Stim brought up an interesting argument tonight about the Health-care debate - Social Security is never argued about, yet that is socialized government... why no anger about that??
I was thrown off guard, but now I'm drunk and on my couch and can think clearly.
Social Security has been in place since 1935 and is accepted. It had its arguments at the time and was a bitter fight, much like today's health-care issue.
The problem is Pres. Obama said he would not raise our taxes 1 penny. I'm not sure a new medical tax would accomplish that promise. Yep! It's the exact opposite.
It's hard to get people behind your tax hike when your campaign was focused on no tax-hikes.
It's not that the Right is against health-care reform... they're just against another broken promise by Obama. Over here in CatholicRacistMan-World (where all Republicans live), we think that a.) the President does not make laws and b.) we can't believe how many on the left are afraid of radio talk-show hosts, and c.) Reform should come in smaller, meaningful bills, not a giant reform that changes nothing.
If we were to deliberately design a health care system with the goal of overcharging Americans for medical treatment and funneling the proceeds to the wealthiest segment of our society, we could scarcely do worse that the existing system.
The only health-care reform the Right has supported have been plans to redistribute wealth up to the rich.
billymeade said: Reform should come in smaller, meaningful bills, not a giant reform that changes nothing.
The first part is right, but the second is dead wrong. Obama's current bill drastically changes the landscape on healthcare. It's not as drastic as the liberals really want to pass, but it'd would still permanently create a harmful welfare dependency that could not, without excruciatingly and painstakingly difficult future battles, be undone. Just like immigration "reform," Obamacare is aimed at creating permanent Democratic voting majorities because the dependents of government always vote for the party willing to promise them everything even if it rarely deliver.
billymeade said: The problem is Pres. Obama said he would not raise our taxes 1 penny. I'm not sure a new medical tax would accomplish that promise. Yep! It's the exact opposite.
Obama also promised that his healthcare reform plan would allow those of us with healthcare to keep our current plans without ANY changes whatsoever, ever. People aren't stupid. When they see a 2,000 page monstrosity of a bill where over half of the Senate is pushing for the public option, they know that such promises are bullshit and that the President's plan WILL change their coverage in some way - for the worse - at some point in the future to pay for all the shit packed into that 2,000 page bill. It's as if Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and LoveMonkey think we're total saps. Well, as the most recent polls point out, they're right about the 35-45% of the population made up of libtards who support this shit.
billymeade said: Social Security has been in place since 1935 and is accepted. It had its arguments at the time and was a bitter fight, much like today's health-care issue.
Social Security is hardly a model that should be used to justify a huge new entitlement program.
First, that unAmerican son of a bitch, Franklin Roosevelt, was only able to pass Social Security as part of the New Deal and have it upheld as constitutional after threatening to pack the Supreme Court with liberal ideologues. He didn't just threaten to nominate those who would support the New Deal and his policies. He threatened to have the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress (334 D-88 R) and Senate (76 D-17 R) pass legislation that would allow him to ADD up to SIX new justices to the court, increasing its number from 9 to 15 where 10-11 would have been partisan liberals that would give FDR the power to do virtually anything he wanted.
In response to these threats, the Supreme Court relented and allowed much of FDR's New Deal to pass challenges to its constitutionality, including Social Security, after previously striking down numerous other provisions.
So, yes, Social Security has been around for a very long time and we've accepted it, but that doesn't mean it's a good program. If any of us who aren't 70 years or older can attest, there probably won't be any Social Security available for us when we reach retirement age. It's hard to use a program that we will all pay into for most of our working lives only to have none of its benefits be available to us when they should be as an archetype of socialism that we should copy now. From a socialist standpoint, Social Security had a good run, but for those of us who will not benefit from it at all, it cannot be considered anything but an abject failure.
And to think, the only problem with passing healthcare was that Obama didn't talk to the American people enough about himself or about his healthcare reform plan! He was too busy "getting stuff done"!
As if, the problem was the message wasn't getting out.
"No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription . . . is more Obama!”
Ahem. According to CBS News, Obama has delivered 411 public 'speeches, comments, and remarks' and 158 interviews — more than one public statement per day and roughly an interview every other day.
It's amusing to me that Republicans in Congress were crying bloody murder over possible reductions in Medicare benefits as a result of the new health plan.
Even The Dude and The Billy have to see the hypocrisy in pledging to protect the integrity of one socialist plan, while screaming about the evils of socialism.
This is kind of what I was saying to Billy. It seems that Republicans are saying that if "socialist" programs already exist, then that's ok - just no new ones. If they are so dead set against socialism, why are they not constantly submitting bills calling for the repeal of Medicare and Medicaid (and a million other programs).
To answer stim's question - that makes sense on a rhetorical level, but not on a practical level. That's likes saying "Oh, I have asthma and a broken finger, and I accept that - so I should happily accept cancer."
Plus, Republicans in Congress aren't calling this particular bill "socialism", it's the combination of Obama Administration's takeover of banks, mortgage companies, auto industry, credit card companies, investment firms, and now healthcare that stinks of socialism. Tack on last week's assault on Wall St., and, well, there's not a good case that he supports a free market.
I think if the Democrats slowed down for a second, people could be convinced. On the surface, all we've seen is the deficit quintuple, unemployment more-than-double, and constant speeches saying "it's getting better soon!", with 0 results. It makes an already weary society a little more weary. Every time Obama promises results, we've been groomed to expect the opposite.
Assault on Wall Street? Oh! were the nice bankers just minding their own business when the scary black man came to rob them?
Those guys are looters. And worse that Katrina looters or South-side LA looters. In a time of grave economic crisis when we saved them from themselves they want to fuck us over. If you would shoot a looter you should shoot a banker claiming a multi-million dollar bonus for plunging the nation and the world into the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression. A decent country would put them all to the sword.
Tell us more about this "free market". Is it somehow related to the banks that gambled against their own mortgage divisions to reap short-term profits? Perhaps "gambling" isn't the right word since they were protected from real losses and bailed out by the American people.
Big Bank: "Shit, we fucked up big time. A ton of people just got screwed over and we might go out of business! Help us Dad!"
US Government: "Here's a ton of money so you guys can become profitable again... just make sure you pay it back. Also, we're not going to put any restrictions on what you do with this money. You seem to make wise decisions."
Big Bank: "Wow, thanks!"
months pass...
Big Bank: "Here's your money back! With interest, even! And thanks to you we were actually able to turn a profit!"
U.S. Government: "You WHAT?? A PROFIT??? You insolent scum! I'm coming to take all of your money."
Big Bank: "But that will cause our stock to plunge, forcing us to lay off even more workers!"
U.S. Government: "Quiet you! There will be no profitable American corporations under this Administration!"
In short, yes the banks fucked over just about everyone. That doesn't mean Barry should charge in on his big white throbbing horse and attempt to "save" Wall Street. Everything he's touched has turned to shit (unless you're a private security contractor for Afghanistan).
Let the market correct itself - if people are pissed off over, say, Bank X's profits, then stop doing business with them. Obama is setting up this "Save us, Daddy!" society that simply cannot support itself.
stim said: Even The Dude and The Billy have to see the hypocrisy in pledging to protect the integrity of one socialist plan, while screaming about the evils of socialism.
This is kind of what the fuck I was saying to Billy. It seems that Republicans are saying that if "socialist" programs already exist, then that's ok - just no new ones. If they are so dead set against socialism, why are they not constantly submitting bills calling for the repeal of Medicare and Medicaid (and a million other programs).
First, your definition of hypocrisy is unlike any definition I know of. That word doesn't mean what you think it does. If you meant "irony," you might be on to something, but not anything very interesting. Hypocrisy is saying you'll do X, and that everyone else should do X, and then doing the exact opposite of X, such as claiming you'll have the most transparent government ever, that you'll post online versions of bills to be voted on in the House and Senate days ahead of the vote, that you'll air the legislature's negotiations on healthcare reform on CSPAN, and then doing none of those things. That's hypocrisy. There are many more examples from Dear Leader, but I think you get the point.
It's not hypocritical to not spend every waking minute working to repeal government programs that have become entrenched - even if you are ideologically opposed to such programs in the first place. And it's not hypocritical to oppose additional programs that are poorly constituted and which will be nigh impossible to deconstruct once they are in place. Social security has been around for 75 years. It's the ONLY source of income for far too many people. Some of these people did not have any other plan in place for their retirement and are stuck with SSI alone. Some were injured or otherwise disabled and are unable to work and are stuck with SSI alone through no fault of their own. For this latter group, some type of societal program is appropriate, but a model could have been created that stopped far short of social security, which applies to almost the entire population. Talk about something that's too big to fail...Oh, but it will, and probably in our lifetime. We could have done better.
It's nearly impossible to get rid of such programs and that's the ultimately the problem with socialist policies: they force portions, ideally large portions, of the population to rely entirely on government for their well-being. Once such programs are in place, it is either pragmatically impossible (or nearly so), or politically unwise/suicidal, and oftentimes both, to dismantle such programs.
At a certain point, things are what they are, and you have to fight the battle in front of you, not the one that's long been decided, however unfortunately or wrongly it may have been decided in the past, even if the game was rigged from the start.
Well, Dude, you certainly are good at saying what the people who own the country want you to say... except you forgot to claim that a capital gains tax cut will cure everything.
The only way Social Security will fail is if we let the conservative looters (Republican or Democratic) have control.
Since you continue with this demented Ayn Randesque nonsense, allow me to repeat myself:
LoveMonkey said (Three years ago!): As long as you're asking, I will suggest more progressive taxation and real oversight of these financial businesses. A good part of those extravagent bonuses could pay for government investigators to uncover fraud, corruption, collusion, and monopoly. As a matter of national security we need to know that the nations wealth isn't being skimmed by thieves.
What you should learn from Bob Herbert is:
The income disparity in this country is much larger than imagined.
Corporations are managed to benefit their management, not their shareholders.
This has been going on for a long time.
Communism? If you want see how communism was avoided after the last gilded age, study Franklin Roosevelt. Every one of these Wall Street firms should have a statue of FDR's naked buttocks in their lobbies and their employees should kiss it as then come to work, because FDR saved capitalism.
LoveMonkey said: No. We can win, but we have to fight.
Who are you, Jamey Jasta?
Drifting by the heavens unscarred Yet unhealed before a bleeding cross Thrown into the ash Crumbling the furnace, resurrection
I've been crossed Like the lies on a clocks face I've been fed lies I can't comprehend I've become but a mere seed again And I'll prophesize the end - Now
I have yet begun to fight...
There's no fear in my heart No cause worthy of my respect In the end, I'll rot I won't fall prey to deception
Deception Is the means by which they profit
Deceit is in their hearts Evil's within their souls The cruelty by which they exploit Will never be part of my life
I've been crossed Like the lies on a clocks face I've been fed lies I can't comprehend I've become but a mere seed again And I'll prophesize the end - Now
