate decisions totally based on profit, as that is the stockholders' mandate. But the stock holders are the Oligarchy. . . Who in the rank and file has enough clout to influence a corporation these days?
What's better than single payer, where all will be covered for any illness or health problem?
John II| 7.24.10 @ 1:33AM
Multiple payers, where each will intelligently and responsibly solicit competent help for particular illnesses or health problems.
Pat Fields | 7.24.10 @ 11:47AM
Boldhawk Cite: "(S)tock holders are the Oligarchy. . . Who in the rank and file has enough clout to influence a corporation these days?"
Given that corporations exist at the behest of government authorization, you might petition the Lying Marxie Kenyan Usurper Alien Cockroach to immediately negate all corporate charters.
There you go! Dragon slayed in one fell swoop! No more 'Oligarchy'!
This whole 'Tax the Rich' mentality only plays to the intractably vapid in society because ALL tax devolves onto the consumer ... after the government leeches add their hidden tax of monetary inflation.
Osamas Pajamas| 7.25.10 @ 4:21PM
"Single payer" is an act of theft and I advocate that thieves and those who advocate thievery should be shot dead where they stand. You like the use of force by government so you should not complain about the use of force by the government's intended victims --- the taxpayers who will have to pay for so-called "single payer" [socialized medicine]. We can't have two sets of rules under which the government can run around threatening people with guns and jail --- and not have those people who are threatened by the government "not" shoot the threateners dead. That would be unfair, now, wouldn't it?
Yosemeti Sam| 7.24.10 @ 2:42AM
" ... Netroots Nation conference ...."
IOW, an ant farm meeting of the minds - oblivious to the real world.
FTM| 7.24.10 @ 4:44AM
Look, this is another soloution looking for a problem, really.
What conservitives need to do is to set up a nation wide single payer health care program with voluntary participation. Provide adequate start-up seed money to operate the program for a couple years, say four at the most, three or four hundred billion dollars. Recruit all the nut-case progressives that advocate/agitate for this foolishness to establish the ground rules and the like. Let the liberals select the best and brightest from among their own ranks to establish the system. Make sure that all the illegal aliens are allowed to participate in the system at will. Allow the young and healthy to sign up when they come down with the god-awfuls or get banged up. Establish the idyllic leftist utopia in microcosm. The hook being that once you're in the program you're in for ten years or so. Something along those lines. Like when you bid on a job at the factory, you can't bid out again for a year. Something like that.
Make sure that the leftist loons that establish the operating rules are the same leftist loons that sit on the control boards, rationing boards, death panels, whatever you want to call these decision makers.
Once a system like this is established then it's up to the likes of the musicians and actors and all the other do-gooders to put up or shut up, get into the program and participate or be made to look like the hypocrit that these people are to begin with. Nazi Pelosi and all the other nuts. Get with the program by signing up for the program along with all the other congenitally worthless, sick, lame and lazy. Make sure that all the folks in San Fran-sicko get signed up. The rest of the left coast for that matter. I'm sure that the do-gooders that sign up for the program will be rapidly stripped of their wealth because their fellow travelers "need" their wealth more than they do. The entire system will crash, predictably, of it's own accord shortly after being implemented, totally bankrupt. What other possible outcome could there be?
Set up a system like this and show these people for what they are. Set the trap, are there no other hunters here? Make these idiots demonstrate an operable system. Force them out into the open where they can then destroy themselves. Read Sun Tsu, this is how it's done.
"When your enemy seeks to destroy himself, try to staty out of the way." Something to that effect anyway.
The other side of the coin is that the progressives might actually just produce a working system. The odds are stacked against but sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
bluecollarbytes| 7.24.10 @ 8:17AM
Single-payer govt-owned health-care in California might be a good thing, pushing it, Finally, over the cliff- providing a stark lesson for the rest of America.
I encourage the nutrooters to be LOUD, be OBNOXIOUS, be yourselves. This crucial debate needs your clarification. Tell us as well what you have planned for the rest of us once you've grabbed our health care freedoms for no other reason than controlling the people, moving your own cliques up in the pecking order of power, status, and yes- wealth.
I await with bait-like breath for the nutrooters' updated lists of approved foods, cars, trucks, clothing, religions, child-rearing techniques, educational goals, landscaping, and ideologically-acceptable energy resources (a constantly moving target as the nutrooters contain elements of opposition to Every energy technology known to man...and if not now....just give it time...they always come around to opposing them).
We should have had this debate in 07/08, but John McCain threw the opportunity away, leaving us with Obamagenda. It's not been the typical politicians leading us out of this mess. It's been the Tea Party folks who've decided to fight for the U.S. they love. To date, most political careerists on the Republican side seem focused on their careers.
A 'slower' road to hell still gets you there. If Republicans try the 'compassionate' route again, the nutrooters and Obamaphiles will only redouble their efforts, accusations, and demands- backfilled by a compliant media.
We are in the middle of a civil civil war that will determine whether we remain a land of the free individual.
k962| 7.24.10 @ 9:51AM
Its not about healthcare it's about POWER!
DonDuke | 7.24.10 @ 10:46AM
Thanks K962...... glad you get it too.... see my comments above. All it's about is power, not the good of the people or the poor or those who can't afford or don't care about healthcare. It's all about POWER. Period!
Nancy in NC| 7.24.10 @ 9:49PM
purpleguy...SEIU guy perhaps??
The problem with the health care bill is how so little of it is about health care. Every day we find another little nugget that has more to do with control than health care. The same will probably be true about the finance bill.
We are not Europe. In fact, many of our forefathers left Europe to escape the collective form of government. We didn't want a king or despot to care for us or tell us what to do. They were individuals that craved liberty and the opportunity to stand on their own two feet. However, the progressives started feeding the masses with the Kool-Aid of dependency and it really caught on with many. There is a culture that depends on the government to do everything for them, from cradle to grave.
However, there still remains the core of America that wants to be free and succeed or fail on their own merit. I believe in CHARITY. However, the government doesn't do charity...they do legal plunder.
If we continue to punish those who do succeed by taxing them to death, they will follow in the footsteps of those that took their business and left the country. USA is no longer a pleasant place to do business. Over regulation and over taxation has placed a burden on small business. Purpleguy needs to look at Detroit and see what happens with the socialism experiment when it tandems up with big unions.
The government has botched up every avenue they enter. Social Security, a bad idea to start with, is filled with boxes of IOUs. The Post Office is a disaster. Amtrak...a joke.
The census is one those adventures by the government that is another disaster. I bet the count will be off by millions, but it won't be for the lack of spending money. My daughter just finished working for the census, and she related what a boondoggle and bureaucratic nightmare it was. I know a number of people that work as federal employees aboard a nearby military base, and know about government waste and fraud.
The system is broken; not even a shell of what was intended by the Founders. Once those in power realized they could vote money for themselves and their voters, we were finished as a Republic. And the fault lies mainly with the voters that keep reelecting these thieves and idiots to fulfill their own selfish wants without a care of what is good for the country...just as long as they get their piece of the stolen pie.
tedh754| 7.24.10 @ 11:52PM
Let me see if I understand this. Insurance companies are corrupt, but the state with the power to tax and destroy are to be trusted with our health care. These are the same people who distrust the government when it comes to use of our military. If this comes to pass, I want to be there when the first aging lib is denied care due to his or her age. Suckers! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 4:40PM
Government already runs healthcare - it's called Medicare, and seniors love Medicare ... ask one. So you're just spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt to make your point, which is faulty. And who distrusts the military? 87% of Americans put the military at the top of the list of trusted institutions.... do you know anything?
martin j smith| 7.25.10 @ 7:58AM
Why would a government pass legislation in an election year that is extremely unpopular. That is the question that everyone should ask themselves.
In partial answer to this question I submit the following non brilliant idea: Get ready for the most viscious Political campaign you have ever experienced in your life.
There is another matter: The Democrat Lef knows the unpopularity full well but there plan is to get as much on the books as possible year after year-- till they have the American people by their necks.
thus it will take a great deal of courage,calmness,clear thinking and non panic--of leaders with have stratgery on the front burner. As other have said this is political warfare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No water polo.
Liberal reader ?
Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 4:42PM
You mean leaders like John Boehner who wants to go back to the Bush policies of those 8 years? Good luck with that ...
Tenn Slim| 7.25.10 @ 9:37AM
The entire message, "we are going to lose our control, our social dreams, our reason de terre' for being, and above all the Leftist Love Fests, like the Las Vegas convention. " W/o a dream, w/o a idealogical purpose, these Leftists would be out of the funding stream and actually have to get a paying job.
Refer you all to Vermont, quietly going about the Single Option Legislation for thier socialistic state. Watch the pros at work in Vermont. They have been at this since Ethan Allen days.
end
Samuel Adamas| 7.25.10 @ 4:00PM
Reid says we're gonna have a "publ;ic option" --- socialized medicine after the OhBummer Wrecking Crew bankrupts all the insurance companies. Nah. I have a better idea. Let's call out the Sons of Liberty and have a lynching. Nothing better celebrates the end of despotism than a gang of dictators swinging on the ends of ropes.
Proofreader| 7.25.10 @ 4:25PM
Typin' wit yer elbows, are ye?
SAMUEL ADAMS| 7.25.10 @ 4:02PM
Reid says we're gonna have a "public option" --- socialized medicine after the OhBummer Wrecking Crew bankrupts all the insurance companies. Nah. I have a better idea. Let's call out the Sons of Liberty and have a lynching. Nothing better celebrates the end of despotism than a gang of dictators swinging on the ends of ropes.
Whippity Flippit| 7.25.10 @ 4:22PM
The Democrats have this "enemies list" --- denominated in epithets aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a “Racist!” and you can be a “Homophobe!” and you can be a “Teabagger!” --- a homosexual man taking his partner’s scrotum into his mouth. You can be “Selfish!” and you can be a “Hick!” and you can be a “Rube!” You can be a “Right-wing-nut!” and you can be "Unenlightened!" and you can be a “Fascist!” --- although no one more closely approaches the precise description of “Fascist!” than the usual Demo propagandist --- either official, or self-appointed.
So all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Demos” enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech. Insist on all these good things - and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum --- by The Friends of All Mankind --- by a gang of lying, thieving, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thugs --- by the Democrat party, in other words. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction.
John Locke| 7.25.10 @ 4:23PM
What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!
But the Democrats believe in "statism" --- not "liberalism."
They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology ---- we say "the government" here in the USA ---- rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism ---- this last is sort of a mix of fascism and socialism.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government ---- it is a constabulary ---- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the inalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ----The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago ---- and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.
It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.
Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?
Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity! Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then ---- and kick over the bloody coffee tables --- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2010 and 2012!
Four Strong Winds| 7.25.10 @ 4:25PM
OhBummer is a boob and a fool for attacking the American Tea Partiers. He is annoyed that they’re not grateful to him for hijacking the American healthcare system --- the greatest act of vandalism perpetrated upon the American people since a gang of jihadi frootloops and loonytoons hijacked some planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, and made a failed attempt to crash into the White House and instead drilled a hole in a Pennsylvania farm thanks to some very courageous American passengers.
And --- now widely seen for what he is --- the president presents a problem for the Democrat-captured media. They pump out his propaganda for him --- and, like the opinion monitors in Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” --- they are dodging brickbats and rotten vegetables.
He’s pompous, pampered, and pretentious --- a pseudo-intellectual fop. He’s a glorified, smooth-lyin’ dandy, and slicker than Sick Willie Clinton. He’s a dictator-on-the-make, a bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thug, and a low-down skunk.
He’s a fraud and a swindler. He lies when he inhales and he lies when he exhales; his oxygen is the falsification of reality. He lies, placidly and laconically, as if deception were a soporific drug.
He’s a friend of the poor and the downtrodden --- indeed, you can hear the milk of human kindness sloshing around inside of him when he walks.
He declares himself the post-racial leader --- “Let me be clear!” he intones --- and he hides behind his race, daring his critics to put their reputation for fairness at risk.
He pauses to ponder the portent of his propaganda --- and it is fakery; he smiles and his mendacity comes shining through. Shake hands with Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer --- “The Mistake of ‘08” --- the illegal alien squatter in the White House --- and America’s first and last Arab president. Now count your fingers.
fantum| 7.25.10 @ 7:16PM
It is becoming clear that OBAMA IS A MUSLIM DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AMERICA UNDER MARXISM and with deference to Muslim Law. In order to do this he must cause the collapse of our current government, family-values and freedoms.
OBAMA IS ALLOWING THE BORDER INVASION TO CONTINUE POURING DRUGS, CRIMINALS, MEXICAN GANGS AND MILLIONS OF FREELOADERS INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY.
What better way to bring America down that to bow to Islam, abandon our allies, ignore our security, degrade our military, increase racial tensions and place huge, unsustainable debit on the American taxpayers.
Islam - The Religion of Peace...
http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=87879868
Muslim Heritage...
http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=16782107
JeffT| 7.27.10 @ 2:50PM
Does anyone ever ask these roots why they want to copy failed systems, whether it's health care, economy, etc.? They can't rally believe these failed programs are going to work, so what's really at work here?
electric scooters from china | 11.20.10 @ 5:05AM
It is becoming clear that OBAMA IS A MUSLIM DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AMERICA UNDER MARXISM and with deference to Muslim Law. They can't rally believe these failed programs are going to work, so what's really at work here?
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 2:19AM
Would you be so understanding if two or three armed KKK members treated black voters in the same threatening way? Hmmmmm?
And if not, why not, Sue? Careful, your ugly liberal bigotry toward white folks is showing. Shame on you, hypocrite.