Health Insurance

[Crowforge]

We don't own anything public, it's public. Like parks, libraries, and schools. We're all secret dirty socialist, don't tell us though.

[Gnarl]

I did come across this blog entry on the subject, which I found both well-written and relevant. It is an by an American woman who has lived for many years in the UK, and her experiences of the health care system in both nations:

http://potentialandexpectations.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/this-americans-experience-of-britains-healthcare-system/

[Charles RB]

I truly do believe that the quality of the care here is second to none.


I can sum up my experience of the British and American healthcare systems in one simple sentence: given a choice between the two systems, I’d choose the NHS in a heartbeat.

I'm guessing the first sentence was a "of course I'm patriotic really USA USA!" qualifier so some people will keep reading.

And her point that the government is held culpable for the NHS and in a way insurance companies never are? Totally true.

[Charles RB]

She did a follow-up on the US system and FUCKING HELL. (http://potentialandexpectations.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/and-our-insurance-premiums-rise-by-350/)

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I liked Rich Johnston's take on Bleeding Cool - he's constantly asked to help with, make people aware of, fund raisers for American Comic creators who need help paying medical bills, but has never been asked to do one, or heard of one, for British creators.


Meanwhile, bravo to whomever came up with the Death Panels.
Best Strawman ever.
It's actually the exact opposite of what the policy is aiming to do, doesn't even make any sense, and yet is getting discussed.
The Republicans are so much better at politics than the Democrats.

[Charles RB]

I liked Rich Johnston's take on Bleeding Cool - he's constantly asked to help with, make people aware of, fund raisers for American Comic creators who need help paying medical bills, but has never been asked to do one, or heard of one, for British creators.[quote]

If I was him, I'd repeat that EVERY TIME he reported on one of those fundraisers.

[quote]It's actually the exact opposite of what the policy is aiming to do, doesn't even make any sense, and yet is getting discussed.
The Republicans are so much better at politics than the Democrats.

Obama's primary and election campaigns show the Democrats - or at least Obama's men - can be great at politics.

So it's not that they're being outmanouvred and aren't able to play the game - it's that they're not.

[Steven Grant]

Obama's primary and election campaigns show the Democrats - or at least Obama's men - can be great at politics.

So it's not that they're being outmanouvred and aren't able to play the game - it's that they're not.

The O-Ring has fallen into the same trap all modern Democrats fall into when achieving office: they don't just want to get their agenda through, they want to be perceived as non-partisan consensus builders. All Republicans in the White House ever want to be is majority builders. Democrats want everyone to think well of them now and Republicans take it for granted they'll be exonerated by history.

It's pretty notable that about the first thing the O-Ring did when starting up their health care pitch is to seek the cooperation and support of drug and insurance companies. Drug companies were more than happy to leap onboard - after corralling the promise that the changes wouldn't impinge on their ability to pursue profit. But the insurance industry is never going to back health care reform of any substance because any practical reform of any substance will wipe out health insurance companies because there will be no need for them. The Democrats know it. The Republicans know it. The insurance companies know it. So we get this "death panels" nonsense, the notion that health care reform will give the government life or death control over your medical decisions.

When that's what health insurers and HMOs have now, and I don't see massive rallies against it or concerned citizens haranguing stockholder meetings.

- Grant

[Dragondragonfly]

I don't really care how the Medical deal gets fixed, I just know that I am a lucky person to even have insurance and right now I am still sitting on 650.00 in medical bills. Can it be made to be cheaper? Can everyone have access to it?
How do you folks without any security net do it???
I can only imagine the stress.:frown:

[Iangould]

And free healthcare will bite everyone in the ass eventually, because poor people are going to flock to the places that offer it. All the enlightened countries will turn into a hellhole one day.

Oddly, it hasn't happened in the UK in the 60+ years since the introduction of the NHS.

[Iangould]

Well, no, it's money that doesn't exist. I've read that Medicare has unfunded liabilities of (some ridiculous number, like 20,30, 60 trillion).

Do you know what that means?

It refers to the total future cost of all treatment for all persons covered from now until they die assuming no future contributions.

[Iangould]

Do they economic classes where you live?

Nothing is "FREE" some where someone is paying for it.

How much money do you clear for every dollar earned?

Average real tax rates net of transfers:

Australia

single two children -: 9.8%

one-earner married couple

no child 19.1%

two children 9.8%

United States

single two children -: 15%

one-earner married couple

no child 20%

two children 11.3%

That's according to the OECD (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls)

Of course, in addition to the higher average income tax rate (after including state and local taxes), the average American pays out a couple of thousand dollars more per person on health care.

[Iangould]

Charles is a little bitch and always has been - a weird tampon fantasizing little bitch who was scared of his daddy - .

Being scared of Phil the Greek is entirely rational.

[Iangould]

Question for the people complaining about not having the chance to read the bill, how many congressional bills have you read?

At a minimum I assume you read the Bush administration's Medicare prescription drug bill seeing as with a starting annual cost of $75 billion and a growing aged population, the cost on that is likely to match or exceed the projected 1o- year cost of the current bill of $1 trillion or so.

[Gnarl]

I don't really care how the Medical deal gets fixed, I just know that I am a lucky person to even have insurance and right now I am still sitting on 650.00 in medical bills. Can it be made to be cheaper? Can everyone have access to it?
How do you folks without any security net do it???
I can only imagine the stress.:frown:

Yes it can be made cheaper, and yes everyone can have access to it.

That seems quite clear. Since every other country manages to cover everyone at half the cost of the US system (per person). While getting equal or better results.

[Tony Figueroa]

Mr. Grant casually dismisses the protestors against Mr. Obama's health care plan as "Birthers" and "Death Panelers" as if average Americans, fearful of ever increasing amounts of power being concentrated in Washington DC, are nothing more than shills for the insurance industry. Or if we're not shills then surely we're the brainwashed children of talk radio or members of a militia. As a card carrying Liberal Mr. Grant seems to have no problem with an ever expanding government while at the same time demonizing the private sector. There were in fact end of life counseling provisions in one the house bills which were recently removed after they were brought to light. Mr. Grant pointed out the proposal to allow the government to have real time access to our private bank accounts that is still in the bill. Mr. Grant do you not understand that there are those of us who are eternally wary of government's tendency to accrue more power for itself at the expense of the individual's liberty? Why has there been no discussion of tort reform? Isn't that a factor in the high cost of health care? Or is tort reform not discussed because the trial lawyer lobby is a big Democrat party contributor as are the public sector unions? Mr. Grant, why do you not mention the "snitch" website which is being used to collect information on people who disagree with the president? Union thugs from the SEIU have attacked citizens at town hall meetings, the president has town halls with people who are actually donors, DNC staffers and relatives of the former and latter and yet you remain silent on all of that and more. Yet you never missed a chance to tear into Mr. Bush and Mr.Cheney. We should have a robust national debate on health care Mr. Grant instead of the Democrat party trying to shove a poorly conceived and hastily prepared "reform" down the throats of the American people. And if Democrats are so convinced that this is a good idea why not put it in a national referendum? If we're going to have an honest debate then let's also talk about tort reform, the cost of providing medical care to illegal immigrants and the waste, fraud and abuse rampant in Medicare and other government programs.

[Charles RB]

As a card carrying Liberal Mr. Grant seems to have no problem with an ever expanding government

Mr. Grant pointed out the proposal to allow the government to have real time access to our private bank accounts that is still in the bill.

These two bits do not mesh together at all. How can he have no problem with "an ever expanding government" when he's criticising a proposal to give a government access to bank accounts? Never mind the years upon years of columns he's written where he's had a go at governmental power (he did it last week IIRC).

Though to be blunt, looking at the protests? Most of the people there do indeed seem to be either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting things (or both). The death panels thing is bollocks, for example.

[EMHeld]

Though to be blunt, looking at the protests? Most of the people there do indeed seem to be either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting things (or both). The death panels thing is bollocks, for example.

The problem with a thousand-page+ bill is that if the Congressmen passing the bill haven't read it, the likelihood of Joe Protester reading it is also rather low. Of course they are going to come to these things half-informed and angry, largely because of the lack of control they feel.

Average Americans aren't getting the info they need on health care reform, as there is no acknowledgment of debate on the government sites and anything else is blatantly partisan. This is probably the biggest domestic issue Obama will face - the largest legislative action, certainly - and it's being gone around completely the wrong way. When people further up and on previous pages talk of a lack of debate about health care, they're right.

We've got a lot of shouting, Father Knows Best and scare tactics - on both sides. The Dems as much as the GOP are trying to convince you the other way is more than wrong - it's sinister. For all Grant talked about "consensus building" (that's a crock, too. The Dems are internally rebelling because the party still has a lot in the old Dixiecrats and/or "Midwestern" Democrats mold. The New England liberal is the stereotype, but hardly universally applicable) and compromising values, the majority is not reaching out to the minority; they're just trying to dodge flack.

And with a lack of cohesion in the majority party, a lack of control, how are the town hall attendees supposed to feel confident that this massive bill is being passed responsibly? Anger and fear - outrage, in short - is to be expected. Healthy debate often starts with a little shouting before parties move to the bargaining table.

-Erik

[Tony Figueroa]

Perhaps Mr. Grant is that rare Liberal who does not place ureserved trust in a large and intrusive government. Or perhaps he disagrees with specific instances where the government wields it's power. Only Mr. Grant can speak to that. The town hall protestors are not the "Swastika carrying" (to use Mrs. Pelosi's term), "Un-American" as Harry Reid said or "Brooks Brothers brigades" as described by Chris Matthews. Nor are we brainwashed tools of talk radio. I find it both amusing and revelatory that when average Americans disagree with some aspect of Liberalism it's because we're dupes of the power structure but when Liberals do the same it's because they're deeply principled and capable of grasping "nuance". Did you fail to notice that during many of the town halls protestors were reading directly from the proposed House bill while the politicians admitted they hadn't read the bill? Did you miss when Mr. Obama admitted he wasn't familiar with the whole bill? And as to those principled Liberals; doesn't it strike anyone as ironic that when Mr. Obama hosts a town hall the audience is carefully screened and populated with donors, functionaries and appratchiks of the Democrat party? Tell me; if this plan is so good why was there such a rush to get it signed into law? If in fact the town hall protestors are so egregiously wrong why doesn't Mr. Obama or any of the Democrats take the bill with them to the next town hall? When someone asks a question or disagrees with the plan, the president or senator can turn to the specific page in the bill that refutes the protestor's argument?

[Charles RB]

Perhaps Mr. Grant is that rare Liberal who does not place ureserved trust in a large and intrusive government.

"Perhaps"? His writing is quite consistent on what he thinks of intrusive government (I don't know if he cares about the size as much).


The town hall protestors are not the "Swastika carrying" (to use Mrs. Pelosi's term), "Un-American" as Harry Reid said or "Brooks Brothers brigades" as described by Chris Matthews. Nor are we brainwashed tools of talk radio.

So what's going on with all the signs and chants that show ignorance and some quite disturbing views?

[Tony Figueroa]

A more intrusive government is by definition a larger government. And when the power of the government grows the freedom of the individual diminishes. It's undeniable that Liberals are in favor of more government regulation, more taxation and less competition in the free market. "Disturbing views" and "ignorance" on the part of the town hall protestors? Perhaps to you, people who disagree with Mr. Obama are "disturbing" and "Ignorant". Oddly enough when Mr. Bush was in office and Liberal protestors routinely called him "Hitler", vandalized military recruitment offices and joked openly about his assassination it was all in the best spirit of American dissent right? When jokes were made about Sarah Palin's family, including her children, it was all good, clean fun and in the best Liberal tradition wasn't it? Speaking of ignorance, how is it that Democrats can try to ramrod this bill into law without being completely conversant with it's contents?

[Steven Grant]

A more intrusive government is by definition a larger government.

No, a more intrusive government is just one that's more active. The government could become more intrusive without growing in the slightest.


And when the power of the government grows the freedom of the individual diminishes.

Not necessarily. The power of the government to enforce individual freedom would only infringe on those attempting to restrict individual freedom. Sure, their unfettered freedom to do that would be infringed...

Bear in mind that's a hypothetical. I'm not saying that's what any government is, at least currently, intending...


It's undeniable that Liberals are in favor of more government regulation, more taxation and less competition in the free market.

Most who call themselves conservatives are in favor of more government regulation (just of different things), more taxation (just less on themselves) and less competition in the free market. In my experience, "conservatives" only want a free market insofar as it expands their piece of the pie. Free markets that cut into their piece of the pie they'll fight tooth and nail (and frequently demand government regulation to put a stop to it).


"Disturbing views" and "ignorance" on the part of the town hall protestors? Perhaps to you, people who disagree with Mr. Obama are "disturbing" and "Ignorant". Oddly enough when Mr. Bush was in office and Liberal protestors routinely called him "Hitler", vandalized military recruitment offices and joked openly about his assassination it was all in the best spirit of American dissent right?

Oh, come on. There's always some group that openly jokes about presidential assassinations. The particular group just changes depending on who's president. And spills over to other groups depending on how good the joke is. (There were Clinton t-shirts openly sold with Bill's head-and-shoulder shot and the logo "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald now that we need him?" Pretty sure Democrats weren't making those.

As for vandalizing recruitment centers, how much of that was there? It sure wasn't a widespread phenomenon, but then no one had to vandalize them, since after mid-'04 nobody was signing up anyway.


When jokes were made about Sarah Palin's family, including her children, it was all good, clean fun and in the best Liberal tradition wasn't it?

I don't recall any specific Palin kid jokes (except that Letterman one, and Palin got the kid wrong when she complained about it) but it wasn't Liberals who trotted her kids out as campaign props and examples of what a wonderful Hockey Mom she was, it was Palin. Amy Carter was the butt of really nasty jokes by conservatives the whole of the Carter presidency, and especially during the re-election campaign against Reagan, as was Chelsea Clinton from the moment Clinton announced for the nomination. It comes with the territory, so, no, I wouldn't say it's in the best Liberal tradition but I'd say it's in the American tradition. There were jokes about FDR's kid, there were jokes about LBJ's girls, there were jokes about Tricia Nixon. I'm not saying you have to like it, but it's not like candidates'/presidents' children have ever been sacrosanct. Except Caroline and John-John, of course. At least until they grew up.


Speaking of ignorance, how is it that Democrats can try to ramrod this bill into law without being completely conversant with it's contents?

Just because they're Democrats doesn't mean they're not stupid. But Congressmen of any stripe rarely read the bills they're voting on. They read the precis provided by their staff or by lobbyists or, if the White House has some particular interest in the bill, the White House. I agree this is an unwise and wrong-headed way to do Congressional business, but, again, that's the Congressional tradition, regardless of party. Probably because if they read all the bills that came across their desks, they'd spend a huge bit of their time reading bills. You may say and I may say that's what they're there for, but they don't seem to agree...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Perhaps Mr. Grant is that rare Liberal who does not place ureserved trust in a large and intrusive government. Or perhaps he disagrees with specific instances where the government wields it's power.

Bit of both. I'm not against the wielding of government power per se, I mean, since we have a government; somebody has to fill those potholes.


The town hall protestors are not the "Swastika carrying" (to use Mrs. Pelosi's term), "Un-American" as Harry Reid said or "Brooks Brothers brigades" as described by Chris Matthews.

But Nancy Pelosi is a nutjob creep, Harry (my senator, by the way; one of them, anyway) is a career political hack, and by "Brooks Brothers" brigades Matthews means those who are swallowing utter malarky concocted and disseminated by public relations firms, so to that extent he's pretty much right, given that what keeps being ranted about at town meetings are those things rather than what really should be questioned in the bill? Though some of those are brought up too, but all the idiot distractions keep them from getting much notice.


I find it both amusing and revelatory that when average Americans disagree with some aspect of Liberalism it's because we're dupes of the power structure but when Liberals do the same it's because they're deeply principled and capable of grasping "nuance".

So your nuance here is that no "average Americans" are liberals? Interesting rephrasing of the "only conservatives are real Americans, liberals are enemies of America" meme.


Did you fail to notice that during many of the town halls protestors were reading directly from the proposed House bill while the politicians admitted they hadn't read the bill? Did you miss when Mr. Obama admitted he wasn't familiar with the whole bill? And as to those principled Liberals; doesn't it strike anyone as ironic that when Mr. Obama hosts a town hall the audience is carefully screened and populated with donors, functionaries and appratchiks of the Democrat party?

I don't like it any better than when the Ghost and his cronies turned housepacking into a fine art, but there wasn't a "President interacts with public" event during that entire administration (at least not past 9-11) where attendance wasn't very carefully orchestrated.


Tell me; if this plan is so good why was there such a rush to get it signed into law?

Oh, that's got nothing to do with whether they think it's a good or bad bill. They want a hit single is all, and they perceive, probably correctly, that the longer debate on the health reform bill goes on the smaller the chance of passage, which, I agree, isn't a very good reason to pass it, but, again, this sort of thing isn't uncommon no matter who's in the White House. And I understand that point of view, because if this bill isn't passed, it's not like everyone will say, "Okay, let's put together a better health care reform package now," they'll say, "Health care reform is dead and Obama's a loser!" So that's why they want it to pass quickly. Health care reform is something that's been needed badly for decades, and the O-ring wants a big checkmark in the win column to demonstrate they can get things done.


If in fact the town hall protestors are so egregiously wrong why doesn't Mr. Obama or any of the Democrats take the bill with them to the next town hall? When someone asks a question or disagrees with the plan, the president or senator can turn to the specific page in the bill that refutes the protestor's argument?

And I wish they'd do that, instead of what they're doing now: answering the question they formulate in their heads instead of the one being asked, such as answering, "What about the government having real-time access to your bank account information?" with "Everyone will still have the same bank accounts they always had, and nothing about how you use them will change." (Really, I wish they'd just rip that idiot clause out of there altogether.) But in politics this is called "staying on message instead of getting bogged down in details." It's lobbyist-speak, which is pretty disappointing.

But all this rubbish about "The government will kill your grandmother!" Utter hooey, so of course that's what the O-ring is getting publicly indignant about and that's what all the news is covering.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

"Perhaps"? His writing is quite consistent on what he thinks of intrusive government (I don't know if he cares about the size as much).

Also kind of depends on what you mean by intrusive. If the government wants to make sure all kids get an education and a hot lunch and that all homes have hot and cold running water, I don't mind that kind of intrusion so much. If they want to make sure everyone says grace (to the god of your choice!) before every meal and that you have to twitter your whereabouts once an hour to an FBI mainframe, that kind of intrusion I can live without.


So what's going on with all the signs and chants that show ignorance and some quite disturbing views?

For awhile there the message was getting increasingly racist and violent, but it seems to be calming down some.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Mr. Grant casually dismisses the protestors against Mr. Obama's health care plan as "Birthers" and "Death Panelers" as if average Americans, fearful of ever increasing amounts of power being concentrated in Washington DC, are nothing more than shills for the insurance industry.

If they aren't, they are sure doing a good job of looking like it...



Or if we're not shills then surely we're the brainwashed children of talk radio or members of a militia.

Well, you do ALL have the same crack pot ideas that have no bearing on reality...


As a card carrying Liberal Mr. Grant seems to have no problem with an ever expanding government while at the same time demonizing the private sector. There were in fact end of life counseling provisions in one the house bills which were recently removed after they were brought to light. Mr. Grant pointed out the proposal to allow the government to have real time access to our private bank accounts that is still in the bill.

Private insurance often covers end of life counseling.


Mr. Grant do you not understand that there are those of us who are eternally wary of government's tendency to accrue more power for itself at the expense of the individual's liberty?

That's no way for a PATRIOT to ACT!


Why has there been no discussion of tort reform? Isn't that a factor in the high cost of health care? Or is tort reform not discussed because the trial lawyer lobby is a big Democrat party contributor as are the public sector unions?

Because people aren't dying because of it?


Mr. Grant, why do you not mention the "snitch" website which is being used to collect information on people who disagree with the president?

Because he writes about America not Conspirica?



Union thugs from the SEIU have attacked citizens at town hall meetings, the president has town halls with people who are actually donors, DNC staffers and relatives of the former and latter and yet you remain silent on all of that and more.

Yeah, that stupid Bush rigging things so he only see's people he likes...

I'd say Grant doesn't write about it because that sorta thing's been old forever, and everyone knows that's how it goes down.


Yet you never missed a chance to tear into Mr. Bush and Mr.Cheney.

Well, they was going to war, Obama wants to make health care available to all.
Who do you think deserved the more scrutiny and criticism?


We should have a robust national debate on health care Mr. Grant instead of the Democrat party trying to shove a poorly conceived and hastily prepared "reform" down the throats of the American people.

Yeah!
Even Bush had a debate at the U.N about Iraq, lost it, lost the vote, and then ignored it!
But he at least put on a good three day show of it!

(Death Panels, Death to free markets, and lies about Europe and Canada are the best the right has come up with so far... I'm sure if anyone had a proper objection they'd have a debate).


And if Democrats are so convinced that this is a good idea why not put it in a national referendum?

Because they just won the election for President and control the house... generally referred to getting a 'mandate'.



If we're going to have an honest debate then let's also talk about tort reform,

Why not debate the subject at hand?


the cost of providing medical care to illegal immigrants and the waste,

Why not debate the subject at hand, providing it to American citizens?


fraud and abuse rampant in Medicare and other government programs.

That's part of the subject at hand, but you don't think the corruption within the private health system should be brought up as well?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

A more intrusive government is by definition a larger government.

No.
Not really.
A more intrusive government would have access to more of your personal documents and movements.
A larger government is one that controls more assets and regulates more private bodies.


And when the power of the government grows the freedom of the individual diminishes.

Really?
Industry regulation restricts freedom?


It's undeniable that Liberals are in favor of more government regulation, more taxation and less competition in the free market.

You're right up until competition.
Competition is fine - happening within the laws and not at citizens/consuemrs expense.


"Disturbing views" and "ignorance" on the part of the town hall protestors? Perhaps to you, people who disagree with Mr. Obama are "disturbing" and "Ignorant".

It's that, or it's the footage of the one's crying about wanting their America back, chanting about death panels, screaming about how the government wants to kill their grandmother...


Oddly enough when Mr. Bush was in office and Liberal protestors routinely called him "Hitler", vandalized military recruitment offices and joked openly about his assassination it was all in the best spirit of American dissent right?

Depends who you ask - Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity thought they were nazi's, where as this lot are true Americans.
Again, one wants healthcare reform, and one started a war.
Who do you feel deserved the most protest from the other side?


When jokes were made about Sarah Palin's family, including her children, it was all good, clean fun and in the best Liberal tradition wasn't it?

She constantly used her family for her political gain.
You'll note that Bush's daughters were never made fun of as much as Palin's, pretty much because he didn't use them as a lynchpin of his campaign, and for the most part they weren't shoved in front of camera's.
When a politician starts using their family - their pregnant daughter, their child with down syndrome - to prove their points, the kids will get made fun of - the politicians actions made them fair game.
You'll see this happen with both the left and the right.
You'll also see whichever politician who decided to use their family as a tool seem completely bewildered as to why this backlash is happening against what they assumed would be a bullet proof scheme.



Speaking of ignorance, how is it that Democrats can try to ramrod this bill into law without being completely conversant with it's contents?

Because Democrats are their own worst enemies when they are in power - but at least they can find France on a map.

It's that place they steal their policies from!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I don't recall any specific Palin kid jokes (except that Letterman one, and Palin got the kid wrong when she complained about it) but it wasn't Liberals who trotted her kids out as campaign props and examples of what a wonderful Hockey Mom she was, it was Palin.

Really?
There were plenty!
The Daily Show and Colbert Report routinely did, The Onion had constant one's (including her in a debate where every point led back to her mentioning 'as a mother of a retarded child'), the American press, the international press, jokes in offices...

BUT, that's because she used her children as props.
(And at one point, one of her children used another of her children as a prop to hide that she was pregnant!)



So your nuance here is that no "average Americans" are liberals? Interesting rephrasing of the "only conservatives are real Americans, liberals are enemies of America" meme.

It's that bizarre anti-intellectualism bug that's going around - It's better to be stupid than elitist!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

But the insurance industry is never going to back health care reform of any substance because any practical reform of any substance will wipe out health insurance companies because there will be no need for them.

You can still get private health coverage in Australia - heck, I'm considering it myself.

The government doesn't currently cover all elective surgeries (and there's a long waiting list) or dental, or all optical stuff, and some other stuff.

That said, being a pretty healthy person, I'm umming and ahhing over it - would really only want it for dental, as dentists are rather pricey (and their never really happy with you).

But, it would be infinitely reduced in the US from what it is now.

On the drug company side, although the government said it wouldn't regulate pricing, have they thrown about the idea of they get to pick which specific drugs (Iie. brand) are covered?
Because prices are going to have to come crashing down to get a drug covered, and if you're drugs not covered, no one's going to use it etc.
(Basially the same as getting a government supply contract really, you've gotta drop your price right down, but you'll still make a ton).

[Charles RB]

"Disturbing views" and "ignorance" on the part of the town hall protestors? Perhaps to you, people who disagree with Mr. Obama are "disturbing" and "Ignorant".

No, comparing a health policy to the Nazis, yelling "I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!" and about revolution, deliberately carrying guns into the protests, the talk of death panels and how the policy will deliberately kill the elderly, jeering at people who've mentioned they can't get insurance, that woman who yelled "Heil Hitler!" at an Israeli Jew... [i]That[/] is disturbing and ignorant to me.


Also kind of depends on what you mean by intrusive. If the government wants to make sure all kids get an education and a hot lunch and that all homes have hot and cold running water, I don't mind that kind of intrusion so much.

We could probably do with some government intrusion to ensure the hot lunch...



Really?
Industry regulation restricts freedom?

Well it restricts the freedom of people who own companies.

Considering some of the shit companies try to pull, this doesn't bother me.

[Steven Grant]

Really?
There were plenty!
The Daily Show and Colbert Report routinely did, The Onion had constant one's (including her in a debate where every point led back to her mentioning 'as a mother of a retarded child'), the American press, the international press, jokes in offices...

I didn't say I didn't think there were any. I said I didn't remember any. (Meaning: none made the slightest impression on me.)

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Industry regulation restricts freedom?

It restricts unfettered industry ability to take whatever measures are felt necessary to maximize profit. In some quarters the freedom of business is equal to (in some quarters, superior to) the freedom of the individual.


Who do you feel deserved the most protest from the other side?

Health care reform deserves protest if it's bad reform, but it's much harder to undo a bad war than bad reform.


She constantly used her family for her political gain.
You'll note that Bush's daughters were never made fun of as much as Palin's

They were made fun of, though, at odd moments.


When a politician starts using their family - their pregnant daughter, their child with down syndrome - to prove their points, the kids will get made fun of - the politicians actions made them fair game.

Well, that's the thing. If you use your kids for propaganda you have no right to bitch when your propaganda is skewered by your opponents.


You'll see this happen with both the left and the right.
You'll also see whichever politician who decided to use their family as a tool seem completely bewildered as to why this backlash is happening against what they assumed would be a bullet proof scheme.

Oh, they know why. But that's why they use their kids as message illustration, so they can be indignant and wounded - and garner popular sympathy - by complaining about unwarranted attacks on their children. In other words, in responding their opponents aren't attacking the message, they're attacking the children, the bastards. (The attackers, not the children. Usually.)

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Considering some of the shit companies try to pull, this doesn't bother me.

There is such a thing as too much regulation, and Adam Smith discusses this in THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, but he also goes into considerable detail about when governments should regulate business and industry. (The short version: when they damage the liberty, safety and health of individual citizens. Smith is more on the side of commerce than on the side of government, but he's more on the side of individual citizens than on the side of commerce.)

- Grant

[Adam C]

A more intrusive government is by definition a larger government. And when the power of the government grows the freedom of the individual diminishes.

Sorry to add another onto the pile since Mr. Grant, Funky, and Charles already replied extensively, but I'd like to add a different perspective to this.

Relating what you said track back to the history of my own province where the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation was elected in 1942. As Premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas, and his dodgy gang of socialists did things like creating a publically owned auto insurance corporation (on the rationale that people were being taken advantage of by private auto insurance companies, though we still have those in the province), a publically owned power company that actually extended electricity to many villages and farms for the first time, and eventually a Medicare plan that presaged Canada's current health system (though Douglas introduced the plan, it was his successor Woodrow Lloyd that implemented it). So he expanded government and probably made it more intrusive and dangerous to individual liberty right?

Actually he also allowed public sector employees to unionize if they so wished and introduced the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights (http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/saskatchewan_bill_of_rights.html) the first proper codification and protection of people's rights in Canada. His basis for doing so was seeing strikers get threatened with violence and seeing a need to have legal protections for freedom of speech and right to assembly. (Though if Emma Goldman's biography is anything to go by, Canada and Britain were still better at respecting these things in the late 1800s/early 1900s than the U.S. which had these formal protections in place.) It's also worth noting that as federal leader of the CCF's successor, the New Democratic Party, Douglas and the party opposed then Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoking the War Measures act to deal with the tiny terrorist group Front de libération du Québec as totally unnecessary when it received broad support from both federal Liberals and Conservatives as well as the Canadian public. (Though in fairness, Conservative leader Robert Stanfield later regretted it.)

So I don't see how this dichotomy between larger government and individual freedom is really supported by real-world examples. Things like universal health-care are opposed on the grounds of individual freedom, the logic that individuals should be free to chose between their choice of health care plans. And yetaccording to (http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf) the data available most bankruptcies (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31103572/) in the U.S. are tied to medical debt, and this is among individuals who have health insurance and middle class occupations. Which means in practice it merely becomes a matter of allowing the individual to freely choose between which private business entity gouges him/her rather than choosing the best plan available...which seem to be in Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark,...any place modern, industrialized nation but the United States.

Of course Douglas was well aware of that individual rights do run up against private businesses and that's why he also added to the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights protections against discrimination or harassment in their workplace, be it from co-workers or their employer.


Speaking of ignorance, how is it that Democrats can try to ramrod this bill into law without being completely conversant with it's contents?

Ramrod the bill? Don't you recall? Obama and Democratic leaders are now saying that the public option is not essential as opposed to "choice and competition" and looking to compromise with Republican leaders despite having a filibuster-proof majority.

[Steven Grant]

Ramrod the bill? Don't you recall? Obama and Democratic leaders are now saying that the public option is not essential as opposed to "choice and competition" and looking to compromise with Republican leaders despite having a filibuster-proof majority.

I think it has sunk in that they're not going to get Republican cooperation (or insurance co. cooperation) nohow, because today Obama is talking about how the public option is certainly viable and he wants it in the bill. We'll see...

- Grant

[Iangould]

The town hall protestors are not the "Swastika carrying" (to use Mrs. Pelosi's term), "Un-American" as Harry Reid said or "Brooks Brothers brigades" as described by Chris Matthews.


Except for the ones who carry swastikas, of course.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01461/swastika_1461378c.jpg

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It restricts unfettered industry ability to take whatever measures are felt necessary to maximize profit.

So?

(Why this isn't everyone's response to that really blows my mind.)



In some quarters the freedom of business is equal to (in some quarters, superior to) the freedom of the individual.

Yeah, but they cite older principles - the one's that led to corporations getting the rights of a person - which weren't made with the idea of corporations being what they are today.


Health care reform deserves protest if it's bad reform, but it's much harder to undo a bad war than bad reform.



They were made fun of, though, at odd moments.

It happens, but y'know, Limbaugh once made a joke a Chelsea Clinton looking like a dog, when she was thirteen.
For the most part they get left alone if they stay out of it.

(Heck, didn't they beg Bush not to run?)


Well, that's the thing. If you use your kids for propaganda you have no right to bitch when your propaganda is skewered by your opponents.

Oh, they know why. But that's why they use their kids as message illustration, so they can be indignant and wounded - and garner popular sympathy - by complaining about unwarranted attacks on their children. In other words, in responding their opponents aren't attacking the message, they're attacking the children, the bastards. (The attackers, not the children. Usually.)

- Grant

Wonder if it comes as a shock later in life when they realise they really fucked their kids up by doing that - especially when a kid is forced to go ahead with a pregnancy they almost definitely didn't plan or want, and then raise the kid they didn't want, which will have the attention of the press due to it being such a big thing when it hapened.
(And how odd was it seeing Palin argue for abstinence only education with a pregnant teenage daughter?)

Anyway, Palin's heading in a new direction now, not-quitting before her lame duck second term, so in the name of the troops, we should leave her alone.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I think it has sunk in that they're not going to get Republican cooperation (or insurance co. cooperation) nohow

Why would they want it?
Do they not understand that winning in a landslide means the public wants you to persue your agendas and get them through?

We've currently got an opposition in the Senate who can block bills, and keep doing it, or forcing amendments, but are now stuck on a hilarious tight rope - they can't let some of them through because it would make them look horrifically weak, but they can't keep blocking them or it gives the part in power the right to call an early election, and because they keep blocking and then deciding to not block, their numbers are really, really far down.
In fact one bill they are blocking is a plan their current leader was pushing for when the part was in power, which now has to oppose!
(Throw in the hilarity of the 'ute-gate' scandal and Australian politics has finally gotten interesting again...)



, because today Obama is talking about how the public option is certainly viable and he wants it in the bill. We'll see...

- Grant

What's the reform if it's not the government picking up the bill?

[SuperMassive]

We've currently got an opposition in the Senate who can block bills, and keep doing it, or forcing amendments, but are now stuck on a hilarious tight rope - they can't let some of them through because it would make them look horrifically weak, but they can't keep blocking them or it gives the part in power the right to call an early election,

Not that calling an early election would actually help the government with Senate numbers though.

On topic though, I would like to hear any reasoned opinions as to why the Australian system (publicly funded healthcare, with the ability to purchase health insurance on top) would not work for US citizens?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Not that calling an early election would actually help the government with Senate numbers though.

I doubt it would hurt them, and it would look bad for the Libs.

And though I usually vote third party for the Senate - we already know what the other two think - anything to get rid of Senator Fielding's little power grab would make me happy.


On topic though, I would like to hear any reasoned opinions as to why the Australian system (publicly funded healthcare, with the ability to purchase health insurance on top) would not work for US citizens?

Death panels aren't reasoned enough for you?

[Steven Grant]

So?

(Why this isn't everyone's response to that really blows my mind.)

I'm not endorsing the philosophy, just explaining it.


Yeah, but they cite older principles - the one's that led to corporations getting the rights of a person - which weren't made with the idea of corporations being what they are today.

It all goes back to Adam Smith, but no one ever mentions that, as I said, Smith also said that government was necessary to protect the individual against corporate abuse. Of course, he was talking about intelligent government...


Anyway, Palin's heading in a new direction now, not-quitting before her lame duck second term, so in the name of the troops, we should leave her alone.

We'll leave her alone as soon as she leaves us alone...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Why would they want it?
Do they not understand that winning in a landslide means the public wants you to persue your agendas and get them through?

Well... no... they're Democrats... Democrats want to be loved, and they want Republicans onboard so come 2010 or 2012 the GOP can't point to the Dems and say, "It's all their fault!"


What's the reform if it's not the government picking up the bill?

You mean in health care? Getting insurance companies to be a little nicer... I think...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Death panels aren't reasoned enough for you?

But, as I mentioned this week, we already have death panels. We just call them insurance companies and HMOs.

- Grant

[SuperMassive]

I think he was being sarcastic Steven.

[Charles RB]

My local medical practice was testing a new system, so I was able to walk in off the street and get seen within ten minutes without an appointment; I got checked and a prescription written up within five minutes, no charge.

GOD DAMN THAT FREEDOM-STRIPPING INEFFECTIVE SOCIALISM!

[bartl]

There is such a thing as too much regulation, and Adam Smith discusses this in THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, but he also goes into considerable detail about when governments should regulate business and industry. (The short version: when they damage the liberty, safety and health of individual citizens. Smith is more on the side of commerce than on the side of government, but he's more on the side of individual citizens than on the side of commerce.)
Thanks for pointing this out; it's hard to explain to many conservatives that economic anarchy has about the same results as political anarchy.

[king mob]

My local medical practice was testing a new system, so I was able to walk in off the street and get seen within ten minutes without an appointment; I got checked and a prescription written up within five minutes, no charge.

GOD DAMN THAT FREEDOM-STRIPPING INEFFECTIVE SOCIALISM!
Try talking to a Norwegian about what's being said in the US, especially by nutters about the NHS, and they get madder than most British people would.

[Gnarl]

Although to be frank, the Norwegian UHC system is among the more expensive specimens.

In fact, our system has the distinction of costing almost 66 % of what the US system does per head. 4700 US$ per person in Norway versus 7300 US$ in the US.

This also means that Norway is one of the very few UHC countries where the government spends more money per person than the US government on health care.

The average UHC system is run for less money than the US goverment spends on health care.

[king mob]

It's an example I used as I was there watching Scotland when the whole nonsensical attacks on the NHS started from the US. It is expensive and not a system that would work in the US, but from talking to people there they seem to be generally amazed (as many are) as to how Americans are not fighting like bastards to get themselves some decent universal healthcare for everyone, rather than just the well off.

[Tony Figueroa]

I've provoked quite a few responses so I'll try to reply to as many as I can but I'm doing this from memory so forgive me if I exclude anyone.
This may be a semantic issue Mr. Grant but a government will be more intrusive when it expands it's size and scope. It is not the government's role to enforce individual liberty since liberty is the province of the individual and not the collective. Our government does not give us freedom but it can certainly try to take it away. Conservatism does not argue in favor of more government regulation, higher taxation and less competition. Conservatives want the government to get out the individual's way and let the natural creativity, dynamism and competition of the free market provide prosperity. And yes this means lowering both corporate and individual tax rates, as JFK did incidentally, because a nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. Mr. Grant look at the shape California, Michigan, New York and Rhode Island are in. The common factor in all three is that their politics have been dominated by Liberals and their economic practices.

[Tony Figueroa]

Mr. Grant, I'm aware that there are average Americans who are Liberals. Are Liberals enemies of America? In the individual I'd say no but collectively...well the track record isn't that great.
Funky Green Jerusalem, crackpot ideas?, average americans as shills for corporate interests? Tsk, tsk. Whatever happened to the much vaunted Liberal notion of tolerance? Or is that tolerance only of views that don't challenge yours?
Tort reform, public sector union contracts whose unsustainable health care costs and the cost of treating illegal immigrants, not to mention fraud, waste and abuse in government run health programs very much needs to be on the table during any national discussion on health care reform. The snitch website, which I understand was taken down recently, was very real. Union thugs beating up people with dissenting views at public meetings is a standard facet of American life? I don't think so.
Finally, I'm glad you mentioned the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Can you tell me where all the anti war protestors have gone? Or is it that bombs and bullets with a "D" instead of an "R" are good ones?

[Charles RB]

Try talking to a Norwegian about what's being said in the US, especially by nutters about the NHS, and they get madder than most British people would.

They're very socialist with the government and health care, the Norwegians.

They've also got really good health care and IIRC weathered the recession better than us or US. Hmmm...


Although to be frank, the Norwegian UHC system is among the more expensive specimens.

True, but they seem to be happy with it.

[Adam C]

It is not the government's role to enforce individual liberty since liberty is the province of the individual and not the collective. Our government does not give us freedom but it can certainly try to take it away. Conservatism does not argue in favor of more government regulation, higher taxation and less competition. Conservatives want the government to get out the individual's way and let the natural creativity, dynamism and competition of the free market provide prosperity.

Just to call back to my earlier response from the previous page with my detailed discussion of the CCF government in Saskatchewan, your point is largely based on theoretical ideas but one can find plenty of examples that present a far more complicated picture in real life. To reiterate, CCF both expanded government programs, but increased protections for individual liberties. (Though we might also recall Harold Wilson's Labour government and Pearson's Liberal-NDP government in the sixties that decriminalized homosexuality in the UK and Canada respectively.)

Of course as I also said, going on about "natural creativity" and "competition" as provided by the free market in the healthcare debate is pretty meaningless considering how it bankrupts even individuals in a good financial position. Not only that health-care costs far more per capita (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf) than any other country in the world due to the extensive bureaucracy of the private health insurance industry (http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf), and people aren't even getting the best quality of care.

[Steven Grant]

It is not the government's role to enforce individual liberty since liberty is the province of the individual and not the collective.

This is something of a nonsense argument. No, it's not the job of the government to enforce individual liberty - in fact, there's no way to enforce individual liberty, since that's very much up to the individual - but it's the job of government to combat and limit crushing threats to individual liberty, and, as I mentioned, even Adam Smith, the father of conservative economic philosophy, says so, because Adam Smith knew what a danger to democracy and liberty consolidating power and economic control in the hands of a few individuals is.

But individual liberty can only go so far. If you, say, want to start your own shoe repair store, you can only really provide a handful of things to challenge competition with: location i.e. being more accessible to a customer base, personal service, better service and lower prices.

Now let's say you want to open a shoe repair store offering all those things but you're in a neighborhood/city where a powerful shoe repair chain already exists. You go to banks for bank loans, and all your papers and credentials are in order but those banks already do business with the chain and don't want to jeopardize that business so they either tell you no or offer a prohibitive rate that will ensure you can't possibly pay them back and make a living.

Let's say then you find money elsewhere or scrape together enough to operate on your own funds. You find a good location in a nice building, but suddenly the landlord refuses to rent to you. You find another place, but when you set up shop the day before you open the place is broken into, all your supplies destroyed and the store wrecked. A few guys who work for the chain drop by and suggest you go find a location in some other town, and punctuate it with a short beating, with promise of worse if you don't adhere.

But you open anyway and by the end of the week there are stories in the local paper, where a lot of shoe repair chain advertising is placed, about how you're suspected of child molestation and "some" fear your shop is a front for dope peddling.

At what point in this chain do you not want government stepping in to protect you? What are your options otherwise? You can't sue, or take anyone to court, because there are no courts, because there is no government authority to protect your individual liberty and probably there is no government. You going to get a gun and go start shooting up Big Chain? Believe me, they've got more guns than you do.


Our government does not give us freedom but it can certainly try to take it away. Conservatism does not argue in favor of more government regulation,

Yes, it does, just different regulation that the liberal viewpoint. Go read Adam Smith.


Conservatives want the government to get out the individual's way and let the natural creativity, dynamism and competition of the free market provide prosperity.

See, here you get into terminology problems. Libertarians want the government out of the individual's way etc. etc., but Republicans - most of them, anyway - are more than happy with government interference and lots of it, they just want different sorts of government interference. Republicans do not support a free market, they support a market whose only constraints are those Big Money wants. It's not the same thing. The market Republicans support, and encourage government support for, is as anti-competitive as any other force out there. They may, for instance, rail against the use of the courts to take money away from Big Money, but they're all in favor of using the courts to keep money in the pocket of Big Money, and I don't just mean by winning damage lawsuits against them. I mean by using the great burden of legal costs to crush free market competition, which happens on a daily basis.


And yes this means lowering both corporate and individual tax rates, as JFK did incidentally, because a nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. Mr. Grant look at the shape California, Michigan, New York and Rhode Island are in. The common factor in all three is that their politics have been dominated by Liberals and their economic practices.

And all the other states that are in trouble, which is most of them? Is that the only common factor all three states have? And do you really think that's the only factor involved in their current economic shape? California was mostly damaged by two things: the conservative-backed proposition in the '80s that capped the state's ability to raise necessary revenues without a popular vote, and the rigged energy crisis of 2002 that criminally sent energy prices in California and most of the West skyrocketing so a bunch of energy brokers could pad their portfolios, which triggered vast chains of economic damage that drastically limited California's ability to economically cope with anything - and, incidentally, drove out its liberal governor mid-term to replace him with conservative governor. These are far from the only two factors either, so don't go around making it sound like there's only one single factor involved. Michigan may have followed "liberal" economic policies (frankly, I haven't paid enough attention to Michigan to know if that's accurate or not) but Michigan's perennial problem is that its economy is tied to the auto industry, and when Big Auto goes into a slump - already in progress after decades of making crappy cars but badly amplified by skyrocketing gas prices (and we can go into the financial rigging of that if you like) and the economic downturn (prompted, don't forget, by the idiot trade in sub-prime mortgages, which were strongly promoted by brokers because brokers get paid whether the client makes or loses money and in the brokerage world the climate had strongly changed from "serve the customer" to "buy and sell shares to get those fees" - and that wasn't encouraged by government regulation but by a breakdown in government regulation) - Michigan goes into a slump.

Besides, there are good liberal proposals and bad liberal proposals, just as there are good conservative proposals and bad ones. Lumping all of either into one big bin and declaring it good or bad instead of looking at each proposal on its own merits doesn't help anyone, and it certainly doesn't keep either group honest.

But if you want to eliminate all taxes and regulation, you better be the one who volunteers to go fill in the potholes.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

They've also got really good health care and IIRC weathered the recession better than us or US. Hmmm...

Hell, Brazil weathered the depression better than the USA...

- Grant

[Charles RB]

Hell, Brazil weathered the depression better than the USA...

- Grant

Chile weathered it better than us, and Chile's president told Brown at the G20 that's because they saved money during the good times... not realising the Tories had been attacking Brown recently for not doing that.

The Tories had a field day over that, putting out a press statement saying (paraphrasing) "look, thanks to Labour the South American economies are lecturing us on sound economic principle and government!".

[Paul McEnery]

Our government does not give us freedom but it can certainly try to take it away.

This is nonsense.

Our government is an exercise of our freedom, for goodness' sake. And by God, that exercise of freedom called for the creation of a nation state in order to throw out the British. Because a bunch of individuals aren't enough to resist the threats to liberty. We hang together, or hang separately.

Whether it's the incursions of rapacious states, or incursions of rapacious corporations with greater power than most nation states, our government's role -- the role of our exercise of freedom -- is precisely to resist that exercise of power which individually we cannot.

[king mob]

Chile weathered it better than us, and Chile's president told Brown at the G20 that's because they saved money during the good times... not realising the Tories had been attacking Brown recently for not doing that.

The Tories had a field day over that, putting out a press statement saying (paraphrasing) "look, thanks to Labour the South American economies are lecturing us on sound economic principle and government!".


Every major European economy is out of recession while we're looking at least another quarter, maybe two of recession at least, before the UK even looks like coming out of recession. Yes, the money to the banks saved the banks but it's fucked everything else up as the likes of Germany said it would.

[Charles RB]

Every major European economy is out of recession while we're looking at least another quarter, maybe two of recession at least, before the UK even looks like coming out of recession.

Brown was a smart chancellor, y'know.

Brownites said it, so it must be true.

[Iangould]

I've provoked quite a few responses so I'll try to reply to as many as I can but I'm doing this from memory so forgive me if I exclude anyone.
This may be a semantic issue Mr. Grant but a government will be more intrusive when it expands it's size and scope. It is not the government's role to enforce individual liberty since liberty is the province of the individual and not the collective. Our government does not give us freedom but it can certainly try to take it away. Conservatism does not argue in favor of more government regulation, higher taxation and less competition. Conservatives want the government to get out the individual's way and let the natural creativity, dynamism and competition of the free market provide prosperity. And yes this means lowering both corporate and individual tax rates, as JFK did incidentally, because a nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. Mr. Grant look at the shape California, Michigan, New York and Rhode Island are in. The common factor in all three is that their politics have been dominated by Liberals and their economic practices.

Yes damn that filthy commie Lincoln not only did he trample upon the rights of the southern states, he also stole several billion dollars worth of valuable livestock from decent law-abiding whites and give these valuable assets away for free to lazy shiftless no-account blacks who weren't even citizens much less taxpayers.

"And yes this means lowering both corporate and individual tax rates, as JFK did incidentally, because a nation cannot tax itself into prosperity."

Funny, you missed the bit where JFK vastly expanded the tax base and wiped out massive tax deductions and exemptions resulting in an increase in the effective tax rate for the richest Americans.

[Iangould]

Mr. Grant, I'm aware that there are average Americans who are Liberals. Are Liberals enemies of America? In the individual I'd say no but collectively...well the track record isn't that great.

Right. so what was the track record of the Bush years again?

[Iangould]

=Charles RB;9492355
They've also got really good health care and IIRC weathered the recession better than us or US. Hmmm...


Big deal, so did almost every other developed country. (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=MEILABOUR)

But just because for the last 20 years US conservatives have been using unemployment rates to prove the innate superiority of the freedom-loving US economic system is no reason to look at them now.

[Tony Figueroa]

Kosmopolit, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you said : Yes damn that filthy commie Lincoln not only did he trample upon the rights of the southern states, he also stole several billion dollars worth of valuable livestock from decent law-abiding whites and give these valuable assets away for free to lazy shiftless no-account blacks who weren't even citizens much less taxpayers.
Please explain if you don't mind. I'm sure it isn't a case of how Liberals cry "Racism" when they can't refute an argument is it? Of course not.
As to JFK raising taxes on the richest Americans, this no doubt pleases you as it does all Liberals who seem to believe that wealth can be accumulated only by theft and not hard work and discipline. This is a zero sum game mentality Liberals have which posits that someone accumulates wealth only because he stole it from someone else. Kosmopolit if you don't think you're paying enough taxes then by all means send more money to the IRS. They accept credit cards, checks and money orders. Now as entertaining as this has been we're not talking about health care reform which is the point of your intentional digressions. So I'll ask again: why is not tort reform, the cost of providing medical care to illegal immigrants and the massive waste, fraud and abuse in existing government run health programs not on the table for discussion?

[Tony Figueroa]

Kosmopolit, invoking the Bush years doesn't refute anything I've said vis a vis Liberals and their...troubled relationship with this country. In the individual, I've never met a Liberal who was an enemy of the USA but collectively the track record isn't that great. And since you raise the specter of Mr. Bush, as if Conservatives have to bow our heads in shame at the mention of his name, let's talk for a moment about how Liberals have behaved since 9/11. (Incidentally, this is all a digression from the topic of health care reform but still somewhat useful as it illustrates the differences between how Liberals and Americans, I mean Conservatives view the world) 9/11 should have been this generation's Pearl Harbor. It should've united us as a country, every man, woman and child should've stood up and been counted as ready, willing and able to do what they could do in their respective spheres to fight Islamic Terrorism ( and where has that phrase been recently?) We knew who our enemy was and what they stood for. We knew that this was the greatest threat to our civilization, our culture and our way of life. 9/11 was the moment when we should've risen up as the inheritors of the best of what Western civilization has produced and fought against an enemy with whom there is not even the slightest chance of compromise or peaceful co existence. And in the face of this moment in history, at this critical juncture in American history what did Liberals do? They sympathized with our enemies, they tried to hamper our war effort, they constantly and relentlessly bashed our president during a time of war, they called our troops murderers and nazis, they defended the "rights" of our enemy, their allies in the media, academia and Hollywood created moral equivalency between us and our enemy where none has ever existed. And that is just the tip of the iceberg Kosmopolit. Liberals bristle at the notion that their less patriotic than Conservatives but looking back to the days of the Cold War Liberals are always on the wrong side of history. Liberalism has brought us Political Correctness, higher taxation, more government, moral relativism and the fraud that is global warming. Liberals have nothing but contempt for the average American who they view as being too stupid to manage his life correctly. Liberals obtain through the courts what they know they never could at the ballot box( Roe v. Wade. homosexual marriage to name two decisions) Liberals protested the Iraq/Afghanistan wars but they're strangely silent these days. Aren' t the same profit mongers at work today as they were during the Bush years? You'll notice that I haven't used the term Democrat or Republican. Politicians come and go, political party fortunes rise and fall and corruption is widespread. Just as Liberals pounced on Mr. Cheney's relationship with Halliburton, there is the same taint of scandal with Mr. Axelrod AKPD Message and Media, along with another firm run by Mr .Obama cronies GMMB which has raked in some 24 million dollars in ad money supporting Mr. Obama's health plan. Mr. Axelrod is still owed some 2 million dollars by AKPD, his son and former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe also work there. So let's dispense with the notion that a "D" or an "R" after your name is a sign of moral rectitude. The real battle is between Conservatism and Liberalism. And Liberalism is not what this country wants, needs or will accept if we still want to be worth of our inheritance of the best of Western Civilization. I stand ready to receive a hailstorm of insults.

[Tony Figueroa]

Paul McEnery, governments do not grant freedom. Any entity strong enough to give you something is strong enough to take it away. Free people, acting in concert, create governments to which certain powers, responsibilities and limits are given. Our government was founded by people who'd witnessed the excesses of unbridled governmental power over citizens and they were determined to not repeat those errors. A government is a mutually agreed upon set of principles between the citizenry and those we elect to represent us. You may wish to accept the powerlessness of the individual to direct his life but I do not. It does not take a village to raise a child. It takes parents. I'm a minority. I don't want or expect the government to give me a job I'm not qualified for. And if I don't make enough money then it's up to me to acquire a skill set that the marketplace is willing to pay me more for. There will always be a certain tension in that area where the rights of the individual and the needs of the community are at odds.

[Tony Figueroa]

Adam C, I hope the solidarity with Iran line is a joke considering what's been happening over there. As to your point : To reiterate, CCF both expanded government programs, but increased protections for individual liberties. (Though we might also recall Harold Wilson's Labour government and Pearson's Liberal-NDP government in the sixties that decriminalized homosexuality in the UK and Canada respectively.) CCF expanded the government and increased individual protections? I'm afraid that doesn't hold water. You see Adam this illustrates my point; the same entity strong enough to "increase individual liberties" is strong to decrease those same liberties if it becomes politically expedient to do so. You're symptomatic of this widespread notion that government gives freedom and produces wealth. Government doesn't produce any wealth it redistributes it, it doesn't give freedom but if not watched extremely closely it will take it from you.

[Adam C]

Adam C, I hope the solidarity with Iran line is a joke considering what's been happening over there.

It isn't, unless you take 'Iran' to merely mean the country's government rather than the people who make up the country that have been fighting to remove the state's heel from their neck and make the yahoos in charge listen to them for once.



You're symptomatic of this widespread notion that government gives freedom and produces wealth.

I can kind of see the first, but I'd like to know how you even drew the second conclusion since in the statement you responded to I only ever said they expanded government programs, but I never argued on their merits. I did argue on their merits in my original response (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=9482738&postcount=282) to your statement that, "when the power of the government grows the freedom of the individual diminishes." Though that wasn't even to argue the government creates wealth so much as the predominantly private health insurance in the U.S. bankrupts individuals and pose the question as to whether individual choice is all that meaningful if it just means that people are exposed to gross economic exploitation.

And in that way my main point has been similar to Mr. Grant's. You're arguing on a false dichotomy that doesn't hold up in reality. There are both good and bad policies extending from the left and the right, and merely saying one or the other is bad ignores how things work in the real world. The provincial CCF government in Saskatchewan 1942-1961 may have expanded government services, but I don't see how it narrowed individual liberty when it provided the first written legal guarantee of people's rights in Canada, which includes saying that police can't harass nor use violence on striking workers like they did in the 1919 Winniper General Strike and you can't be discriminated against on the basis of your race, ethnicity, creed, colour, etc. in housing, employment, legal rights, etc. as in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy...which were absolutely the examples that Tommy Douglas had in mind when he introduced this document. That is protecting people from both the infringements of government and powerful individuals on individual freedom by putting it there in writing so people could take these entities to court or embarrass them if need be. I threw in the examples of left-leaning governments in the UK and Canada in the 60s decriminalizing homosexuality to put a point on the matter.

[Adam C]

...9/11 should have been this generation's Pearl Harbor. It should've united us as a country...

Which it did. The country was largely united over Bush's policy in Afghanistan and only became divided because of his unnecessary, unjustified invasion of Iraq which was a complete disaster.


They sympathized with our enemies, they tried to hamper our war effort, they constantly and relentlessly bashed our president during a time of war, they called our troops murderers and nazis...

With the exception of justified President bashing can you please provide substantive proof that these were pervasive tendencies of liberals? Particularly the calling troops murderers and nazis part since I only remember a few articles reporting on verified atrocities and a lot of rhetoric from opponents of the Iraq war about bringing the troops home to bring them out of harms way, the insufficient equipment they were given, and publicizing stories about those soldiers that had been traumatized by the war in Iraq and were not getting the help they needed.


...they defended the "rights" of our enemy, their allies in the media, academia and Hollywood created moral equivalency between us and our enemy where none has ever existed.

And what is this moral equivalency and defending rights of the enemy? Particularly the latter since its a matter of proven record that the Bush administration tortured people, whether proven terrorists or innocents caught in its drag net.


...but looking back to the days of the Cold War Liberals are always on the wrong side of history. Liberalism has brought us Political Correctness, higher taxation, more government, moral relativism and the fraud that is global warming.

Global warming is a scientific fact and the latter are so vaguely defined as I'm not even sure what you are talking about at this point. (Though we could ask how supporting the Civil Rights movement is being on "the wrong side of history".) And that goes from all the other claims you've made. Hell I'm not even sure what 'moral relativism' or even 'moral equivalence' is despite Republican pundits raging on about it either than some sort jargon word used to attack people people who point that the Bush administration has tortured people in the war on terror and invaded a country on false premises.

In any case no one here has argued that allying oneself with the Democratic party or the Republican party is a sign of moral rectitude. In fact Steven Grant recently argued the exact opposite. And Kosmopolit only brought up the Bush administration because your attacks and contrasts between 'liberal' and 'conservative' perspectives have been so broad, simplistic, and one-sided that an example like the Bush administration is such an obvious counterpoint.

[Steven Grant]

Paul McEnery, governments do not grant freedom.

That's a nice little bit of sloganeering, but Paul was bringing up a point about the (at least theoretical) nature of American government that your arguments are completely ignoring: supposedly the people are the government. Do governments "grant" freedom? Well, no. We do believe, at least those who believe that what's written in the Declaration Of Independence is the fundamental philosophical basis of the country (though the DoI isn't law, and some of the principles included therein are not part of the Constitution, at least not overtly), that liberty is innate to the human condition, i.e., it is the basic condition from which all else flows. We frequently don't put this principle into practice, and often argue that our argument is really that it's innate to Americans (which is a stupid argument because if being American confers liberty, then liberty cannot be innate to the human condition, and therefore the American government does "give" us liberty, if we follow that logic through) and it's true that in the early days of the Republic it was commonly thought to refer only to white men of property, but still: we all understand that government, esp. the US government does not give us liberty.

But our basic principle is that it exists to ensure our liberty, which means we, in theory, have joined together as a union, not of states but of citizens, to ensure liberty. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which he allegedly did not want to do but had to in order to shore up the waning spirits of the North), he didn't give liberty to millions of blacks enslaved in the South (or at least hundreds of thousands; anyone got any figures on that) but he did take the first step in ensuring their natural right to liberty would be respected.

So while governments, esp. our government, don't give liberty, it's the duty of governments to ensure liberty.

By confusing the two aspects, what you are in effect arguing is that government has no function. You're arguing for anarchy, because if the government isn't supposed to ensure liberty, and the well-being of its citizens, then it has no function and we should simply do away with it and exist in a state of simple anarchy. (I'm not necessarily opposed to this.)

In terms of health care... Health care reform badly needs severe overhaul because the health care options of many citizens are nil or next to it. Sure, you can say "If you don't like your doctor, or if you don't like your HMO or your health insurance provider, you can go find another one." But this is equivalent to living in a factory town where all wages are kept at subsistence level with no way to afford passage out, but if you don't like the pay or the work, you're told, "Hell, go find another job then." The only other game in town is not playing the game, which means if you're in the factory town you starve to death or walk away with absolutely nothing (which might've worked 100 years ago, but now your credit rating would keep you from finding an apartment elsewhere) or, in terms of the health care system, going without health care at all. In the health care system, unless you have tons of money (and as someone pointed out we're in a place where even if you have a lot of money, health care can put you into bankruptcy) opting out means risking severe disease and death.

I kind of agree at this point that taxpayers shouldn't be paying the cost of health care. The ones who should be paying are the businesses and corporations that felt it was perfectly all right to flood the air and water and land with often very dangerous pollutants because that made their profits increase even though they had tons of evidence they were making people sick and killing them, and the ones who piled tons of unhealthy crap into our foods etc. even though they were made aware of the health risks these things caused, and they all had decades to fix things and didn't bother. Last week, a number of food companies joined Kellogg's in warning the government America faces a severe sugar shortage within months if something isn't done? You mean Kellogg's might be forced to reformulate their breakfast cereals so that American kids are downing the equivalent of three cans of Coke every morning before school?

And, sure, you can say, "These people, knowing what's in their food and drink and tobacco products etc. is their responsibility - they should be taking care of their own health instead of expecting someone else to do it" - but for decades you had manufacturers spending tons of money putting out the message that Frosted Flakes are healthy and an important part of a balanced nutritious breakfast (even though the main ingredients were corn and sugar, neither of which is much in the way of nutritional value) etc. and doing whatever they could to obliterate any contrary message reaching citizens - and the government was helping them! For decades we were receiving a "food pyramid" that had been secretly paid for by the meat, milk and corn lobbies to emphasize their products. This was under the Eisenhower administration, not some liberal regime. Under Nixon, HMOs were founded with the specific goal of making the most amount of profit for the least amount of health care possible - you don't have to take my word for it, the discussion between Nixon and the president of Kaiser-Permanente, who concocted the scheme, is available through the Nixon Library - and was then promoted to the American public - the citizenry - as the "answer" to health care. (And from the HMOs' POV it was.)

The problem isn't with liberal and conservative, the problem is that there are two governments at work in the USA now: a puppet government ratified by the popular vote, and an underlying government by, of and for Big Money. Big Money doesn't give a rat's ass about individual liberty, Big Money only cares about the liberty of Big Money.

And it's exactly their interests, not ours, that Republicans (I won't smear conservatives by equating all of them with the Republican Party) are dedicated to protecting and ensuring. Like I said in the column, Republicans are trying to get mileage out of this Death Panel thing, but what the Democrats won't do and should is reply that we already have Death Panels! They're called HMOs and insurance companies, which regularly deny American citizens life or death health care options because they're mainly interested in their quarterly reports, not the health or even lives of the people they purport to be in business to serve when taking their money for the service.

So why don't the Democrats make an issue of this? Because they exist to serve those interests too, and this little "liberal-conservative" shadow boxing game exists to keep that possible.

But I agree with you in this respect: any people unwilling to stand up to their government when that government is wrong cannot be called a free people. As Phil Ochs once sang, "Freedom will not make you free." So, yeah, let me repeat again: you're right, the government doesn't give us freedom, but it's their duty to protect and ensure it.

Unless you're calling for a mass armed civil uprising and overthrow of the government, of course, i.e. the people reasserting their own right to protect and ensure their own liberty... But as Paul indicates, it would take a mass movement to do that; the options of individuals to single-handedly ensure their own liberty if it's threatened are a bit limited, unless they want to break the law...

And challenge the innate right of Big Money to run roughshod over American citizens and they call you a Communist... or worse...

So tell me, Tony. If you're so worried about individual liberty, what are you doing to safeguard your own?

- Grant

[Adam C]

That's a nice little bit of sloganeering, but Paul was bringing up a point about the (at least theoretical) nature of American government that your arguments are completely ignoring: supposedly the people are the government.

The worst part is that he completely ignores this while at the same time making essentially the same point. Key quote:


Free people, acting in concert, create governments to which certain powers, responsibilities and limits are given. Our government was founded by people who'd witnessed the excesses of unbridled governmental power over citizens and they were determined to not repeat those errors. A government is a mutually agreed upon set of principles between the citizenry and those we elect to represent us.

[Charles RB]

9/11 should have been this generation's Pearl Harbor. It should've united us as a country

It did, and it united dozens of foreign countries with America - the vast majority of nations, citizens and politicians were in favour of invading Afghanistan.

Then Bush raised the issue of invading Iraq. That lost America its unity and support because the Bush administration couldn't convince enough people that this was also about security and fighting terrorism.


And in the face of this moment in history, at this critical juncture in American history what did Liberals do?

As noted above, they supported the invasion of Afghanistan.


they tried to hamper our war effort

Explain.


they constantly and relentlessly bashed our president during a time of war

Mostly over Iraq, yes - half of the bashing being accusations that he was badly running the war, putting troops in danger, furthering his own agenda under the cover of fighting terrorism, letting Bin Laden roam free etc.


they called our troops murderers and nazis

The majority of protesting over the troops I saw was that they were being put in harms way for no reason and without adequate equipment, and should be brought back home.


they defended the "rights" of our enemy

What, to not be tortured and to be tried in courts? Those are rights.


their allies in the media, academia and Hollywood created moral equivalency between us and our enemy where none has ever existed

Torture and killing civilians doesn't count? Cos that happened,


Liberalism has brought us Political Correctness, higher taxation, more government, moral relativism and the fraud that is global warming

The first four are not necessarily wrong - "Political Correctness" is a fancy term for "don't be an arsehole", higher taxation is not inherently an evil depending on where that money is going, more government is not inherently evil depending on what the government's doing with that power, and moral relativism means accepting that you aren't inherently The Good Guy in all situations (something we expect grown-ups to do).

And it's science that gave us reports on global warming, not liberalism.

Liberalism also gave us greater social freedoms (including free speech) and equality.


Liberalism is not what this country wants, needs or will accept if we still want to be worth of our inheritance of the best of Western Civilization

You don't have that inheritance. Other Western countries have better standards of living, social mobility, health ect than America.

[Tony Figueroa]

Adam C : I clearly misread you on the "solidarity with Iran" thing. My mistake. I agree with you that there are good and bad proposals from both Liberals and Conservatives and I happen to think that the health care reform proposed by Mr. Obama is a bad piece of legislation.

[Tony Figueroa]

Mr Grant: I've never argued for a complete lack of government but for a much more limited one. Government has it's place but as citizens we must always be vigilant against said government accruing more power for itself and ignoring it's founding documents. For example, all of these czars appointed by Mr. Obama are not constitutionally supported and as far as I know beyond congressional oversight. Nor have I argued that we don't need health care reform. What I don't want is a poorly written, badly thought out bill that our leaders are trying to ram down our throats. Let's have the discussion by all means but let's put all the meat on the grill especially tort reform, the cost of providing care for illegal immigrants and the rampant wastes occuring in existing programs. No Conservative wants people to die for lack of medical care. We don't disagree on the goal, we disagree on how to get there. You say: I kind of agree at this point that taxpayers shouldn't be paying the cost of health care. The ones who should be paying are the businesses and corporations But if that happens then the increased costs will be passed on to you and I in the form of higher prices. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is too much money corrupting our political process. Not to mention too many lobbyists as well. Okay, no one likes insurance companies. So what's a better alternative? The government running health care? . I work for the Post Office. We have a monopoly on first class mail and we're still hemorraging money due to bloated labor contracts and mismanagement at every level. "Cash for clunkers" was not well managed, Medicare and Medicaid are filled with fraud waste and abuse. The VA (I'm a veteran but thankfully not an injured one) has been an embarassment in it's treatment of vets. Big DNC donors such as the trial lawyers lobby, the pro illegal immigrant groups like La Raza ("The Race", a supremacist name and I'm an American of Latino descent), and the SEIU (big labor) have all poured millions into DNC coffers and yet no seems to have an issue with this. And of course this means no discussion of tort reform, illegal immigrants and unsustainable union contracts that are helping bankrupt quite a few cities. Aren't these groups "special interests" just as much as Big Oil, Big Pharma and the Big Food Conglomerates? There's plenty of corruption to go around my friends.

[Laurence]

Of course, "czars" and "La Raza" are also foreign terms, and therefore scarier.

[Tony Figueroa]

Mr. Grant you ask me: So tell me, Tony. If you're so worried about individual liberty, what are you doing to safeguard your own?
In no specific order: I stay as informed as I can on all currently extant issues here and abroad by reading both Liberal and Conservative viewpoints, I regularly vote in local and national elections, I support organizations that protect individual liberty such as the NRA and I don't place blind faith in politicians, political parties and religion. I see too many people these days who prefer to leave the intellectual "heavy lifting" to pundits, talk show hosts, preachers and so on. Free people should think for themselves. Too many of our fellow citizens put too much faith in government. We're being anesthesized by hundreds of TV channels, internet porn and celebrity worship. We're not as free as our ancestors were. Do people think that because they watch internet porn that they're free? Do people believe that because they listen to music that damns the establishment that they're striking a blow for freedom? The corporations earn money from these songs! Does an adult male with a backwards baseball cap on his head think he's a rugged individualist? It's kind of like The Matrix; the more awake some people think they are the more asleep they really are. Just because I'm a Conservative am I supposed to be blind to the fact that when a corporation and/or organization dumps a truckload of "campaign contributions" on some politician's desk they're going to command a great deal of attention from said politician whereas Joe Citizen with his $25 check is going to get anything more than a form letter? Our schools aren't teaching our children how TO THINK and too many of our fellow Americans don't want to think. And when you stop thinking you become a sheep. If you accept sheepdom then you don't get to cry "foul" when they haul you off to the shearing pen.

[Tony Figueroa]

Sir Fury: Of course, "czars" and "La Raza" are also foreign terms, and therefore scarier. You must have missed the part where I pointed out that I'm an American of Latino descent. I'm quite bi-lingual( it means I speak two languages, not a mutation from exposure to red kryptonite). Nice attempt to hang the racist label on me. Next!!

[AllisterH]

Ok, I have a weird question about Tort Reform (not just related to Healthcare but really anything).

Can anyone explain to me why Republicans are so much against government intervention but yet seem to have no problem with the government limiting rewards in cases against companies?

How is that NOT a contradiction?

[Steven Grant]

Mr Grant: I've never argued for a complete lack of government but for a much more limited one. Government has it's place but as citizens we must always be vigilant against said government accruing more power for itself and ignoring it's founding documents.

Well, sure, but that's only a fraction of the battle. We must also always be vigilant about anyone or anything accruing more power for itself. Which founding documents are we talking about? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? The Federalist Papers?


For example, all of these czars appointed by Mr. Obama are not constitutionally supported and as far as I know beyond congressional oversight.

Oh, believe me, they have Congressional oversight. They start doing anything egregious and Congress'll have them before committees in a hot New York minute. But it was the Ghost's administration that firmly and regularly argued, for the first time in American history, that the White House and especially the Office Of The Vice President was outside Congressional oversight and didn't even have to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court, and they pretty frequently got away with it, so if Obama's White House is accepting that as status quo I can't really say I blame them. If they do I think they're full of crap, but I understand the reasoning.


Nor have I argued that we don't need health care reform. What I don't want is a poorly written, badly thought out bill that our leaders are trying to ram down our throats.

Nobody does, and I've argued against the bill twice, mainly for that reason.

But to say what better way is there than health insurance, that's just plain obtuse. You can go all over the world and find better ways than health insurance. Private health insurance may work in theory but in practice it's just lining pockets. Private health insurance will only work if government strongly regulates it to ensure it works, because it isn't working now.

But it's not a binary thing. Not liking Obama's bill doesn't mean throwing in the towel or saying health care reform is unobtainable or saying, oh, liberals are wrong so conservatives must be right. That's the shadow puppet game I was talking about. It means pressuring for good healthcare reform. As far as the government managing health care, there are plenty of good models for government management of health care that could be adapted. It's not an either/or issue.

But the cold hard underlying fact is that health care reform is going to clip the wings of anyone wildly profiting from health care as it is. Just like banking and credit card reform will "injure" the ability of banks to make the levels of profit they make now, and brokerage reform will inevitably make it harder for them to reach their current (or all-time high) levels of profitability.

So all those groups will fight reform tooth and nail.

Here's the thing about government regulation: if we the people are the government, then government regulation (in theory) simply means that various businesses and institutions are answerable to we the people. That's not an expansion of "government" power, that's about a minimum level of what citizens should expect from their government.


Let's have the discussion by all means but let's put all the meat on the grill especially tort reform

What about tort reform? Kind of a general term.


the rampant wastes occuring in existing programs.

I don't think anyone has a problem with clamping down on that, but too often these are also treated as binary issues: have a program with rampant waste or get rid of a program. But this goes back to this week's column, because here's how it goes: Democrats put programs into practice, but in doing so play so much politics with them (because Democrats want more than anything else to be loved, so they keep getting "input" long after it's needed and adding gummy "compromise solutions,") that the things are knotty messes out of the gate, then Republicans come in and figure out how someone can profit from those programs by working the system. (Sometimes Democrats do that to, but in the latter half of the 20th Century, it's mainly Republican administrations that job the system to transfer public money to private pockets.)


But if that happens then the increased costs will be passed on to you and I in the form of higher prices. Right, and that practice needs to be made completely illegal. Companies and corporations should not be able to transfer penalties for their own bad behavior to their customers. They don't have any inherent right to do that, and it gives them a sense of invulnerability because legal damages are just lumped in with operating expenses, and ultimately have little effect on how they go about their business. It's their own private form of taxation.


The government running health care?

Again, the government running health care doesn't automatically mean the government badly running health care, and assuming it must be that way is just throwing in the towel.


We have a monopoly on first class mail and we're still hemorraging money due to bloated labor contracts and mismanagement at every level.

I don't doubt there's mismanagement, but not sure bloated labor contracts are as much a problem as first class mail is, since that's the USPS' main profit area, and while people used to send letters all the time, virtually everyone uses email now, even for greeting cards, unless they're of the generation that thinks physical mail is inherently more polite and respectful than email, and lemme tell you, even in that generation those people are numbering fewer and fewer. There just isn't a future in first class mail; before too long it'll be a specialty thing for legal documents, and once they work out a secure system for digital signatures that's shot too.


"Cash for clunkers" was not well managed

It wasn't that it wasn't well managed, it's that the public response was much greater than they were prepared for. Cash For Clunkers was an extremely successful program, too successful for the allotted funds and manpower.


Medicare and Medicaid are filled with fraud waste and abuse.

This is true, though probably not as true as you make it sound, but much of the reason for this is anti-Medicare/Medicaid conservatives in Congress limited resources and funding for internal policing of Medicaid/care payouts, allowing doctors, insurance companies, etc. to more easily job the system. Still, all things considered, Medicare/caid pretty much does the work it's intended to do, and does it pretty well, though I don't think anyone argues they couldn't trim waste. But if they did medical, drug and insurance lobbies would scream bloody murder over it.


The VA (I'm a veteran but thankfully not an injured one) has been an embarassment in it's treatment of vets.

The VA is a ridiculous disgrace, but, again, it's Republicans in the White House and in Congress that have generally done their best to clip its wings. The Ghost's administration was regularly sabotaging the VA at the same time they went on and on about "supporting the troops."


Big DNC donors such as the trial lawyers lobby, the pro illegal immigrant groups like La Raza ("The Race", a supremacist name and I'm an American of Latino descent), and the SEIU (big labor) have all poured millions into DNC coffers and yet no seems to have an issue with this. And of course this means no discussion of tort reform, illegal immigrants and unsustainable union contracts that are helping bankrupt quite a few cities. Aren't these groups "special interests" just as much as Big Oil, Big Pharma and the Big Food Conglomerates? There's plenty of corruption to go around my friends.

Hey, nobody's doubting that, but that's not an argument for looking away from any of it. It was a longstanding joke that the Democratic Party is the party of banks and the Republican Party is the party of real estate. Of course there's plenty of corruption going around, but I'm not talking about special interests, I'm talking about the groups profiteering off the most amount of harm to the most amount of people. It's hard to equate lawyers trying to get $30 million settlements from tobacco companies for their clients so they can have $15 mil of that for themselves with corporations spending decades training entire generations of Americans toward obesity and telling them there's nothing wrong with that and doing their best to blot out or shout out contrary information. If the subject under discussion is levels of public harm done.

Though to deal with all these things better, maybe we should start by outlawing all paid Washington lobbyists. If nothing else that would clear up a lot of Congressional schedules to answer mail, emails and phone calls from their constituents...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Can anyone explain to me why Republicans are so much against government intervention but yet seem to have no problem with the government limiting rewards in cases against companies?

As I've said, Republicans have never been against government intervention. (Hell, they started their existence by demanding government intervention for abolition.) They just have their own set of things they want government intervention in and a set of things they don't want government intervention in. It just doesn't line up with the sets the Democrats have, and the Democrats are too namby-pamby to make an issue of it when the Republicans claim otherwise.

Look, Republicans are just better at propaganda than Democrats are. But that doesn't connote any moral superiority on the part of Democrats, it demonstrates their inherent myopia that everyone will automatically see the wisdom of what they propose so there's no point in trying to explain or sell it. It's like the Democrat's disease...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

You must have missed the part where I pointed out that I'm an American of Latino descent. I'm quite bi-lingual( it means I speak two languages, not a mutation from exposure to red kryptonite). Nice attempt to hang the racist label on me. Next!!

Making no claims in this instance, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I've known black guys who had a vehement hatred of blacks and repeated every outmoded racist cliche about them with wholehearted belief, without ever implying for a second that any of those things applied to they themselves. I've know incredibly misogynistic women who were always ready to assume the worst about every other woman. You don't have to be from some other group to be an anti-ist. (I just coined that term.)

- Grant

[Tony Figueroa]

Alister H: Tort reform is needed in health care because the cost of lawsuits is reflected in the price of malpractice insurance. Doctors routinely order unneeded tests to avoid suits. Former vice presidential candidate John Edward is a trial lawyer who made millions with lawsuits built on junk science. Lawsuits against corporations and smaller businesses drive up costs for consumers.

Charles RB: Quite a few of those countries whose support when we went into Iraq had deals for oil with Saddam Hussein. So I think that explains where their "principles" were. Liberals weren't in favor of bombing Afghanistan because it was where we thought Bin Laden was. I recall quite a bit of opposition to that. But I also recall that Democrats made a political calculation: if they appeared weak on national defense in the wake of 9/11 then their political fortunes would suffer greatly. Letting Bin Laden roam free? Osama Bin Laden isn't the war on terror. If he'd been killed two weeks after 9/11 another would've taken his place. Is our inability to find Bin Laden somehow a repudiation for our need to fight Islamic Terrorism? The FBI has never found Jimmy Hoffa's body, JFK's killers or Irish mafia boss James "Whitey" Bulger. Does this mean we should disband the FBI? Liberals did argue that terrorists and suspected terrorists should be tried in US courts. Many lawyers from the ACLU represented terrorists pro bono. I don't think terrorists have the right to a trial in the US. As to the torture issue, well I'm not too sure about that one. If we think that a captured terrorist has information that can save American or allied lives then I think we should do more than ask politely. Say what you will but the Islamic Terrorists started this war with us, they killed 3000 of our fellow citizens, many others prior to and post 9/11, beheaded a few of our fellow citizens on video for our viewing pleasure. And this doesn't cover what they've done to Israel or to the unfortunate non Muslims living in Muslim dominated countries. There is no possibility of peaceful co existence or compromise with them. Have we killed innocent civilians in war? Of course we have. It happens in every war. It doesn't excuse it but it doesn't make us morally equivalent to our enemy either. Has the USA launched missles into a crowded Muslim marketplace? Did we bomb Mecca during the Hajj?
Political Correctness (PC) is Orwellian in it's goals. It seeks to limit the use of language and when you do that you limit and thereby control what someone else can say and possibly think. When you shrink the realm of language you have the same effect on ideas and he who controls the present...
Higher taxation is never a good idea. Taking money from tax producers and redistributing it to tax consumers is never a good idea. I say to all Liberals: if you don't think you're paying enough in taxes send money to the IRS. They take credit cards, checks and money orders.
Moral relativism is when you say that all ideas, beliefs, lifestyles, cultures and morals are equal in worth. They're not. There is plenty of evidence to refute global warming but we haven't had a full debate because the skeptics are being silenced. Just recently a British global warming skeptic was disinvited to a white house conference on global warming. You say:
You don't have that inheritance. Other Western countries have better standards of living, social mobility, health ect than America. Perhaps as a citizen of a country that is marinating in socialism and is in danger of being overrun by Islamo fascists you have disdain for the USA. But the fact remains that we and I should add Europe, are the inheritors of Western Civilization. We're the children of the finest minds the world has ever seen. Think man! Think of our music, literature, architecture, our science and our intellectual inquiry. What a tremendous inheritance.

[Adam C]

Charles RB: Quite a few of those countries whose support when we went into Iraq had deals for oil with Saddam Hussein. So I think that explains where their "principles" were.

Of course the U.S. government tolerated smuggling (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/17/otherparties.iraq) on the part of U.S. companies which accounted for 52% of kickbacks to the Iraqi government. Though applying this same logic we might argue that the invasion was conducted purely to control Iraq's oil supplies for American interests. Which is reasonable considering the oil law (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html) that was drafted back in 2007, outside of the Iraqi legislature. And assuming that the invasion was opposed for purely venal reasons, why not support the invasion and cut a deal with the U.S. in order to let in French and Russian companies?

Of course that still leaves aside fact that the reasoning Bush presented for going to war was flimsy at the time it was presented and completely discredited following the invasion. He couldn't muster significant political support around the world for the invasion because of that fact, which was reflected in the widespread public opposition around the world to the war, since the general public doesn't benefit from such corruption. And even then still doesn't address that U.S. public opinion only became truly divided by the Iraq invasion, particularly following the invasion when all the administration's justifications went up in smoke and it proved itself unprepared for handling the occupation.

[Tony Figueroa]

Apparently since I'm the sole American, er, Conservative ( a little humor nothing more) on here I'm sort of the spokesman Conservatism. Now I know how George Taylor felt on the Planet of the Apes. Adam C: let's not forget that the UN also has dirty hands when it comes to Iraq. Now this next part may surprise you: Not every Conservative was in favor of invading Iraq. But we went in and I do feel that our troops deserve our support even if we don't agree or like the mission or it's commanders. As to mustering support around the world for our military decisions; I don't care what the world thinks. The world doesn't get veto power over our military decisions. If as you say we went there for oil then where's the cheap oil then? We didn't need to invade Iraq for oil because we could've negotiated with the Russians, Mexicans and/or Venezuelans for oil. It doesn't add up to me.

[Steven Grant]

Quite a few of those countries whose support when we went into Iraq had deals for oil with Saddam Hussein.

Some did, but that doesn't mean any of them bought the idea that Iraq was any kind of threat to the USA. (There was an argument for Iraq being a threat to Israel, but not much of one.) Don't forget those countries that joined us in the Coalition Of The Bribed to invade Iraq and create the illusion of international support for our invasion all joined as a result of intense "negotiation" and were promised many things by the Ghost's administration - including access to Iraqi oil, at the same time he was assuring Americans that oil was not the issue and would not be a spoil of war because Iraqi oil was the property of the Iraqi people. (By the way, no one has yet answered my question that if Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, why doesn't American oil belong to the American people? Speaking of which, how can we have such vast available supplies of oil, as has recently been reported, yet gas prices still remain high?)


Liberals weren't in favor of bombing Afghanistan because it was where we thought Bin Laden was. I recall quite a bit of opposition to that. But I also recall that Democrats made a political calculation: if they appeared weak on national defense in the wake of 9/11 then their political fortunes would suffer greatly.

Sure, but Democrats are always paranoid about appearing weak on national defense. That's one of the things that allows so many to profiteer off defense so much.

"National defense" is largely another excuse to transfer public funds to private pockets, and while we're talking about trimming waste, graft and corruption, there's a key place to start.


Letting Bin Laden roam free? Osama Bin Laden isn't the war on terror. If he'd been killed two weeks after 9/11 another would've taken his place.

This may or may not be true, but it wasn't liberals who made him the public face of The Enemy or named him American Public Enemy #1 or put so much emphasis on "bringing him to justice." That was the White House, at the same time they were poo-poohing his connections to the CIA. The White House tried to quietly let the question of Obama's capture fade after American forces failed (and I'm not blaming that on American forces; people who decide to invade Afghanistan should read history books first) to find him, but you can't blame people for continuing to ask the question when the question was put so front and center by the White House for a considerable time.


Is our inability to find Bin Laden somehow a repudiation for our need to fight Islamic Terrorism?

No, but it doesn't say much for the effectiveness of military methods as opposed to other methods.


The FBI has never found Jimmy Hoffa's body, JFK's killers or Irish mafia boss James "Whitey" Bulger. Does this mean we should disband the FBI?

They know where Hoffa's body is, as far as the FBI is concerned Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy so the case is closed, and nobody cares about Bulger. But there are plenty of reasons besides those to shut down the FBI.


Liberals did argue that terrorists and suspected terrorists should be tried in US courts. Many lawyers from the ACLU represented terrorists pro bono. I don't think terrorists have the right to a trial in the US.

See, thing is... this gets back to basic principles again. If rights are inalienable, that means all people have them as an innate state, and those rights should be respected regardless of whether someone is an enemy. Otherwise rights aren't inalienable, they're a matter of special birth, and that our enemies might not accord us similar treatment in similar circumstances is rather beside the point. The real question is: do we have principles or don't we? If we do, then we need to apply those principles regardless of outrage or popularity, and regardless of whether our enemies adhere to them. If we don't, then making any claims to principle is hypocritical.

In other words, if we believe in innate rights, we believe our enemies have them as well, and we behave accordingly.


As to the torture issue, well I'm not too sure about that one. If we think that a captured terrorist has information that can save American or allied lives then I think we should do more than ask politely.

Except torture is well documented to commonly result in statements completely lacking in credibility, because people don't speak truth under torture, they speak whatever they think their torturer wants to hear in the hopes of making the torture stop, and the real purpose of torture isn't to glean information but to establish the dominance of the torturer over the tortured. Interrogation experts will tell you that torture is an ugly waste of time, and the more effective method of prying information out of a suspect is to approach him sympathetically and build a sense of identification, and that this method is extremely effective for acquiring credible information. Torture is mainly cruelty for the sake of cruelty.


There is no possibility of peaceful co existence or compromise with them.

Oh, that's not true. We mainly peacefully co-exist with them now. An interesting thing about fanatics is that they burn out fairly quickly, and while military action is an emotionally satisfying, if ridiculously expensive, response to them, good works would likely undermine them much more effectively. But, yeah, the instance you start viewing an enemy as an alien species with which no accord short of extermination can be achieved, you leave yourself with war as your only option.

I'm not saying no response to 9-11 would have been the correct path, but we improved al-Qaeda's standing in the Muslim world immensely by acting as hysterically as we did. Had we responded more calmly, we would have made them look ineffectual rather than a pivot on which the whole future of humanity might turn. We gave them the response they wanted.


Political Correctness (PC) is Orwellian in it's goals. It seeks to limit the use of language and when you do that you limit and thereby control what someone else can say and possibly think.

You do realize that "Political Correctness" was a term concocted by Republicans during the Reagan era to shut down dissent against their policies and programs, don't you? When they faced any opposition, they shouted "political correctness," because, you know, only those blindly parroting the, uh, Liberal Party Line could possibly have any complaints about their design.


Higher taxation is never a good idea.

Oh, that's not true at all. Raising taxes to support ambitious and necessary infrastructure changes - like, say, installing a modern interstate highway system that allows for much quicker, and consequently cheaper, transfer of goods - is something that benefits everyone. Higher taxation is also preferable to total bankruptcy of the country and collapse of vital services. You wouldn't pay slightly higher taxes to prevent your local fire department from shutting down? I'd be perfectly willing to say that higher taxation is often not a good idea, but "never" is flat out nutty.

On the other hand, when taxation is heightened toward a specific end, once that end is achieved that taxation should be dropped, not carried over. I'm all for taxation with a fixed lifespan.


There is plenty of evidence to refute global warming but we haven't had a full debate because the skeptics are being silenced. Just recently a British global warming skeptic was disinvited to a white house conference on global warming.

So... he has to just shut the hell up? He has no other venues for expressing his views? Did Al Gore lock him in global warming skeptics prison?


Perhaps as a citizen of a country that is marinating in socialism and is in danger of being overrun by Islamo fascists you have disdain for the USA.

Oh, please don't start that conversation again. Britain is in no danger of being overrun by "Islamo-fascists," no matter what the Murdock papers and networks may howl. It's complete rubbish.


But the fact remains that we and I should add Europe, are the inheritors of Western Civilization. We're the children of the finest minds the world has ever seen. Think man! Think of our music, literature, architecture, our science and our intellectual inquiry. What a tremendous inheritance.

Ummm... everyone the world over is an inheritor of Western Civilization... matter of fact, Western Civilization is in part an inheritor of Arab civilization... And America is also the inheritor of Japanese civilization and Chinese civilization and Mexican civilization etc., because that's how multiculturalism works. In theory, America the melting pot gets to take the best parts of everything and dump the crap...

- Grant

[Tony Figueroa]

Adam C: I forgot to add something: I'm not going to endorse corrupt and illegal behavior simply because the perpetrators have an "R" after their name or that the companies involved have snappy advertising. There were many Conservatives that were dissapointed with Mr. Bush believe it or not. Money, power and more power corrupts Democrat and Republican alike and until we get rid of the lobbyists and have some sensible campaign finance this corrupt a thon will continue. I'm a firm believer in capitalism but I don't put blind faith in corporate America, I'm a Conservative but I don't have blind faith in Republican politicians nor do I march in lockstep with Rush Limbaugh. Liberals and Conservatives have to think for themselves. I have defended Conservatism in this forum and I've attacked Liberalism because too many of you are repeating outdated arguments that sound like talking points from NPR or the DNC. Do you honestly believe for example that Conservatives want people dying in the streets for lack of medical care? Or that we want to ruin the same air we all breathe? Or that we want all women to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? Or that we want a return to Jim Crow America? Pure nonsense. Are Liberals all prissy, wussy, Prius driving, hemp wearing, America hating, snivelling, effete fauntleroys who'd rather kill a baby then see it born? Pure nonsense. But while you and I are bashing each other's brains out( figuratively speaking) there are people working behind the scenes to bamboozle us, lie to us and telling us to be quiet while we bend over and grab our ankles. I sure wish I had an answer to reforming health care that didn't put more money and power in the hands of the insurance industry and didn't do the same for Washington DC. I believe that everyone should make as much money as they honestly can and that they should'nt be punished for their success. But I know that the corporations, with the help of politicians from both parties, are running their games on you and I. What are we supposed to do then? Throw the hindmost to the devil? Just give in to more and more government and expect to be taken care of cradle to grave? I think the answer is none of the above. I have to have faith that we can do better.

[Steven Grant]

let's not forget that the UN also has dirty hands when it comes to Iraq.

I think I know what you're referring to, but specify please.


Now this next part may surprise you: Not every Conservative was in favor of invading Iraq.

No, no, we know. I knew many conservatives who thought it was an absolutely terrible and unnecessary idea.


But we went in and I do feel that our troops deserve our support even if we don't agree or like the mission or it's commanders.

So how exactly were you supporting the troops? By silencing your opposition to the war so they wouldn't feel maybe they shouldn't be there? Many of "us" were calling for them to be brought home from unnecessary danger where they were little more than pawns being moved to suit someone's private agenda, and, if they were there, for them to be provided with the proper equipment, protective gear, armored cars, etc. that they were supposed to have but never provided, for National Guardsmen to be returned home instead of being shoved into roles they were never trained for without any concerns for their safety, for the practice of re-enlisting them against their wills at the end of their tours of duty to be brought to a screeching halt. How was any of that not supporting the troops, and how was not pushing those points supporting the troops?


As to mustering support around the world for our military decisions; I don't care what the world thinks. The world doesn't get veto power over our military decisions. If as you say we went there for oil then where's the cheap oil then?

I've asked that question.


We didn't need to invade Iraq for oil because we could've negotiated with the Russians, Mexicans and/or Venezuelans for oil. It doesn't add up to me.

I guess you didn't read the 1998 think tank report Dick Cheney signed off on (remember him? He's the guy whose first response to 9-11 was to call for an invasion of Iraq...) that proposed invading Iraq and taking control of their oil supplies as a first step to a permanent base in the Middle East with an eye toward controlling all Middle Eastern oil. Hey, didn't add up to me either, but then I didn't become Vice President...

- Grant

[Tony Figueroa]

Mr. Grant: Your point on rights being inalienable for all regardless of birthplace is an excellent one. I didn't think about that. I'm not sure if the "winning hearts and minds" approach is going to work either but our military approach hasnt' solved it yet either. I do maintain that peaceful co-existence with the Islamists may be impossible since they wish to either convert or kill us. I could be wrong but I've never seen a tax hike with a built in shelf life. The government never likes to do with less. Sharia courts in England aren't complete rubbish, they exist. Perhaps "overrun" is too melodramatic. How about this being an example of allowing massive numbers of unassimilated immigrants into your country and then being surprised when they turn on you?

[Adam C]

Adam C: let's not forget that the UN also has dirty hands when it comes to Iraq. Now this next part may surprise you: Not every Conservative was in favor of invading Iraq. But we went in and I do feel that our troops deserve our support even if we don't agree or like the mission or it's commanders.

Well yes, I know that the UN is not lily-white and the not every conservative supported the damn war, mostly because I saw a number of conservatives speak out against it on this very board as a farce and its conduct a very mockery of conservative political values?

Though why does the "supporting the troops" automatically void complaints about the mission, how its handled, and the competence of the policy makers who set it out? If anything the fact that soldiers on the ground are being put in harm's way argues in favour of asking why they are down there and whether it is worth putting their lives at risk, and whether they are being given the reasonable means to carry out their mission? All of which apply to Iraq for the reasons I have mentioned. So no, I don't see how anyone is obligated to give soldiers their support, regardless of the missions or commanders.

Then again I don't see how the Bush administration's use of drowning techniques, playing deafening music until the victim starts hallucinating (http://jonahwalters.blogspot.com/2007/03/music-as-torture-at-guantanamo-bay.html), physical neglect of inmates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html), and shipping an innocent man to Syria (http://www.amnesty.ca/human_rights_issues/maher_arar_overview.php), a country known for torturing its prisoners, where he was tortured into signing a false confession through electric shocks among other barbaric treatment, is justified by the idiotic statement, 'we should do more than ask politely.' That's not what proper interrogation is (http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm). It's subtle psychological manipulation and its proven to yield better results that brutalizing people who generally end up saying what they think they want the torturer wants to hear them say.

[Tony Figueroa]

Adam C: thought provoking response to the issue of torture. As I said to Mr. Grant earlier I'd failed to consider that the concept of inalienable rights applies to everyone. I have a hard time not hating the Islamic terrorists and their endorsers in the mosques. I've read too many articles about honor killings, innocent civilians being killed, maimed and terrorized to hold out much hope that these folks can be reasoned with. I watched them cut off Nicholas Berg's head and listened to that poor man scream. I watched 9/11 on TV and frankly I felt myself filled with hate. The list of their offenses against men, women,homosexuals, Jews and Christians just goes on and on. You can't please fanatics unless you become their reflection. In the face of what I wrote about them, yes I thought torturing them was a good idea. Now I don't think so. But can anyone reading this deny all of the evil that the Islamic terrorists have committed and continue to inflict?

[Adam C]

The first four are not necessarily wrong - "Political Correctness" is a fancy term for "don't be an arsehole"...

Specifically it's a fancy term that was almost exclusively popularized in political discourse by right-wing pundits to attack their political opponents to the left. (Last I heard it was original used in response to progressive education.) The funny part is while it originated in Maoism and was initially taken seriously by the American New Left of the 60s and 70s, it quickly became an ironic joke designed to mock ideological dogmatism. I believe Paul said that the equivalent term for the UK New Left was "ideologically correct."



But can anyone reading this deny all of the evil that the Islamic terrorists have committed and continue to inflict?

No, of course not. It's not like anyone here has.

[Adam C]

Adam C: I forgot to add something: I'm not going to endorse corrupt and illegal behavior simply because the perpetrators have an "R" after their name or that the companies involved have snappy advertising.

...I've attacked Liberalism because too many of you are repeating outdated arguments that sound like talking points from NPR or the DNC. Do you honestly believe for example that Conservatives want people dying in the streets for lack of medical care?

Except that no one has made arguments like that. Merely that privatized health care as exists in the United States is so costly that it endangers people's well being and causes unnecessary deaths because people don't get the care they need. Nothing about its opponents supporting it for that reason, though the fact that health insurance companies stand to profit form this state affairs was brought up repeatedly.


Are Liberals all prissy, wussy, Prius driving, hemp wearing, America hating, snivelling, effete fauntleroys who'd rather kill a baby then see it born? Pure nonsense.

Perhaps, but you've been tacking towards this view point since starting up your arguments against public health-care which were based less on the specifics of Obama's plan than vague generalities about 'government intervention' vs. 'the free market'. And when people pointed out that wasn't supported by empirical evidence and based on faulty logic, you turned to a wholesale attack on "Liberalism" which doesn't rest on very firm grounds either.

As for the malfeasance of our elected officials, yes I am well aware of that, but noticed I haven't sided with any party per se or even defended Obama's plan specifically. (Hell many of the political parties I did bring up were outside of the U.S. and from prior decades.) My problem if you keep pushing this dichotomy you've been pushing between 'liberalism' and 'conservativism', implying the latter is somehow outside or injurious to American society. Yet both political persuasions (at least in America, as well as in Canada and Europe since the 1970s) are based on the same source - the classical liberalism of Adam Smith, John Locke, Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers. Modern liberalism, or 'social liberalism' arose out of how the gross inequities of 19th century capitalism made it obvious that coercion existed in other forms rather than simply government coercion or criminal behaviour. And it arose in opposition to radical political ideas like Marxian socialism, since social liberals like L.T. Hobhouse and H.H. Asquith in the UK or John Dewey and FDR in the U.S. largely supported private property and individual rights and freedoms. (Though that the hero of modern American liberalism was firmly embedded in the American establishment should be a big give-away.)

And that's a real contrast to the more communitarian rhetoric of social democratic parties like the Canadian New Democratic Party (successor to the CCF), even if they've largely grown to accept the market economy. Or the left-wing anarchist tradition that began with Pierre Joseph Proudhon in the 1840s and has continued through Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, or Murray Bookchin. Or the theological radicalism of Bin Laden who wants to re-establish the caliphate and govern life according to religious law. Or the culture of Latin America's indigenous groups who place the rights of the collective and importance of community structures and traditions over that of the individual to a degree that sets them apart from Western leftists. Against these world views the differences between liberalism and conservativism, at least as far as mainstream American politics are concerned, are rather slight and to an extent only inflated by partisan pundits playing on political tribal allegiances.

[AllisterH]

Alister H: Tort reform is needed in health care because the cost of lawsuits is reflected in the price of malpractice insurance. Doctors routinely order unneeded tests to avoid suits. Former vice presidential candidate John Edward is a trial lawyer who made millions with lawsuits built on junk science. Lawsuits against corporations and smaller businesses drive up costs for consumers.



Yes, but this is STILL hypocritical. You still are saying that the government SHOULD come in and decide what the individuals should get based on an arbitary standard instead of letting a jury of their peers decide on it.

I thought Republicans were big on the "hands-off" government except in defense and security of community.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Funky Green Jerusalem, crackpot ideas?, average americans as shills for corporate interests?

I didn't say average Americans are corporate shills - you're the one trying to re-frame it that way - I said people who oppose public health care come across as corporate shills.

Much like with the Health Care Bill and and all these exaggerations about them, the trick to getting to the truth is actually reading the words that have been written, not starting at a conclusion/comeback and working backwards.



Tsk, tsk. Whatever happened to the much vaunted Liberal notion of tolerance? Or is that tolerance only of views that don't challenge yours?

Mate, my country is so far to the left of yours that our Liberal party is the right wing party!
(You can fact check that one yourself, though at a glance it looks true!)

But the 'much vaunted Liberal notion of tolerance' generally comes down to actual tolerance - treating very individual as an equal, regardless of who they have sex with, or with whom their parents had sex with.

Nothing in there about tolerating BS ideas and arguments based on BS.


Tort reform, public sector union contracts whose unsustainable health care costs and the cost of treating illegal immigrants, not to mention fraud, waste and abuse in government run health programs very much needs to be on the table during any national discussion on health care reform.

What about the fraud, waste and abuse in private run health programs?
You think that'd actually be less than in government run one's?
Get everyone covered, then sort out the problems - don't make people go without coverage whilst cherry picked problems are fixed.

According to you it's Tort reform, according to that other guy it's drug rehabilitation - get everyone covered, then sort out the fringe problems.
More American CITIZENS are uninsured than ever before - that's your number one priority.
To pretend otherwise is just plain odd.



The snitch website, which I understand was taken down recently, was very real. Union thugs beating up people with dissenting views at public meetings is a standard facet of American life? I don't think so.

I wouldn't have thought Barney Frank asking someone what planet they were from when asked why he supports a nazi policy could play negatively for him on any channel reporting it, but there ya go.

Anyone actually beaten up, or just verbally?

Also, so weird how Americans are anti-union, whereas in most other Democracies, unions, except for a very slim few in very slim circumstances, are usually supported.
Thatcher had to start the Falklands to help kill her bad press for treating them wrong...


Finally, I'm glad you mentioned the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Can you tell me where all the anti war protestors have gone?

Home - no new wars have been started and withdrawal has begun.
The party with the best chance to end it got in in a landslide, and are pulling out.
Personally I wish they'd gone a little faster than Bush and Cheney's withdrawal debate, but there you go.



Or is it that bombs and bullets with a "D" instead of an "R" are good ones?

No, it's that continuing an unjust, illegal war is a bad idea, and the President opposed to it got in.
(Well, McCain was also opposed to it, but he lost the balls to say so in favour of Bush's support - cost him big time).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Mr. Grant look at the shape California, Michigan, New York and Rhode Island are in. The common factor in all three is that their politics have been dominated by Liberals and their economic practices.

HAHAHA!

Yeah, stupid Liberals conspiring with Enron to do those power shortages!

Fun fact: Arnold Schwarzenegger attended meetings with Enron executives and Republic heads before he ever announced he was running!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Please explain if you don't mind. I'm sure it isn't a case of how Liberals cry "Racism" when they can't refute an argument is it? Of course not.

Mate,

You really shouldn't be taking people to task for not being able to refute arguments.

You're drowning.



As to JFK raising taxes on the richest Americans, this no doubt pleases you as it does all Liberals who seem to believe that wealth can be accumulated only by theft and not hard work and discipline.

Taxes are theft?
So using a road is what?
Aiding and abetting?


This is a zero sum game mentality Liberals have which posits that someone accumulates wealth only because he stole it from someone else.

No, that's not true - that's a twist, an oversimplification, and just a touch of a lie.


Kosmopolit if you don't think you're paying enough taxes then by all means send more money to the IRS. They accept credit cards, checks and money orders.

No, he's saying you're all not paying enough taxes, and a look across the world at every country does a pretty good job of backing that up.


Now as entertaining as this has been we're not talking about health care reform which is the point of your intentional digressions. So I'll ask again: why is not tort reform, the cost of providing medical care to illegal immigrants and the massive waste, fraud and abuse in existing government run health programs not on the table for discussion?

I think you need to prove that these are rampant problems and not straw-man-of-the-week-issues.
And even if they are rampant, how they get in the way of making sure that everyone in America receives a flat medical coverage?

Honestly champ, everyone in every country that has it is scratching their heads in puzzlement over this one because we really haven't heard any convincing arguments as to why you're system is better than ours.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Kosmopolit, invoking the Bush years doesn't refute anything I've said vis a vis Liberals and their...troubled relationship with this country.

It does when you're saying 'look at the liberal states, they are in trouble economically', when not only is the whole country in trouble economically, but their trouble came in when a conservative came in power.


In the individual, I've never met a Liberal who was an enemy of the USA but collectively the track record isn't that great.

Holy fucking shit.

So what were Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly talking about today?

Do you even realise what a moronic statement that is?

They don't support THE OTHER PARTIES POLICY and so they are ENEMIES OF THE COUNTRY?

What the shit is up with that?

Half you're country - the majority at the moment - are enemies of the country?

So F'd up.


And since you raise the specter of Mr. Bush, as if Conservatives have to bow our heads in shame at the mention of his name, let's talk for a moment about how Liberals have behaved since 9/11. (Incidentally, this is all a digression from the topic of health care reform but still somewhat useful as it illustrates the differences between how Liberals and Americans, I mean Conservatives view the world) 9/11 should have been this generation's Pearl Harbor. It should've united us as a country, every man, woman and child should've stood up and been counted as ready, willing and able to do what they could do in their respective spheres to fight Islamic Terrorism ( and where has that phrase been recently?) We knew who our enemy was and what they stood for. We knew that this was the greatest threat to our civilization, our culture and our way of life. 9/11 was the moment when we should've risen up as the inheritors of the best of what Western civilization has produced and fought against an enemy with whom there is not even the slightest chance of compromise or peaceful co existence. And in the face of this moment in history, at this critical juncture in American history what did Liberals do? They sympathized with our enemies, they tried to hamper our war effort, they constantly and relentlessly bashed our president during a time of war, they called our troops murderers and nazis, they defended the "rights" of our enemy, their allies in the media, academia and Hollywood created moral equivalency between us and our enemy where none has ever existed.

Wow.
I shot my 'shock wad' early.
Umm, go away.
Please?

1. You had the whole world united behind the US for Afghanistan.
It was when the US decided to disregard the UN ruling, announce 'you are with us or against us' and start a war on barely any evidence (later proven false) that you lost the world's support, and that of the citizens.

2. You don't hear the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' any more because it got decided that just 'terrorism' was a better phrase as it was less likely to incite racial hatred against those who have nothing to do with terrorism.

3. Do you mean there is no chance of peaceful existence with terrorists, or, holy Christ, are you saying that Western Civilisation has no hope of peaceful existence with Islamics, as if there is a difference between the two at this point?

4. Again, I love how almost 50% of the country, later more, tried to 'hamper our efforts'.
This blatantly wasn't WW2 - it was against an enemy who didn't attack you first, and yet you expect people to act like it was WW2.
(Even if you want to say 9/11 was like Pearl Harbour, it wasn't. It was an act of terrorism with a government support. Pearl Harbour was ordered by one countries government and acted out by it's military. There is a difference).


And that is just the tip of the iceberg Kosmopolit. Liberals bristle at the notion that their less patriotic than Conservatives but looking back to the days of the Cold War Liberals are always on the wrong side of history.

Not on Iraq, not on the Patriot Act, not on Mcarthyism...


Liberalism has brought us Political Correctness, higher taxation, more government, moral relativism and the fraud that is global warming.

Why do I keep responding like you aren't just spouting gibberish?


Liberals have nothing but contempt for the average American who they view as being too stupid to manage his life correctly.

Umm, aren't the house and the President both liberals?
Voted by the majority of Americans?
Doesn't that mean that the average American is liberal?


Liberals obtain through the courts what they know they never could at the ballot box( Roe v. Wade. homosexual marriage to name two decisions)

Umm, doesn't the Supreme Court just look at the constitution?
Was there a liberal push, or it just went before the court, and they had to look at the constitution and say 'gee, we can't rule on what happens inside someone elses body'?

And Gay Marriage is getting won by the vote.



Liberals protested the Iraq/Afghanistan wars but they're strangely silent these days.

Who protested Afghanistan?
Iraq is being withdrawn from... what are they meant to be protesting?

Conservatives were strangely silent when Bush sent you into a deficit.


Aren' t the same profit mongers at work today as they were during the Bush years? You'll notice that I haven't used the term Democrat or Republican.

No, you paint with an even broader brush...


Politicians come and go, political party fortunes rise and fall and corruption is widespread. Just as Liberals pounced on Mr. Cheney's relationship with Halliburton, there is the same taint of scandal with Mr. Axelrod AKPD Message and Media, along with another firm run by Mr .Obama cronies GMMB which has raked in some 24 million dollars in ad money supporting Mr. Obama's health plan. Mr. Axelrod is still owed some 2 million dollars by AKPD, his son and former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe also work there. So let's dispense with the notion that a "D" or an "R" after your name is a sign of moral rectitude. The real battle is between Conservatism and Liberalism. And Liberalism is not what this country wants, needs or will accept if we still want to be worth of our inheritance of the best of Western Civilization. I stand ready to receive a hailstorm of insults.

Liberalism is not what this country wants or needs or accepts... it's just that everyone voted for it.

Stupid, stupid democracy.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Double Post!!!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Triple Post.

I just wanted to flood the board with Smoking Monkey's to highlight how overlooked they have been in this debate.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Apparently since I'm the sole American, er, Conservative ( a little humor nothing more) on here I'm sort of the spokesman Conservatism.

Actually, I think there are more of this from other countries than seppo's.

Which is why it's odd.

And why we really want to hear ACTUAL reasons that private health care is better than public healthcare - because we just ain't seeing it.

[Gnarl]

Alister H: Tort reform is needed in health care because the cost of lawsuits is reflected in the price of malpractice insurance. Doctors routinely order unneeded tests to avoid suits.

I think this is relevant to the discussion:

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss51/Gnarl/Img7.jpg

As you can see, the factors that you point out, defensive medicine and malpractice is about 11 % extra on the US costs. (OTTOMH, immigrants are about 0,5 %, and too small a factor to show)

[Gnarl]

Darn double post!

[Iangould]

Alister H: Tort reform is needed in health care because the cost of lawsuits is reflected in the price of malpractice insurance.

So stricter government regulation of health insurance is tyranny but stricter government regulation of trail lawyers is fine?

[Iangould]

"I don't think terrorists have the right to a trial in the US."

How about innocent people accused of terrorism?

Like 80-90% of the people imprisoned in Gitmo at its peak.

But I'm forgetting.

Liberals violate people's rights because they hate freedom. Conservatives violate people's rights because they loce freedom so much they'll do anything to defend it.

[Iangould]

"Higher taxation is never a good idea."

Really, so you feel the US economy has performed better since Bush cut tax rates than it did after Clinton raised tax rates?

[Iangould]

Of course the U.S. government tolerated smuggling (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/17/otherparties.iraq) on the part of U.S. companies which accounted for 52% of kickbacks to the Iraqi government.

Don't forget the US turning a blind eye to Iraqi oil smuggling to Jordan which accounted for most of the Iraqi regimes' income - and also provided a key US ally in the area with a financial lifeline.

Those money-grubbing freedom-hating genocide fans in the French government tried repeatedly to get the UN Security council to stop that. But the US wisely vetoed the Euo-fag commie scum's attempts to cover up their pro-Saddam agenda.

Oh and let's not forget that it was AWB - a company owned at the time by the Australian government - that was the largest single payer of bribes to the Saddam regime. That was in exchange for the right to sell millions of tonnes of wheat to the Iraqis at inflated prices.

[Charles RB]

Charles RB: Quite a few of those countries whose support when we went into Iraq had deals for oil with Saddam Hussein. So I think that explains where their "principles" were.

We buy oil from Saudi Arabia, so by your logic we have no principles either.


Liberals weren't in favor of bombing Afghanistan because it was where we thought Bin Laden was.

I recall very few left-wingers in the West who were openly arguing against going into Afghanistan, and the ones that did suffered career damage.


Letting Bin Laden roam free? Osama Bin Laden isn't the war on terror.

He was behind the September 11 attack! He's the figurehead of al-Qaeda! He keeps releasing tapes that show he's alive and well, each one making the States look incompetent!

He's a pretty key target in the "war on terror", and yet he's not dead or in custody.


Liberals did argue that terrorists and suspected terrorists should be tried in US courts. Many lawyers from the ACLU represented terrorists pro bono. I don't think terrorists have the right to a trial in the US.

If you don't want to try them in the US, you shouldn't take them to a prison in North America. Especially when you take into account people who weren't terrorists were getting accidentally locked up, and without trial and due process there was no way to ID them as innocent - if you're going to present yourself as the Good Guys in a conflict, this is a major own goal.


As to the torture issue, well I'm not too sure about that one. If we think that a captured terrorist has information that can save American or allied lives then I think we should do more than ask politely.

Except that's a hypothetical. There's no evidence there's been vital evidence that could only have been taken out by torture - and torture's an unreliable way of doing things.


Say what you will but the Islamic Terrorists started this war with us

They'd argue the West started it long before by interfering with Middle Eastern politics during the Cold War (and earlier than that with colonialism).


And this doesn't cover what they've done to Israel

And they'd point out that Israel has racked up a higher body count in every conflict it's had with terrorist groups, and used cluster bombs and white phosphorous in civilian areas.


or to the unfortunate non Muslims living in Muslim dominated countries. There is no possibility of peaceful co existence or compromise with them.

Your phrasing here gives the impression that there's no possibility of peaceful co existence or compromise with Muslims in general. You may want to rephrase that.


Have we killed innocent civilians in war? Of course we have. It happens in every war. It doesn't excuse it but it doesn't make us morally equivalent to our enemy either. Has the USA launched missles into a crowded Muslim marketplace?

I'm not sure, but there's a good chance it has. It certainly has managed to bomb weddings.



Political Correctness (PC) is Orwellian in it's goals. It seeks to limit the use of language and when you do that you limit and thereby control what someone else can say and possibly think.

It seeks to say some words are not socially excusable to use, i.e. faggot. Since people still use the words anyway, political correctness hardly comes off as a dominating force.


Higher taxation is never a good idea.

The Scandinavian countries have higher taxes than the US and also higher living standards.


There is plenty of evidence to refute global warming but we haven't had a full debate because the skeptics are being silenced.

Incorrect. There is not plenty of scientific evidence, a lot of it's shoddy - that's why there's a scientific concensus on this.


Perhaps as a citizen of a country that is marinating in socialism and is in danger of being overrun by Islamo fascists

We are not in danger of being "overrun" by radical Islam. (We have Northern Irish terrorists in the NI government, but I never hear Americans bring that up)


We're the children of the finest minds the world has ever seen.

I hate to point this out, but there were fine minds outside of western Europe. Some of them were even in Islamic cultures.

[Charles RB]

Yeah, stupid Liberals conspiring with Enron to do those power shortages!


Whether Enron hired Barracuda to get rid of whistleblowers is not yet known.

[Iangould]

"Mr. Grant look at the shape California, Michigan, New York and Rhode Island are in. The common factor in all three is that their politics have been dominated by Liberals and their economic practices."

Yes damn those California liberals for passing Proposition 13.

[Iangould]

"Perhaps as a citizen of a country that is marinating in socialism and is in danger of being overrun by Islamo fascists you have disdain for the USA."

Tell me, in 10, 20 or 30 years from now when the "Islamofascists" haven't taken over will you admit your error?

Oh and are you in the habit of referring to Franco and Hitler as christo-fascists?

[Iangould]

Funny how when our friend was denoucing the evil influence of liberals on state economies he forgot to mention that Arizona's state deficit relative to the size of its economy is the second worst of any state after California.

He also seems not to have noticed that Alabama, Florida and Nevda all have worse budget problems than New York.

The internet is full of facts. It really isn't that hard to find them.

link (http://www.swivel.com/data_columns/spreadsheet/9565966)

[Steven Grant]

I shot my 'shock wad' early.
Umm, go away.
Please?

Hey, Funk.

I'm more than happy to see everyone arguing their own points of view, but dial back the abuse a smidge, okay? I'll tell people when they should go away, and Tony hasn't yet done anything evictable...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

So what were Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly talking about today?

Oh, those guys, they clearly and regularly push the idea that anyone who disagrees with them is unAmerican and an enemy of the state in waiting (at best), and that if you could think for yourself you'd think exactly what they do. That's their litmus test for who's a brainwashed puppet and who isn't; if you disagree with them, you're a brainwashed puppet incapable of free and independent thought.

But this has been a popular shell game for demagogues for centuries...


1. You had the whole world united behind the US for Afghanistan.

The right wing (which, by the way, is not exactly synonymous with either conservative or Republican, though the right wing wants that general belief out there) line on this seems to be that the rest of the world hates us anyway, so they were just feigning sympathy over 9/11 - political correctness, I suppose - and secretly gloating over our misfortune, and were never going to support us in anything anyway. Whereas in fact many countries took the attack on the physical USA as a warning that al-Qaeda could strike anyone anywhere, which is the message al-Qaeda intended as they made it clear to various countries they were targeted. So even if no genuine foreign sympathy existed in the wake of 9-11, there was certainly a sense of shared interest. Instead of capitalizing on that, the Ghost pissed it away, but it was real.


2. You don't hear the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' any more because it got decided that just 'terrorism' was a better phrase as it was less likely to incite racial hatred against those who have nothing to do with terrorism.

Especially since, as Tony himself pointed out, the majority of al-Qaeda-fostered violence has been against Muslims and Muslim populations. When we responded as though we're confronting a huge military force, we a) made them look much bigger and more impressive than they are, because they're really a pretty pissant bunch, and b) made ourselves look absolutely terrified of them.


Do you mean there is no chance of peaceful existence with terrorists, or, holy Christ, are you saying that Western Civilisation has no hope of peaceful existence with Islamics, as if there is a difference between the two at this point?

Tony did specify Islamic extremists, and I don't recall anything in his posts so far to indicate he equates them with all Muslims or the basics of the religion itself, though that erroneous meme is certainly out there.


Again, I love how almost 50% of the country, later more, tried to 'hamper our efforts'.

The bollox of the preparation - there wasn't any - and the experimental presumptions of that administration's "new military" plan, plus the absolute fantasy that we'd be "greeted as liberators" who'd drop in, start up a democracy and get out in a couple of weeks 'hampered our efforts' more than anything else. As far as the administration was concerned, it was a virtual reality war and they made that very obvious time and time again. All the efforts of what laughingly passed for the anti-war movement (and I came of age during Vietnam, I know from anti-war movements) were as nothing compared to that, and it wasn't anti-war protesters that brought enlistments to a standstill, it was public awareness - remember when the Pentagon banned taking pictures of coffins returning with American flags draped over them - of the dangerous and bloody mess Iraq had descended into.


This blatantly wasn't WW2 - it was against an enemy who didn't attack you first, and yet you expect people to act like it was WW2.

This is another right wing myth, that Iraq deserved to be invaded because of 9-11, due to tons of administration association, directly and indirectly, of al-Qaeda and Iraq. And you know what? You ask them now, guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld, and they'll start out replying they never said Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and never implied it - and then they'll go right ahead and say it again.


It was an act of terrorism with a government support.

I missed something. Which government?


Why do I keep responding like you aren't just spouting gibberish?

Assume just for argument's sake he doesn't know he's spouting gibberish...


And Gay Marriage is getting won by the vote.

I'm not sure I'd say that. The bigger question is: if the objective here is personal liberty, who'd object to gay marriage?


Who protested Afghanistan?

I argued against it. Does that count? (I still think it was a stupid and pointless waste of resources with complete lack of historical perspective - esp. since the Taliban are now making inroads back into Afghanistan as liberators as we prop up yet another puppet government with bogus elections...)


Conservatives were strangely silent when Bush sent you into a deficit.

They weren't, actually. But they did try to blame the problem on Clinton-era policies rather than Ghost era abuses of those policies, and on too much regulation of financial markets...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

How about innocent people accused of terrorism?

In terms of American principles, you bring up a good point:

Are terrorists terrorists before they're convicted of terrorism?

The basic argument against trial for terrorists is that they're pre-convicted. The basic argument for imprisonment in Gitmo was that we can't afford to take the risk that they're not terrorists, though many of them were simply people, including young children, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The basic argument for torture was that we can't afford to overlook any means of gaining valuable information - but the extra few minutes it takes to do it right is precious time we can't afford, even if we'd get more reliable information that way.


Liberals violate people's rights because they hate freedom. Conservatives violate people's rights because they loce freedom so much they'll do anything to defend it.

Now, now. They only destroy freedoms in the cause of ensuring freedom. Surely you can understand that...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

I'm not sure, but there's a good chance it has. It certainly has managed to bomb weddings.

That's true. We certainly haven't been winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan with our penchant for bombing any kind of public gathering there without sufficient intel on its nature. Matter of fact, that's a prime factor in the Afghans welcoming back the Taliban as liberators that I was talking about.

Then we've got all kinds of reports of Blackwater, on our payroll, running roughshod over Iraqi civilian populations...

The Scandinavian countries have higher taxes than the US and also higher living standards.

Speaking of political correctness, it's tantamount to sacrilege here to suggest that any country has a better standard of living in any way than the USA. If "political correctness" does exist as any sort of force in American life - yeah, I think it's a total myth too - the right has its own set of politically correct standards, things they consider totally unacceptable to say aloud.


We are not in danger of being "overrun" by radical Islam. (We have Northern Irish terrorists in the NI government, but I never hear Americans bring that up)

How is that a problem? I thought the Irish were officially considered white these days...

(Sorry, sorry, very politically incorrect joke...)


I hate to point this out, but there were fine minds outside of western Europe. Some of them were even in Islamic cultures.

I can provide zero examples of that. (Now that joke was a historical pun...)

- Grant

[badMike]

I recall very few left-wingers in the West who were openly arguing against going into Afghanistan, and the ones that did suffered career damage.Really? Like who? And really, if there actually people this happened to, then that's hideous.

[badMike]

Tony hasn't yet done anything evictable...What I find very interesting is that, having been on the board for several years, to see whenever a new self-defined conservative wanders onto the board it usually sounds like the same guy making the same arguments. It's always things like "Islamo-fascists are going to take over the world if we're not vigilant;" and "I'm not one of the sheep like all my fellow citizens;" and just plain making stuff up like "liberals called our troops Nazis when we invaded Iraq."

I find it a fascinating phenomenon.

[Steven Grant]

Really? Like who? And really, if there actually people this happened to, then that's hideous.

Well... I got lots of email along the lines of "Considering you make your living by writing material you want the public to buy, you might think twice about saying things that will turn Americans against you." It was very funny, they all had pretty much the exact same wording.

But I ignored them. I'm still here, and where are they?

- Grant

[king mob]

Today's Guardian has an interesting piece (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/aug/21/us-health-insurance-kansas-city)about the free healthcare clinics that are trying to help, even though they're just helping a tiny amount of those left to essentially die or become bankrupt by the American government & private healthcare companies.

[Tony Figueroa]

What I find very interesting is that, having been on the board for several years, to see whenever a new self-defined conservative wanders onto the board it usually sounds like the same guy making the same arguments. It's always things like "Islamo-fascists are going to take over the world if we're not vigilant;" and "I'm not one of the sheep like all my fellow citizens;" and just plain making stuff up like "liberals called our troops Nazis when we invaded Iraq."

I find it a fascinating phenomenon.

I've been reading "Permanent Damage" for about a year and a half and this is the first topic on which I've ever posted on this forum. Lots of good counter arguments to my comments and at least a couple that have given me much food for thought. I will repeat: I have to have faith that between the extremes of the devil taking the hindmost and the cradle to grave nanny state there has to be a better way of doing things. Yes, I'm a Conservative but neither I nor any other right winger that I know wants anyone to die for lack of medical care, our air/water polluted or women and minorities subjugated. Nor do I wish to live in a Christian theocracy since fanaticism resides in the Christian world too. I don't have blind faith in politicians with an "R" after their name. As to the Islamic terrorists: I call them that because that's what they are, if they were Hindus I'd call them Hindu terrorists. There are plenty of Muslims who were sick in their hearts at 9/11 and the seemingly countless barbarities commited by their fanatical co-religionists. But the existence of the peaceful pro Western Muslim doesn't obviate our need to fight the threat posed by Islamic Terrorists does it? I do defend Conservativism because I think that it's worth defending. But as I've said here and in one other post; reading all of your replies and checking out some of those links has given me food for thought. If I were a "good Rush Limbaugh conservative" I'd shut my mind like a vault and not permit any of your counter arguments to penetrate to at least be considered. But that's not being a Conservative, that's being afraid to discover that I can be wrong about some things. I firmly believe that the Conservative ideas of individual self reliance, hard work and entrepreneurship (did I spell that right?) are good things. It occurs to me that describing those three ideas as "Conservative" ones is probably a mistake on my part.

[bartl]

Ok, I have a weird question about Tort Reform (not just related to Healthcare but really anything).

Can anyone explain to me why Republicans are so much against government intervention but yet seem to have no problem with the government limiting rewards in cases against companies?

How is that NOT a contradiction?
I can't speak for the Republican Party, but my problem with the CURRENT government health care plans is that they are in the form of, "give the power now, figure out the details later." For something this big, it had better be specific, as well, in particular, what the limitations are.

[bartl]

I argued against it. Does that count? (I still think it was a stupid and pointless waste of resources with complete lack of historical perspective - esp. since the Taliban are now making inroads back into Afghanistan as liberators as we prop up yet another puppet government with bogus elections...)
Even worse, when it looked like the U.S. was actually getting itself into a position where it could withdraw, the idiots in the federal government decided that the so-called "War on Drugs" was more important than the so-called "War on Terror", and screwed everything up there.

I am amazed that Geroge Bush (or Barack Obama) has not yet figured out: You cannot conquer Afghanistan, and it's kind of pointless to even try.

[Charles RB]

Speaking of political correctness, it's tantamount to sacrilege here to suggest that any country has a better standard of living in any way than the USA.

I remember mentioning this before on a thread on YABS, that some other countries were better in some ways to America and may have been more liberalised at earlier times - and two people acted like I'd just pissed on their cereal.



Really? Like who? And really, if there actually people this happened to, then that's hideous.

I admit I can't think of any names offhand, so feel free to discard that bit of the quote.

[Village Idiot]

{{edit to note too long to quote}}

Tony (and anybody else to whom this might apply), I mostly disagree with what you said in a couple posts, but that is not why I am posting.

Please put some spaces between your paragraphs. A long-assed post is too difficult to read if it is all one massive lump. I have a bit of trouble reading on a computer screen, and it is made much worse by the lack of paragraph breaks.

If you are writing your responses in a word processor program, the paragraph breaks disappear when you copy-and-paste to here.

[Village Idiot]

Making no claims in this instance, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I've known black guys who had a vehement hatred of blacks and repeated every outmoded racist cliche about them with wholehearted belief, without ever implying for a second that any of those things applied to they themselves. I've know incredibly misogynistic women who were always ready to assume the worst about every other woman. You don't have to be from some other group to be an anti-ist. (I just coined that term.)

Until recently, I lived in Smalltown, America. A local convenience store was purchased by a family from out of town. I ran into a co-worker who wanted to know what I thought of 'those people' buying the store.

Those people were from the Middle East.

My co-worker, a naturalized citizen, was a Mexican born Latina.

(I'm an Irish-English-Canadian-Kentuckyhillbilly-American, by the way.)

[Village Idiot]

I can't speak for the Republican Party, but my problem with the CURRENT government health care plans is that they are in the form of, "give the power now, figure out the details later." For something this big, it had better be specific, as well, in particular, what the limitations are.

Yet I can't help but think that you would be saying the same thing a decade from now.

Health care reform has been discussed for many, many years. It has been Ted Kennedy's pet project for nearly 2 decades. Much of the discussion today is the same discussion from previous discussion.

[Village Idiot]

Can anybody help me with this?

Tony posted:

"Many lawyers from the ACLU represented terrorists pro bono."

I've always been under the impression that all the lawyers provided by the ACLU are provided for free.

Do they sometimes charge their clients? Or has Tony just posted a half truth in order to make a point? The half truth, if I am right, is that 'many' work pro bono. They all work pro bono (if I am right).

Help, anyone?

[Steven Grant]

I've always been under the impression that all the lawyers provided by the ACLU are provided for free.

Haven't checked every one of their cases for absolute verification, but pretty sure you're right.

Which isn't to say lawyers that do pro bono work on behalf of the ACLU don't have their own for-profit practices... but on those they wouldn't be working on behalf of the ACLU...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Hey, Funk.

I'm more than happy to see everyone arguing their own points of view, but dial back the abuse a smidge, okay? I'll tell people when they should go away, and Tony hasn't yet done anything evictable...

- Grant

Sorry!

The actual 'go away please' was meant more as my reaction to that line of thinking than to Tony personally, I hate his ideas but love reading his posts - but fair cop!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Oh, those guys, they clearly and regularly push the idea that anyone who disagrees with them is unAmerican and an enemy of the state in waiting (at best), and that if you could think for yourself you'd think exactly what they do. That's their litmus test for who's a brainwashed puppet and who isn't; if you disagree with them, you're a brainwashed puppet incapable of free and independent thought.

But this has been a popular shell game for demagogues for centuries...

Yeah, I flicked on the telly on Saturday and saw Glenn Beck was about to start... and watched it for the first time (Only seen Daily Show and Colbert clips of him before that)... I think he's become the new king of that one.
Hannity always seems so smug when he says it, Beck seems truly scared about how un-American the left are.
He's also got a great scatter shot approach where sentences don't follow on and point's are changed mid-sentence, so that if you weren't watching it with your critical filters on, you'd really only pick up the key phrases.
(For instance, he kept saying he could prove it, and would show proof, but would then quickly segue into a new point, or start of saying here's the proof, and just talk about something else).


The right wing (which, by the way, is not exactly synonymous with either conservative or Republican, though the right wing wants that general belief out there) line on this seems to be that the rest of the world hates us anyway, so they were just feigning sympathy over 9/11 - political correctness, I suppose - and secretly gloating over our misfortune, and were never going to support us in anything anyway. Whereas in fact many countries took the attack on the physical USA as a warning that al-Qaeda could strike anyone anywhere, which is the message al-Qaeda intended as they made it clear to various countries they were targeted. So even if no genuine foreign sympathy existed in the wake of 9-11, there was certainly a sense of shared interest. Instead of capitalizing on that, the Ghost pissed it away, but it was real.

I'd say there was genuine sympathy - I was quite shaken and saddened by it, as were many I knew.
Not only did this happen in the middle of a city that looked a lot like the cities lots of us live in - the cameras covered the whole thing.
You here of thousands dead due to a disaster in China, you're saddened, but there isn't the punch gut or tears - you see footage of people jumping from windows, firefighters running back i and the building falling - the whole thing - it makes it more real.
Throw in the survivors being interviewed being dressed like you and talked like you... you couldn't help but feel like you were just as affected.

The actual fear of it happening elsewhere though... I think that was gone after the first week.
The Howard government tried to keep it strong - especially after the Bali bombings - but it was pretty widely mocked.
(And it's just so inconvenient that they took away the bins at the train stations! Someone could hide a bomb in them. Who they think would waste the money to do us all a favour and blow up some of them is beyond me... without our bins, how can we truly be free?)

The odd part to the thinking on anyone's behalf is that any other country would be happy about terrorism - most of them have gone through it themselves.
England, France, Spain... they've all had their run-ins.



Tony did specify Islamic extremists, and I don't recall anything in his posts so far to indicate he equates them with all Muslims or the basics of the religion itself, though that erroneous meme is certainly out there.

I took that from the vibe that the left has let us all down by saying terrorists instead of 'Islamic terrorists'.

Which could be true - at the Supernova Con in Sydney, Richard Hatch of Battlestar had to quickly backtrack when referring to the shows military being 'like if Muslim terrorists were in control' - the reaction and discomfort of the crowd caught him off guard, forcing him to explain 'not Muslims, but Muslim terrorists'. 'Just say terrorists' was muttered from my friend and few other people in the room.
(Ever at a con and he's talking, stick your head in. Crazy, crazy guy. I think he thinks the show actually happened. He certainly doesn't think the audience understands that the show was interesting because of it's moral grays, or that it had moral grays.)



The bollox of the preparation - there wasn't any - and the experimental presumptions of that administration's "new military" plan, plus the absolute fantasy that we'd be "greeted as liberators" who'd drop in, start up a democracy and get out in a couple of weeks 'hampered our efforts' more than anything else. As far as the administration was concerned, it was a virtual reality war and they made that very obvious time and time again. All the efforts of what laughingly passed for the anti-war movement (and I came of age during Vietnam, I know from anti-war movements) were as nothing compared to that, and it wasn't anti-war protesters that brought enlistments to a standstill, it was public awareness - remember when the Pentagon banned taking pictures of coffins returning with American flags draped over them - of the dangerous and bloody mess Iraq had descended into.

Well, it made your column a joy at the time - one of the few American sources pointing out the wrongheadedness of it all.
(I actually found it interesting at the time the views of Americans on message boards who couldn't understand what the heck was happening around them - juxtaposed everything the press was saying).

Was also odd how forced and full of shit it all was - I think that's almost why it was hard to fight/protest - it looked like total BS from day one, as opposed to slowly descending into it.
What can you do when they started out from that point?


This is another right wing myth, that Iraq deserved to be invaded because of 9-11, due to tons of administration association, directly and indirectly, of al-Qaeda and Iraq. And you know what? You ask them now, guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld, and they'll start out replying they never said Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and never implied it - and then they'll go right ahead and say it again.

The Daily Show did a montage showing how the Dems are arguing for Health care reform, sloppily and all saying different things, and then a montage of Condi, Rumsfiled, Powell, Bush and Cheney arguing for the war. They had their shit together.


I missed something. Which government?

The Taliban.
Not a government in the sense we use the world, but they were running the show in Afghanistan.


I'm not sure I'd say that. The bigger question is: if the objective here is personal liberty, who'd object to gay marriage?

But it infringes on my personal liberty as I don't like the idea of what gay men would do to each other on their wedding night!
It's icky for me to think about!



I argued against it. Does that count? (I still think it was a stupid and pointless waste of resources with complete lack of historical perspective - esp. since the Taliban are now making inroads back into Afghanistan as liberators as we prop up yet another puppet government with bogus elections...)

I didn't mind the concept of it, the execution left a bit to be desired.
Bombing the hek out of a place looks good on tv, but not so good when there's specific people you are targeting.



They weren't, actually. But they did try to blame the problem on Clinton-era policies rather than Ghost era abuses of those policies, and on too much regulation of financial markets...

- Grant

They were.
Some might have complained, but it was a drop in the ocean - up until the market crashed.

Also, I think the US as a whole should stop blaming Slick Willy, and just accept that he was flat out awesome!
He had a heap of problems and flaws, granted, but never actually the one's that get pointed to*, and beyond that, the rest of the world loves him, so why can't you?

*The lying under oath is much bigger than a blow job in the oval office, the war for no good reason with a faulted UN charter bigger than blowing up an asprin factory in said war (although I think that got more play of the US... replace it with that guy killing himself), selling out the countries jobs in favour of cheaper overseas markets bigger than raising taxes etc.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Even worse, when it looked like the U.S. was actually getting itself into a position where it could withdraw, the idiots in the federal government decided that the so-called "War on Drugs" was more important than the so-called "War on Terror", and screwed everything up there.

I am amazed that Geroge Bush (or Barack Obama) has not yet figured out: You cannot conquer Afghanistan, and it's kind of pointless to even try.

You can't beat drugs either - they're just too much fun!

UNLESS, is the war on drugs being fought so strenuously by the right because they know if it's legalized it will be taxed?
Is this their way of keeping it tax free?
Why arguments that 'if legalized, it would provide a great tax base' just scoffed at?
If so, it's time to stop that losing battle!
Become the leaders you say you are!
Legalize it, take the hassle out of getting it.

[Tony Figueroa]

Sorry!

The actual 'go away please' was meant more as my reaction to that line of thinking than to Tony personally, I hate his ideas but love reading his posts - but fair cop!
FunkyGreen: no problem here. None of this is personal and as the sole Conservative on here I expected some sharp elbows. I respect everyone's passion in defending their beliefs.

[Tony Figueroa]

You can't beat drugs either - they're just too much fun!

UNLESS, is the war on drugs being fought so strenuously by the right because they know if it's legalized it will be taxed?
Is this their way of keeping it tax free?
Why arguments that 'if legalized, it would provide a great tax base' just scoffed at?
If so, it's time to stop that losing battle!
Become the leaders you say you are!
Legalize it, take the hassle out of getting it.

I have to agree with you to a certain extent. I've never agreed with the "war on drugs". If an American isn't getting high it's because they don't want to for either moral, personal or job related reasons because everyone knows where to get dope from. Mexico just took an important first step recently when it decided to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana and other narcotics. We should do the same and stop flushing billions down a never ending drain. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't both Democrat and Republican administrations fought this war? I don't understand the whole right wing fighting to keep it tax free argument.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I've always been under the impression that all the lawyers provided by the ACLU are provided for free.

Do they sometimes charge their clients? Or has Tony just posted a half truth in order to make a point? The half truth, if I am right, is that 'many' work pro bono. They all work pro bono (if I am right).

Help, anyone?

I thought terrorists were tried in military courts, and as such, the defense was provided by the Military - I know the Australian terror suspect/Camp X-Ray prisoner, David Hicks, had a lawyer that was a US Military lawyer.
He did a speaking tour in Australia at the time to explain what was going on, and why he felt it was unlawful.
(I believe I also read that a lot of the leaks concerning those camps and the trials were from Military lawyers who weren't too happy with how things are going down - that's the problem with lawyers who are soldiers doing you're dirty work... they've had military code rammed into them and learned off by heart - they believe in it so much that even when ordered to break it, they can't).

So in that case - the US Government provided lawyers to terrorists!

Or, as Bush is head of the government, and a lawyer provides legal aid...

Bush aided terrorists!!!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I have to agree with you to a certain extent. I've never agreed with the "war on drugs". If an American isn't getting high it's because they don't want to for either moral, personal or job related reasons because everyone knows where to get dope from. Mexico just took an important first step recently when it decided to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana and other narcotics. We should do the same and stop flushing billions down a never ending drain.

I think the argument is 'look at Amsterdam' first the legalise the drugs, the next thing you know they are banning dogs from parks because they attack couple having sex in the bushes.

It's a slippery slope.


Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't both Democrat and Republican administrations fought this war?

I believe Regan started it - and you can't call an end to it without either declaring it won or lost.
Bush 1 tried to fal back on it at one point to generate some interest in him, Bill kinda ignored it, Bush 2 didn't do much for it except a bit of 'rah rah' and banning medicinal marijuana, and I don't think Obama's done much for it.

I don't think anyone since Regan has really cared, but you can't back out of it without taking a beating in the press.


I don't understand the whole right wing fighting to keep it tax free argument.

It's not real.

[Steven Grant]

I'd say there was genuine sympathy - I was quite shaken and saddened by it, as were many I knew.

No, I've always accepted there was genuine sympathy and a willingness to work with the USA to deal with the problem. I was just saying that even if the paranoid right wing view was completely accurate and there was no genuine sympathy, at minimum there was a strong sense of shared interest - and a willingness to work with the USA to deal with the problem.


The actual fear of it happening elsewhere though... I think that was gone after the first week. The Howard government tried to keep it strong - especially after the Bali bombings - but it was pretty widely mocked.

The fear may have subsided for populations but the possibility would remain until al-Qaeda was shut down. Though as I said the week following 9-11, what happens in these situations is that the loopholes the terrorists used are illuminated by the attack and sealed up, making future attacks much more difficult.


(And it's just so inconvenient that they took away the bins at the train stations! Someone could hide a bomb in them. Who they think would waste the money to do us all a favour and blow up some of them is beyond me... without our bins, how can we truly be free?)

Oh, handle it the American way. Just litter.


England, France, Spain... they've all had their run-ins.

Hell, we'd had our run-ins. The main difference between 9-11 and other terror attacks on US soil is that this one a) succeeded and b) wasn't domestic terrorism. The right wing has never really had a problem with terrorism aimed at targets they approve of, like, say, "abortion" doctors. Generally they'll tsk tsk the terrorism but add that the doctor brought it on himself. And following Oklahoma City, the common riff was it was a terrible, horrifying event but a) the federal government brought it on themselves or b) the federal government committed the bombing themselves and patsied out Timothy McVeigh. Their main argument supporting option b was that a fertilizer bomb couldn't have made the mess the OK City bomb made, but I saw the effects of a fertilizer bomb when one blew up Sterling Hall on the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1970 - it blew out windows 30 miles away - and I have no problem accepting the OK City bomb did the damage it did.


I took that from the vibe that the left has let us all down by saying terrorists instead of 'Islamic terrorists'.

Well, terrorists is terrorists... doesn't much matter what their religion is...


Well, it made your column a joy at the time - one of the few American sources pointing out the wrongheadedness of it all.
(I actually found it interesting at the time the views of Americans on message boards who couldn't understand what the heck was happening around them - juxtaposed everything the press was saying).

I understood the confusion well enough, but the panic and paranoia baffled me. Made Americans look like a bunch of whimpering chickenshits. I knew people who were certain hordes of Muslim warriors were... right off the coast, I guess... just waiting to annihilate us. It was just bizarre, so far from reality it made absolutely no sense.

But in that case I do blame the liberals, specifically the flood of whiny TV shows throughout the 90s and on that promulgated the notion we're all supposed to wear our hearts on our sleeves and "just let it all out" and believe whatever happens to anyone anywhere it's really all about you. You know, learn to be "sensitive." What a waste of time. Learn to suck it up, America!


What can you do when they started out from that point?

I always found laughing at them to be pretty effective. Pisses them off no end, if nothing else.

The Taliban. Not a government in the sense we use the world, but they were running the show in Afghanistan.

They were more of a government in Afghanistan than Karzai is now. Just wasn't sure in context who you were talking about.


But it infringes on my personal liberty as I don't like the idea of what gay men would do to each other on their wedding night! It's icky for me to think about!

Don't let me bring up the image of Rev. Moon performing mass group gay marriages and what that wedding night would be like then...


He had a heap of problems and flaws, granted, but never actually the one's that get pointed to*, and beyond that, the rest of the world loves him, so why can't you?

We don't want to run the risk he'll want to love us back... most of us don't like cigars...

- Grant

[badMike]

I firmly believe that the Conservative ideas of individual self reliance, hard work and entrepreneurship (did I spell that right?) are good things. It occurs to me that describing those three ideas as "Conservative" ones is probably a mistake on my part.If you hadn't, I would have pointed that out to you. Do you really think all "liberals" are just sitting around trying to think of ways to scam some government assistance dollars for themselves? Ridiculous.

[Steven Grant]

I don't understand the whole right wing fighting to keep it tax free argument.

It is generally the religious right that goes ballistic over any suggestion that drugs should be decriminalized or legalized (and I understand their POV) though more specifically the DEA and FBI go psycho at the suggestion. Neither Republican nor Democratic administrations want the rap of being "soft" on drugs, which is equated with the corruption of youth, moral turpitude, etc. It's a very emotional issue for a lot of people, and drug "facts" aren't much of a shield against the drug myths Americans have been fed for decades. It's a general problem of communication in this country now, that not being in favor of shutting down X is the same thing as endorsing it.

Matter of fact, the 1937 marijuana ban is the result of a fiercely organized campaign orchestrated in part by Thomas Dewey to get a big political "win" in furtherance of his presidential ambitions. In the process, the widely known and used hemp was renamed marijuana specifically to generate a public horror of swarthy Mexicans using it to corrupt the morals of good Christian boys and girls. Perhaps not coincidentally, marijuana prohibition gave Lucky Luciano's mobs a "cash crop" to replace alcohol, which prior to the repeal of prohibition they'd made millions from, as well as an excuse to muscle in on the Harlem mobs, the distributors of hemp to black communities.

As a member of the War Department, by the way, Dewey negotiated Luciano's release from the cell Dewey had personally convicted him into (though there's some suggestion that this was an arrangement to get Luciano out of reach of his enemies, and he continued running his mob from behind bars) in return for Luciano being repatriated to Sicily to organize the Sicilian mobs into an advance force to aid an eventual American invasion of Italy. (Mussolini didn't have much tolerance for the Mafia, making recruitment easy.) As a result, by the '50s, Luciano had taken over the heroin trade out of the Middle East and into America, and set up the Marsaille heroin smuggling ring immortalized in THE FRENCH CONNECTION.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Or, as Bush is head of the government, and a lawyer provides legal aid...

Bush aided terrorists!!!

But he didn't negotiate with them! It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

I think the argument is 'look at Amsterdam' first the legalise the drugs, the next thing you know they are banning dogs from parks because they attack couple having sex in the bushes.

I gather Amsterdam, under pressure from the rest of the EU, has quietly recriminalized drugs.

Portugal, on the other hand, legalized drugs back in 2001, and barely a report of it has ever been made by the press anywhere, maybe because Portugal's drug problem precipitously plunged immediately afterward and has remained low ever since...


I believe Reagan started it - and you can't call an end to it without either declaring it won or lost.

Reagan was the first to use the term "war on drugs," but Nixon ordered the burning and poisoning of Mexican marijuana fields (immortalized in the Jefferson Airplane song, "Mexico") while Johnson oversaw the outlawing of psychedelics. (Again coincidentally, both these events saw resulting skyrocketing rise of heroin distribution and usage as the mob moved into areas where pot and acid use had been, uh, high.)

Remember that even as Reagan ("Just say Nancy") was promoting a national "war on drugs," the Reagan administration turned a blind eye to rampant drug smuggling by the Contras who served that administrations political ambitions. So it usually goes.

Matter of fact, I'm a bit surprised no one ever pushed on the subject of the Ghost's "military service" as a member of the Louisiana National Guard, where he spent much of his stint in absentia, reportedly spending most weekends flying a plane off the books back and forth between Louisiana and South Florida... at the height of the cocaine smuggling rage... I can't specify how that was, but I know how it looks...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Do you really think all "liberals" are just sitting around trying to think of ways to scam some government assistance dollars for themselves?

I know I am...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Though as I said the week following 9-11, what happens in these situations is that the loopholes the terrorists used are illuminated by the attack and sealed up, making future attacks much more difficult.

That's in your case, in our case they took our bins... and started up a phone hotline - and lots of these posters everywhere... and I mean everywherehttp://theinspirationroom.com/daily/commercials/2007/2/help-protect-australia-from-terrorism.jpg
There was a tv spot as well.

It's a map of Australia made up of pictures of suspicious activities you should ring about...
of course, most of those things absolutely anyone could be doing for any reason.
One is a guy looking at a dam... who doesn't stop and look at a damn - they are massive!
Or someone with fertilizer in a van.

Of course, what the ad was really saying was let us know if you see Muslims doing these things.



Oh, handle it the American way. Just litter.

They actually managed to get that one out of our systems somehow - there's a lot less than there used to be, and it's quite the social faux-pas.


But in that case I do blame the liberals, specifically the flood of whiny TV shows throughout the 90s and on that promulgated the notion we're all supposed to wear our hearts on our sleeves and "just let it all out" and believe whatever happens to anyone anywhere it's really all about you. You know, learn to be "sensitive." What a waste of time. Learn to suck it up, America!

See, there's something you can blame the Clinton era for!

Also, boy bands made a come back.


I gather Amsterdam, under pressure from the rest of the EU, has quietly recriminalized drugs.

I can't find mention of it - though technically it's illegal, but not punishable.
The cannabis cafe's are there - although, and I love this, it's legal to buy it, but not to sell it.
But the coffee shops are tolerated as long as they keep it low key and don't sell large amounts to one person.
(That said, according to wikipedia, the chamber of commerce is concerned as too many brothels are closing down in the red light district! The tourists are probably smoking too much!)

But what I referenced before was a radio report I heard - a few couples had been attacked by dogs whilst having a shag in a popular park, so the town council banned dogs from the park.
I think that's a brilliant bit of governing.



Remember that even as Reagan ("Just say Nancy") was promoting a national "war on drugs," the Reagan administration turned a blind eye to rampant drug smuggling by the Contras who served that administrations political ambitions. So it usually goes.

Also gotta fund the CIA's un-approved programs somehow!

The Australian war on drugs involved Howard sending around an information booklet - pretty good for a laugh.
My housemates and I did what any responsible person would, passed a joint and read out loud from it.
Learned some new names for acid, and it turns out every teenager is on drugs (moodiness and not wanting to talk to their parents as much being the key signs of drug use...)



Matter of fact, I'm a bit surprised no one ever pushed on the subject of the Ghost's "military service" as a member of the Louisiana National Guard, where he spent much of his stint in absentia, reportedly spending most weekends flying a plane off the books back and forth between Louisiana and South Florida... at the height of the cocaine smuggling rage... I can't specify how that was, but I know how it looks...

- Grant

Because you'd lose the right for attacking the President, and the left for attacking drugs!

Closest I can think of was the nice touch in Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 where he mentioned Bush's unexplained disappearance and the riff from 'Cocaine' played.
For Moore, it counts as subtle.

But I guess that could just cover using it... would he have needed to sell it/smuggle it though?
Surely he had the cash for it?

[NatGertler]

Do you really think all "liberals" are just sitting around trying to think of ways to scam some government assistance dollars for themselves?Believe, me, I was sad to see that whole Cash For Gertlers program come to an end...

--Nat (who actually did get an $8100 check from the federal government yesterday)

[badMike]

Believe, me, I was sad to see that whole Cash For Gertlers program come to an end...Yes, but which Gertlers did you trade in to get the cash?

[Tony Figueroa]

If you hadn't, I would have pointed that out to you. Do you really think all "liberals" are just sitting around trying to think of ways to scam some government assistance dollars for themselves? Ridiculous.

Good point.

[NatGertler]

Yes, but which Gertlers did you trade in to get the cash?If you don't notice they're gone, it doesn't really matter, right?

[Tony Figueroa]

Hell, we'd had our run-ins. The main difference between 9-11 and other terror attacks on US soil is that this one a) succeeded and b) wasn't domestic terrorism. The right wing has never really had a problem with terrorism aimed at targets they approve of, like, say, "abortion" doctors. Generally they'll tsk tsk the terrorism but add that the doctor brought it on himself. And following Oklahoma City, the common riff was it was a terrible, horrifying event but a) the federal government brought it on themselves or b) the federal government committed the bombing themselves and patsied out Timothy McVeigh. Their main argument supporting option b was that a fertilizer bomb couldn't have made the mess the OK City bomb made, but I saw the effects of a fertilizer bomb when one blew up Sterling Hall on the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1970 - it blew out windows 30 miles away - and I have no problem accepting the OK City bomb did the damage it did.
- Grant

Speaking as the token Conservative here I didn't approve of the murder of Dr. Tiller or any other abortion provider. Nor do I think that bombing abortion clinics is a good thing. I'm not pro abortion either but it happens to be the law of the land and whether someone agrees with the law or not it doesn't give them the right to kill someone over it. Christian terrorism isn't any better than Islamic terrorism. I was in the Navy for a few years and I've seen the damage that even small amounts of explosives can do. So I have no doubt that the devastation caused by McVeigh's bomb was all too real. If anyone calling themselves a Conservative thinks that McVeigh was a patsy or that the government somehow abetted this or "had it coming"...well being a Conservative doesn't innoculate anyone from being an idiot or at the very least wrongheaed. And that includes me too.

[Steven Grant]

Speaking as the token Conservative here I didn't approve of the murder of Dr. Tiller or any other abortion provider.

Like I said, "conservative" and "right winger" aren't exactly synonymous.

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

I know I am...

- Grant

Well, you are awfully close to drawing social security...

[Steven Grant]

Well, you are awfully close to drawing social security...

I should be so lucky.

Bastard.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Believe, me, I was sad to see that whole Cash For Gertlers program come to an end...

--Nat (who actually did get an $8100 check from the federal government yesterday)

That beats the $900 the government gave me.

Of course, all I had to do was my tax return, and I got given that on top for just being me...

You think Republicans are struggling to attack the clash for clunkers, try and watch an opposition oppose everyone getting $900... even the most solid arguments fall on deaf ears.

[EuropaBambaataa]

I gather Amsterdam, under pressure from the rest of the EU, has quietly recriminalized drugs.

Portugal, on the other hand, legalized drugs back in 2001, and barely a report of it has ever been made by the press anywhere, maybe because Portugal's drug problem precipitously plunged immediately afterward and has remained low ever since...

- Grant

Erm... not quite. And the way you phrased you make it seem like you can buy pills or coke anywhere. The purchase, possession and consumption of any sort of drugs is no longer a criminal offense. It is still an offense, which means a hefty fine and you're forced to go into rehab.

Traficking and selling any drug ("soft", "hard" or "recreational") is still a crime and will get you a nice 7-year vacation away from the rest of society. Our Coast Guard is in the process of acquiring new equipment for the "war on drugs", mostly because we're the main entrance for drugs for the whole of southwest Europe coming in from either South America on North Africa.

[Lord Destiny]

neither I nor any other right winger that I know wants anyone to die for lack of medical care, our air/water polluted or women and minorities subjugated.

And yet, "right wingers" insist on being a barrier to any prevention or punishment...


I firmly believe that the Conservative ideas of individual self reliance, hard work and entrepreneurship (did I spell that right?) are good things. It occurs to me that describing those three ideas as "Conservative" ones is probably a mistake on my part.

I don't know any liberals who don't also promote those ideas, since they're just skeletal concepts.

I think Conservatives take the simplistic attitude that every American has the same opportunities, and that there are no barriers to become self-reliant. Laissez-faire capitalism is a system with huge gaps--such as an accepted degree of unemployment. Since the system has unemployment built into it, what do we do then? Let'em starve, or tweak the system? Conservatives would rather let'em starve than tweak the system. The flip side is that tweaking the system often creates its own negatives, such as deadbeats exploiting the food stamp program. But which is worse, knowing certain people are getting what they don't deserve, or leaving certain other people in an unlivable situation?

Many Americans are trying to live according to "individual self-reliance" by taking the best job they can get (such as working at Wal-Mart). They adhere to "hard work" principles, working all the hours they can get. Theoretically, this is supposed to reward them with a living wage and benefits. But Wal-Mart and other such employers thwart that plan by denying them full-time and/or benefits (and/or engaging in illegal employer tactics, such as forcing unpaid labor). These folks are doing all they can, and are getting squashed for their effort...

...and have to come home and hear Republicans say they're deadbeats or welfare cheats for getting the extra help they need to simply tread water.

[Lord Destiny]

Mr Grant: I've never argued for a complete lack of government but for a much more limited one.

Why is it when a GOP/con/rw-er says "limited gov't" it only applies to limiting the gov't's ability to protect the little guy?


tort reform

I've yet to see where this doesn't simply mean "stop regular people from holding big corporations accountable."

Note to Tony: you want BOTH a limiting of government power (statute) as well as a limiting of lawsuits (civil cases). Between the two of them, you have effectively ELIMINATED the two means of preserving freedom in this country!

You're taking away my ability to preserve my rights and freedoms through torts, and my ability to preserve my rights and freedoms through the courts.

All you leave is "six gun justice" ...and the "bad guys" will win that way too.

[Lord Destiny]

Too many of our fellow citizens put too much faith in government.

Ah, but were you saying that when Bush/GOP passed the Patriot Act...? Or when any of the other rights-reducing security measures were put in place?

Or when being "tough on crime" (major use of gov't) is supposed to solve our drug problem?

Or when the tax code is manipulated for certain economic goals?

Seems to me, GOP/cons/rw-ers cling just as tightly to the gov't for solutions as anybody else...


It's kind of like The Matrix; the more awake some people think they are the more asleep they really are.

We agree on this. But probably disagree on how we define the Matrix.



Our schools aren't teaching our children how TO THINK and too many of our fellow Americans don't want to think.
and


We're being anesthesized by hundreds of TV channels, internet porn and celebrity worship.


Don't blame the teachers. First off, many parents don't want their kids taught to think (as in, think independently); they want them taught how to do well on a test so they can get a higher paying job. And second, teachers aren't giving kids their own TV sets to watch until 3 am on a school night. Teachers aren't giving kids their own computers and unsupervised internet access. Teachers don't give kids all those damn cell phones and video games that consume their whole lives. I'm a teacher, and most of my kids ARE "anesthesized" as you put it. But it sure as hell ain't my fault.

I blame consumerism. Their whole lives are based around the latest product. Big Business pushes this on them, the kids push it on themselves, and the parents cater to it. And anyone who gets on TV and tries to stop it is some kind of "pinko, liberal commie who hates America and our freedom!"

[Adam C]

I don't know any liberals who don't also promote those ideas, since they're just skeletal concepts.

Which gets back to the point I made earlier, that modern American "liberalism" is based on exactly the same basic set of values as what is called "conservativism". The only reason liberalism actually accepted government intervention in the United States and Canada was that the Great Depression made holding onto laissez-faire values untenable. (And that's why someone like Conrad Black can actually respect Roosevelt, because in his mind the New Deal stymied the rise of Communism.) Though many liberals in Europe, but especially England, already made that shift in the 1880s and 1890s not only because of the gross inequities of laissez-faire capitalism, but because it was encouraging political radicalism to an alarming extent.

And Europe's political conservatives and reactionaries - which at the time were more about the Church, tradition, the nation, property, and hierarchy than the liberal ideas of the individual and the market - already made the steps towards creating a government run social infrastructure to address these problems. They just got to that point sooner because their corporatist notions of the nation and noblesse-oblige just made it easier to face up to the consequences of an unfettered market economy.

[Adam C]

No, I've always accepted there was genuine sympathy and a willingness to work with the USA to deal with the problem. I was just saying that even if the paranoid right wing view was completely accurate and there was no genuine sympathy, at minimum there was a strong sense of shared interest - and a willingness to work with the USA to deal with the problem.

I suppose it's worth bringing up once again that Iran initially aided the U.S. in Afghanistan (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf)?


Iranian aid to Taliban fighters puzzle some experts since these shipments would appear to conflict with Iran’s support for the government of Karzai—which Iran actively helped put together, in cooperation with the United States—at the December 2001 “Bonn Conference.” In addition, Iran has traditionally supported Persian-speaking non-Pashtun factions in Afghanistan, who would presumably be suppressed and marginalized by any new Taliban-led regime in Afghanistan. Iran saw the Taliban regime, which ruled during 1996-2001, as a threat to its interests in Afghanistan, especially after Taliban forces captured Herat (the western province that borders Iran) in September 1995. Iran subsequently drew even closer to the ethnic minority-dominated Northern Alliance than previously, providing its groups with fuel, funds, and ammunition.39 In September 1998, Iranian and Taliban forces nearly came into direct conflict when Iran discovered that nine of its diplomats were killed in the course of the Taliban’s offensive in northern Afghanistan. Iran massed forces at the border and threatened military action, but the crisis cooled without a major clash, possibly out of fear that Pakistan would intervene on behalf of the Taliban. Iran offered search and rescue assistance in Afghanistan during the U.S.-led war to topple the Taliban, and it also allowed U.S. humanitarian aid to the Afghan people to transit Iran. In attempting to explain the continuing shipments, some experts believe Iran’s policy might be shifting somewhat to gain leverage against the United States by causing U.S. combat deaths, or by demonstrating that Iran is in position to cause U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan.

That's on page 53 of the PDF page counter if you want to jump straight to it. (Otherwise, it's page 47 based on the page count on the article itself.) The article doesn't actually state when the shipments began, though for those who aren't sugar-coating things it's well known that the Bush administration essentially drove Iran (http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/Audit_10_08_Rubin.pdf) to support the Taliban with its pointless sabre-rattling. I can't find a news story on it right now, but I recall that after taking office not only did U.S.-Iranian relations thaw considerably, but a deal was struck with Iran over cooperation in dealing with Afghanistan's drug trade, since Iran has the deal with the problems that it causes as drugs are shipped through Iran's borders.

[Steven Grant]

I suppose it's worth bringing up once again that Iran initially aided the U.S. in Afghanistan (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf)?

I didn't recall them working with the USA but I recall them offering, and Iraq. Since the Ghost had long since identified them, along with North Korea, as The Axis Of Evil (since post-election he could no longer condemn China as the source of all things unAmerican and evil in the world, since someone had obviously wised him up between election day and inauguration that China was America's checkbook... which must've impressed him because he financed his wars by borrowing from China and leaving us holding the sodding baby...) so their offers were summarily, irately and very publicly dismissed and rejected as insincere propaganda publicity stunts. They had to be dismissed as such because by then the Administration's objective was already the deposing of Saddam Hussein, establishment of an American military presence in Iraq and either invasion of or intimidation of Iran, the projected scenario in the event Rumsfeld had predicted correctly and the Iraq war (and peace) had been over within a couple of weeks and with many fewer soldiers than eventually ended up bogged in Iraq. Couldn't very well follow that path if the countries you're invading are your allies... (Or at least it's difficult to build public support of invasion in that situation...)

- Grant

[bartl]

I've yet to see where this doesn't simply mean "stop regular people from holding big corporations accountable."
Here are a few which don't:
1) Real penalties for the filing of frivolous lawsuits; for example, if the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case after discovery, but continues to pursue the lawsuit.

2) With comparative negligence, requiring a party to be at least 50% responsible to be successfully sued as a defendant (some states have this already).

3) The same standard for "reasonable person" on both sides of a case.

4) If a defendant takes a reasonable course which is only incorrect in hindsight, the fact that someone else can say, in hindsight, that another course was better, should not be considered "negligence".

[bartl]

Ah, but were you saying that when Bush/GOP passed the Patriot Act...? Or when any of the other rights-reducing security measures were put in place?

Or when being "tough on crime" (major use of gov't) is supposed to solve our drug problem?

Or when the tax code is manipulated for certain economic goals?
Hmm.... 3 out of 4 for me (Patriot Act, other rights-reducing security measures, drug laws/enforcement, yes, tax code manipulated for certain economic goals, depends on the goals and whether the manipulation is an effective means of achieving those goals).

[Tony Figueroa]

[QUOTE=Lord Destiny;9518528]And yet, "right wingers" insist on being a barrier to any prevention or punishment...

LD: I'm a Conservative, not the Conservative movement personified. I can only speak for myself. It might interest you to know that since joining this discussion I've had to reconsider and think through some of my positions. I'm not clear on what you mean by the above quote.

As I've said before; somewhere between the extremes of the devil taking the hindmost and the nanny state there has to be a sensible middle ground. You correctly point out that there are no perfect solutions and so we should choose the least imperfect one. Just as there are welfare cheats there are corporate cheats too, yet the Limbaugh right argues that we should dissolve the former and embrace the latter.

I know that people are working hard and not making it. I'm a single dad and I'm barely making ends meet. Like you, I'm a firm believer in Capitalism but I'm not naive enough to think that left to their own devices Corporate America will do what's right. And yet, too many on the right put their blind faith in "the marketplace" as if it were a panacea to all of our problems. I belong to a labor union (which in Conservative circles makes me if not a heretic then a budding socialist) because I do believe that workers should have a voice.

As to Republicans who call average Americans who need a little extra help to get by welfare cheats and deadbeats, well to them I'd say: get out of your limos, step out of the country club, turn off Limbaugh and understand that Liberals and Conservatives alike are doing the best they can and instead of insulting people you could use your clout to help.

[Tony Figueroa]

Why is it when a GOP/con/rw-er says "limited gov't" it only applies to limiting the gov't's ability to protect the little guy?

LD, I haven't argued against the little guy being protected. What I've argued against is putting more and more power into the hands of government.


I've yet to see where this doesn't simply mean "stop regular people from holding big corporations accountable."
Again, I've never argued that Corporate America should be unaccountable for it's wrongdoing. As it is they've got their hands too deeply into our government and too many politicians in their pockets. And that includes politicians with an "R" and a "D" after their names.

Note to Tony: you want BOTH a limiting of government power (statute) as well as a limiting of lawsuits (civil cases). Between the two of them, you have effectively ELIMINATED the two means of preserving freedom in this country!

You're taking away my ability to preserve my rights and freedoms through torts, and my ability to preserve my rights and freedoms through the courts.

All you leave is "six gun justice" ...and the "bad guys" will win that way too.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't want more power concentrated in fewer hands whether it's the government or the corporations/banks. As it is the banks/corporations have too much influence. I previously argued that tort reform was needed because of the impact it has on the costs of medical care. However, one of the posters here showed me a chart that disabused me of that notion. Bartl makes some good points about some sensible reforms. I don't want "six gun justice" (sounds like a western) I want a government that actually works for the people instead of the moneyed interests that, in my opinion, are not working in the interests of the American people.

[Tony Figueroa]

Lord Destiny: I didn't condone "The Patriot Act" just because Bush had an "R" after his name. I never bought into the whole "give me your freedom and I'll give you security" philosophy.

"Tough on crime" hasn't solved the drug problem and it never will. Both parties engage in the manipulation of the tax code for their own ends. But if we hike taxes on business doesn't the public end up paying more in the form of higher prices? It may be emotionally satisfying to tax Big Oil or Big Tobacco but then don't they just turn around and charge the consumer higher prices? But on the other hand would a sharp reduction in the business tax lead to a proportional drop in prices for goods?

I may be the token Conservative on this thread but I don't/can't/won't speak for all Conservatives, only myself.

I don't blame teachers for the ills of our public education. I have a son in public school and I work very closely with his teachers. I'm their partner in his education. Public school teachers have an extremely difficult job and deseve respect. There are too many apathetic parents who think it's the "school's job" to educate their kids. And you're quite right; we've made materialism into a religion along with celebrity worship.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

4) If a defendant takes a reasonable course which is only incorrect in hindsight, the fact that someone else can say, in hindsight, that another course was better, should not be considered "negligence".

There's a slippery slope which could easily be exploited by the side that can bury the other in paper...

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

But if we hike taxes on business doesn't the public end up paying more in the form of higher prices? It may be emotionally satisfying to tax Big Oil or Big Tobacco but then don't they just turn around and charge the consumer higher prices? But on the other hand would a sharp reduction in the business tax lead to a proportional drop in prices for goods?


That's the problem with a lot of businesses at the moment - although they don't have monopolies, there's really only two or three in the field, and so they can just raise, or not lower prices, and not fear losing the business... due to being the only boys in town and insane overheads to get to their level, they know there's no one else you can turn to, and no one else going to be able to exploit the system.

Or, the other big earners are businesses that know they provide essential services - oil companies for instance - and so can charge whatever the heck they want and hike prices at any excuse because, well, what are you going to do without them?
(Especially with this, as Steven wrote about, BS culture where it's not just about making profit, it's about making as much profit as you said you wanted to make).

But yeah, just raising taxes ind of isn't enough - though it should be done - the way most big corporations are at the moment, they need regulating - even price regulating - as well.

[Steven Grant]

That's the problem with a lot of businesses at the moment - although they don't have monopolies, there's really only two or three in the field, and so they can just raise, or not lower prices, and not fear losing the business... due to being the only boys in town and insane overheads to get to their level, they know there's no one else you can turn to, and no one else going to be able to exploit the system.

Supply and demand went straight out the window of our economic lives in the '70s during what we then called 'the energy crisis' when the Detroit automakers found sales of their big gas guzzlers caving in under the double threat of rapidly rising gas prices and the invasion of better built, less consumptive Japanese cars like Honda and Toyota.

Did they shut down the big, crappy gas guzzlers to manufacture the small gas-economical cars everyone suddenly wanted? Did they lower prices on their cars to make better bargains against the Japanese, since they had tons of stock sitting on lots and continued to make tons more stock?

No. They raised the price so that they could make their profit selling one car where they previously needed to sell three to make as much. And in the early '80s launched a p.r. offensive telling people there was no gas crisis anymore, and not only was it okay, even preferable, to buy big gas guzzlers again but guzzling gas was a great idea!

Supply and demand at work...


(Especially with this, as Steven wrote about, BS culture where it's not just about making profit, it's about making as much profit as you said you wanted to make).

Preferably more. Your projections are the minimum you want to earn, earning figured now less in how much profit you make than in how much more profit you made this year this month than in the same month last year, but making more, hopefully a lot more, means keeping your stockholders happy. Just attaining your projections can these days be taken to mean someone else in your job maybe could beat those projections.

It's screwy, but investors and stockholders don't want to know how much money you're making (profit) but how much money they're making, and woe betide he who merely keeps the bottom line static.

- Grant

[Tony Figueroa]

[QUOTE=But yeah, just raising taxes ind of isn't enough - though it should be done - the way most big corporations are at the moment, they need regulating - even price regulating - as well.[/QUOTE]


If a Democrat were to suggest this he or she would be attacked by the far right/talk radio as a Communist, a Socialist, anti-free market/anti-American tool of the hard core left and Big Labor. Because we've seen how well a lightly regulated free market works right? On the other hand if a Republican suggested what my friend Funky Green said the far right would brand him or her an apostate, a traitor to "the cause" and perhaps worst of all, a moderate. And I haven't even mentioned the Big Business lobby in DC. Hoo boy.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

And in the early '80s launched a p.r. offensive telling people there was no gas crisis anymore, and not only was it okay, even preferable, to buy big gas guzzlers again but guzzling gas was a great idea!

Supply and demand at work...

I always enjoyed the 'Buy American' part of it - it creeped into shows and characters in other media.
It always amused me - even before I knew what it was all about - because it was never reflected in our car advertising.
Sure, we had 'buy Australian'* with Honda, but other companies ads always played up that they were Japanese or European, but Ford never played up it's roots - because there just wasn't a 'Americans make the best cars' view in the rest of the world... so it was odd to see it shoe-horned into things.

*My father has a map book in his car from the 80's, which I recently saw again, and on the back it had an ad from a now defunct petrol company ampol, with a picture of a rugged farmer on his motor cycle with his dog and an 'I'm as Australian as Ampol'.
Wow did it look dated - been a long time since I've seen an ad here playing up the 'rugged outback Australian'.
(As we all live in the cities, and everyone who doesn't is often broke).



Preferably more. Your projections are the minimum you want to earn, earning figured now less in how much profit you make than in how much more profit you made this year this month than in the same month last year, but making more, hopefully a lot more, means keeping your stockholders happy. Just attaining your projections can these days be taken to mean someone else in your job maybe could beat those projections.

Which is why the world is bizarro.
They see a 20% drop in profits, this quarter, and so they cut staff.
If it was a drop that cost you money, sure, cut staff, but when it's a drop in profits - from one quarter to the next - they should stay the course!
They're still making money, and they needed that staff to make the money last quarter... surely cuts will only hurt in the long run?



It's screwy, but investors and stockholders don't want to know how much money you're making (profit) but how much money they're making, and woe betide he who merely keeps the bottom line static.

- Grant

Which is odd, because if it's a bottom line of profit, then that's the guy who has the business sorted and probably isn't going to go under when those over extensions and Enron style profits go under during that decades 'Wall Street Admits it's corrupt and crashes' cycle.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

If a Democrat were to suggest this he or she would be attacked by the far right/talk radio as a Communist, a Socialist, anti-free market/anti-American tool of the hard core left and Big Labor. Because we've seen how well a lightly regulated free market works right? On the other hand if a Republican suggested what my friend Funky Green said the far right would brand him or her an apostate, a traitor to "the cause" and perhaps worst of all, a moderate. And I haven't even mentioned the Big Business lobby in DC. Hoo boy.

Well, it's the big business lobby who have programmed everyone to react that way!

And to also ignore the fact that the government doing that can stagnate business growth, but historically, for the citizens - the people government is there to represent - it's always been for their betterment.

Heck, does anyone remember the bonanza Ford had with the five dollar day?
Or y'know, hearing about that one as I doubt any of us, except for old man Paul, actually remember it personally.
What happened to that kind of out of the box everyone wins thinking from business?

[Steven Grant]

Heck, does anyone remember the bonanza Ford had with the five dollar day?

Hell, I don't even remember the five dollar day? WTF?


Or y'know, hearing about that one as I doubt any of us, except for old man Paul, actually remember it personally.

Pretty sure I'm older than Paul. Just not quite as broken down.


What happened to that kind of out of the box everyone wins thinking from business?

Um... what in hell business are you talking about? Everyone wins is nice, but as long as business wins they don't panic too much when utopia fails to materialize. Besides, they only like out of the box thinking as long as you keep paying for the box regardless...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

They see a 20% drop in profits, this quarter, and so they cut staff.

Again, this is generally a sop to investors, stockholders and Wall Street. Wall St. likes to see companies that earned 10 mil profit last quarter but only 9 mil this quarter cut staff because it demonstrates they're willing to make the tough choices to make the company profitable again. (No, all the ironies in that sentence didn't escape me.) "Wall St." expects specific predesigned measures to be taken to demonstrate "market strength," it's got nothing to do with business logic, it has to do with broker patter. Same thing as Wall St. liking companies that buy up other companies. Acquisition is rewarded by brokerage firms, regardless of the value of the acquisition (beyond a certain point), while innovation is generally greeted with suspicion and hesitation.

But, again, there is no longer a recognition of a difference between losing money and making money but not as much as projected. Both are similarly encoded as "the company is losing value/market." It's just flaming idiotic.


Which is odd, because if it's a bottom line of profit, then that's the guy who has the business sorted and probably isn't going to go under when those over extensions and Enron style profits go under during that decades 'Wall Street Admits it's corrupt and crashes' cycle.

Wall St. likes to see quick profits, not long profits. If your company nets $2 bil per year and ten years ago it netted $2 bil per year and in ten years your company will net $2 bil per year, that's a stagnant stock. (Brokers will likely invest their own money in your company but it's iffy whether they'll suggest it to clients. Not sexy enough.)

- Grant

[Inkthinker]

Hey guys, I beg pardon for not reading through the last 28 pages to check if this has been gone over already, but on the topic of Health Insurance...

How does that make sense to begin with? I understand car insurance or homeowner's insurance... they're predicated on the idea that I will pay into the system on the chance that I might need to make a claim, but there's also a chance that I'll never have to. I've paid car insurance for ten years and made a claim exactly once. By my count I've dropped way more in than I've taken out, but when some dickhead broke into my car and tried (and failed) to steal it, I was glad as hell to have it.

The same model makes sense for homeowners... there a chance, especially if you're halfway responsible, that your house will not burn down or be flattened or flooded by an act of god. It's a gamble on both parts, I bet that something will happen someday and I'll need it, they bet that I won't.

Everyone needs to go to the doctor sooner or later. There's no bet there. Especially for basic shit like eyes and teeth. How is this something that works for an insurance model? How does this crap even get started?

I don't need or want health insurance. I want some goddamn health care.

I make too much money to go on Medicaid, but too little to afford ANY insurance plan. I'm a independent contractor, a freelancer, and that means I can't look to a company to provide it. I'm supposedly living that American Dream of chasing my talents and being my own boss, but I gotta tell you... this system ain't set up to help a guy like me. And from what I can tell, not much of ANY of what they're proposing with the new legislation will either.

Grant, you're a self-employed cat, yes? What are you doing? Again, I apologize if this got covered somewhere already, I'd be satisfied with a link back into the stack if that's the case.

[Charles RB]

Wall St. likes to see companies that earned 10 mil profit last quarter but only 9 mil this quarter cut staff because it demonstrates they're willing to make the tough choices to make the company profitable again. (No, all the ironies in that sentence didn't escape me.) "Wall St." expects specific predesigned measures to be taken to demonstrate "market strength," it's got nothing to do with business logic, it has to do with broker patter. Same thing as Wall St. liking companies that buy up other companies.

What would happen if a company didn't follow the Wall Street orthodoxy while still making money? Would that fuck up the whole Street or would they completely ignore it & claim it doesn't count like comics with manga?

[Iangould]

Kosmopolit, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you said : Yes damn that filthy commie Lincoln not only did he trample upon the rights of the southern states, he also stole several billion dollars worth of valuable livestock from decent law-abiding whites and give these valuable assets away for free to lazy shiftless no-account blacks who weren't even citizens much less taxpayers.
Please explain if you don't mind. I'm sure it isn't a case of how Liberals cry "Racism" when they can't refute an argument is it? Of course not.

I'm suggesting that Emancipation was a pretty clear example of the government "imposing freedom".


As to JFK raising taxes on the richest Americans, this no doubt pleases you as it does all Liberals who seem to believe that wealth can be accumulated only by theft and not hard work and discipline.

I simply pointed out that your claim JFK cut taxes was false.

[Tony Figueroa]

Kosmopolit: thanks for clearing up my question regarding your Lincoln/emancipation comment. As to JFK cutting taxes being a falsehood:

Why JFK Cut Taxes
By Herbert Stein

To many Republicans the name of Nelson Rockefeller is anathema, while the name of John F. Kennedy is revered. That may seem peculiar at first glance, but it really is not. President Kennedy cut taxes. For many Republicans that is sufficient to make him a model. He now ranks up there with Andrew Mellon in the pantheon of tax-cutters; his is to taxes what G. Washington was to cherry trees.

Signed by Johnson
Of course, to say that President Kennedy cut taxes is something of a stretch. He formally proposed the tax cut in December 1962, he was assassinated in November 1963, and Congress passed the tax cut, to be signed by President Johnson, in February 1964.

I'm willing to say that he didn't cut taxes but he did propose it and it did occur so techinically he cut taxes or is this just splitting hairs?

[Village Idiot]

Comics retailer Bob Beerbohm needs a hip replacement ($18,000). He has to pay it out-of-pocket:

"HMO Aetna canceled my health plan policy about two weeks later citing "undisclosed pre-existing condition" after the surgeon asked me upon looking at my Xrays, "Ever in a vehicle accident?" and i said, "Yes" describing a van accident i was a passenger in written up as "On the Road" in Dark Horse's Between the Panels anecdotal encyclopedia"

How many more of these types of cases do we have to see before the right sees the need for health care reform?

"Ever in a vehicle accident?"

What kind of excuses will the insurance companies come up with next to cancel your health plan?

"Ever breathed in a chemical you couldn't identify?"

"Ever been sunburned?"

"Ever drank mother's milk?"

The time for health care reform is NOW. There is no need to wait another 15 years (the time since Clinton tried) or another 30 years (when Ted Kennedy tried).

[JCAll]

What would happen if a company didn't follow the Wall Street orthodoxy while still making money? Would that fuck up the whole Street or would they completely ignore it & claim it doesn't count like comics with manga?

One would assume that a company that just accepts reduced profits would lose some of it's Wall Street investors, leading to more reduced profits, leading to more lost investors, leading to a never ending spiral from which they either died or learned to play the game.

Then again, I'm broke so what do I know about making money.

[king mob]

Comics retailer Bob Beerbohm needs a hip replacement ($18,000). He has to pay it out-of-pocket:



Under our evil socialist/communist/facist NHS he have been put on a waiting list, got the operation, had it & it wouldn't have cost him anything. Isn't that dreadful...

[Iangould]

Kosmopolit: thanks for clearing up my question regarding your Lincoln/emancipation comment. As to JFK cutting taxes being a falsehood:

Why JFK Cut Taxes
By Herbert Stein

To many Republicans the name of Nelson Rockefeller is anathema, while the name of John F. Kennedy is revered. That may seem peculiar at first glance, but it really is not. President Kennedy cut taxes. For many Republicans that is sufficient to make him a model. He now ranks up there with Andrew Mellon in the pantheon of tax-cutters; his is to taxes what G. Washington was to cherry trees.

Signed by Johnson
Of course, to say that President Kennedy cut taxes is something of a stretch. He formally proposed the tax cut in December 1962, he was assassinated in November 1963, and Congress passed the tax cut, to be signed by President Johnson, in February 1964.

I'm willing to say that he didn't cut taxes but he did propose it and it did occur so techinically he cut taxes or is this just splitting hairs?

He cut nominal tax rates.

A quick explanation, up until 1963, only the cash component of salary packages were taxed.

A typical CEO back then received a package that might include say a town house, a country house, a chaffeured Limosine, four or five household staff; an effectively unlimited expense account, overseas holidays, life insurance and school tuition for his kids - none of which were taxed. He would alos receive a cash salary which might represent 25% or less of his total renumeration.

Kennedy cut the tax on that cash component - and taxed the rest of the salary packagefor the first time.

He also introduced the Alternative Minimum Tax which significantly raised the tax paid by many wealthy Americans by sharply limiting their deductions.

[Tony Figueroa]

Kosmopolit: I stand corrected.

[bartl]

Under our evil socialist/communist/facist NHS he have been put on a waiting list, got the operation, had it & it wouldn't have cost him anything. Isn't that dreadful...
I've heard there will be a 10 month waiting list for abortions.

[mikekerr3]

One would assume that a company that just accepts reduced profits would lose some of it's Wall Street investors, leading to more reduced profits, leading to more lost investors, leading to a never ending spiral from which they either died or learned to play the game.

Then again, I'm broke so what do I know about making money.

Stock price has nothing at all to do with company profits at all. Unless the investment from wall street is necessary for operation (a very bad sign anyway) lowered stock prices and reduced investing will not make a company's bottom line any smaller. Many companies don't have traded stock and do very very well.

The "game" of ever increasing stock prices and acting to raise stock prices instead of acting in the name of what is best for the survival of the company has two names: Ponzi scheme and and older one "Tulip Market" both of which are very profitable until they fall apart.

[mikekerr3]

Here are a few which don't:
1) Real penalties for the filing of frivolous lawsuits; for example, if the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case after discovery, but continues to pursue the lawsuit.

2) With comparative negligence, requiring a party to be at least 50% responsible to be successfully sued as a defendant (some states have this already).

3) The same standard for "reasonable person" on both sides of a case.

4) If a defendant takes a reasonable course which is only incorrect in hindsight, the fact that someone else can say, in hindsight, that another course was better, should not be considered "negligence".

Change number 2 to be that someone should pay no more of any punitive award than the percentage they are responsible for and I think those are all good ideas

The 49.99% fault gets you off free is too easy to manipulate, but I agree that lawyers just going after the deep pockets is wrong, at least for punitive damages

[mikekerr3]

Can anybody help me with this?

Tony posted:

"Many lawyers from the ACLU represented terrorists pro bono."

I've always been under the impression that all the lawyers provided by the ACLU are provided for free.

Do they sometimes charge their clients? Or has Tony just posted a half truth in order to make a point? The half truth, if I am right, is that 'many' work pro bono. They all work pro bono (if I am right).

Help, anyone?


Some are paid by the ALCU itself, other donate time "Pro Bono" to help with ACLU cases.

The person they represent doesn't pay, the charter of the ACLU forbids it.

[Steven Grant]

I've heard there will be a 10 month waiting list for abortions.

Only in that country that has the mandatory morning after pill for men.

- Grant

[Village Idiot]

Tort reform has already been done, and insurance premiums still went up.

Lawsuits were never enough of a percentage of costs to really make much difference.

[king mob]

I've heard there will be a 10 month waiting list for abortions.

Either you're joking or you're talking your usual bollocks again.

[Tony Figueroa]

Here's a small excerpt from an excellent column by Glenn Greenwald discussing some comments made by Bill Moyer to Bill Maher on the topic of health care reform:

MOYERS: I don’t think the problem is the Republicans . . . .The problem is the Democratic Party. This is a party that has told its progressives -- who are the most outspoken champions of health care reform -- to sit down and shut up. That’s what Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of Staff at the White House, in effect told progressives who stood up as a unit in Congress and said: "no public insurance option, no health care reform."

And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Part has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money. I think Rahm Emanuel, who is a clever politician, understands that the money for Obama’s re-election will come from the health care industry, from the drug industry, from Wall Street. And so he’s a corporate Democrat who is determined that there won’t be something in this legislation that will turn off these interests. . . .

Glenn Greenwald is an excellent columnist and he writes regulary on Salon.com. Check out his articles on torture for some excellent reading.

[Steven Grant]

Either you're joking or you're talking your usual bollocks again.

No, no, it's a joke.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

MOYERS:... And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Part has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money. I think Rahm Emanuel, who is a clever politician, understands that the money for Obama’s re-election will come from the health care industry, from the drug industry, from Wall Street. And so he’s a corporate Democrat who is determined that there won’t be something in this legislation that will turn off these interests. . . .

Moyers is dead on, and I think we've basically discussed the same thing here, without pointing as many fingers. It goes back to the Big Money thing I was talking about. If you don't get Big Money out of government there can be no significant or meaningful reform, and the citizenry loses, because Big Money doesn't consider us citizens, it considers us consumers whose proper place in the scheme of things is to transfer our money to Big Money via whatever mechanism they can concoct.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Hell, I don't even remember the five dollar day? WTF?


Back in 1915, Ford upped the factory workers pay to $5 and gave them 8 hour days - to cut back on staff overturn, boost staff moral and build up a customer base who could afford to buy the car.
If the workers saved, it was possible to buy what they built.
Productivity went up and the company expanded.
(Of course, they eventually started cutting wages again as a way to raise profits).




Um... what in hell business are you talking about? Everyone wins is nice, but as long as business wins they don't panic too much when utopia fails to materialize. Besides, they only like out of the box thinking as long as you keep paying for the box regardless...

- Grant

Well, someone who has just lost their house in a foreclosure isn't going to want to spend too much more money, nor is someone who just lost their job to a child in Sri Lanka.
Surely if you stop the rash cutting and spending you can make a more sustainable profit - which would be better to the shareholders in the long term, as suddenly their money hasn't disappeared in a puff of smoke (it hasn't doubled either is usually the problem).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Moyers is dead on, and I think we've basically discussed the same thing here, without pointing as many fingers. It goes back to the Big Money thing I was talking about. If you don't get Big Money out of government there can be no significant or meaningful reform, and the citizenry loses, because Big Money doesn't consider us citizens, it considers us consumers whose proper place in the scheme of things is to transfer our money to Big Money via whatever mechanism they can concoct.

- Grant

Do you actually have to do what donators want?

Because if not - and pretty sure it's illegal if you're too obvious about listening to them - Obama could just push the reform and not get their money for re-election.
Pretty sure he's got it in his pocket if he gets this through - once all those spooky straw men the opposes have are busted, people are going to love government funded health care like the rest of the world does.
And heck, the private health lobby would still have to give him cash in case he got in anyway.

[Charles RB]

Big Money doesn't consider us citizens, it considers us consumers whose proper place in the scheme of things is to transfer our money to Big Money via whatever mechanism they can concoct.


James Murdoch, chief of News Corp, recently did a big speech about how the BBC was damaging independent news journalism (giving the impression News Corp isn't a dominant media company), how it would inherently distort and manipulate news because it was state owned (giving the impression the BBC isn't known for being more accurate than Fox and the Sun), and crucially... said the BBC should scale down its Internet services.

Because the Murdochs want to start charging people to look at their news websites. And they can't do that so easily* with the BBC giving away free news. So here we have Big Money ignoring that the market has decided it wants news for free, and trying to cripple a pre-existing service so it can distort the market to bilk money from us.

And they're using "FREE MARKET WORKS BEST!" as their justification.


* though one Guardian op-ed quite contemptuously said the "quaint" idea of him "changing" the Internet wouldn't happen either way

[Steven Grant]

Do you actually have to do what donators want?

Only if you want them to donate to your next campaign.

Most people who get elected president want a second term, usually a practical move because unless you're very lucky or very unlucky the first term is generally a process of consolidating power. The myth most tell themselves is that once they're re-elected they can forget the special interests and get the job done.

Except to get that far they mostly have to sell out their ability to get anything done anyway, and then they have to be concerned about the party putting another candidate in the office. So even them of the best intentions turn awry and lose the name of action, because the first mission of any political party is to keep that party in power, and pissing off all the people and corporations with the money to keep them in power isn't a good way to stay in power.


Because if not - and pretty sure it's illegal if you're too obvious about listening to them - Obama could just push the reform and not get their money for re-election. Pretty sure he's got it in his pocket if he gets this through - once all those spooky straw men the opposes have are busted, people are going to love government funded health care like the rest of the world does. And heck, the private health lobby would still have to give him cash in case he got in anyway.

It's possible, but no point in unnecessary risks, is there?

What Obama needs is a failed corporate/rich bastards coup so he can blackmail the participants into cooperating with all his plans to keep the story out of the papers and the conspirators out of prison and the death house. Worked for FDR...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Because the Murdochs want to start charging people to look at their news websites. And they can't do that so easily* with the BBC giving away free news. So here we have Big Money ignoring that the market has decided it wants news for free, and trying to cripple a pre-existing service so it can distort the market to bilk money from us.

Oh, the Murdochs have been absolutely spellbinding lately, as Rupert & James are watching their slander machine, and their presumed political power, disintegrate. I especially love that they accuse the BBC of "slanting" the news; overwhelmingly coming to mind is the schoolyard chant "It takes one to know one."

Yes, we can clearly depend on the private sector to keep news unslanted and unbiased.

Of course, what the Murdochs hate most about BBC news is that it actually talks about... you know... current events other than whether Britney can still fit in her bikini...

- Grant

[Laurence]

Sir Fury: Of course, "czars" and "La Raza" are also foreign terms, and therefore scarier. You must have missed the part where I pointed out that I'm an American of Latino descent. I'm quite bi-lingual( it means I speak two languages, not a mutation from exposure to red kryptonite). Nice attempt to hang the racist label on me. Next!!

No, mate, I got that part. You're not the kidnapper, you're the guy suffering from Stockholm syndrome, to paraphrase what Ishmael Reed said about Skip Gates.

Gotta love Reed.

[7thangel]

No, mate, I got that part. You're not the kidnapper, you're the guy suffering from Stockholm syndrome, to paraphrase what Ishmael Reed said about Skip Gates.

Gotta love Reed.

qft
10char

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

O
Of course, what the Murdochs hate most about BBC news is that it actually talks about... you know... current events other than whether Britney can still fit in her bikini...

- Grant

Saw a brilliant one a few months back.

Obama raised the fuel efficiency standards on oil or something?
Made them more eco friendly?
It was all Fox News was talking about, how if passed on to the consumer it's cost you an extra ten bucks a year or something, how jobs will go etc.
Basically, it was their news show.
Switched to BBC 'Also today President Obama raised the US fuel efficiency quota, bringing it into line with the rest of the international community*. Now over to Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers...'

It may have been 'praised by some in the international community' - either way, one sentence in passing on one news source, the entire day on the other.

[Charles RB]

Oh, the Murdochs have been absolutely spellbinding lately, as Rupert & James are watching their slander machine, and their presumed political power, disintegrate.

And we lived happily ever after.


Of course, what the Murdochs hate most about BBC news is that it actually talks about... you know... current events other than whether Britney can still fit in her bikini...

Worse still, I hear some of those current events or specific facts related to them are ones the Murdochs don't want getting out! Can't have THAT!



It was all Fox News was talking about, how if passed on to the consumer it's cost you an extra ten bucks a year or something, how jobs will go etc.
Basically, it was their news show.
Switched to BBC 'Also today President Obama raised the US fuel efficiency quota, bringing it into line with the rest of the international community*. Now over to Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers...'

Ha!

That'd be my favourite bit of journalism I'd heard of in the last week if not for the Guardian, who responded to David Cameron's PR claims "Broken Britain is JUST LIKE The Wire!" by comparing the total murder rate in the Wire, last year's murder rate in the real Baltimore, and last year's murder rate in Manchester. (Shockingly, Manchester was dramatically lower)