Opposition to health care easing, so now what?
Don Quixote on Jan 17 2011 at 7:28 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
Back before Obama’s health plan passed, I said to BW that if it ever passes we’ll never get rid of it. People will start to see it as an entitlement, and you know how hard entitlements are to get rid of. Sure enough, opposition is rapidly easing. So now what do we do?
Email This Post To A Friend
103 Responses to “Opposition to health care easing, so now what?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think that people are just not paying as much attention to it as they were. I do think there is a risk of people starting to accept it to some degree, but there will also be plenty there that will remind people again why they opposed it. Think things have just died down for the moment. Wait until Obama takes to the airwaves again to try to tell everyone what a big favor he has done to our country by imposing this health care bill…
Well, you have to take all these polls with a grain of salt. Because we are talking in this case about an AP-driven poll. I don’t know now closely GK Roper – who conducted the polling – are tied to the AP.
1. Were the separate polls, showing the decline, asking the same questions?
2. What about sampling bias? The mainstream media polls, and other disreputable polls, often overestimate liberals vs conservatives in their samplings, on purpose.
But the results do bear watching. Further polls will demonstrate whether the opposition to ObamaCare is actually declining.
> Opposition to the law remains strongest among Republicans. Seventy-one percent of them say they’re against it, as compared with 35 percent of independents and 19 percent of Democrats.
That low a number among independents is staggering, compared to where they have been in the recent past. Just a few weeks ago. I’m suspicious.
Conservatives are always suspicious of polls, largely because of the source, but my experience is that they are usually pretty accurate. Consider how well they predicted the last couple of elections, for example. Time will tell, but I still think it will become an entitlement in people’s minds and then we are doomed.
Be patient, DQ. The pain hasn’t hit, but it is coming.
I am already hearing from elderly people that they can’t get appointments with physicians anymore or that their physicians have retired. I am hearing from families with kids that they can’t get healthcare for their kids anymore. I am hearing from people in the insurance industry that they are losing their jobs as insurance companies shut down their healthcare coverage operations.
Plus, prices and health insurance premiums are skyrocketing and more and more people, especially vulnerable people (those with kids, for e.g.) are getting dropped from their coverage. The elderly are interesting because they tend to obsess about both their physical and financial healths…and they have families.
I predict that, by midyear, people will be screaming for change. They will realize by then that Obamacare means much less healthcare at a much higher cost.
Polls aren’t suspicious because of the source. Polls are suspicious because I can make anyone give the answer I want, just by modifying the way the question is asked and who is asking it. For a person to believe in a poll that they did not participate in nor help craft, is the same as believing at face value those Nigerian emails you get promising you a cut of the 50 million in cash stuck in a bank that needs your account number to “open”.
Maybe it’s really what it says it is. But then again…
As time goes by, you will witness more and more people suffering under the yoke of Leftist totalitarianism. But you will also find that as a result of this, people make interesting choices.
Some will choose the way of the slave, regardless of what suffering they will receive, because slavery is freedom and obeying Obama or the government is easier for them to do then making their own choices.
Others will project and displace their resentments against the approved enemies of the Left, seeking a better position in the Leftist hierarchy, and thus reaping the rewards of the “elite”. These are what you would call slave foremen. They don’t wish to be slaves, thus are willing to control, punish, and sell slaves simply because they don’t want to be the lowest rank on the totem pole. They aren’t the aristocrats or the Masters, but their status is good enough for them to wield the whip of the Master against the weak.
Still others will seek to rebel and they will be crushed by the Masters’ revenge. Amongst them, you will have former slaves that sought freedom through education and political solutions: Frederick Douglas. Other times, you will have people, like John Brown, leading violent uprisings to kill the “Masters” using raw violence. Then there will be the rebellious slaves that use the shadows to help the Cause: Harriet Tubman. And of course, let us not forget the traitors such as Benedict Arnold or slaves who inform on their fellows because of a promise of better food. Better food, not even money or freedom. Such will motivate them to sacrifice their fellow slaves seeking liberty, to the foremen and his Master. Amongst Republicans, you will see all of this and more.
Btw, polls don’t predict anything. It’s just a gauge to determine approximately how much fuel there is at any one time. If it turns out to be the same case 50 hours later, it’s because people used the fuel up and replenished it and it just so happens to be the same level as it was 50 hours ago. It doesn’t mean what you think it means, DQ. Which is the point in propaganda and illusion making. Magicians don’t have tricks because nothing changes.
Victory is achieved because many people worked hard for its sake and the sake of their fellows.
They never saw an update on the situation and they said “it’s hopeless, we should give up” nor did they ever say “the signs are that we’ll win, so we’ll take a break”. They carried the will of fire to the very end, and thus victory was achieved.
Those who look at the conclusion and think it was inevitable, belong to the anti-free will faction.
“People will start to see it as an entitlement, and you know how hard entitlements are to get rid of.”
I’m in agreement with this. But, if insurance companies stop offered healthcare insurance, doctors stop taking medicare, etc. Then maybe there is hope that Obamacare can be voted out before it does unfixable damage.
There is also the issue that we see time and time again:
Dem’s and their newsmedia will find someone else to pin the blame on.
Rather than realize (or is it admit?) the real reason for the downfall of healthcare in the US, they might try to pin it on Doctors who amputate limbs just to make a few extra bucks, they might try to blame it on Pharma companies who are denying drugs to folks who have a “right” to those drugs for free. They might try to blame the insurance companies for denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, or for denying coverage for experimental treatments or denying coverage for those who lied on their application. They might try to blame Palin for it all.
Oh, wait, that’s not a predicition, they HAVE tried all that, haven’t they? And, with the exception of blaming Palin, most of these inaccurate accusations have worked to some extent.
And when the healthcare system is failing to provide decent healthcare that will be a justification for the government to take over even more of the system. Haven’t see seen this before? It doesn’t matter that government meddling is the cause for a system to fail, the answer for those on the left and simpletons (Sorry, I repeat myself there) is to have even more government control.
I’m somewhat pessimistic on the whole Obamacare issue because my congressman (Pallone – D, NJ’s 6th district) who was one of the co-sponsors of the House bill just won re-election. Some of my fellow voters are just too stupid to have a health dose of skepticism when someone offers them a “free lunch.”
Bush did it!
Nothing has really happened yet. Wait for the pain.
DQ, please don’t tell me that you have been sucked in, as your statement about polls being pretty accurate indicates. Let’s think about your assertion that they have predicted the past few elections pretty well. Elections have observable results, which can be observed at a particular time. If they want to stay in business, the polls have to try predict the end result with some accuracy. At least the polls just before the election must. Earlier in the campaigns they can play fast and loose with a little more freedom to shape the result toward their bias–if they have one.
Squishy questions like “approval of health care” can never be measured, except by polls. Aha! As good old Rush would say, here the polls are free to create the news, not report it.
Back to health care. There are some real horror stories out of England about their system in the past few days. A high percentage of babies born unattended in hospitals. My daughter is a labor & delivery nurse; the stuff would hit the fan in an American hospital, believe me. Anecdotal stories of babies born in hospital parking lots due to “short staff” of mid-wives. (Mid wives in hospitals?) This morning the news is that the PM has announced the need for drastic action, due to budget constraints.
Old, DQ still believes that America’s 200 some odd million guns are no match for the US military’s jets, bombs, and what not.
These are beliefs inculcated by the mass media over a long time. It will take a long time for it to be purged out of people’s systems.
I’m reminded of the old saw that “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Sure, you can manipulate the questions to make a poll come out pretty much any way you want. I have a B.A. in Sociology and actually studied how to do it way back when.
It does not automatically follow, however, that every poll is biased and meaningless. We should maintain a healthy skepticism, but we shouldn’t blind ourselves to reality by assuming that all poll results we don’t like must have been the result of dishonest pollsters.
Back to the topic, I share Charles’ fear that when the program doesn’t work, people will see the solution as more government intervention and control rather than less. After all, if health care is viewed as a “right,” or an entitlement, of every individual, the only way to ensure that every person obtains this right is through government control.
It does not automatically follow, however, that every poll is biased and meaningless.
We’re not talking about every poll. As you mentioned, we’re talking about polls that the Left are interested in fabricating and wherein the results may benefit them politically one way or another. That’s not “all polls”, now is it. How does the average convenience poll asking people on the street if they like strawberry or lemons going to do to advance the Leftist alliance’s agenda?
Neither battles nor wars are won by taking counsel of one’s fears.
I don’t know that I buy the poll. I have no difficulty at all with the idea that most Americans will expect something for nothing – which translates to nothing more complex than “somebody else pays for it,” and I have even less difficulty with the idea that the republicans will be spineless. What do you do about it? Kick every single bastard you just elected out in two years if they don’t manage to keep their craniums out of their fundaments, and then if that doesn’t work, leave, I suppose. We’re increasingly moving toward saying adios, America, we hardly knew you. Whatever put us on this earth, it didn’t put us here to be snootered around with and experimented on by morons.
Ymarsakar: As time goes by, you will witness more and more people suffering under the yoke of Leftist totalitarianism.
Hyperbole much?
For those of us who might want to join you, jj, where are you thinking of moving?
Zachriel, Y-man has an interesting way with words, but he does have a point. When does the left’s political correctness, disrespect for our freedoms (especially freedom of speech), disrespect for democracy (see ACORN), disdain for capitalism, disdain for the truth, disdain for “fly-over states” and the people who live there, disdain for religion, love for big government, etc., etc. bleed over into totalitarianism?
I have bookmarks in Costa Rica, New Zealand, Belize,and Ireland. Oddly enough, all remain little pieces of what England was once, though is no more. New Zealand’s government is arguably as bad as ours in some areas, but the people themselves are having less and less time for it – for real, not pretend, like us – which is good. Costa Rica has always been a hideout, there’s probably more offshore money taking root there than just about anywhere else on the planet, and Belize has remained quite close to old England – to the extent that until quite recently there were detachments of the British Army based there, keeping an eye on the border with Guatemala. (Irish Guards, in fact – I don’t mind seeing the Irish Guards marching through the streets.) Ireland has gone the way of England and is currently broke, but they recognize it. Unlike the Brits they aren’t inclined to roll over, sigh heavily, and pass a joint around. On an individual level, they aren’t going to stand for their government – and aren’t. There are a large percentage of them perfectly happy to go back to being a primarily agrarian society, becoming somewhat disconnected from not only the internet but also the “modern” world, and going their own way. (Ireland has ever been thus.)
The point is, all these places can feed and care for themselves, they – the people – all recognize a place for individual effort and reward (whatever their current governments may seem to say), and they are all people who are increasingly demanding that their governments mind what ought to be their own business and leave them the hell alone. Ireland would probably be the most fun, but Costa Rica has the most modern plumbing. Costa Rica leads the list.
Don Quixote: When does the left’s political correctness, disrespect for our freedoms (especially freedom of speech), disrespect for democracy (see ACORN), disdain for capitalism, disdain for the truth, disdain for “fly-over states” and the people who live there, disdain for religion, love for big government, etc., etc. bleed over into totalitarianism?
When did Ymarsakar’s questions become delusional? Plurium interrogationum.
When did Don Quixote stop being delusional? (On his deathbed.)
Let’s assume your multiple premises. Disrespect and disdain do not constitute totalitarianism. So never.
It’s common sense.
Which is to say, the Left has one common sense and their widely broadcast enemies have another common sense.
Not hyperbole in the least.
I would not say the Left disrespects those things DQ listed. I would claim that the Left sees no use for such things in their Utopia, their Perfectly Controlled world they seek to build for themselves. The Constitution and all manner of other things stand in their way. Thus they will get rid of obstructions. Whether they respect it or not, is immaterial to their actions.
Free will is of no use to those that believe in the will of authority alone.
Ymarsakar: I would claim that the Left sees no use for such things in their Utopia, their Perfectly Controlled world they seek to build for themselves.
Got it. You use the term “Left” to refer to the extreme utopian left, then conflate this with any manner of people who may hold more moderate views.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Zachriel, I hope you will stay and discuss with us. When we get to the logical endpoint of leftist thinking, when the government controls everything, no dissent is permitted and democracy ends, what will the world look like other than totalitarian? What would your personal Utopia look like? Rather than calling us delusional, why not share your vision with us? Name-calling is for those who do not have reasoned argument. What is your reasoned argument? Re: your comment #22, what are your views?
You use the term “Left” to refer to the extreme utopian left, then conflate this with any manner of people who may hold more moderate views.
Johnston raised the same issue. I use the word “Left” to mean “Leftist alliance” composed of voters, political leaders, union hacks, spiritual leaders, greedy race merchants, and agent provocateurs. I have obviously left out a fair share of their members.
It works something like this. On the totem pole of social hierarchy, the extreme Utopian Left orders you moderates around like cattle. You think it’s untrue but the evidence belies your claims. Your ideologies have similar enough goals that you are fine going along with their spiritual campaigns, telling yourself that you are doing what is good for the Earth or the economy *under AGW*, but they are the ones setting the agenda, not you or the moderate Democrats.
Just because someone holds moderate views, doesn’t mean they have graduated from the status of being a tool of others.
Interesting. You claim to live by a set of rules: http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/10/clogging-commenting-on-blogs.html Included in that set are “respect others” and “ad hominem is always off topic.” Yet within your first couple of comments in this thread, you break your own rules. Let’s have a civil discussion, consistent with your rules.
Powerline blog has an analysis (oversampled Democrats), and a poll from Rasmussen showing nothing changed.
When we were analyzing the options this past December during open enrollment, we calculated that under the best option we were offered our out of pocket health care costs were going up $16K (for three, all with pre-existing conditions and some expensive meds).
I wrote Eshoo (Congress/Dem) pointing this out and asking for repeal,lower taxes and reinstituting HSAs. I havent received even a ‘thank you for your imput’ note, which is a first.
If they’d just let us keep most of our money we wouldn’t mind paying reasonable prices for health care. I’d be happy to use an HSA to stash funds away so we could use them, instead of other people’s money through insurance, and get a high deductible catastrophe policy, such as we had last year.
Don Quixote: When we get to the logical endpoint of leftist thinking, when the government controls everything, no dissent is permitted and democracy ends, what will the world look like other than totalitarian?
When we get to the logical endpoint of *rightest* thinking, when the government controls everything, no dissent is permitted and democracy ends, what will the world look like other than totalitarian?
Don Quixote: Rather than calling us delusional, …
No one was called delusional. It was a rhetorical example of Plurium interrogationum (i.e. loaded question). The comment about the deathbed was a tribute to your namesake.
Don Quixote: why not share your vision with us?
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Don Quixote: Name-calling is for those who do not have reasoned argument.
Shouldn’t that be directed at Ymarsakar who in all sincerity called everyone to the left side of the political spectrum totalitarians?
I used to work with a woman whose husband was a (not-so-good) novelist. One day, he and she got a bee under their bonnets and decided to take a course on Joyce’s “Finnegans Wake.” They enjoyed the hell out of it. The only problem is that when it came time for him to write his term paper, he cited himself in the footnotes several times.
Bad idea.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Twas out and about during lunch on errands, and caught Rush-bo on the radio. A new National Review article is just out, refuting the sampling bias in this latest poll that we are discussing.
The original poll was of registered voters, and used a sampling bias for the election of 2010 of 38% Republican, 32% Democrat, which turned out to be reasonably accurate for the election.
The new poll was simply blind calls – no bias selection process for “correct weighting”. Those sampled identified as 32% “leaning Democrat” and 26% “leaning Republican”. No screening for registered voters nor for intent to vote.
There are two key huge bias-changers here. One is registered voters vs random populace. The other is that the Democrat sampling remained identical, while Republican dropped by 12% within the total sampling.
In sum, the sampling populations are VASTLY different between the two polls. Rush claims that this is no accident; that it was done on purpose by the AP, solely to drive the current narratives. I think he’s correct. They know what they’re doing. Polling is one science where they’ve got the methodologies very precise.
The change in bias sampling procedures explains everything to me, except for the fact that only 35% of Independents appeared to be against ObamaCare. That still remains surprising and very suspicious to me. And unexplained. Could Independents have changed their minds so quickly and in such large numbers? Or were many of them really Democrat-leaners who didn’t want to admit being Democrat-leaners anymore?
In the end, the lesson is, don’t take an AP poll to heart at ALL.
Power Line has just noted the same thing, and they have more detailed info as well.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028152.php
They note the new Rasmussen poll released yesterday or today shows NO CHANGE at all.
They also make the following point:
The principal difference between this Rasmussen survey and the AP-GfK poll is that Rasmussen surveys likely voters. It is reasonable to assume that Democrats in the press have deliberately promoted the AP-GfK poll in order to deter Republicans from voting for repeal and to encourage Democrats to stick with the administration. It will be interesting to see whether today’s Rasmussen survey gets an equal amount of media attention.
The AP poll failed to sample the AG’s.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/14/more-than-half-of-all-states-now-suing-to-stop-obamacare/
Zachriel’s blog says:
Right-wing “reactionaries”, such as fascists, believe in absolute inequality, and want to overthrow corrupt modern institutions and return to a mythological and heroic past.
Left-wing “radicals”, such as communists, believe in absolute equality, and want to overthrow corruptancient institutions and bring forth a mythological and glorious future.
Zachriel, there is so much wrong with this that I really don’t know where to begin, starting with definitions of “left”, “right”, “fascist”, “liberal” etc. The way you use these terms in a historical and political context is non-sensical. We don’t even speak the same language and operate on totally different premises, it appears. It certain explains why we keep talking past each other.
To blithely argue that the history of civilization has been a march toward enhanced liberty and social equality overlooks the incredibly bloody history of the 20th Century, virtually all of it instigated by the “fascist left” (Communism and National Socialism). “Fascism”, by the way, is a derivation of the Roman symbol “fasces”, which refers to tightly centralized government control of politics, society and the economy. It has routinely been adopted by dictatorships, such as Mussolini (which was Left wing) and Franco (which was not). Unfortunately, it also appears in a lot of American symbology as a symbol of authority, as well.
To the extent that freedom and equality have grown worldwide, they have grown not because of ideas from the Left (which has it origins in the French Revolution) but ideas brought developed from Enlightenment philosophers as expressed by British society and the American Revolution, as well as (take your blood pressure medicine, here) Judeo-Christian values.
It was passed without popular support, it can be repealed without popular support. it however should be modified with popular support.
Danny Lemieux: I really don’t know where to begin
By carefully defining your terms. Keep in mind that they should not only be clear, but should conform to how they are generally used.
Danny Lemieux: To blithely argue that the history of civilization has been a march toward enhanced liberty and social equality overlooks the incredibly bloody history of the 20th Century, virtually all of it instigated by the “fascist left” (Communism and National Socialism).
We certainly didn’t suggest progress was monotonic, and provided examples where it hasn’t been, including communism and fascism. Nevertheless, the rigid stratification of pre-Rennaissance times is long gone.
The main point was that when we use the terms left and right, they obviously refer to a rough dichotomy not — totalitarianism on the one side and flowers and creampuffs on the other.
Mike, I simply disregard any “information” presented AP, much as I do anything from the NYT, WaPo, broadcast networks or any agency of the United Nations. One thousand times burned, two thousands times shy.
The problem is that the propagandists at those various enterprises depend on few of us reading below the fold or seeing if the headline gibes with the text. (If you’re already a true believer, no need to check.)
My original tack years ago when I realized that AP and NYT were slanting/rationing the news was to question, disassemble and argue with the “facts” they presented. But life is too short to have to parse every story I read from those sources. Talking back to them does no good.
Fortunately, the reality principle, aka the market, is talking back to them for me, and it does gladden me that they have a death wish, deliberately continuing to alienate millions and hemorrhage money.
Shouldn’t that be directed at Ymarsakar who in all sincerity called everyone to the left side of the political spectrum totalitarians?
That’s like saying everybody in Germany were Nazis. Categorically untrue. It’s also untrue that all Muslims want to kill and rape infidels. That’s also untrue. What is truth is that a select group of elites and zealots control the rest of the population. That’s what is true.
Reality is, you don’t need everybody to be drinking the Kool Aid. You just need enough to form a command group or cadre for the training of others.
As before, authoritarians have a habit of thinking they can know and control what others believe and think. The thing is, Zach, you don’t know what I’m thinking. Pretending otherwise, will make more trouble for you than it is worth.
Zachriel, the term “Left” and “Right” comes from post-Revolutionary France. The revolutionary parties were seated on the “left” side of the legislative assembly, everybody else was seated on the “right”. That is why a term like “right wing” is very all-encompassing whereas “left wing” has very definitive political associations.
In modern political discourse, of course, “right wing” is pretty much used as a general epithet that equates with “has cooties”.
Mike, I simply disregard any “information” presented AP, much as I do anything from the NYT
DQ, you’re still at the point of accepting what the media tells you as true, unconsciously or unintentionally. Until that changes, you will see no fundamental change in your views.
Don,
Rush talked about this poll on his show this morning. Sure enough, the poll sample was changed drastically since the last poll (to which they are drawing their comparison). The number of Democrats remained the same, while they slashed the number of Republicans by 12 points — and consequentially the support for repeal went down by 11 points. What a coincidence.
Conservatives have good reason to be suspicious of polls, and SHOULD be suspicious of polls. Liberals regularly manipulate them to push their agenda.
Zachriel, Thanks for staying. The link you link to only gives definitions. I’m asking what you believe. As for the left/right issue, generally speaking in America the Left believes that the government is the solution to most problems and pushes for ever more government control of every larger portions of our lives. The Right believes absolute power corrupts absolutely, mistrusts large government and is for individual freedom.
Thus, your question: “When we get to the logical endpoint of *rightest* thinking, when the government controls everything, no dissent is permitted and democracy ends, what will the world look like other than totalitarian?” makes no sense. Under the current American “Right’s” view of government, at the end point the government will control very little, dissent will be welcomed, and democracy will be vibrant and strong. While I’m not a Tea Partiest, that is what the Tea Parties are all about. It is also what conservativism in America in the 21st century is all about.
The insult is no big deal, btw. Y-man insults me all the time. But when you ask when I will stop being delusional it necessarily follows that you are saying I am delusional. I do appreciate the reference to my name-sake, though. Missed it completely.
I used Martel’s quote as an example of the kind of filters I have in place for media propaganda. These are the filters you curiously lack, DQ, even at this time in the game.
Danny, their use of the term “right wing” is associated with fascism and political violence, as if McVeigh had a political issue to argue.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mcveigh/mcveigh10.html
This is how they view such things, in their distorted, drug addicted, reality. Overthrowing governments, however, is usually what the Left has in mind and they take it seriously. It’s not just a personal issue or belief, it’s a cult with long term goals.
The CPUSA were recruiting and killing Americans as early as 1930. Defectors from their ranks include the early committee leaders such as Bella Dodd and more recently from the KGB, Yuri Bezmenov as well as a slew of others.
And yet the hacks try to tell me that they know who is controlling their “regime” and their “cause”. They have no idea.
DQ, you’re confusing insults with arguments. It’s a bad habit of yours. If you had more experience with internet arguments, you would have an easier time detecting the difference.
Danny Lemieux: “fascist left” (Communism and National Socialism).
When fascism was prevalent, it was nearly universally recognized as a movement of the right, including its emphasis on racial inequality and extreme nationalism. The left would see things in terms of international class struggle.
There are plenty of left-wing dystopias, including Orwell’s 1984 and Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, and real life examples, such as Stalinism, without bending the definition to include fascism.
Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.
The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.
The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.
Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.
France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.
Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.
Danny Lemieux: The revolutionary parties were seated on the “left” side of the legislative assembly, everybody else was seated on the “right”. That is why a term like “right wing” is very all-encompassing whereas “left wing” has very definitive political associations.
The right wing represented the status quo of the stratified nobility. After the Revolution, it referred to the reactionaries who wanted to return to the monarchy.
Danny Lemieux: In modern political discourse, of course, “right wing” is pretty much used as a general epithet that equates with “has cooties”.
Not particularly, right wing sometimes means something stronger than conservative, but in either case, it still refers to those that want to maintain long-standing traditions, such as church and old-fashioned ideas about the family.
Don Quixote: Thanks for staying.
We’re a bit off-topic, so our continued conversation is up to the moderator.
Don Quixote: The link you link to only gives definitions. I’m asking what you believe.
Our concern is primarily historical. A simple dichotomy will rarely give an adequate description of an individual’s views. The definitions just give a point of departure.
Don Quixote: As for the left/right issue, generally speaking in America the Left believes that the government is the solution to most problems and pushes for ever more government control of every larger portions of our lives.
Not quite. The left in the U.S. tends to support more government involvement in the economy, but less in the social sphere. They see the government as being able to provide equal opportunity, such as through education. The right wants less government involvement in the economy, but more in the social sphere. It is the right that generally has wanted laws against homosexuality, for instance.
Don Quixote: The Right believes absolute power corrupts absolutely, mistrusts large government and is for individual freedom.
But no one is calling for absolute power. What you call the left in the U.S. still strongly supports democratic institutions and the market economy. No one of influence is calling for the government to have control of the means of production.
Don Quixote: Under the current American “Right’s” view of government, at the end point the government will control very little, dissent will be welcomed, and democracy will be vibrant and strong.
That’s not correct. Keep in mind that the right has traditionally wanted to control the social sphere. The liberalism you take for granted, the right of women to vote, the end of child labor, racial rights, safe working conditions, universal education, food and drug safety laws, took generations to secure.
Perhaps you mean libertarianism. The right in America is not primarily libertarian, but keep in mind those liberal advances you take for granted. What do you do when someone gains monopolistic control of an essential commodity? Do you really think it should be up to the market to set the price for child labor? Or that a democratic society should let old people freeze on the streets?
Don Quixote: The link you link to only gives definitions. I’m asking what you believe.
That simplistic positions, such as the belief that the other side are dupes for totalitarianism, are wrong and don’t lead to constructive dialogue. Read the link again, see if you can find our views therein.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
You’re playing with words, Zachriel.
There has been a major movement by Leftists to paint “Professore” Mussolini (a socialist newspaper editor and writer) and Hitler (a self-described socialist) as the “other”, but their social-utopian philosophies and application of centralized control over economies and political and social life were very similar. They just disagreed on the details of how to get there. Plus, the (esp. American) Left had a lot of ‘splainin’ to do about its zealous support of National Socialism up to the point where Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded Russia. The fight between Nazis, Communists, Socialists and Italian Fascists was not so much about socialism as it was about turf and means.
Same thugs, different gang colors.
Nice try, though. It just doesn’t square with what people were saying and doing at the time.
Your description of the post-French revolutionary assembly is flat-out wrong. There were ancien-regime monarchists among the “right” but they were a tiny minority thereof.
Your description of “right wing” with conservatives and “old-fashioned ideas” about church, family is…let’s say, just “different”.
Keep in mind that the right has traditionally wanted to control the social sphere.
On the issue of abortion, political groups against it are willing to settle for the compromise that abortion won’t be federally funded. Pro-abortion activists, however, want abortion to not only be legal, they want it funded by federally paid for healthcare. They accept no compromise on that issue.
So who is really attempting to control the social sphere?
Check the sample composition — when something changes this much, this quickly, bet the sample has been “adjusted”.
Zachriel, please tell me you are not an educator by trade. I have a bad feeling.
I suppose that you realize that you are splitting hairs. I also hope that you realize that you are using a badly outdated, and corrupted model for the political spectrum.
Terms such as Left, Right, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, are terribly outdated. They are only useful as invectives to hurl at the opposition. There are actually two useful terms to define the outer limits of the political spectrum in any modern analysis; Statist and Libertarian. (If you chose to argue that Anarchist is at the opposite extreme of Statism, I would not argue.) The Democrat Party of the U.S. has veered rather sharply toward Statism. The GOP also leans toward the Statist, but much less so. I would argue that the majority of Americans are less inclined in that direction, than are the activists of either party. This is reflected in The Tea Party, which is desperately trying to pull the GOP back from its slide. But, even the Tea Party activists are pretty damn mild in their rhetoric and in their beliefs. There are no extremes in the U.S. mainstream–at present. Most on this forum are obviously uncomfortable with the direction that Obama and the Democrats want to take the country. Still, we recognize that there is a broad gulf between where they are and historical, or even present day, extremes. The problem is that historically, if a move toward Statism goes unchecked, it can gain momentum at an alarming rate.
I will quote one wise man: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington
Your statement about the family borders on foolish. You are clearly well read, but seem to have absorbed only selected lessons about civilized development. I also assume that you are not cognizant of the terrible human cost that current decay of the family is imposing on segments of the population. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted this development; but folks like you know better. Eh?
Danny Lemieux: You’re playing with words,
No, we’re using words according to their accepted meanings. Please note you were provided a number of citations to fairly orthodox scholarly texts on the matter. It’s not a question that fascism has been considered a movement of the political right.
Danny Lemieux: There were ancien-regime monarchists among the “right” but they were a tiny minority thereof.
The First (nobility) and Second Estates (church) constituted two-thirds of the power in the Estates-General. This was reduced to half in the National Constituent Assembly.
Danny Lemieux: Your description of “right wing” with conservatives and “old-fashioned ideas” about church, family is…let’s say, just “different”.
Right wing: In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies.
Right, a often capitalized : individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies b often capitalized : a conservative position.
Other common terms, Christian Right, conservative family values, and so on.
Zachriel, You are correct that there is some disagreement on the conservative side of things between those who would attempt to impose some controls on personal behavior and those who would not. It’s probably not hard to guess that I’m pretty far over on the libertarian side of that discussion.
However, where I think pretty much all conservatives agree is that government should be strictly limited and far, far smaller than most liberals in this country do (and far smaller than it is today). As for your examples:
1. In a free market, it is highly unlikely that anyone will maintain a monopoly for long. I’m much more concerned with the government obtaining a monopoly. The role of the government should be to promote/ensure a climate of fair competition and otherwise stay the heck out of the way and let the market work its magic.
2. Again, I have no problem with government setting reasonable rules (we can quarrel about what “reasonable” means, of course), including rules regarding child labor. However, the market, not the government, should set wages. Stepping up half a step from children, I believe (without, admittedly, having the facts at my command) that nothing has put more teenagers our of work than minimum wage laws.
3. A democratic society is unlikely to let old people freeze in the streets. But it is not government’s job to prevent it. One apparent goal of the Left in this country has been to weaken the other institutions that compete with government, especially the family and the church, the two institutions that have traditionally kept old people from freezing in the streets.
I’ve read your definitions twice and I’m guessing you are either somewhat to the left of center or very far to the left of center and posing. But I don’t see any particular reason for you to play games with me or ask me to read between the lines. Better to just put your beliefs out front, as I am doing, as we can discuss them together.
You do make one statement of your belief: “What you call the left in the U.S. still strongly supports democratic institutions and the market economy.” Perhaps the other readers can help me out here, but I do not believe that statement is true, especially as to the market economy. The left wants the government to directly control ever larger portions of the economy and indirectly, through hugely excessive regulation, hamstring the rest. At a minimum, the left is aiming at a socialist, fully government planned and controlled economy (look at where the EU is headed with its attempt to micro-manage the most minute decisions and actions of individuals and businesses). And, of course, the most extreme elements want the totalitarian state that Y-man talks about. I think (perhaps hope is a better word) that they are a much smaller minority than Y-man does but we would be foolish to deny they exist at all and equally foolish to deny that they have powerful positions within the current administration.
Like I said, your team speaks we with different vocabularies and different “accepted” meanings. This is why we keep speaking past each other. Your selection of “scholarly texts” is very selective and limited to specific points of view. Maybe one way around this if for you to clearly describe how the social and economic policies of the Nazis and Communists differed, not to mention the end results.
It’s rather cute how you keep deferring to authority without question. Because “they” with whom you agree say it is so, then it must be so. If “they” disagree with you, well…it’s simply because they are on the fringe. I recognize it as your way of deflecting specific information that doesn’t fit your template.
National Socialists were called National “Socialists,” not National “right wingers”, for clear historical reasons to which I have already referred. As far as the “Left” not calling for absolute power, well…not yet, but we certain have a historical record to consider and (this may surprise you) we can and do connect dots.
Also, the “Estates General” was in pre-revolutionary, not post-revolutionary, France.
With regard to “The left in the U.S. tends to support more government involvement in the economy, but less in the social sphere. “. You’re kidding, right? I suspect that you only mean “social issues” that are close to your heart, such as gay rights. We see the Left inserting itself in: deciding whether people smoke or not; what they can eat or not eat and how much; whether and when peoples kids should get sex education; what they are allowed to say in public and in universities; the active promotion of abortion; what kinds of transportation people should use; what kind of packaging they can use, what they need to learn or not learn in schools…etc ad nauseum.
As far as the Left “They see the government as being able to provide equal opportunity, such as through education”. Well, that’s worked well, hasn’t it! Unless, by equality you mean equality at the lowest common denominator. Ditto for race – the Left has done yeoman’s work in relegating minorities to permanent underclass status while tarnishing those that would achieve on their own with “affirmative action”.
Incidentally, I think you make a gross error in ignoring the huge overlap between American Conservatism and Libertarianism. Perhaps you are too caught up in caricatures of Left versus Right, Conservative versus Liberalism, as indicated in your blog.
An example of what Danny is talking about from one of the most far left cities in America. There is no part of personal choices so trival that it can escape the control of leftist governments.
Don Quixote: However, where I think pretty much all conservatives agree is that government should be strictly limited and far, far smaller than most liberals in this country do (and far smaller than it is today).
That’s largely correct. Interestingly, at one time, that was the position of the left. That’s because at one time, the emerging middle classes were stifled by a government in the hands of the nobility. By limiting government, they were ensuring a more equitable society. Now, the entrenched powers tend to be corporate, so they want to limit the power of government over the economic sphere.
Don Quixote: 1. In a free market, it is highly unlikely that anyone will maintain a monopoly for long.
That is incorrect. You are bearing the fruits of previous reforms and have forgotten why those efforts were made. Railroad monopolies, for instance, could set prices squeezing farmers and producers, eliminate competitors or anyone who spoke out, and stifle the normal workings of the market. At one time, monopolies were more powerful than the government. Teddy Roosevelt was instrumental in breaking up the trusts. He was called a traitor to his class.
Don Quixote: I’m much more concerned with the government obtaining a monopoly.
Modern constitutional government gives the government a monopoly on many powers. Too much power in the government can be a threat, of course, but don’t forget that at least people have a vote, and power is distributed. Unlike railroad monopolies.
Don Quixote: 2. Again, I have no problem with government setting reasonable rules (we can quarrel about what “reasonable” means, of course), including rules regarding child labor.
And that requires the power to make and enforce laws concerning child labor, safe working conditions, food inspections, etcs.
Don Quixote: 3. A democratic society is unlikely to let old people freeze in the streets.
Of course they will. You are again bearing the fruits of previous reforms. During the Great Depression, the young were often forced migrate in search of work. That left the elderly to fend for themselves. This often led to great suffering.
Don Quixote: But it is not government’s job to prevent it.
Apparently, others disagree. Nearly every successful, developed country has basic support services for the elderly.
Don Quixote: I’ve read your definitions twice and I’m guessing you are either somewhat to the left of center or very far to the left of center and posing.
If you’ve read the definitions, you would see that each side brings as much as the other.
Don Quixote: What you call the left in the U.S. still strongly supports democratic institutions and the market economy. Perhaps the other readers can help me out here, but I do not believe that statement is true, especially as to the market economy.
That’s because you’re working with a strawman version of people’s positions, as the rest of your paragraph makes clear. There are very few socialists in the U.S., much less constituting a significant presence in its government.
Don Quixote: At a minimum, the left is aiming at a socialist, fully government planned and controlled economy (look at where the EU is headed with its attempt to micro-manage the most minute decisions and actions of individuals and businesses).
Ironically, Western Europe has some of the most robust markets in the world, with a standard of living comparable to that in the U.S.
Danny Lemieux: Like I said, your team speaks we with different vocabularies and different “accepted” meanings.
Yes, we cited a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and a number of orthodox scholarly textbooks.
Don Quixote: An example of what Danny is talking about from one of the most far left cities in America.
The problem isn’t that you can’t find examples of left wing overreach — we discussed that on our blog —, but that you conflate everyone on the left with advocating “a socialist, fully government planned and controlled economy”, which simply isn’t the case.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-3-2011/san-francisco-s-happy-meal-ban
Zachriel says:
That’s largely correct. Interestingly, at one time, that was the position of the left. That’s because at one time, the emerging middle classes were stifled by a government in the hands of the nobility. By limiting government, they were ensuring a more equitable society.
Please, Zachriel, share some specifics, starting with Rousseau and working through the French Revolution through all the forms of socialism today, of when Leftism was associated with “less” government. It has always been associated with using government to remake society and the nature of man into a new Utopia. Liberte, egalite, fraternite” was a catchy slogan but the French revolutionaries, Napoleon and their successors never lived up to it.
That is incorrect. You are bearing the fruits of previous reforms and have forgotten why those efforts were made. Railroad monopolies, for instance, could set prices squeezing farmers and producers, eliminate competitors or anyone who spoke out, and stifle the normal workings of the market. At one time, monopolies were more powerful than the government.
That’s a popular historical narrative but it is incorrect. Railroad fares and the cost of oil and steel dropped steadily during the so-called “robber baron” days. Was it brutal, yes. Larger companies crushed smaller companies. But it was also a process of creative destruction that resulted in in one of the most cost-efficient transportation systems in the world. We now have many controls in place to prevent monopolies…excepting government monopolies, of course.
Capitalists and conservatives do not support “monopolies”, by the way. Quite the opposite. This is another canard, as DQ has pointed out.
Apparently, others disagree. Nearly every successful, developed country has basic support services for the elderly.
and…Ironically, Western Europe has some of the most robust markets in the world, with a standard of living comparable to that in the U.S.
Europe was able to prosper because the U.S. military kept the peace while the Euros were forgiven the obligation to invest in their own military defense. The Euro governments bought the acquiescence of their people with social programs that could not be supported. Today, they have lost their democracy (following the Treaty of Lisbon), the people are at the political mercy of their governments (as they are finding in Greece, France, UK, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, etc.), and Europe is flat broke, virtually defenseless and demographically hollow. In a very sort time (this year, even), you will see a very quick collapse of their social support networks and that is a shame, because, you see, most people in Europe never bothered saving for their retirement or healthcare because they were “promised” comfortable retirement and healthcare programs by their governments in exchange for surrendering their political freedoms. The people are finding out too late that the government never did had the means to keep their promises but, too late, their freedoms are lost. None of this is new, by the way. It is only European history repeating itself. We live in exciting times.
Zachriel appears to jump back forth through history as it suits his need. One moment he is talking about current politics; the next he has reverted to revolutionary France to justify his position. My dear fellow, the world has turned over a few times since the French Revolution. Which ironically, despite its philosophical underpinnings and posturing, in the aftermath led very shortly to an Emperor with Imperial lusts.
I would say off hand, that the two World Wars had infinitely more to do with the shaping of Europe than the combined efforts of all of the social and economic philosophers together. The fact that the United States did not exert itself effectively after WWI, and did so after WWII, is the one of the real determinants of 20th and early 21st century Europe. Our protective shield gave them the opportunity to follow their inclinations. In my opinion, their heritage of a privileged nobility and a subservient population, completely dependent upon it for patronage, led toward the Statist model. They, much more than Americans, were comfortable with a Government which controls and bestows (or withholds) blessings. How say you, Zachriel?
Danny, I enjoy your ripostes. But, I do believe you are beating your head against a wall. He is thoroughly and permanently indoctrinated. Having said that, I admit that I could not resist jumping in–not that I expect it to have any effect.
Entitlements, plans, brain-dead ideas and draining the swamp, is just more than I can stomach and certainly more than I can afford.
In conclusion, investors should remain cautious of municipal bonds. Default risk remains high and yields are poised to jump higher as the end of the federally subsidized Build America Bonds program puts more financial pressure on debt-riddled states and cities.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/242918-etf-outlook-on-emerging-market-debt-and-muni-bond-turbulence-in-2011
I know and I appreciate your sentiments, Oldflyer.
However, you never know in what cracks a tiny mustard seed can fall and grow.
Let’s be good hosts here. He appears to be engaging with us in good faith and I appreciate that.
Zachriel, you shifted from monopolies to trusts and cartels on me. You are right that private companies can form cartels and that the government has a role in insuring that doesn’t happen. That’s part of what I meant by “promote/ensure a climate of fair competition.”
I doubt you believe that each side brings as much as the other, since your own blog talks about you discussing things on conservative blogs. Do you approach liberal blogs the same way? If so, you remind me of me many years ago on Prodigy bulletin boards, where I got my DQ nickname by asking each side to be civil to each other. My guess, though, is that you are more oppositional on conservative blogs that on liberal ones. Am I right?
The problem is not that there are so few socialists in the U.S. (although I disagree with that) but that they are disproportionately in power. Pelosi certainly is. Wright, who heavily influenced our president, certainly is. Many in the cabinet certainly are. BW did a post a few months ago with a list of the people around the president and it was truly shocking how many were hard core socialists or worse. I invite anyone else still reading this thread to point out some other examples for Zach.
Off to bed. Talk with you all tomorrow.
The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:
American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/
Don Quixote: 1. In a free market, it is highly unlikely that anyone will maintain a monopoly for long.
Zachriel: That is incorrect. [...] Railroad monopolies, for instance, could set prices squeezing farmers and producers, eliminate competitors or anyone who spoke out, and stifle the normal workings of the market. At one time, monopolies were more powerful than the government. Teddy Roosevelt was instrumental in breaking up the trusts. He was called a traitor to his class.
Might be true; might not. This is one of those questions that I’m unsure on the answer. But I’m not convinced this classic explanation is complete. For one: A classic monopoly is not a bad thing *if the price being offered is fair compared to its value*. OK, suppose monopolists tend to gouge their buyers, then. That may lead to competition. But if you’re going to say monopolists will gouge, then you must also admit that monopolists will get lazy. And if they’re not overtaken by new direct competitors, then they’ll be overtaken by new invention. In other words, they get *circumvented*. The end-around, not the smash-mouth up the middle. The PC taking on the mainframe computer, for example. How’s IBM’s hardware business these days?
Of course what really happens is that the monopolist colludes with the Big Government, and together they use regulation and other shifty mechanisms to restrict new competitors. That’s what I believe usually extents corrupt monopolies.
Mike Devx
Interesting article on the breakup of ATT. Even the ‘pros’ were not sure after 25 years, if it was a good/bad thing to dissolve the monopoly. There was some increased competition with the baby bells for awhile, but that soon faded as several merged together for capital. Now, we’re more/less back to square one, even with all the new technology, since the market is shared by only 3 or 4 companies/internet services, which are not IMO price competitive at all. Somewhere along the line there were constant and ridiculous charges being added by the feds and the state. and what was once a ‘minor phone bill’ became a major monthly headache.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/121908-att-break.html
Danny Lemieux: Please, Zachriel, share some specifics, starting with Rousseau and working through the French Revolution through all the forms of socialism today, of when Leftism was associated with “less” government.
Please, Danny Lemieux, a complete history lesson is beyond the scope of this blog. You were provided sufficient citations to understand the basic concept. The left is associated with egalitarianism, while the right with preserving the existing order. That’s what the terms mean. The French monarchy had so monopolized power that when the Revolution occurred, nearly every existing social institution was implicated by association and torn down. However, in Britain, where the transformation was more gradual, the politics of reform meant eroding the power of the monarchy, so liberalism was associated with reducing the government’s influence on the growing middle classes.
Danny Lemieux: We now have many controls in place to prevent monopolies…
Now you got it. Of course, the Constitution grants monopolies for innovation with specific limitations.
Danny Lemieux: Capitalists and conservatives do not support “monopolies”, by the way.
Capitalists typically support their own monopolies, but not the other guys. But you’re right. That reform has become part of the social contract.
Danny Lemieux: Today, they have lost their democracy (following the Treaty of Lisbon), the people are at the political mercy of their governments (as they are finding in Greece, France, UK, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, etc.), and Europe is flat broke, virtually defenseless and demographically hollow.
Gee whiz. More hyperbole. Western Europe is highly democratic, have strong political and social institutions, and though some countries have a liquidity problem, it isn’t an existential threat.
Oldflyer: Zachriel appears to jump back forth through history as it suits his need.
There has been a tendency to redefine well-established terms. The etymology and historical use of those terms is appropriate, as well as cites to a variety of sources, such as a dictionary, encyclopedia, our own discussion, and a variety of orthodox scholarly texts.
Don Quixote: you shifted from monopolies to trusts and cartels on me.
Trusts and cartels are monopolies.
Don Quixote: You are right that private companies can form cartels and that the government has a role in insuring that doesn’t happen.
Yes, that’s a progressive reform that has become part of the social contract. At one time, though, it was very controversial. It requires significant government authority and power.
Don Quixote: I doubt you believe that each side brings as much as the other, since your own blog talks about you discussing things on conservative blogs.
Because many “conservative” blogs are not conservative (measured, preservative, willing to consider reasoned reform), but reactionary. The modern conservative movement in the U.S. has lost its moorings. For instance, many think that repeatedly saying that tax cuts leads to surpluses makes it true. It doesn’t. Only a hard (conservative) look at fiscal policy will resolve that issue. Or the belief in absolute American power, or that declaring victory makes it true. Or saying that everyone on the left is determined to have a one world government. These are not the voicings of open-eyed conservatism.
Don Quixote: Pelosi certainly is.
Pelosi is no socialist. Do you even understand what the word means?
Mike Devx: if you’re going to say monopolists will gouge, then you must also admit that monopolists will get lazy.
All modern countries, including the U.S., allow for monopolies for innovation. But when an essential commodity is controlled by a single entity, it can put a stranglehold on the markets. Even if such monopolies break up naturally over the long term, it can erode the workings of the markets, lead to severe dislocations, inequities where true innovation is stifled, individual suffering, and loss of confidence in the market system. Not all monopolies are dangerous to the economy, but some certainly are. And once they gain control, it’s very difficult to restrain them. That’s why there are limits to monopolies in all developed countries.
On Europe, we will just have to disagree, Zachriel. I will place my experiences of Europe against yours and we shall see how events play out. I suspect that you will soon see major changes there, beginning this year.
To tall DQ that Nancy Pelosi is no socialist or that monopoly is the same as cartels or trusts pretty much confirms that we are talking past each other, using different premises and employing different vocabularies.
On Europe, we will just have to disagree, Zachriel. I will place my experiences of Europe against yours and we shall see how events play out. I suspect that you will soon see major changes there, beginning this year.
To tell DQ that Nancy Pelosi is no socialist or that monopoly is the same as cartels or trusts pretty much confirms that we are talking past each other, based on totally different premises and employing different vocabularies.
Danny Lemieux: Today, they have lost their democracy (following the Treaty of Lisbon), the people are at the political mercy of their governments (as they are finding in Greece, France, UK, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, etc.), and Europe is flat broke, virtually defenseless and demographically hollow.
Zachriel: Western Europe is highly democratic, have strong political and social institutions, and though some countries have a liquidity problem, it isn’t an existential threat.
Danny Lemieux: I suspect that you will soon see major changes there, beginning this year.
Yes, there will be major changes. You said they had lost their democracy. Europe will remain democratic, and will rebound economically. Many European countries have already returned to growth. The recession, which if you remember had its epicenter in the U.S., will not last forever.
Danny Lemieux: To tell DQ that Nancy Pelosi is no socialist or that monopoly is the same as cartels or trusts pretty much confirms that we are talking past each other, based on totally different premises and employing different vocabularies.
trust, a combination of firms or corporations formed by a legal agreement; especially : one that reduces or threatens to reduce competition.
Trust, A special trust or business trust is a business entity formed with intent to monopolize business, to restrain trade, or to fix prices. Trusts gained economic power in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
socialism, any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Comment stuck in moderation, please.
We see the Left inserting itself in: deciding whether people smoke or not
You forgot that the Left also thinks you need to get your grope and be thankful for the “security” done by union workers. Of course, they’re fighting for women’s privacy with abortion, right?
I’d like to pull this back on topic.
The sevverely flawed AP poll got huge amounts of media coverage. The Rasmussen poll indicated absolutely NO change in sentiment on ObamaCare.
As Power Line put it (a repeat) :
The principal difference between this Rasmussen survey and the AP-GfK poll is that Rasmussen surveys likely voters. It is reasonable to assume that Democrats in the press have deliberately promoted the AP-GfK poll in order to deter Republicans from voting for repeal and to encourage Democrats to stick with the administration. It will be interesting to see whether today’s Rasmussen survey gets an equal amount of media attention.
Well, that supposition has been answered! Not a peep from the mainstream media on the more reputable poll that doesn’t fit their agenda… not a peep. Crickets chirping.
Hypocrites.
I went to Zachriel’s blog site and was disappointed. Tells me nothing about the person. We know that she or he reads selectively. What else? Finding a portrait of Bismarck prominently displayed on a blog that purports to admire the French revolution and the philosophy that allegedly fueled the fire, is confusing.
We do know that despite the references and links, Zachriel does not know what is going on in Europe today. Or else believes that we can be conned. But, we can’t. Danny is spot on. Oh, yes they hold national elections; and they do mean a bit more than those in Cuba or Venezuela. But, the facts on the ground are that Europe is governed by a vast bureaucracy. If you think Europeans enjoy freedom, talk to the dairymen in England who had to destroy their herds because of the EU limits on milk production for the UK. Talk to the sheep farmers who faced the same draconian regulations. Listen to those who have limits placed on their ability to earn, so as to level the field across national borders.
Most Europeans go along with the bullying quietly because that is what they are used to. Their history took most of them from a feudal system to one of centralized bureaucracies. Many are a bit like the Russians, who now pine for the good old days when decisions were made for them, and everyone was equal (except of course for the party officials).
Zachriel, with all due respect. You are clearly better read than I am on political theory and history, even though I am not entirely ignorant; but, I really wonder if you understand the world around you at all.
Not particularly, right wing sometimes means something stronger than conservative, but in either case, it still refers to those that want to maintain long-standing traditions, such as church and old-fashioned ideas about the family.
The Nazis, before their rise to power, were fighting against the status quo aristocracy and military/political membership. After they came to power, they were fighting against Communists and other revolutionary dissidents or spies.
By your own definition, right wing doesn’t apply to the Nazis at all. Nor was Germany under Hitler about old fashioned ideas about the family. Children became the property of the state and mothers elevated to brooders: Jungen corps.
“The liberalism you take for granted, the right of women to vote, the end of child labor, racial rights, safe working conditions, universal education, food and drug safety laws, took generations to secure.”
Took generations for conservatives and other patriotic minded people to secure, yes.
Perhaps the other readers can help me out here, but I do not believe that statement is true, especially as to the market economy.
The market economy Zach is referring to is called Keynesian model economics and is based upon the bust-boom regulatory cycle theory behind government spending and taxation that the Left likes to push. It’s part of the reason they hate the Bush tax cuts so much. They can’t stand seeing it actually revitalize the economy. They need the economy to crash, badly. But only when they want it to crash, like right before or after an election month.
Even though they tried their best, from 2001 to 2007, the economy was recovering and doing quite well with low unemployment and large job expansions. Even still, the Democrats got elected in 2006 by playing up fears of a recession. Which they then caused in order to prove themselves right all along.
And, of course, the most extreme elements want the totalitarian state that Y-man talks about.
Friedman has openly written that he prefers Chinese dictatorship because it can get things done faster under a Messiah like Obama than democratic debates. And this is the New York Times, the so called “mainstream” Democrat propaganda organ. And does the Left care to punish him socially or economically? Nope. Not a problem they say. Everything’s A okay.
Interestingly, at one time, that was the position of the left.
It was the position of patriots and anti-slavery Christians, as well as some Enlightenment philosophers and politicians. This is called “classical liberalism”, referring to Aristotelian virtue and Plato’s democracy/republic. Classical liberalism has nothing to do with socialist or communist revolutions or class equality. It’s why the French Revolution started off, but ended up being a Leftist mass murder spree. They lost sight of the point.
Teddy Roosevelt was instrumental in breaking up the trusts. He was called a traitor to his class.
Which is why he wasn’t a Leftist. He was called a Progressive in his time, but that was before the Progressives got taken over by the Left. At the turn of the 20th century, Progressive was actually a rather accurate label to paint TR with.
Too much power in the government can be a threat, of course, but don’t forget that at least people have a vote, and power is distributed.
That’s a rather ridiculous claim when you look at DC and claim the government’s power is distributed. Distributed to flunkies, lackies, and union thugs perhaps.
You were provided sufficient citations to understand the basic concept.
The Leftist orientation and perspective is that they are the font of knowledge and you, Danny, the undeserving unwashed, are supposed to sit at attention and absorb their wisdom and great enlightenment.
They are not proving anything, for they believe they have nothing to prove.
Western Europe is highly democratic, have strong political and social institutions, and though some countries have a liquidity problem, it isn’t an existential threat.
LOL (to quote Helen Losse)
The format from wordpad didn’t break when pasted.
Oldflyer, Zach is a supporter of Ho Chi Min as well as someone who argues that the South Vietnamese Republic was corrupt and thus in existence solely because of the power of the US.
(Forced Edit as a result of the last attempt at #72.
Not particularly, right wing sometimes means something stronger than conservative, but in either case, it still refers to those that want to maintain long-standing traditions, such as church and old-fashioned ideas about the family.
The Nazis, before their rise to power, were fighting against the status quo aristocracy and military/political membership. After they came to power, they were fighting against Communists and other revolutionary dissidents or spies.
By your own definition, right wing doesn’t apply to the Nazis at all. Nor was Germany under Hitler about old fashioned ideas about the family. Children became the property of the state and mothers elevated to brooders: Jungen corps.
“The liberalism you take for granted, the right of women to vote, the end of child labor, racial rights, safe working conditions, universal education, food and drug safety laws, took generations to secure.”
Took generations for conservatives and other patriotic minded people to secure, yes.
Perhaps the other readers can help me out here, but I do not believe that statement is true, especially as to the market economy.
The market economy Zach is referring to is called Keynesian model economics and is based upon the bust-boom regulatory cycle theory behind government spending and taxation that the Left likes to push. It’s part of the reason they hate the Bush tax cuts so much. They can’t stand seeing it actually revitalize the economy. They need the economy to crash, badly. But only when they want it to crash, like right before or after an election month.
Even though they tried their best, from 2001 to 2007, the economy was recovering and doing quite well with low unemployment and large job expansions. Even still, the Democrats got elected in 2006 by playing up fears of a recession. Which they then caused in order to prove themselves right all along.
And, of course, the most extreme elements want the totalitarian state that Y-man talks about.
Friedman has openly written that he prefers Chinese dictatorship because it can get things done faster under a Messiah like Obama than democratic debates. And this is the New York Times, the so called “mainstream” Democrat propaganda organ. And does the Left care to punish him socially or economically? Nope. Not a problem they say. Everything’s A okay.
Interestingly, at one time, that was the position of the left.
It was the position of patriots and anti-slavery Christians, as well as some Enlightenment philosophers and politicians. This is called “classical liberalism”, referring to Aristotelian virtue and Plato’s democracy/republic. Classical liberalism has nothing to do with socialist or communist revolutions or class equality. It’s why the French Revolution started off, but ended up being a Leftist mass murder spree. They lost sight of the point.
Teddy Roosevelt was instrumental in breaking up the trusts. He was called a traitor to his class.
Which is why he wasn’t a Leftist. He was called a Progressive in his time, but that was before the Progressives got taken over by the Left. At the turn of the 20th century, Progressive was actually a rather accurate label to paint TR with.
Too much power in the government can be a threat, of course, but don’t forget that at least people have a vote, and power is distributed.
That’s a rather ridiculous claim when you look at DC and claim the government’s power is distributed. Distributed to flunkies, lackies, and union thugs perhaps.
You were provided sufficient citations to understand the basic concept.
The Leftist orientation and perspective is that they are the font of knowledge and you, Danny, the undeserving unwashed, are supposed to sit at attention and absorb their wisdom and great enlightenment.
They are not proving anything, for they believe they have nothing to prove.
Western Europe is highly democratic, have strong political and social institutions, and though some countries have a liquidity problem, it isn’t an existential threat.
LOL (to quote Helen Losse)
By your own definition, right wing doesn’t apply to the Nazis at all. Nor was Germany under Hitler about old fashioned ideas about the family. Children became the property of the state and mothers elevated to brooders: Jungen corps.
Good catch, YM. Good discourse as well.
Danny,
I appreciate your words. *slight bow*
Interestingly Pelosi did not make the list of members of the socialist caucus though she surely should have. My congressman, Pete Stark, did make the list and I’d have been shocked if he hadn’t. He has never seen an increase in government power he didn’t like. Many years ago, I lived in Ron Dellums’ district — another hard-core socialist. Maybe that’s why I’m more attuned to socialists in power; I’ve lived with them as my representatives.
Yes, I know what socialism means and I wouldn’t quarrel with your definition: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” While my focus is mainly on the “political” I think it is clear that Pelosi also favors goverment control and administration, if not outright ownership, of the economy. She is certainly opposed to capitalism, the free-market and profits. At some point, if government control becomes absolute enough, ownership no longer matters, and the left can give lip service to private ownership while still achieving socialist goals. Neat definitional trick (liberals are big on definitional games), but no less socialist in the end.
By the way, you said I can’t find examples of left wing overreach. At the local, trivial level I already submitted one, San Francisco banning toys in Happy Meals. At the national, important level, how about Obamacare? That’s overreach writ large.
Zach will probably counter with the line that Obama Care is a way for the monopolization of insurance to be broken by government power, as is proper.
Ymarsakar: The Nazis, before their rise to power, were fighting against the status quo aristocracy and military/political membership.
In their rise to power, the Nazis drew a large measure of support from the aristocracy and high society. Though primarily a populist movement, and having a bit of an inferiority complex, Hitler still enjoyed being associated with the nobility. Of course, Hitler was more than willing to dispense with the aristocracy when they were in the way.
D’Almeida, High Society in the Third Reich, Polity Press 2009.
Ymarsakar: By your own definition, right wing doesn’t apply to the Nazis at all.
By our definition, they were reactionaries who saw the then present-day aristocracy as dissipated (but useful).
Zachriel: The liberalism you take for granted, the right of women to vote, the end of child labor, racial rights, safe working conditions, universal education, food and drug safety laws, took generations to secure.
Ymarsakar: Took generations for conservatives and other patriotic minded people to secure, yes.
My Goodness. Pressing government to end child labor, to end segregation, to provide safe working conditions, are all part of the Progressive Movement. The conservative position was to let the markets sort it out, and let the best rise to the top. Just not sure why it is necessary to redefine well-established terminology.
Don Quixote: What you call the left in the U.S. still strongly supports democratic institutions and the market economy. Perhaps the other readers can help me out here, but I do not believe that statement is true, especially as to the market economy.
Ymarsakar: The market economy Zach is referring to is called Keynesian model economics and is based upon the bust-boom regulatory cycle theory behind government spending and taxation that the Left likes to push.
That is incorrect. A market economy is one where buyers and sellers set prices based on supply and command.
Ymarsakar: It’s part of the reason they hate the Bush tax cuts so much. They can’t stand seeing it actually revitalize the economy. They need the economy to crash, badly. But only when they want it to crash, like right before or after an election month.
Your incorrect conclusions follow from your strawman.
Ymarsakar: Which is why he wasn’t a Leftist. {Teddy Roosevelt} was called a Progressive in his time, but that was before the Progressives got taken over by the Left.
Gee whiz. Is it necessary to redefine every term in order to make your position consistent?
Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.
Ymarsakar: a supporter of Ho Chi Min as well as someone who argues that the South Vietnamese Republic was corrupt and thus in existence solely because of the power of the US.
“They must see Americans as strange liberators.”
Don Quixote: I think it is clear that Pelosi also favors goverment control and administration, if not outright ownership, of the economy.
Please provide support for your claim that Pelosi favors the outright ownership of the entire economy by the government.
Examples of government takeovers include police and fire protection, as well as roads. There’s an interesting case of a free market fire department from classical times: “Rome had no fire department at the time, and Crassus maintained a personal firefighting force that would rush to the site of a burning building along with Crassus himself. Once there, Crassus would bargain for the fiery structure, as well as for the buildings surrounding it. Once he had made as many deals as he deemed profitable, his army went to work extinguishing the flames.” Crassus became a very rich man.
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel} will probably counter with the line that Obama Care is a way for the monopolization of insurance to be broken by government power, as is proper.
Not necessarily. But the problem is that people without insurance receive the most expensive emergency care without access to the primary care which can minimize the need for expensive treatments, and lead to longer and more productive lives. That’s the problem. Not everyone pays in to the system, especially the young and able-bodied who gamble that they won’t need it. When something catastrophic does happen, then the entire system ends up paying anyway. The system can’t be sustained this way.
There are currently fifty million uninsured in the U.S.
It’s “supply and demand,” Zach, as I’m sure you know. I’m afraid we are getting bogged down in terms here. The problem is that the political spectrum has shifted dramatically to the left over the last 100 years or so. Ideas which were once considered “progressive” are now embraced by conservatives. The government has taken on more and more power, controlling a larger and larger share of our economy, placing an ever-greater burden on the productive portion of our society. The left has continued to move so far to the left that they consider the Constitution an irrelevant document. What once was a call for a color-blind society is now one in which racism against whites (affirmative action) is deeply entrenched. Disrespect for the law is condoned and supported (we aren’t even supposed to call illegal immigrants illegal any more and we reward them with benefits). Promiscuity has become moral, but making a large profit has become immoral. Free speech has been replaced with restrictions on hate speech (although the restrictions are only enforced in one direction; the left can be as hateful as it wants). The collective wisdom of thousands is now dismissed as the work of “dead white men” as if it no longer has any value. One could create quite a long list of evidences of the drift to the left.
By the way, while you’re here you might want to watch the video on global warming BW posted. That’s how the left works and the anti-capitalist, ultimately socialist, ends it seeks are apparent and nicely discussed.
Don Quixote: I think it is clear that Pelosi also favors goverment control and administration, if not outright ownership, of the economy. Please provide support for your claim that Pelosi favors the outright ownership of the entire economy by the government.
First off, read my comment again. I said she favors government control and administration, if not ownership. I did not say she favored ownership. Now, it is safe to say she’s not going to cme right out and say that she favors government control over everything (she is far too smart for that, which is why it upsets me when I get those e-mails that accuse her of saying really stupid stuff), but I Googled some quotes of hers and it is not hard to read between the lines:
“My biggest fight has been between those who wanted to do something incremental and those who wanted to do something comprehensive. We won that fight, and once we kick through this door, there’ll be more legislation to follow.” — The “something comprehensive” with “more legislation to follow” is ever-increasing government control and administration.
“We have so much room for improvement. Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory… of how we are taking responsibility.” And who is to take that inventory? The government, of course.
“Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation – innovation begins in the classroom – clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform.” So her main goals are health care, a huge grab of government control and administration of a large portion of our economy; education, an important goal, but one in which the federal government plays a relatively minor role; and ”climate issues,” see the video BW posted. Ever more government control, ever less private freedom.
“Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” I’m guessing she meant 500,000. Still, is it the government’s job to go deeper in debt, sacrificing the good of our children, in order to aid recovery today. At what point do we sacrifice now for the good of our children later?
“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Enough has been said on this by others.
“The impact of climate change is a tremendous risk to the security and well-being of our countries.” See the video.
“Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.” So we are passing control of health care over to the government to support the arts? Wow.
Let me ask you something in return. When has Pelosi ever voted for any measure that would limit government power and increase individual freedom, especially in the economic realm? If you are claiming that Pelosi is not far to the left then, as you say, “Please provide support.”
“There are currently fifty million uninsured in the U.S.” There in a nutshell is the difference between conservatives and liberals today. The left identifies a need and immediately concludes that the government should jump in and fix the problem. The right is more likely to look to private solutions and to assume (I believe correctly) that huge government programs will ultimately result in making the problem worse (in health care this means insurance for everybody, with the quality of care sharply degraded for everybody as well; that is certainly how it has worked in other countries that have tried it; awfulness for everyone is “fair” but still not desireable.)
Anyway, as you point out, though, many of those have no insurance by choice. My suspicion is you are counting many who should not be counted, such as illegals who shouldn’t even be here. How many of the rest could be insured without a massive government take over of the health care industry is anybody’s guess. But shouldn’t we look into less “comprehensive” solutions before passing a massive take-over bill to find out what is in it?
By the way, nearly 2/3rds of the Nobel Prizes for medicine in the last 30 years have been won by Americans because our non-government controlled institutions have rewarded innovation. Do you really think these improvements in health care will continue once the government takes control, when they have not done so anywhere else that the government has taken control?
Don Quixote: The problem is that the political spectrum has shifted dramatically to the left over the last 100 years or so. Ideas which were once considered “progressive” are now embraced by conservatives.
Absolutely. That’s a very significant point. Indeed, there’s been a general trend towards a more egalitarian society since the Renaissance.
Don Quixote: The government has taken on more and more power, controlling a larger and larger share of our economy, placing an ever-greater burden on the productive portion of our society.
Another good point. Where the government intrudes, it tends to crowd out the private sector. And the government also tends to be clumsy and slow to react, especially with regards to markets.
Don Quixote: The left has continued to move so far to the left that they consider the Constitution an irrelevant document.
That’s simply not true. The vast majority of the left see the U.S. Constitution as the very foundation of the Republic. Consider the ACLU, nearly universally considered on the left. They use the courts in an effort to see the First Amendment applied in American society, as they see it. They rely on the courts. And they accept court decisions whatever those results may be.
Don Quixote: What once was a call for a color-blind society is now one in which racism against whites (affirmative action) is deeply entrenched.
“For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.”
Don Quixote: Disrespect for the law is condoned and supported (we aren’t even supposed to call illegal immigrants illegal any more and we reward them with benefits).
Simply lacking legal immigration status is a civil violation. Yes, most people do treat undocumented aliens as people. Most enter the U.S. to work.
Don Quixote: The collective wisdom of thousands is now dismissed as the work of “dead white men” as if it no longer has any value.
By some, but not by most.
The 50 million figure is bogus. It includes illegals, young people who run an actuarily low risk of injury or illness, and people who can afford insurance but opt out. But Z slyly lets known that he thinks people who “gamble” by not taking out health insurance endanger the entire system by not injecting their saving money into it.
Since when did those voluntarily uncovered people become subjects who can be forced to pay for something they don’t want? The issue of whether they can then later take advantage of the system is a moral one: does the system extend care to somebody who has never invested in it? But the notion that the government has any right to coerce adults into paying for health insurance is one I’ll be interested in seeing Z defend.
(If he wants to counter with Social Security as an example of government forcing people to do something for their own good, I’d like to refer him to http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm.)
But the problem is that people without insurance receive the most expensive emergency care without access to the primary care which can minimize the need for expensive treatments, and lead to longer and more productive lives. That’s the problem.
They receive emergency care because it is against the law for hospitals to refuse emergency care to such individuals.
So the government, after having created the problem, will now gain more power fixing it. Isn’t that rather convenient. After all, you said it yourself, the Left doesn’t let people starve on the streets, when democracies can and will. So wasn’t it they who caused the problem where people without insurance receive the most expensive emergency care because they know they don’t need insurance to pay for such care. Isn’t totalitarianism, not a democracy. It fits the definition in the end.
Though primarily a populist movement, and having a bit of an inferiority complex, Hitler still enjoyed being associated with the nobility. Of course, Hitler was more than willing to dispense with the aristocracy when they were in the way.
How does this support your claim that Hitler is right wing again?
they were reactionaries who saw the then present-day aristocracy as dissipated (but useful).
Reactionary as a term is commonly used by your alliance to refer to those that attempt to counter social reforms and progress. To use “reactionary” to mean a reaction from a right winger against right winger nobility, is what is known as making stuff up as you go along. In the political cosmology you posited, right wing reactionaries only come about after power has been seized by the progressive social/economic reforms. Thus reactionary is a reaction to the loss of their traditional status and social standards. Yet the Nazis are claimed by you as attacking the traditional aristocracy and status quo, just like how progressives and Leftists would have done (in fact, did do as Communists were a threat to the Republic just like the Nazis were). I guess what it ends up as is simple. Those people who fight against entrenched interests who have goals you approve of, you call them progressive or Leftist in orientation. Those who fight against entrenched interests, but have values you disagree with, you call them right wing reactionaries.
Just not sure why it is necessary to redefine well-established terminology.
You mean traditional terminology well established by time and tradition. And you call yourself… what, someone against right wing tradition or pro society equalizer? Your definitions are already falling apart the more you use them.
A market economy is one where buyers and sellers set prices based on supply and command.
Again, the market economy Zach is using is based upon Keynesian principles, not supply and demand in an unregulated, free market. You keep talking about the market economy, Zach, like you don’t support regulation and government dictatorial power over it. But you have clearly said you do, so let’s not pretend otherwise. If your definition of a definition is based upon how it is used by “you all” (counterpoint of we/ours), then your use of market economy is the way I described, not the way you just said it was. Btw, did you mean command (not demand) or did you actually use a Freudian slip and say command when you meant demand?
Gee whiz. Is it necessary to redefine every term in order to make your position consistent?
Since we don’t live in 1898, of course we will need to redefine matters. Who do you think you are, Zach? Some kind of eternal entity that only needs one set of definitions that doesn’t ever need to change regardless of how times and cultures change. Part of learning and critical thought is adapting and changing yourself because your environment has changed. This requires redefinition of terms, ideals, philosophies, and paradigms. Ever hear of a paradigm shift?
Ever wonder why someone from 1625, even when they speak the same language as we do, English, will be utterly confused and basically crackers upon seeing the 21st century? It’s cause they forgot to “redefine” their terms, since nobody told them they had to.
People and times change, Zach. Thus definitions change. Even historical re-enactors get this when they try to simulate the past in the present. Why don’t you?
Sanity, and you should know this Zach, requires at least some fundamental consistencies. 1+1 has still to equal 2, regardless of what political ideology people ascribe to.
Btw, the Left redefines terms all the time. Such as black, colored, African American, and other things that fall under hate speech categories that they defined all by themselves. Why are you solely concerned about political redefinitions for the new age? While black people haven’t changed skin color all that much over the decades, political factions and parties have. The South, for example, were originally Heavy Democrat. Now they are Heavy Republican. Wow, guess what, that means Leftist vs Conservative philosophies may also have changed. But it’s not because of the efforts by the Left that caused society to be more egalitarian.
They use the courts in an effort to see the First Amendment applied in American society, as they see it. They rely on the courts.
An organization that defends the First Amendment but is against the 2nd Amendment, isn’t for the US Constitution. Islamic terrorists also rely on the courts. That doesn’t mean anything. Do Islamic terrorists also support the US Constitution because terrorists claim US Constitution rights in courts? *laughs*
Sorry, I have to work for a while. Hope to get back to the conversation tonight. Meanwhile, by all means carry on without me.
Don Quixote: it is not hard to read between the lines:
If you have to read between the lines, then your point isn’t *clear* that Pelosi also favors goverment control and administration, if not outright ownership, of the economy. Sorry, that’s not reasonable support for your claim. But yes, she does advocate carbon restrictions and reform of health care. That doesn’t make her a socialist.
Don Quixote: There in a nutshell is the difference between conservatives and liberals today. The left identifies a need and immediately concludes that the government should jump in and fix the problem.
Heh. Immediately means since Teddy Roosevelt.
Don Quixote: The right is more likely to look to private solutions and to assume (I believe correctly) that huge government programs will ultimately result in making the problem worse (in health care this means insurance for everybody, with the quality of care sharply degraded for everybody as well; that is certainly how it has worked in other countries that have tried it; awfulness for everyone is “fair” but still not desireable.)
Except that solution hasn’t worked. The price of medical care is skyrocketing. Nearly every other developed country manages to provide universal coverage. The average health of Western Europeans is very comparable to people in the U.S.
Don Quixote: But shouldn’t we look into less “comprehensive” solutions before passing a massive take-over bill to find out what is in it?
It’s been on the table since 1912.
Don Quixote: By the way, nearly 2/3rds of the Nobel Prizes for medicine in the last 30 years have been won by Americans because our non-government controlled institutions have rewarded innovation.
About half of medical research in the U.S. is funded by industry, the rest by the government.
Mike, their method of manufacturing data for polls has been well known by now. Or at least, people should have known it by now.
It is SOP by the Left: standard operating procedure.
It’s like when Saddam’s spokesman says the US Marines have been eaten alive by tarantulas sent by Allah and that the US invasion is on the verge of failure in 2003, March. Truth or fiction?
Ymarsakar: They receive emergency care because it is against the law for hospitals to refuse emergency care to such individuals.
Thought it was because it was an ethical, as well as legal, obligation. So you advocate turning away patients from hospitals. That’s one solution.
Zachriel: A market economy is one where buyers and sellers set prices based on supply and command.
Ymarsakar: Again, the market economy Zach is using is based upon Keynesian principles, not supply and demand in an unregulated, free market.
Not sure a productive discussion is possible when you take words and insist they mean something else.
Charles Martel: Since when did those voluntarily uncovered people become subjects who can be forced to pay for something they don’t want?
It’s not just those who won’t pay for health insurance, but those who can’t. Those in low-income households were three times as likely to be uninsured as those with incomes above $75,000.
Charles Martel: The issue of whether they can then later take advantage of the system is a moral one:
And an economic one.
Charles Martel: If he wants to counter with Social Security as an example of government forcing people to do something for their own good, I’d like to refer him to http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
“Social Security is and always has been either a “pay-as-you-go” system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes.”
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm
Stuck in moderation again. Must be the links.
Oldflyer: Finding a portrait of Bismarck prominently displayed on a blog that purports to admire the French revolution and the philosophy that allegedly fueled the fire, is confusing.
It was Jefferson who admired the French Revolution, but because the royalty had centralized power and claimed nearly all social institutions unto itself, the fall of the King meant the destruction of all the foundations of civil discourse. The result was anarchy and war. The ideals of the Republic were spread across Europe, and even after Napoléon’s final fall, there was no going back. Nevertheless, Europe was left devastated.
Compare this to the American Revolution, which had working governments in all the colonies.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
WordPress here auto blocks any comment with more than 2/3 links. And it has a memory of who keeps posting links so if you post 4 times, one with each link, it can start adding up.
Zachriel 82
> That is incorrect. A market economy is one where buyers and sellers set prices based on supply and command.
Supply and command? I bet we’re all typing fast and furiously here, but this one may be a bit of a Freudian slip. ;-)
And by the way,on the original topic… still Crickets Chirping when it comes to the mainstream media and the Rasmussen poll indicating that there has NOT been any shift at all in the disfavor for ObamaCare.
Mike, it’s how they acted when it was exposed their buddy in Hollywood had the habit of raping underaged girls.
This seemed like a timely article…
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/the_reason_college_kids_go_gag.html
Suek, it’s like a cult. They aren’t interested in producing thinkers, but cannon fodder.
DQ
So now what do we do?
I don’t think we got an answer, but it certainly created a lively Lincoln-Douglas debate on a myriad of topics. English, is spoken with so many different accents that I often have a problem with some British and Australian styles and so it goes … with American inflections as well.
Bravo and a big round of applause to those that provided subtitles and subtexts.