OT - ACORN "Pimp and Prostitute" video edited to present a false image
Tom Sherman °_°
video.
<http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/22/acorn_muckraking_open2010/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature>.
Not holding my breath, however.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
AMuzi
> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on this
> video.
> <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/22/acorn_muckraking_open2010/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature>.
> Not holding my breath, however.
Good, because apologies will not be forthcoming.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tom Sherman °_°
> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
>> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on
>> this video.
>> <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/22/acorn_muckraking_open2010/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature>.
>> Not holding my breath, however.
>
>
> Good, because apologies will not be forthcoming.
Guess it is hard for some to admit being wrong then.
Victor Ivanov
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on this
> video.
>
> Not holding my breath, however.
>
Or they can smear acorn for union busting and refusing to pay minimum
wage.
Tom Sherman °_°
<http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/032110.html>.
Too late for ACORN, since the damage is mostly done.
Liberal mainstream media my ass.
AMuzi
>>> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on
>>> this video.
>>> <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/22/acorn_muckraking_open2010/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature>.
>>> Not holding my breath, however.
> A. Muzi wrote:
>> Good, because apologies will not be forthcoming.
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> Guess it is hard for some to admit being wrong then.
I saw the tapes.
You can project 'racism' into whatever you wish; I didn't
see that.
You made your point, I disagree but I'm out. Let's move on.
Tom Sherman °_°
>>> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
>>>> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on
>>>> this video.
>>>> <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/22/acorn_muckraking_open2010/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature>.
>>>> Not holding my breath, however.
>
>> A. Muzi wrote:
>>> Good, because apologies will not be forthcoming.
>
> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
>> Guess it is hard for some to admit being wrong then.
>
> I saw the tapes.
> You can project 'racism' into whatever you wish; I didn't see that.
>
> You made your point, I disagree but I'm out. Let's move on.
The full, unedited tapes, or the edited tape that made it falsely appear
that O'Keefe showed up at an ACORN office in a pimp's costume, when he
was actually respectably dressed?
P.S. James O'Keefe was later arrested after an alleged attempt to bug
the office of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu's office in New Orleans.
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> >>> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based
> >>> on this video.
> >>> <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/22/acorn_muckra
> >>> king_ope n2010/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature>. Not
> >>> holding my breath, however.
>
> > A. Muzi wrote:
> >> Good, because apologies will not be forthcoming.
>
> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> > Guess it is hard for some to admit being wrong then.
>
> I saw the tapes. You can project 'racism' into whatever you wish; I
> didn't see that.
>
> You made your point, I disagree but I'm out. Let's move on.
Bullshit, Andrew. If this had been a left-wing media smear against some
conservative group you (and most of the right wing) would be screaming
from the rooftops at the reveal. But with the shoe on the other foot,
it's the usual sweep-it-under-the-rug deal favored by the conservative
end to hide it's moral bankruptcy, lies and media distortions.
That's the problem with the right wing. They talk a good line but their
actions belie their evil. Not that the right wing gives a damn- they
only concern is to destroy the left by whatever means necessary. It's
about power, not about what's good for the nation.
--
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Mark Twain
Tom Sherman °_°
looking out for small businesses such as independent bike shops.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
...the elites, lurking in the shadows behind a neutered
government, squeeze the vast majority of citizens, workers,
and students, moving their jobs overseas, foreclosing on their
homes, looting their savings, stealing their hopes and dreams.
- Lewis Seiler & Dan Hamburg
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on this
> video.
>
> Not holding my breath, however.
Gee, Liddell Tommi, you're the one who should be apologizing, and not
just once, not just twice. but thrice.
First, you should apologize for your hypocrisy. If that film was made
by the left you would be the first to say that a drematized
presentation is legitimate in politics as in entertainment.
Secondly, you should apologize to us for trying to lie to us by
omission. You're deliberately leaving out the fact that the words
spoken were the words spoken, as recorded, as played back on the film.
It is the words spoken that condemned the ACORN people, not the play-
acting dressing-up.
Thirdly, Liddell Tommi, you should apologize to us for insulting our
intelligence by claiming that someone dressing up as a pimp is a
racial stereotype, and the further insult to our intelligence of
trying to make out that it is racism. Why, I once told an Englishman,
who'd just returned from a stint in Hong Kong and was wearing a black
silk shirt and white tie, "If you're meeting with me, choose another
day to dress like a pimp." Does that make me anti-British? Does that
accuse all Brits of living off the immoral earnings of women? Of
course it doesn't, and it would be an equal insult to our intelligence
to pretend that it does.
You've fallen off your leaf again, Liddell Tommi. Start swimming now.
Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko
Andre Jute
> >> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> >>> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on
> >>> this video.
> >>> Not holding my breath, however.
> > A. Muzi wrote:
> >> Good, because apologies will not be forthcoming.
> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> > Guess it is hard for some to admit being wrong then.
>
> I saw the tapes.
> You can project 'racism' into whatever you wish; I didn't
> see that.
>
> You made your point, I disagree but I'm out. Let's move on.
I'm not so sure we should let the little wanker get away with such
gross hypocrisy, attempting to lie to us, and furthermore insulting
our intelligence, as enumerated in my other post. We don't want his
kind to think we're complaisant; this sort of crap could become a
habit if we don't slap them down now and again. -- AJ
AMuzi
You're welcome to disagree.
I just re read the Salon piece again, remain unconvinced
about 'racism' here. Hey I don't make the rules; you're
entitled to an opinion I just do not share it.
AMuzi
So, pretty much as it is and has always been?
meh.
semi-ambivalent
> actions belie their evil. Not that the right wing gives a damn- they
> only concern is to destroy the left by whatever means necessary. It's
> about power, not about what's good for the nation.
Where's a post from Sen. McCarthy? This Left/Right business is for
ossified old farts incapable of seeing the country as it is.
"There are two political parties, Insiders and Outsiders."
-Ross Perot (before The
Fall)
sa
Tom Sherman °_°
What about class-ism, and the mostly one-sided class war conducted
against people who actually work for a living over the last 3 decades?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
This country is falling apart. People are dying. Despair is
settled upon the land. These clowns [Congress] are frigging
around for no purpose better than the enrichment of Wall
Street bankers and Connecticut insurance tycoons. There has
been no change. There is no hope. - Christopher Cooper
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <ho91ek$veh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> >>>>> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based
> >>>>> on this video.
> >>>>> <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/22/acorn_muck
> >>>>> ra king_ope n2010/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature>.
> >>>>> Not holding my breath, however.
> >>> A. Muzi wrote:
> >>>> Good, because apologies will not be forthcoming.
> >> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> >>> Guess it is hard for some to admit being wrong then.
> >> I saw the tapes. You can project 'racism' into whatever you wish;
> >> I didn't see that.
> >>
> >> You made your point, I disagree but I'm out. Let's move on.
> >
> > Bullshit, Andrew. If this had been a left-wing media smear against
> > some conservative group you (and most of the right wing) would be
> > screaming from the rooftops at the reveal. But with the shoe on
> > the other foot, it's the usual sweep-it-under-the-rug deal favored
> > by the conservative end to hide it's moral bankruptcy, lies and
> > media distortions.
> >
> > That's the problem with the right wing. They talk a good line but
> > their actions belie their evil. Not that the right wing gives a
> > damn- they only concern is to destroy the left by whatever means
> > necessary. It's about power, not about what's good for the nation.
>
> You're welcome to disagree.
>
> I just re read the Salon piece again, remain unconvinced about
> 'racism' here. Hey I don't make the rules; you're entitled to an
> opinion I just do not share it.
The allegation of racism, since that requires a certain amount of mind
reading, is not the key point here. What's important is the obvious and
deliberate fakery employed by the film maker who edited the film to make
it look different than what the reality was. (Sorry about the grammar.)
In the service of this goal he discredited (slandered) the individuals
on film and laid waste to an agency that has done good work in american
cities for decades. It was a power play aimed at bolstering the right
wing minority's tenuous grip on power through defrauding the American
public.
This film maker is obviously not particularly concerned with truth but
instead seeks to bend facts to suit the reality he wishes to convey.
Exactly what the right wing decries about Michael Moore (except that
Michael Moore has independently obtained facts backing up his
showboating, can and has provided that documentation, whereas the ACORN
idiot fabricated the thing from beginning to end).
So how come the right wing isn't rushing to condemn the lies? Because
the lies suit their will to power. The modern Republican Party under
the control of the neocons has been an amazing demonstration of Alderian
pathological psychology since 1980. Damned shame, too. The country
needs real conservatives and we have so few in office.
Tim McNamara
<8c21a36b-3048-43b9...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
semi-ambivalent <thef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 8:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > actions belie their evil. Not that the right wing gives a damn-
> > they only concern is to destroy the left by whatever means
> > necessary. It's about power, not about what's good for the nation.
>
> Where's a post from Sen. McCarthy? This Left/Right business is for
> ossified old farts incapable of seeing the country as it is.
Politics has never seen the country "as it is." Politics always looks
at reality through lenses of various colors and magnification and/or
minification depending on whichever serves the will to power. That's
how it works.
Peter Cole
> So how come the right wing isn't rushing to condemn the lies?
Because Acorn is dead. Mission accomplished.
AMuzi
Fat chance. Name change only.
semi-ambivalent
> In article
> <8c21a36b-3048-43b9-86e0-e5a2d8e21...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> semi-ambivalent <thefro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 8:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > > actions belie their evil. Not that the right wing gives a damn-
> > > they only concern is to destroy the left by whatever means
> > > necessary. It's about power, not about what's good for the nation.
>
> > Where's a post from Sen. McCarthy? This Left/Right business is for
> > ossified old farts incapable of seeing the country as it is.
>
> Politics has never seen the country "as it is." Politics always looks
> at reality through lenses of various colors and magnification and/or
> minification depending on whichever serves the will to power. That's
> how it works.
>
> --
> Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
> -Mark Twain
Again, I'm not talking about Politics, but politicians, as the enemy,
from either side of the isle. Good to know <media flunkies>the Right</
media flunkies> is immune to your will to power huh? Instead of lenses
you appear to be using filters.
sa
Tim McNamara
<f6e6cd75-1393-48a8...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
semi-ambivalent <thef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 8:27 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8c21a36b-3048-43b9-86e0-e5a2d8e21...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > semi-ambivalent <thefro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 22, 8:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > actions belie their evil. Not that the right wing gives a
> > > > damn- they only concern is to destroy the left by whatever
> > > > means necessary. It's about power, not about what's good for
> > > > the nation.
> >
> > > Where's a post from Sen. McCarthy? This Left/Right business is
> > > for ossified old farts incapable of seeing the country as it is.
> >
> > Politics has never seen the country "as it is." Politics always
> > looks at reality through lenses of various colors and magnification
> > and/or minification depending on whichever serves the will to
> > power. That's how it works.
>
> Again, I'm not talking about Politics,
Unfortunately it's hard to work out what you're talking about.
> but politicians, as the enemy, from either side of the isle.
Politicians aren't the enemy. They are your employees. Unfortunately
they've lost track of that salient fact.
> Good to know <media flunkies>the Right</ media flunkies> is immune to
> your will to power huh? Instead of lenses you appear to be using
> filters.
Unfortunately idiocy and moral bankruptcy in the service of power is not
partisan. Although on average the Right is more afflicted than the Left
these days, made particularly evident by the Right's pretense of walking
with the angels.
Norman
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on this
> video.
>
> Not holding my breath, however.
>
Right, and Dahmer was unfairly maligned because the prosecution
didn't include exculpatory evidence as relating to the delicious
flavour
of young african & asian boys.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]Gee[...]
TLDR
Andre Jute
Poor Tom Sherman: no answers, no future, such a no-hoper. Though
that's hardly surprising when his attention span doesn't stretch to
230 words. Every time Liddell Tommi runs into an unanswerable
argument, he claims not to have read it. It's the Useless Pinko
version of Playing Ostrich.
Here, once more, are my points that poor Tommi finds unanswerable, all
in 230 words:
Andre Jute
It is also legitimate to ask further what sort of "engineering"
Liddell Tommi is fit to practice if his attention span falls short of
230 words... In the light of his attention deficit, the truncation of
his education is such a horrible prospect that I think we should draw
a compassionate curtain over it. -- AJ
AMuzi
But a glorious justice was done:
http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/d/Jeffrey%20Dahmer/jeffrey_dahmer.htm
A fitting death; more then this state could accomplish.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> So how come the right wing isn't rushing to condemn the lies?
>>
>> Because Acorn is dead. Mission accomplished.
>
> Fat chance. Name change only.
>
Don't sound so disappointed.
ACORN, the organization is dead, at least according to that socialist
rag -- The Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704117304575138161112658930.html
Nice job, Fauxers.
Norman
>
> Nice job, Fauxers.
I'm glad at least somebody doesn't think that selling 13 year
olds into slavery is a completely obsolete way of living.
Bill Sornson
Who says the Far Left (read: those currently in power) are anti-business?
LOL
Bill "just glad to know a simple name change is all that's needed to end
corruption; let's call Iran "Peaceful Place" and rest easy" S.
Peter Cole
Are you really that gullible or are you just going along for the talking
points?
Tom Sherman °_°
> Norman wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 9:05 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> AMuzi wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So how come the right wing isn't rushing to condemn the lies?
>>>
>>>>> Because Acorn is dead. Mission accomplished.
>>>
>>>> Fat chance. Name change only.
>>>
>>> Don't sound so disappointed.
>>>
>>> ACORN, the organization is dead, at least according to that socialist
>>> rag -- The Wall Street Journal:
>>>
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405274870411730457513816111265...
>>>
>>> Nice job, Fauxers.
>
>> I'm glad at least somebody doesn't think that selling 13 year
>> olds into slavery is a completely obsolete way of living.
>
> Who says the Far Left (read: those currently in power) are anti-business?
> LOL
>
an idiot.
If Obama and the Dimocrats are far left, I crap out 24-carat gold nuggets.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
This country is falling apart. People are dying. Despair is
Nate Nagel
> On 3/24/2010 10:18 AM, Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Norman wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 9:05 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> So how come the right wing isn't rushing to condemn the lies?
>>>>
>>>>>> Because Acorn is dead. Mission accomplished.
>>>>
>>>>> Fat chance. Name change only.
>>>>
>>>> Don't sound so disappointed.
>>>>
>>>> ACORN, the organization is dead, at least according to that socialist
>>>> rag -- The Wall Street Journal:
>>>>
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405274870411730457513816111265...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice job, Fauxers.
>>
>>> I'm glad at least somebody doesn't think that selling 13 year
>>> olds into slavery is a completely obsolete way of living.
>>
>> Who says the Far Left (read: those currently in power) are anti-business?
>> LOL
>>
> Since there is no way to put this politely, Sorni is either a troll or
> an idiot.
>
> If Obama and the Dimocrats are far left, I crap out 24-carat gold nuggets.
>
They're lefter than I, but they're preferable to the alternative.
Last two elections I've kinda held my nose while casting my ballot.
(and voted for the candidate from the party that I *don't* self-identify
with.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Tim McNamara
<c8ab944b-6104-44a8...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Norman <invasiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
Out to demonstrate what a moron you are? Congratulations on your
stellar success.
What an idiot.
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Norman wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 7:27 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> > <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >> Apologies being accepted from all those who smeared ACORN based on
> >> this video.
> >> <http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/22/acorn_muckrak
> >> ing...>.
> >>
> >> Not holding my breath, however.
> >>
> >
> > Right, and Dahmer was unfairly maligned because the prosecution
> > didn't include exculpatory evidence as relating to the delicious
> > flavour of young african & asian boys.
>
> But a glorious justice was done:
> http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/d/Jeffrey%20Dahmer/jeffrey_dahmer.h
> tm
>
> A fitting death; more then this state could accomplish.
I didn't realize you were so opposed to the rule of law, Andy. Indeed,
your posts are becoming increasingly vindictive and even bloodthirsty.
Odd that you think murder is "justice." Perhaps we should dispense with
the courts altogether and bring back lynch mobs.
Bill Sornson
OK, forget far left. Let's go with Fascist Nanny Statists.
Feel better?!?
PS: That little "kids with preexisting conditions covered immediately"
thing? Try 2014 at earliest.
BS (not)
Tom Sherman °_°
hygiene items, underwear, and items of sentimental value only be
communal world property. I believe that Obama and the Dimocrats are to
the right of that position, no?
In fact, Obama and the Dimocrats are to the right of the European
"conservative" parties - a fact that escapes the followers of the US
right wing noise machine and corporate media.
> Last two elections I've kinda held my nose while casting my ballot. (and
> voted for the candidate from the party that I *don't* self-identify with.)
>
I thought Badnarik and Cobb were the best presidential candidates of the
past quarter century. I did not agree with Badnarik, but I respected his
integrity.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
...the elites, lurking in the shadows behind a neutered
government, squeeze the vast majority of citizens, workers,
and students, moving their jobs overseas, foreclosing on their
homes, looting their savings, stealing their hopes and dreams.
- Lewis Seiler & Dan Hamburg
Jay Beattie
Let's dump the nanny state (federal and state), and then you can
negotiate for your power, water and sewer rates with the incumbent
monopolies. Being that you have so much market power, you should be
able to negotiate good rates. You can negotiate with your health
insurer and even your own doctors, who would probably be more inclined
to negotiate after the nanny government removes the hideous and
oppressive requirements of professional competency testing and
malpractice insurance coverage.-- Jay Beattie.
Bill Sornson
Non-starter aside,
http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people
(he now says he was tired so said what he really thinks).
Bill "hey, things take time" S.
PS: I'm a utilitarian (pragmatist for those with Cluelessesque IQs). How
are things WORKING? Unemployment 10% and closer to 17% if truly measured.
New Home Sales lowest on record
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8xSP8Wb3iW8). 79% of
Americans think the economy could crash (79%!!!). IRS now in charge of
health insurance enforcement (THAT's reassuring) to tune of 65,000 new
agents needed annually. Feds now control virtually 50% of the once-private
economy -- transportation, insurance (health and life), finance (banks and
investment firms), and coming soon energy, education (even more than college
loan takeover hidden in Health Care "Reform"). Doesn't even include nanny
state control of diet, speech, light bulbs, water, Happy Meal Toys (Google
it), salaries, etc. etc. etc.
What's next?
Peter Cole
Why not use the same method for unemployment measurement as has been
used historically -- if you want to do an honest comparison.
Yes, things are bad. How did they get so bad?
> New Home Sales lowest on record
> (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8xSP8Wb3iW8).
Sure, Do you know what a "bubble" is? Can you say Alan Greenspan?
> 79% of
> Americans think the economy could crash (79%!!!).
They have been told that repeatedly. How else could they have been
coerced into forking over $700B+ to the detested banks with no strings
attached. Who was in charge for that?
> IRS now in charge of
> health insurance enforcement (THAT's reassuring) to tune of 65,000 new
> agents needed annually.
Would you prefer the post office? The army?
> Feds now control virtually 50% of the once-private
> economy -- transportation, insurance (health and life), finance (banks and
> investment firms), and coming soon energy, education (even more than college
> loan takeover hidden in Health Care "Reform"). Doesn't even include nanny
> state control of diet, speech, light bulbs, water, Happy Meal Toys (Google
> it), salaries, etc. etc. etc.
Please back that up. Of course "control" is a weasel word. Apparently in
your universe, any regulation equals control. Sounds real radical, but
it's hype. The real metric is the fraction of GDP represented by tax
revenues. Remember, tax revenues are federal, state and local. Now, do
the math and show me how the federal tax burden is 50% of the "economy"
(another weasel word). I thought so.
The biggest threat to our future economic prosperity is ballooning
health care and debt service loads. The conservatives wish to leave the
first matter in private hands, despite an absolutely dismal track
record, and have finally got religion on the second, now that there's a
rational case to be made for deficits (preventing depression).
> What's next?
If compromises continue to be made with radical conservatives, the US
will slip further behind other industrial economies as our
infrastructure, educational and health levels slip, our debt grows under
continued massive military expenditures, our banking system grows more
concentrated and more out of control, and our Gini index heads towards
Brazil's. In a nutshell we've been on the "road to serfdom", all thanks
to anti-government governance, faith-based economics and psychopathic
foreign policy.
Jay Beattie
> (he now says he was tired so said what he really thinks).
>
> Bill "hey, things take time" S.
>
> PS: I'm a utilitarian (pragmatist for those with Cluelessesque IQs). How
> are things WORKING? Unemployment 10% and closer to 17% if truly measured.
> New Home Sales lowest on record
> (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8xSP8Wb3iW8). 79% of
> Americans think the economy could crash (79%!!!). IRS now in charge of
> health insurance enforcement (THAT's reassuring) to tune of 65,000 new
> agents needed annually. Feds now control virtually 50% of the once-private
> economy -- transportation, insurance (health and life), finance (banks and
> investment firms), and coming soon energy, education (even more than college
> loan takeover hidden in Health Care "Reform"). Doesn't even include nanny
> state control of diet, speech, light bulbs, water, Happy Meal Toys (Google
> it), salaries, etc. etc. etc.
The IRS has been in charge of health care for quite some time, at
least for employees and employers covered uder ERISA. FTC and CPSC
have been regulating toys and imports for years as well -- and in
fact, they get the bad rap everytime we get lead painted toys from
China or melaminne in dog food. I am also content with the federal
government seizing control of the student loan market. It will make a
butt load of money that it can plow back in to education -- if it does
what it is supposed to.
I have no problem with Federal regulation of monopoly-like buisnesses
where market forces do not operate normally. That does not mean I
agree with the type of regulation, and in fact, I fear that Obamacare
with just be another feeding frenzy for the insurance companies and
drug companies. Incumbent interests often control the process, as was
the case with Medicare coverage D, which resulted in huge profits for
the drug companies. I don't believe free market is the answer, though,
because the market is so out of whack that it is not going to correct
itself. People are not going to quit getting medical care and drive
the price down. In fact, people just quit getting insurance, and
health care providers jack up the price for people who can and do pay
-- thus, we end up with a tax of sorts being passed on in the price of
services. We also end up with premium increases. In the end, we pay
-- either directly to commercial interests or through taxes. The
government could, if it tried, drive down the price of inputs -- drug
costs medical costs -- which would save us all money, but that would
mean sticking it to some powerful interests groups, which is probably
not going to happen. -- Jay Beattie.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]I am also content with the federal
> government seizing control of the student loan market. It will make a
> butt load of money that it can plow back in to education -- if it does
Where did people from poor backgrounds get the idea they deserve a
chance to get an education?
Frank Krygowski
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> > Feds now control virtually 50% of the once-private
> > economy -- transportation, insurance (health and life), finance (banks and
> > investment firms), and coming soon energy, education (even more than college
> > loan takeover hidden in Health Care "Reform"). Doesn't even include nanny
> > state control of diet, speech, light bulbs, water, Happy Meal Toys (Google
> > it), salaries, etc. etc. etc.
>
> Please back that up. Of course "control" is a weasel word. Apparently in
> your universe, any regulation equals control. Sounds real radical, but
> it's hype.
Sornson really needs to move to some idyllic place where all those
things are not controlled. Somwhere that has the small government he
loves.
Don't go to Denmark, of course. Happiest place in the world, by some
rankings. But it's got a government providing free health care, and
using tax dollars to pay students to go to tuition-free universities,
and keeping gun ownership so strictly regulated. Besides, those Danes
believe in their strong environmental laws. Sornson would just be
miserable among all those happy people.
In fact, he shouldn't go to any of the other happiest countries. The
Scandinavian countries, for example, are all more of the same. All
sorts of socialistic happiness. He'd just get depressed.
Sornson needs to move to someplace with almost no government at all.
Where nobody pays any taxes. Where there are lots and lots of guns.
If it were the proper place, I might even donate a little toward the
ticket.
I suggest Mogadishu.
- Frank Krygowski
Tim McNamara
The Republicans will re-establish the aristocracy and return the poor to
serfdom where they belong.
AMuzi
Does Obama know you borrowed his favorite straw man?
Tom Sherman °_°
You must have confused overseer for the elite B.H. Obama for a real leftist.
Think about how much more money your customers/potential customers would
have to spend if real wages for working people had not been decreasing
for the last 35 years.
Peter Cole
What do mean "will"?
Peter Cole
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
Point.
Tom Sherman °_°
The work is not complete. There are still pesky things around like
student loans, public schools and colleges, Social Security, Medicade,
Medicare, etc.
No official titles for the aristocracy as of yet.
Peter Cole
Of course one of the big ironies of the conservative opposition to
government involvement in health care was that Medicare might be "looted".
The incoherence of the "Tea Party" stems from (and profits by) its
appeal to a broad range of beefs, thinly united somehow by the belief
that government is the source of most troubles. The
liberal/progressives, on the other hand, are typically "herding cats",
with virtually any concrete proposals predestined to be either too much
or too little, even to their own base.
You might think that freedom loving people anywhere (politically) would
find common cause in pushing back corporate domination of society, but
that's not happening. The next chapter/fight of the Obama presidency,
financial reform, will be even more revealing than the health care debate.
Freedom in America has become increasingly proportional to wealth. The
affluent have ever greater and better choices for health, education,
mobility, security and leisure -- the average, not so much.
AMuzi
Damn. You blew my kumbaya moment.
carry on.
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 3/26/2010 7:25 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> >> In article <hogr8r$img$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3/25/2010 2:18 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
> >>>> [...]I am also content with the federal government seizing control
> >>>> of the student loan market. It will make a butt load of money that
> >>>> it can plow back in to education -- if it does what it is supposed
> >>>> to.[...]
> >>> Where did people from poor backgrounds get the idea they deserve a
> >>> chance to get an education?
> >>
> >> The Republicans will re-establish the aristocracy and return the poor
> >> to serfdom where they belong.
> >>
> >
> > What do mean "will"?
>
> The work is not complete. There are still pesky things around like
> student loans, public schools and colleges, Social Security, Medicade,
> Medicare, etc.
Those are just about done. 15-20 years left and they'll be gone. The
process is one of coup by attrition. Usurp democracy, control access to
information, restrict workers' rights, choke off increases in real
income and make sure that people now this is increasing their "freedom"
and that they'll support it if they "love the real America." And laugh
all the way to the bank.
> No official titles for the aristocracy as of yet.
"Rich guy" is the generic working title. CEO, CFO, COO, investment
banker, etc. are the specific working titles. "Small business owner" is
not going to be one of the titles.
Neil Brooks
> On Mar 25, 9:26 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> > > Feds now control virtually 50% of the once-private
> > > economy -- transportation, insurance (health and life), finance (banks and
> > > investment firms), and coming soon energy, education (even more than college
> > > loan takeover hidden in Health Care "Reform"). Doesn't even include nanny
> > > state control of diet, speech, light bulbs, water, Happy Meal Toys (Google
> > > it), salaries, etc. etc. etc.
>
> > Please back that up. Of course "control" is a weasel word. Apparently in
> > your universe, any regulation equals control. Sounds real radical, but
> > it's hype.
>
> Sornson really needs to move to some idyllic place where all those
> things are not controlled. Somwhere that has the small government he
> loves.
>
> Don't go to Denmark, of course. Happiest place in the world, by some
> rankings. But it's got a government providing free health care, and
> using tax dollars to pay students to go to tuition-free universities,
> and keeping gun ownership so strictly regulated. Besides, those Danes
> believe in their strong environmental laws. Sornson would just be
> miserable among all those happy people.
I've never heard him described any better than that, Frank.
> In fact, he shouldn't go to any of the other happiest countries. The
> Scandinavian countries, for example, are all more of the same. All
> sorts of socialistic happiness. He'd just get depressed.
Get???
I don't think they'd want him in Scandinavia, Frank. I also believe
that he's SO closed minded (see: Confirmation Bias) that he'd never GO
to one of those countries, or any Western European country.
> Sornson needs to move to someplace with almost no government at all.
> Where nobody pays any taxes. Where there are lots and lots of guns.
> If it were the proper place, I might even donate a little toward the
> ticket.
>
> I suggest Mogadishu.
I'd kick in for a chunk of the cost of the ticket....
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The incoherence of the "Tea Party" stems from (and profits by) its
> appeal to a broad range of beefs, thinly united somehow by the belief
> that government is the source of most troubles.
"Somehow?"
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the
problem" Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1/20/81. Reagan was one of
the three or four best rhetoricians in the past 100 years. He always
sounded like he was speaking the truth if you didn't pay too much
attention to what he actually said.
This resentment of government is a recurrent notion in human history and
is fundamental tenet of neoconservatism. It springs, in its modern
form, in particular from the political philosophy of Barry Goldwater
among a few others.
> The liberal/progressives, on the other hand, are typically "herding
> cats", with virtually any concrete proposals predestined to be either
> too much or too little, even to their own base.
As Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of an organized political party.
I'm a Democrat." This hasn't changed very much and points out something
often overlooked and yet quite substantial: Democrats in Congress are
more likely to represent their constituents while Republicans are more
likely to represent their party's platform. IMHO the former is more
representative of freedom than the latter.
Peter Cole
> In article <hois0r$oj2$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The incoherence of the "Tea Party" stems from (and profits by) its
>> appeal to a broad range of beefs, thinly united somehow by the belief
>> that government is the source of most troubles.
>
> "Somehow?"
>
> "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the
> problem" Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1/20/81. Reagan was one of
> the three or four best rhetoricians in the past 100 years. He always
> sounded like he was speaking the truth if you didn't pay too much
> attention to what he actually said.
>
> This resentment of government is a recurrent notion in human history and
> is fundamental tenet of neoconservatism. It springs, in its modern
> form, in particular from the political philosophy of Barry Goldwater
> among a few others.
Yes, but my choice of the word "somehow" was to express the reality that
the discontent of government is all over the map, with politics making
very strange bedfellows. Just a perusal of the various placards waved at
a "tea party" reveals the scope.
>> The liberal/progressives, on the other hand, are typically "herding
>> cats", with virtually any concrete proposals predestined to be either
>> too much or too little, even to their own base.
>
> As Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of an organized political party.
> I'm a Democrat." This hasn't changed very much and points out something
> often overlooked and yet quite substantial: Democrats in Congress are
> more likely to represent their constituents while Republicans are more
> likely to represent their party's platform. IMHO the former is more
> representative of freedom than the latter.
The problem comes from the definition of "freedom". This has been
recognized by political scientists for well over a century.
Conservatives believe in a so-called "negative (or individual) freedom",
the freedom from any constraints, the purpose of government being to
protect the individual from other individuals only within a narrow
context ("law & order"). Liberals, on the other hand, more support the
notion of "positive (or social) freedom", the idea that everyone be
given equal opportunity to prosperity -- "level the playing field".
The formal argument for negative/individual freedom is that it is
naturally more benign, since positive/social freedom can lead to
overbearing statism -- the "road to hell paved with good intentions"
argument. In one form or another, this is the specter that's always
raised in response to initiatives like "socialized" medicine.
What's really disturbing about these arguments in the current day is the
lack of appreciation for the complexity of the question and an
appreciation for how the balance between positive and negative freedoms
may need to be readjusted for changing economic, technological and
social times (e.g. globalization). The other disturbing thing is the
muddling of these essentially philosophical questions with economics and
religion. Economics is a more deterministic topic. There is
(incomplete) mathematics and quantitative arguments can be made about
things like deficits, Keynesian stimulus, tariffs, regulations, etc.,
economic policy should be responsive to new knowledge, it should not be
political. Neither should religion, but for very different reasons.
My feeling about financial and medial reforms is that economic reality
has stipulated the necessities, and those arguments should be made
outside of politics/philosophy and the positive/negative freedom debate.
Similarly, I think a compelling argument can be made on purely economic
terms for social investment in education. Politicizing these issues and
throwing religious concerns into the mix just gets everyone worked up in
a lather and doesn't help solve the underlying structural problems.
Having a sick and undereducated populace is bad for any society,
socialistic, capitalistic or theocratic.
Jay Beattie
"Negative" or individual freedoms are recognized and protected by the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Social welfare
programs are not guaranteed by either document, and as the Supreme
Court declared during the early phases of the New Deal, some social
welfare programs may exceed the authority granted to Congress by the
Commerce Clause, at least as the Commerce Clause was interpreted
before 1937. Anyway, without getting into whether any particular
welfare program is good or bad in a philosophical sense (some are
good and some are bad), the term "freedom" was pretty well understood
to mean freedom from governmental oppression and not freedom from
hunger, low wages, sleeplessness, hairloss or impotence. We were given
the right to pursue happiness and not the right to have it provided to
us.-- Jay Beattie.
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <hois0r$oj2$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The incoherence of the "Tea Party" stems from (and profits by) its
> >> appeal to a broad range of beefs, thinly united somehow by the
> >> belief that government is the source of most troubles.
> >
> > "Somehow?"
> >
> > "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the
> > problem" Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1/20/81. Reagan was
> > one of the three or four best rhetoricians in the past 100 years.
> > He always sounded like he was speaking the truth if you didn't pay
> > too much attention to what he actually said.
> >
> > This resentment of government is a recurrent notion in human
> > history and is fundamental tenet of neoconservatism. It springs,
> > in its modern form, in particular from the political philosophy of
> > Barry Goldwater among a few others.
>
> Yes, but my choice of the word "somehow" was to express the reality
> that the discontent of government is all over the map, with politics
> making very strange bedfellows. Just a perusal of the various
> placards waved at a "tea party" reveals the scope.
Some of them bordered on the surreal, including obvious Medicare
recipients protesting against the public option.
Interesting discussion, thanks.
> My feeling about financial and medial reforms is that economic
> reality has stipulated the necessities, and those arguments should be
> made outside of politics/philosophy and the positive/negative freedom
> debate. Similarly, I think a compelling argument can be made on
> purely economic terms for social investment in education.
> Politicizing these issues and throwing religious concerns into the
> mix just gets everyone worked up in a lather and doesn't help solve
> the underlying structural problems. Having a sick and undereducated
> populace is bad for any society, socialistic, capitalistic or
> theocratic.
Agreed.
Tim McNamara
<d7cd0b79-37ef-4d5b...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
How does that preclude sane and rational health care policy and
financing? How is having a hospital stay for a health care problem
without bankrupting you government oppression?
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution also don't
guarantee roads, police departments, fire departments. Yet we have
decided these things are societally important and use the government to
obtain them. We've done the same to achieve other aims of signal
importance.
AMuzi
This is not the venue to settle policy but even here a
spectrum of views is seen.
What has a huge expenditure into education by the national
government accomplished? Measurable declines any way you
want to measure.
Will nationalizing the insurance business (or more properly
making them regulated utilities with coerced customers)
affect human health outcomes positively? I don't see it.
We cannot agree nor settle these questions here. Of that I'm
sure.
datakoll
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> We cannot agree nor settle these questions here. Of that I'm sure.
But we can combine Argument with Abuse!
Tom Sherman °_°
> what's this about ? julia child, benito mussolini, or health care ?
>
I doubt Julia Child had recipes for "long pig".
Dan O
>
> We cannot agree nor settle these questions here. Of that I'm
> sure.
all you need is love
Peter Cole
>
> "Negative" or individual freedoms are recognized and protected by the
> Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Social welfare
> programs are not guaranteed by either document, and as the Supreme
> Court declared during the early phases of the New Deal, some social
> welfare programs may exceed the authority granted to Congress by the
> Commerce Clause, at least as the Commerce Clause was interpreted
> before 1937. Anyway, without getting into whether any particular
> welfare program is good or bad in a philosophical sense (some are
> good and some are bad), the term "freedom" was pretty well understood
> to mean freedom from governmental oppression and not freedom from
> hunger, low wages, sleeplessness, hairloss or impotence. We were given
> the right to pursue happiness and not the right to have it provided to
> us.-- Jay Beattie.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was sketching philosophical poles, not
constitutional law. Indeed, the constitution may have been thin or
negative on the question of social welfare when written, it certainly
was on slavery and suffrage, to name just two of many topics that have
undergone substantial shifts from the founder's original viewpoints.
BTW, we were not "given" anything, we (via representatives) ratified a
proposed list of rights, fighting a war for the privilege -- or at least
the timely privilege, we would have likely achieved the same end
peacefully eventually.
Now, just as then, our government is what we choose it to be. If
congress decides that it is the government's business to provide freedom
from hunger and low wages, it is free to do so, and has. Before the New
Deal, various social legislation was struck down on a constitutional
basis, but that was the way the court leaned almost 100 years ago. That
has (obviously) changed, most likely permanently. The question was not
the status of social freedoms in the constitution, but the legality of
congress addressing those issues. It's pretty clear after decades of
labor, civil rights and other social welfare law being enacted that the
accepted interpretation of the constitution is that: yes, the congress
can "have happiness provided to you" if that's the decision of a
majority of our elected representatives, and it has been. At least
"happiness" in terms of basic human needs, you're on your own for the
hair & other problem.
Tom Sherman °_°
>[...]
> Before the New Deal, various social legislation was struck down on a
> constitutional basis, but that was the way the court leaned almost
> 100 years ago. That has (obviously) changed, most likely permanently.
Not if the right wing lunatics are allowed to stack the Supreme Court
with activist judges.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
This country is falling apart. People are dying. Despair is
settled upon the land. These clowns [Congress] are frigging
around for no purpose better than the enrichment of Wall
Street bankers and Connecticut insurance tycoons. There has
been no change. There is no hope. - Christopher Cooper
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> This is not the venue to settle policy but even here a spectrum of
> views is seen.
Of course.
> What has a huge expenditure into education by the national government
> accomplished? Measurable declines any way you want to measure.
Is that actually true? It's the common complaint (and odd that this
program was managed by Republicans, which seems at odds with the
political philosophy of the party) but I am not sure that the facts back
it up. Yes, many high schools won't meet the NCLB standards, but is
that because the schools are declining or because the standards aren't
realistic measures? (I don't know the answers to that; the question is
not rhetorical).
That said I am not a fan of NCLB because it is predicated on a set of
false premises. The most important of these is that the program is
aimed at preparing every child for college, yet (1) not every child
wants to go to college (2) nor is every child intellectually capable of
going to college.
The next most important of these is that the emphasis on measuring
school performance by testing results in teaching what is readily
testable (and teaching the material that is on the tests). This puts
the curricula in the hands of the people who write the tests.
Third, making high school a universal college prep program could result
in students not learning the necessary skills to make a living without
going to college. One of the things that has happened locally in the
past decade is that the cost of going to college has more than doubled
in both private and public colleges (the latter because a couple of our
anti-education governors have been hostile to college education and have
repeatedly cut public funding for public universities and colleges).
The result is that more of our "college-prepped" high school students
won't complete a college education.
The fundamental things that need to be taught in school are (1) how to
think critically and (2) how to find out what you don't know. Every
high school student should have a class in formal logic. IMHO the
nation would be much better off within ten years. For one thing, they'd
have the tools to see through the idiot rhetoric of most politicians.
> Will nationalizing the insurance business (or more properly making
> them regulated utilities with coerced customers) affect human health
> outcomes positively? I don't see it.
I'm not a fan of most of the reform as it stands. Health care reform is
necessary but I see little actual reform here. I want a national,
single payer health program (actually a two payer program; there should
be reasonable copayments). Beneficiaries would include small businesses
like yours- would it help you to not have to provide insurance as part
of your payroll expenses (I don't know if you do- my Dad did with his
business and it was a bigger expense than many other line items in his
overhead). Entrepreneurship would be encouraged. People would have
greater flexibility in leaving dead end jobs. Etc. There would be a
lot of upsides.
Will the reform affect health outcomes positively? Yes, I think it
will. 75% of the 47 million uninsured Americans will be able to get
health care coverage through this program (eventually- doesn't happen
quickly enough). That's a pretty big difference.
> We cannot agree nor settle these questions here. Of that I'm sure.
Also true.
Peter Cole
Huge? By what measure? Total US government (fed, state, local)
expenditure for education budgeted for 2010 is just over $1T. Federal
contribution to that is $157B, or around 15%, and half of that is just
direct aid to states. So, the "huge" expenditure by the "national
government" is projected this year to be actually 7.4% of the combined
(fed, state & local) public expenditure on education, and around 1% of
the 2010 federal budget.
I'm not sure if you find the total (fed, state, local) public
expenditure on education excessive in this country, or just the federal
contribution to it. If it's the latter, I'm not sure if you oppose it on
economic, philosophical, political or functional grounds, but it can't
be because it's "huge", because it isn't.
Even while remaining a "zero sum" game, I'd argue spending way more on
the federal level just to level the playing field, education is one
obvious example where future prosperity is largely an accident of birth,
in this country, not only social but geographical location. Since higher
education has important consequences for America's continuing
prosperity, especially in an increasingly globalized world, it seems
that investing in education at a national level is as, or more,
important than many other "strategic interests". Of course we could
expand our current policies (H1B, etc.) of letting other countries
educate, then temporarily or permanently naturalizing, or the ultimate
solution of just shipping the jobs to countries with a highly educated
elite supported by an impoverished underclass, either achieving a high
Gini index directly or by proxy. Got to keep the costs down and profits
up, even after the "American" corporation has ceased to employ many
actual Americans. But I digress.
> Will nationalizing the insurance business (or more properly making them
> regulated utilities with coerced customers) affect human health outcomes
> positively? I don't see it.
There have been a variety of "experiments" running in most other
advanced industrial countries for decades. The accumulated evidence
indicates that these changes will positively affect "human health
outcomes", but that is rather beside the point. The important prediction
is that it will substantially lower total social costs for health care
while simultaneously providing as good, or likely better, outcomes. All
that is a matter of fact, not opinion. Medical cost containment is
critical because predictions indicate a harsh future choice between
going broke and letting people die early deaths. Since I'm likely to be
one of those people, I have some skin in the game, as they say.
Despite the weeping and gnashing of teeth over single payer & Medicare
for all among my fellow progressives, I believe the heavily regulated
private insurance model is one of several options that can provide the
same end result, perhaps in a way more consistent with our culture and
history. I also think it's less traumatic to the industry to phase in
the changes, so in total, I'm OK with the current plan. I just hope it's
not too little, too late. While all this sounds self-serving, that's
only because (for the sake of argument) I'm trying to cast it in a
pragmatic rather than altruistic light. Personally I think it's shameful
that a country as wealthy as ours tolerates such deep inequity, but
that's me.
Taking out the whole insurance company (~30%) slice of the pie and even
the additional indirect costs their patient shuffling incur, won't head
off the eventual cost crisis. We've got to get most Americans to live
long lives and die quickly without expensive lingering diseases, most of
which are consequential to crappy lifestyles. Which is why I favor
utility cycling as much more than an alternate transportation mode.
> We cannot agree nor settle these questions here. Of that I'm sure.
No, but we can exchange information. I'm listening.
Peter Cole
> On 3/27/2010 7:47 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
>> [...]
> > Before the New Deal, various social legislation was struck down on a
> > constitutional basis, but that was the way the court leaned almost
> > 100 years ago. That has (obviously) changed, most likely permanently.
> > [...]
>
> Not if the right wing lunatics are allowed to stack the Supreme Court
> with activist judges.
>
Some, including myself, would argue that has already happened, at least
to the extent that the political pendulum allowed. Maybe we can
establish a worse, worst case, but to me, Reagan and the Bushes
represented kind of a political "perfect storm".
Tom Sherman °_°
All that is needed is a more right wing president (likely in 2012),
another domestic attack (real or false flag), a declaration of martial
law, and replacing any Justice that does not go along with John Yoo and
his ilk.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
...the elites, lurking in the shadows behind a neutered
government, squeeze the vast majority of citizens, workers,
and students, moving their jobs overseas, foreclosing on their
homes, looting their savings, stealing their hopes and dreams.
- Lewis Seiler & Dan Hamburg
Jay Beattie
> In article
> <d7cd0b79-37ef-4d5b-af87-ea75213ec...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
All I'm getting at is that there is no federal Constitutional basis
for social welfare programs, although there is a Constitutional basis
for prohibiting discrimination in the distribution of welfare
benefits. Welfare is not a right or a freedom in any sense of the
word. It is a benefit with a corresponding burden.
>
> The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution also don't
> guarantee roads, police departments, fire departments. Yet we have
> decided these things are societally important and use the government to
> obtain them. We've done the same to achieve other aims of signal
> importance.
Infrastructure was historically the province of the states, although
fostering trade between the states is a primary purpose of the
Constitution and some of the earliest federal legislation deals with
ports and other instruments of interstate commerce. Interstate
infrastructure is clearly a permissible area of federal regulation.
It is arguable that the federal government does not have the power to
pass wide ranging federal welfare programs under the Commerce Clause
because welfare is not commerce. The states can do whatever they want
in this area, so long as benefits programs are administered fairly.
I'm not against benefit programs, but the notion that the federal
government should be creating and administering them takes a real act
of faith and a rather loose view of history and language.-- Jay
Beattie.
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> AMuzi wrote:
>
> > Will nationalizing the insurance business (or more properly making
> > them regulated utilities with coerced customers) affect human
> > health outcomes positively? I don't see it.
>
> There have been a variety of "experiments" running in most other
> advanced industrial countries for decades. The accumulated evidence
> indicates that these changes will positively affect "human health
> outcomes", but that is rather beside the point. The important
> prediction is that it will substantially lower total social costs for
> health care while simultaneously providing as good, or likely better,
> outcomes. All that is a matter of fact, not opinion. Medical cost
> containment is critical because predictions indicate a harsh future
> choice between going broke and letting people die early deaths. Since
> I'm likely to be one of those people, I have some skin in the game,
> as they say.
A recent article (two or three days ago, perhaps) indicated that the
average couple retiring today at age 65 needs to have $250,000 saved up
*just* to pay for health care expenses they will incur over the course
of their retirement- not including paying for a nursing home stay. We
all have some skin in the game until we are dead.
As the Buddha pointed out 2500 years ago, the nature of being human
means the experiencing sufferings of birth, sickness, old age and death.
These are inherent in being human. As a health care system we have some
tendency to act if this weren't true or that all advances in health care
are consequence-free. But reducing the number of deaths from heart
attacks before age 80 through using statin drugs, for example, will
increase the number of people who live long enough to develop
Alzheimer's. The cost of Alzheimer's care is extremely high and the
intangible losses of identity and simple dignity are great, as is the
toll it takes on the family.
> Despite the weeping and gnashing of teeth over single payer &
> Medicare for all among my fellow progressives, I believe the heavily
> regulated private insurance model is one of several options that can
> provide the same end result, perhaps in a way more consistent with
> our culture and history.
There may very well be some truth to that, perhaps a lot of truth. When
I think if a national health care system, I think of a government-paid,
tax-funded system mainly for its simplicity (one bureaucracy instead of
many) and the assurance of universality.
But there are other ways to achieve the goal of 100% coverage. T.R,
Reid did wrote an interesting book on this and did a Frontline episode
comparing and contrasting the systems in the US, the UK, Germany,
Switzerland and Japan. You can find information about it in various
places. Here are a few:
<http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health-care-abroad-que
stions-for-tr-reid/>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
The UK system, while delivering better health outcomes on most measures
and costing half per capita what the US system costs, involves things I
think a lot of Americans would find repugnant, at least initially. One
of these is more or less being assigned to a primary care physician who
is the central figure in your health care. You don't get to doctor
shop. If you need a specialist, you see the primary care doctor first
and he or she refers you to the specialist if it is thought necessary.
All non-emergent medical care goes through the primary care doctor. On
the other hand, there are zero point-of-service out of pocket costs for
the patient (IIRC dental is not covered).
The Japanese system would have the AMA and other such associations
screaming at the top of their lungs. The government assigns a price to
every service and every doctor charges that price. Stiches? $1.25
each. MRI? $105. Etc. They also have hundreds of small private
hospitals rather than just a few gargantuan ones like we have here. And
there are 3,000 health insurance companies to choose from.
The Swiss model might be the most instructive for us to study, given
that it's a country every bit as capitalistic and entrepreneurial as
ours. Switzerland had health care reform when about 5% of their
population couldn't afford insurance and health care (the US is at
47,000,000 uninsureds: a bit under 16% although that *excludes* the
Americans covered under Medicare and Medicaid. Among the latter, almost
all would be unable to pay for health insurance; among the former, many
retirees could not afford health insurance without Medicare. So the
real number of Americans who can't afford health insurance is more like
100,000,000 if not much higher).
It was approved by referendum with a bare majority and is, 14 years
later, very very popular. There are 70 insurers from which to choose;
these are required to operate as non-profits for basic health care ( a
piece missing from the current US reform bill, AFAIK. However, here in
Minnesota, HMOs are required by law to be non-profits) but they can make
some profits on more advanced health care services (they sell basic
health insurance at non-profit rates and more deluxe supplemental
packages at for-profit rates). The Swiss insurance industry is making
more money now than it was before health care reform. Everyone is
covered. I'm sure there are warts and flaws in the system, because
everything humans create is flawed in some way, but it is functioning
and apparently functioning well.
So, while my thinking is perhaps limited to what seems to me to be the
simplest and most straightforward model, there are other ways to deal
with the problem.
> I also think it's less traumatic to the industry to phase in the
> changes, so in total, I'm OK with the current plan. I just hope it's
> not too little, too late. While all this sounds self-serving, that's
> only because (for the sake of argument) I'm trying to cast it in a
> pragmatic rather than altruistic light. Personally I think it's
> shameful that a country as wealthy as ours tolerates such deep
> inequity, but that's me.
It is shameful. In fact it grossly violates the Christian teachings
with which I grew up... but then most modern politically revised
Christian teachings [read: right wing] grossly violate the Christian
values I obtained from my Catholic father and Lutheran mother.
I have seen health care bankrupt people through no fault of their own.
I've seen in happen many times in the 30 years I have worked in health
care. I've seen health problems in young people ruin the lives they
would have had. Apparently this is just "tough luck, too bad so sad" as
far as the Tea Partiers and others of that ilk are concerned. To my
mind it is a terrible travesty and a gross distortion of what America
means to allow that to happen and to call it "freedom." Over the last
30 years, the right wing in this country has been twisted into a
spiteful, angry, misanthropic, morally bankrupt parody of conservatism-
and nowhere has this been more evident than in the health care "debate."
That said, there are probably more workable models for health care
finance reform than I entertain in my head. We have the reform we have
and it remains to be seen how it will work out.
Tim McNamara
<4a264d3c-bd39-437c...@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
All benefits have a corresponding burden. Sunlight and air are free;
little else is.
> > The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution also don't
> > guarantee roads, police departments, fire departments. Yet we have
> > decided these things are societally important and use the
> > government to obtain them. We've done the same to achieve other
> > aims of signal importance.
>
> Infrastructure was historically the province of the states, although
> fostering trade between the states is a primary purpose of the
> Constitution and some of the earliest federal legislation deals with
> ports and other instruments of interstate commerce. Interstate
> infrastructure is clearly a permissible area of federal regulation.
Only because the government has self-delegated that authority. Part of
that authority has included mandated standards for infrastructure design
and construction- with sticks and carrots for states to bring their
infrastructure into compliance with federal standards.
> It is arguable that the federal government does not have the power to
> pass wide ranging federal welfare programs under the Commerce Clause
> because welfare is not commerce. The states can do whatever they
> want in this area, so long as benefits programs are administered
> fairly. I'm not against benefit programs, but the notion that the
> federal government should be creating and administering them takes a
> real act of faith and a rather loose view of history and language.
The federal government can create and administer federal welfare
benefits. We've tended in some cases (e.g., Medicaid) to do somewhat
awkward hybridized programs. Health insurance has traditionally been
regulated intrastate rather than nationally; it remains to be seen how
that will work out in terms of national health care finance policy,
although the parallel with infrastructure is fairly clear.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]Over the last
> 30 years, the right wing in this country has been twisted into a
> spiteful, angry, misanthropic, morally bankrupt parody of conservatism-
You are too kind.
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> > On 3/27/2010 7:47 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
> >> [...]
> > > Before the New Deal, various social legislation was struck down
> > > on a constitutional basis, but that was the way the court leaned
> > > almost 100 years ago. That has (obviously) changed, most likely
> > > permanently. [...]
> >
> > Not if the right wing lunatics are allowed to stack the Supreme
> > Court with activist judges.
The definition of an activist judge is one who makes decisions that
don't suit your prejudices.
> Some, including myself, would argue that has already happened, at
> least to the extent that the political pendulum allowed. Maybe we can
> establish a worse, worst case, but to me, Reagan and the Bushes
> represented kind of a political "perfect storm".
Not all SCOTUS appointees end up reflecting the political predilections
of the Presidents who appoint them, of course. Democratic appointees
have ended up being conservative, Republican appointees have ended up
being liberal. Some have changed over the course of time.
Tom Sherman °_°
> In article<hol7kh$a1j$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Cole<peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2010 7:47 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> > Before the New Deal, various social legislation was struck down
>>> > on a constitutional basis, but that was the way the court leaned
>>> > almost 100 years ago. That has (obviously) changed, most likely
>>> > permanently. [...]
>>>
>>> Not if the right wing lunatics are allowed to stack the Supreme
>>> Court with activist judges.
>
> The definition of an activist judge is one who makes decisions that
I was mocking a right-wingnut talking point.
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
But it's a left wing talking point, too. The SCOTUS is stacked with
right wing activist judges, from the left's point of view. The right
wing would see them as examples of thoughtful jurisprudence.
And vice versa.
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 3/27/2010 3:19 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > [...]Over the last
> > 30 years, the right wing in this country has been twisted into a
> > spiteful, angry, misanthropic, morally bankrupt parody of conservatism-
> > [...]
>
> You are too kind.
Family newsgroup.
John Thompson
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> The Republicans will re-establish the aristocracy and return the poor to
>> serfdom where they belong.
> Does Obama know you borrowed his favorite straw man?
Doesn't matter; it's all communal property now, right?
--
-John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
Tim McNamara
John Thompson <jo...@stolat.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
How's the Kool-Aid?
Chalo
>
> The UK system, while delivering better health outcomes on most measures
> and costing half per capita what the US system costs, involves things I
> think a lot of Americans would find repugnant, at least initially.
> All non-emergent medical care goes through the primary care doctor. On
> the other hand, there are zero point-of-service out of pocket costs for
> the patient (IIRC dental is not covered).
The British economy could collapse under the weight of publicly funded
dental care. Those teeth have got to be the gnarliest on earth.
Chalo
Peter Cole
> I'm not against benefit programs, but the notion that the federal
> government should be creating and administering them takes a real act
> of faith and a rather loose view of history and language.
A minimalist federal government made sense in the days when America was
mostly agrarian, thinly settled and had few international involvements.
The trend over the past centuries has been toward a much greater role
for the central government commensurate with the evolution of our
society. It is still considered a matter for lively debate by some, but
I think the issue was pretty much settled, at least in principle, almost
150 years ago. At the same time, the question of whether a democracy
could really have a bloodless revolution was also answered.
The point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make is that our principles of
government, certainly at least in such mundane matters as who pays the
bills, is not carved in granite. Positive freedom isn't limited to
wealth, and doesn't necessarily imply the redistribution of such. What
our society deems to consider a "right" is entirely up to our society,
and it is reasonable for that to undergo change as our nation and the
world evolve.
Consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
Also consider the Scandinavian social democracies. I don't think this
takes a "real act of faith" at all. On the contrary, the economic issues
are supported by a growing body of science and evidence. The old
economic "creationism" is faith-based, just ask Alan Greenspan. The
invisible hand is a fairy tale, a quack medicine shilled by the same
moneyed interests that have fought every progressive initiative, back to
emancipation. This has only the appearance of a principled debate,
underneath the thin facade it is entirely mercenary. Economics is about
science, not philosophy. These claims and counter-claims can be
addressed by facts -- as clear and unambiguous as double-entry
bookkeeping. Politicians and their corporate sponsors lie, the numbers
don't. If the recent financial "crisis" hasn't blown the lid off the
total corruption of our system, I don't know what will.
I'm not sure what you mean about a "loose" view of history. I'd argue
that we suffer from a "tight" view -- i.e. tightly controlled, AKA
"revisionist". Ask the Chinese or Koreans how they feel about the
official Japanese history. Check out how history textbooks are
"reviewed" in Texas. History has become propaganda. Perhaps it always
has been. In any case, I'll take the "loose" view, and encourage others
to "loosen up", too.
Peter Cole
> But there are other ways to achieve the goal of 100% coverage. T.R,
> Reid did wrote an interesting book on this and did a Frontline episode
> comparing and contrasting the systems in the US, the UK, Germany,
> Switzerland and Japan. You can find information about it in various
> places. Here are a few:
>
> <http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health-care-abroad-que
> stions-for-tr-reid/>
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Yes, I found the Frontline piece to be a real eye opener. For those who
haven't seen it and have a high speed net connection I'd add the whole
thing is streamable from the site above.
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> If the recent financial "crisis" hasn't blown the lid off the total
> corruption of our system, I don't know what will.
For most people, it hasn't. The Bush and Obama administrations decided
to protect the status quo and cover for the miscreants. Fundamental
change happened in this country following the Great Depression, which
revised economic and regulatory structures, changed the role of
government and ultimately decreased the control of the moneyed class.
They've been dedicated to getting that control back ever since and,
beginning with Reagan, have mostly succeeded. The cost, of course, was
massively irresponsible government 1981-1989, slightly more responsible
government 1989-1993, and then stunningly incompetent government from
2001-2009.
Tom Sherman °_°
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
Fiscally 1994-2001 were much better with the first balanced budgets and
paydown of the national debt in many years. The Republicans did not
want that to be noticed, however, because it undermined a number of
their standard talking points, so they practiced the politics of
personal destruction instead (not that Clinton didn't give them plenty
of ammo, the jackass).
The current administration is too young to grade. I have concerns, to
be sure. Although with the right wing moving towards violence against
office holders as the way to regain political control, it's hard to tell
how things will play out. The right wing may yet succeed in their
savage goal of destroying the government- and with it the nation- all
the while smugly congratulating themselves on their patriotism.
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 3/28/2010 11:35 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > They've been dedicated to getting that control back ever since and,
> > beginning with Reagan, have mostly succeeded. The cost, of course, was
> > massively irresponsible government 1981-1989, slightly more responsible
> > government 1989-1993, and then stunningly incompetent government from
> > 2001-2009.
Come off your high horse, Tommi. Those are Democrat administrations.
They are *supposed* to be incompetent. And it is their *policy*, what
they were elected for, to overspend. You are blaming cats for being
feline...
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
AMuzi
>>>> The Republicans will re-establish the aristocracy and return the poor to
>>>> serfdom where they belong.
>> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> Does Obama know you borrowed his favorite straw man?
> John Thompson <jo...@stolat.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>> Doesn't matter; it's all communal property now, right?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> How's the Kool-Aid?
Tastes a lot like that hopey-changey thing:
http://www.djsake1.com/sake/images/Kool-aid-Commie.jpg
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>> The Republicans will re-establish the aristocracy and return the poor to
> >>>> serfdom where they belong.
>
> >> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Does Obama know you borrowed his favorite straw man?
>
> > John Thompson <jo...@stolat.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
> >> Doesn't matter; it's all communal property now, right?
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > How's the Kool-Aid?
>
> Tastes a lot like that hopey-changey thing:
> http://www.djsake1.com/sake/images/Kool-aid-Commie.jpg
Good thing I wasn't hoping for much in the way of change, then.
Bill Sornson
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> How's the Kool-Aid?
> Tastes a lot like that hopey-changey thing:
> http://www.djsake1.com/sake/images/Kool-aid-Commie.jpg
It's not fashionable to say harsh things about Our Dear Leader nowadays,
Andrew. Expect a knock on your door if it continues.
BS (not really)
Tom Sherman °_°
AMuzi
I laughed when it came right up on an image search!
Jay Beattie
> >>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>> The Republicans will re-establish the aristocracy and return the poor to
> >>>> serfdom where they belong.
> >> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Does Obama know you borrowed his favorite straw man?
> >> Doesn't matter; it's all communal property now, right?
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > How's the Kool-Aid?
>
> Tastes a lot like that hopey-changey thing:http://www.djsake1.com/sake/images/Kool-aid-Commie.jpg
So where are the electable Republicans? You have to be a total whack-
job to get the support of the Tea Party, the Christian right, etc.
Sarah Palin doesn't have the intellectual horsepower. McCain is
spent. I don't see anyone with ideas in the Republican camp. It's
just "no" to anything Obama. Just the moment some fiscally
conservative Republican who is socially moderate and has real,
workable ideas comes along, I will seriously consider crossing party
lines. Smart ass hopey-changy remarks (which really insult the office,
which I think is wrong) show that the party has nothing to offer right
now. -- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
Hey that link turned my monitor into a mirror!