So, what can the Democrats do now? [Archive]

MFDub

02-08-2006, 06:39 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08dems.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5053&en=0fc386fc8588c95d&ex=1140066000&partner=NYTHEADLINES_HP

An interesting article on how the Democrats feel like they've missed opportunities to really get a message out to the people about Republican mistakes. Now, I'm more of a liberal, but I want to think about this without political affiliations for a moment. Consider this as an issue of persuasion. What do you think the Democrats can do or should do now? Is it too late for them to launch a campaign? Should they start aggressively attacking the Republicans on issues? Should they focus on domestic issues? National security? A good balance of both? How soon should they get their messages out? What defenses can the Republicans raise?

I'm just interested in what people think about this from a Communications standpoint.

Personally, I feel like the Democrats have been far too silent recently. A lot of people like what's being done in the White House, but even more people who were on the fence are starting to dislike the current government's policies. However, so far there have been no real alternatives presented. I think that if the Democrats actually want to get back in power, then they need to start having a presence.

From my point of view, a successful campaign would involve critizing the war in Iraq on two points: 1. How it's being carried out (and they need to have solutions) and 2. How it's distracting the people from important domestic issues. I think their strongest play would be to really push the idea that the country itself needs to be fixed up and that the war is keeping that from happening. If they can make it seem like so much attention is focused elsewhere that domestic programs are falling apart from neglect, then they have a leg to stand on. But they also need to have clear plans on where they want the war to go and how they want the domestic issues to be solved.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Idlethought

02-08-2006, 06:41 PM

I think the Dems should stop being such pussies. They need to find where their balls went before they take any action.

setrict

02-08-2006, 10:40 PM

Your post made me think. What exactly do I want from my politicians in washington? The republicans want to lower taxes, and eliminate goverment programs (so they say, not necessarily do). The democrats want to reapportion the tax burden, and generally increase social spending (again, so they say). The war is an issue, but I honestly think the _action_ is going to be pretty similar regardless of who is in power. Maybe a slightly different shade, but still the same old gray.

The more I think about it, the more I realize.... reps or dems... I want the same from both, primarily to just stop. That's it. I just don't want them to screw things up any more. I want them to maintain the status quo for a little while, and then focus on optimizing what they have. What we have.

I don't want them introducing more chaos with an 'agenda' that gets partially implemented, and then dropped about 6 months before the next congressional elections. I want them to stop spending 50%+ of their time campaining, and focus on doing something to improve our nation and not just improve thier chances on election day. Yeah, I know that's how the system works - but I don't believe that's how it has to work.

I want them to do a quick google search on Pareto's principle, and follow it. I want them to stop focusing on dividing issues that are of political interest, but are so dividing that progress is impossible.

I want them to tell me what they think, not what their constituents want to hear. I want, for once, to feel like I can actually trust thier words. Even if I don't agree with them.

So, in answer to your question...I want the democrats to stop whining, start being/doing something positive, and start figuring out how to make what we have better by using what's there. Give me viable options instead of tearing down others ideas. Please do this, and become a party I want to vote for. Seriously.

Jerith

02-08-2006, 11:40 PM

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20323

Somehow, this says all I need to say about this issue.

MFDub

02-09-2006, 01:27 AM

Jerith: That made me laugh. It's so sad that it's so funny because it's so true.

setrict: I see where you're coming from. Back in the day, one tended to be a democrat because it was a party that really seemed like they were doing things for the good of the lower and middle class. Now, it seems like they don't know what's going on, at all. It's funny that you say that they need to stop whining because I haven't even heard anything from them, not even whining. :yes:

I agree that they need to do something positive. The only concern then is would that positive action get covered by a media that is leaning more and more towards the right? Because they could be saving the world, but if people don't know about it that's not really going to help matters. I guess that's why I feel they need to start actually speaking out and getting that coverage themselves.

KKF

02-09-2006, 05:47 AM

I think the Dems should stop being such pussies. They need to find where their balls went before they take any action.

AMEN!

Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

Angelyne

02-09-2006, 05:49 AM

I think the Dems should stop being such pussies. They need to find where their balls went before they take any action.

I agree. They need to grow a pair before they can even do anything.

Honestly, at this point, I just want them to pick a Presidential candidate that isn't a complete douchebag. John Kerry was a terrible choice, and I sincerely hope they don't make the same mistake in 2008.

kyaa the catlord

02-09-2006, 07:47 AM

I think the Dems should stop being such pussies. They need to find where their balls went before they take any action.

And next time, nominate someone who doesn't look like Frankenstein's Monster.

h2orowe

02-09-2006, 08:21 AM

George Bush looks like a chimpanzee.

Darkblade

02-09-2006, 08:41 AM

So, what can the Democrats do now?

.........wait

kyaa the catlord

02-09-2006, 08:48 AM

George Bush looks like a chimpanzee.

Well duh. Humans evolved from monkeys, of course he does.

karthun

02-09-2006, 08:59 AM

Not piss off the NRA.

Matt W

02-09-2006, 07:00 PM

MrQ

02-09-2006, 07:45 PM

I think the Democrats need to unite, stand up and go on the offensive. There is so much to critize about Bush and the Republicans, and they need to pick a few areas and just hammer away at them. I personally think healthcare and alternative energy are two issues that are important, popular among voters, and where the Republicans are easy prey. Also, the party needs a more united stance on the war and where we should go from here, and they should stop being so afraid of taking a strong stance. Voters want an alternative, and they want a difference. The Democratic Leadership Counsel should be ignored, and the party should move to the left. In polls, voters agree with Democrats over Republicans on most issues, so Democrats just need to take a clear stance and they should do fine as long as the elections arent stolen.

LOL.

What do you think the Dems been doing for the past 6 years? Anything but offensive. Criticizing every policy, making rediculous accusations, blaming Bush and the party for everything that goes wrong, etc.

Maybe they should actually come up with a real strategy this time if they want to win an election? Rhetoric and criticism does not persuade me or other intelligent voters. I voted for Bill Clinton, but I sure as hell wouldnt vote for any of the clowns in the party today, except for Barak Obama and Joe Lieiberman probably.

setrict

02-09-2006, 10:26 PM

and where the Republicans are easy prey.
I'm quoting more for information, not to nitpick the poster.

It's quotes like this one that make me not want to vote democrat. The democratic party should not define itself by just being against the republicans. Define yourselves for what you believe in, and let voters decide which to choose. This whole the republicans/neocons are evil bit just doesn't do it for me, and probably for most moderates. I don't care about repubs, conservatives, liberals, or democracts. I care about issues - not any political party.

I want debates on actual issues. The minute someone brings up 'republicans' while debating an issue they lose credibility with me. The same with republicans raving about liberals. The real issues are bigger than either party.

The key to winning the hearts of moderates and moderate conservatives isn't defeating the 'enemy', it's about embracing and supporting ideas that appeal to them without sacrificing your polical base (assuming the dems still have one).

Matt W

02-10-2006, 12:04 AM

I'm quoting more for information, not to nitpick the poster.

It's quotes like this one that make me not want to vote democrat. The democratic party should not define itself by just being against the republicans. Define yourselves for what you believe in, and let voters decide which to choose. This whole the republicans/neocons are evil bit just doesn't do it for me, and probably for most moderates. I don't care about repubs, conservatives, liberals, or democracts. I care about issues - not any political party.

I want debates on actual issues. The minute someone brings up 'republicans' while debating an issue they lose credibility with me. The same with republicans raving about liberals. The real issues are bigger than either party.

The key to winning the hearts of moderates and moderate conservatives isn't defeating the 'enemy', it's about embracing and supporting ideas that appeal to them without sacrificing your polical base (assuming the dems still have one).

Here is the sentence the quote is from: I personally think healthcare and alternative energy are two issues that are important, popular among voters, and where the Republicans are easy prey.

The first reason I give for wanting the Dems to bring these issues up is that they're important. I agree with you in that I think actual issues are what is most important. However, right now the Republicans control both the Executive and Legislative Branches, and the Dems can do very little to implement policies. For them to accomplish anything substantive about issues, they need to gain control of part of government at least, so they have to beat the Reps. The Democrats are the opposition party right now, and to a certain extent they have to define themselves by being against the Republicans. Of course they should always have their own policy proposals too, which Dems dont do enough of. This thread is about strategy for the Dems to regain support and gain seats. Political parties exist to get their members as much representation in Congress as possible, and to do that they must win over other parties, that is the nature of politics. It only makes sense to pick issues that are important and that you believe you can win the debate on. If you believe the public sides with you on an issue, and the other side has bad policy on it and is vulnerable, then you bring it up. "republicans are easy prey" might sound negative, but I just meant it is good political strategy to pick battles you think you can win.

setrict

02-10-2006, 12:47 AM

For them to accomplish anything substantive about issues, they need to gain control of part of government at least, so they have to beat the Reps.

Why? Why is beating anyone necessary? When I vote for my congressman, I'm voting for someone to represent ME. I'm not voting for a party. I'm not voting for a tow the line politician. If the congress was supposed to work on party lines, wouldn't it just be easier to treat it like a presidential election? Sorry, republicans have 55/100 in the senate this term. All you democrats can go on home now.

I realize there is a lot of truth to what you say in practice, but that's because the two biggest parties have chosen to make it that way. And it pisses me off. It's in efficient, and totally screws over the idea of elected representitives. Why do we keep choosing the lesser of two evils, instead of finding something/someone good to choose.

The democrats are the underdog right now (well, the biggest one anyway), so they have nothing to lose by actually voting the way they feel best serves the people they represent... if it goes along with the repubs, that's ok. If it's in opposition, that's ok too. I want them to be opposed to ideas based on the merit of the idea, not the ideology behind it, and not based on the official party position. I want the same thing from the republicans, but since they do have something to lose.... it probably isn't going to happen unless the tides shift again.

Edit: I'm generalizing reps and dems of course, I know that a few do actually have an independent spine on both sides depending on the issue involved. (Though the cynic in me wonders if it's probably more of a result of the lobby system than anything more noble)

Matt W

02-10-2006, 03:33 AM

Why? Why is beating anyone necessary?

I guess the best explanation I can give is that when you are not in power, you have to give the voter's a reason why they should remove the person who currently holds the office. Why should they want to change, whats wrong with what they have now? So, you have to point out why change is necessary, why they should fire the person currently in charge. To do that, you have to criticize and point out the bad policies of your opponent. And then in addition you have to say what you would do to improve things. Also, there are some benefits to party cohesion and voting sometimes the way the party wants, not how you individually feel. I definitely see what you are saying though.

jetsetter

02-10-2006, 05:07 AM

The movement of the 1960s split the liberals and the Democrats. You had one side who actually cared for the community and preached active citizenry and the other side who smoked pot and became dirty hippies. They are still suffering from that split even today. During that time the conservatives just basically sat and waited it out until the 60s and 70s were over. To be truthful I believe that at the moment Democrats and Republicans are basically the same crap.

ruaidhri

02-10-2006, 06:21 AM

MFDub
You have introduced a most interesting question. How do Democrats recapture the White House and Congress?

I’m a proud liberal. I believe in the American system of government. Even though I may disagree with specific policies, I support our President and government regardless of who is in office. Of course, I prefer a liberal at the helm. I do wish Bush hadn’t been reelected, but he was.

Generally, I prefer positive statements and actions. It’s been a long time since the Democratic Party has had the confidence to be positive. The American people don’t need to be told that something is wrong. We know that. What we desperately need is positive solutions.

Why do the Democrats appear so incapable of leadership? Certainly, Kerry wasn’t the ideal candidate. While preferred by the majority of Democrats that voted in the primaries, he failed to convince enough people outside the Democratic Party to win election. He didn’t come over as being any better than Bush and the majority saw no pressing reason to change horses in midstream.

What’s wrong with our electoral system? I believe it’s too negative. I know, we’ve had negative elections from the very beginning. We always had scandals and malfeasance in office. And, we’ve always had muckrakers ready to expose the guilty. But, recently, I believe, muckraking has been taken to new levels where opponents malign candidates to weaken their campaign. They insinuate past crimes, mistakes and actions. Sadly, a falsely maligned candidate has no way to prove to everyone that s/he is not guilty as charged. With all the negative information about people in government, the electorate is primed to believe the worst.

Another problem is that no matter what the Democrats propose as a solution the Republicans can turn it around and make it a negative. When the Democrats propose helping the poor they’re accused of wanting to give money to those that don’t want to work. When they oppose war, they’re accused of not supporting the troops and being weak. When they want to protect the environment, they’re accused of being tree huggers that want to stifle American industry and increase costs. When they propose anything, and I mean anything, positive they are accused of wanting to increase taxes.

Taxes, that’s the Republicans real trump card. We all have to pay them. No one likes them. We all feel we pay too much. Certainly, a candidate that proposes reducing our taxes gets our attention. Liberal programs cost money. Someone has to pay for them. That someone is the American taxpayer. It doesn’t take long before the issue is no longer the merits of the liberal program but rather it’s cost. Is it any wonder that the Liberals are tongue tied?

So, how do the Democrats win back the White House and the majority in Congress if making positive statements and proposing solutions only gets them in more trouble? They don’t. Instead, they try to not piss anyone off and in the process disappoint everyone.

I have one final comment. Yes, Kerry was not a physically attractive candidate. He certainly was not a Jack Kennedy or a Bill Clinton. He probably would have won if he were. Being attractive, being charismatic helps win elections. Good looking people are just easier to trust. With our elections being so close, it takes very little to tip the results in one direction or the other.

Pierrot le Fou

02-10-2006, 06:33 AM

It's about the economy, stupid.

The Democratic concept of righting the US economy is absolutely mind-boggling stupid. Clinton spent years balancing the budget. That was good economic sense. Then we had a surplus. Suddenly it made less sense. Bush came into office making the rather simplistic (and accurate) point that the government was making more money than it needed because of this surplus, and should do the right thing and give back that money to the taxpayers it's coming from.

The Democrats need to get a clue when it comes to the economy. They need to stop saying, "Spending is bad!" while proposing to do all sorts of things that will raise spending. They need to get a clear-cut economic policy that's simple and shows the nation why they're better on economic issues than the Republicans are.

And if they couldn't do that with Bush in office, who has one of the most miserable economic policies by a Republican in a long time, then I don't give them a snowball's chance in Hell for 2008.

I think a Democrat would have to say, "I plan to reduce the deficit by reducing spending, better fiscal policy, balancing the federal government's checkbook, and increasing revenue through increased volume of trade rather than increased taxes." And that won't happen, because that isn't appealing enough to the Democratic base to win as a primary candidate.

I don't want a pseudo-idealistic with negative campaigning against a president who's been elected twice now (and a Congress that's been elected Republican how many times now?). Yet that's who's going to get support. Because the Democratic party has rocks for brains.

The Republicans could do great cutting out the bullshit about the religious right, and leaving issues like abortion with the court, and school prayer with the states which would need to support a Constitutional amendment. But again, that wouldn't win a primary.

Goddamned politics.

ruaidhri

02-10-2006, 06:58 AM

Yes, Pierrot, you are correct. It is the economy that's most important. But unless someone is actually suffering, I question if they would vote for the Democrats because of their economic policy. But, again, I agree with you. That's one of the issues at the top of my list.

Matt W

02-10-2006, 07:23 AM

Pierrot, you are right when you say the Democrats need a more clear cut economic plan. They have not been doing a good job of convincing people that their economic policies are in their interests, even though I believe they are. However, I dont really hear Democrats saying "spending is bad". I hear Democrats being against tax cuts for millionaires, especially during war time and when the government is running such a huge deficit. Democrats often call for new spending programs, but for things that will actually help people, rather than just increase military spending and providing subsidies to huge corporations. Democrats call for universal health care and other social spending that will help people, and they need to make their case better. Kerry seemed to me pretty economically sound, he laid out how he would pay for his new proposals. I personally think we should get rid of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and cut the ridiculously large military budget, and use that money for health care, alternative energy, raising the minimum wage, and infrastructure investment. I also think it would be good, although maybe not good political strategy, to raise taxes on the rich.
They should definitely have beat Bush in 2004. I like Kerry, but he should have come out swinging much more than he did, he shouldn't have stood for the swift boating, and he should have called Bush out more. Both Gore and Kerry have been great post election, too bad they weren't better candidates. However, Bush did not win in 2000, and even 2004 is questionable.

Star Market

02-10-2006, 08:03 AM

There isn't much more left to say, since between Ruaidhri and Pierrot Le Fou everything I wanted to say has been said, I guess. As a registered republican and moderate conservative, I guess I can only offer the following:

Strong, Un-radical Leadership - The democrats need leadership that is strong and adamant but not radical (i.e., flaming Left). The reason why they've been losing at the polls with middle America is because the party sponsors crazies dressed in moderate clothing. As a voter who doesn't like what's going on with the GOP right now, I'm looking for an alternative. Unfortunately, all I see are people who are left of Left pretending to be middle of the road. They aren't fooling anyone. Furthermore, their peddling to moderates such as myself by pretending to be moderate when I know they're not gives me the sense that they aren't willing to stand up for what they believe.

A Dose of Reality - The democrats need a hard dose of reality. As someone astutely pointed out earlier, Democrats don't like how the Republicans are spending (and as an economic conservative, I want to slap the administration in the back of the head for its irresponsible spending), but their incessant want of the expansion of government into social welfare will only drive us deeper into the hole. Take social security, for example. As an economist having studied social security, I can tell you that it was a BAD idea to begin with (good psychologically, bad economically), mainly because it is unsustainable. And the reality is that if population growth rates continue at this pace in the U.S. (more elderly people, less working age people), it's going to break down completely. Unfortunately, the idea of the government taking care of retired people carries more weight with the democratic party than the reality of the situation that social security is going to fall apart unless it is reformed (which will just delay the inevitable) or scrapped. I like how Bush faced this reality and proposed a plan to try to fix it (which I don't think would have worked, but at least he tried). I don't like how the democrats clung to the industrial aged ideal and rather than propose a counterplan to face the reality, lambasted Bush and offered no alternative.

Follow the Constitution - The democrats need to follow and abide by the Constitution to get things done. I've been following the nomination and confirmation process of the federal judges Bush has picked, and quite frankly, I've been rather disgusted with the democrats. The role of the Senate for judicial nominations as delineated in the Constitution is to advise and consent. But if there's a nominee that the democrats don't like, they throw a hissy fit, drag his or her name through the mud, and when all else fails, stall the process through filibuster. The qualification of a federal judge isn't where he or she stands on Roe v. Wade. The qualification of a federal judge is whether or not that individual will abide by the rule of law (stare decisis when something is settled case law, strict interpretation of the Constitution). If they feel like they're being railroaded into accepting a nominee, they need to vote NO, not block and hold up the system. If enough of their colleagues feel the same way, that person doesn't get the job - end of story. It's their need to circumvent or reinvent aspects of law and the Constitution to get their agenda pushed through that makes me distrustful of democrats - notice how most if not all liberal agendas pushed by democrats in the last 10-15 years have been pushed through unelected judges in courts as opposed to legislation or referendum to the people?

Not be the anti-Republicans - I don't like what's happening in the GOP, and I want a real alternative, but that alternative should not be "We're the anti-Republicans." Rather than make their own stand on certain issues, it seems that democrats have analyzed where republicans stand and then taken the opposite position. I hate that.

That's all I can think of for now. Had I been born in the 50's-60's, I'd probably be a democrat back when the party had their stuff together with good leadership, a good dose of reality, they were pretty Constitutional, and weren't merely the anti-Republicans. In my opinion, it's all been downhill for the party since Kennedy was assassinated.

karthun

02-10-2006, 08:27 AM

The Democratic concept of righting the US economy is absolutely mind-boggling stupid. Clinton spent years balancing the budget. That was good economic sense. Then we had a surplus. Suddenly it made less sense. Bush came into office making the rather simplistic (and accurate) point that the government was making more money than it needed because of this surplus, and should do the right thing and give back that money to the taxpayers it's coming from.

The Democrats need to get a clue when it comes to the economy. They need to stop saying, "Spending is bad!" while proposing to do all sorts of things that will raise spending. They need to get a clear-cut economic policy that's simple and shows the nation why they're better on economic issues than the Republicans are.

*smash head on table*

How can you have a balanced budget when the federal debt keeps growing year after year?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Find me the year where the debt was reduced. Dont get me wrong, I am pissed off at the lack of fiscial restraint by the Republicans. But lieing isn't going to get you there. Infact, it is that exact same accounting that Arthur Anderson and Enron used to coverup the truth, something that the Democrats dont want to be associated with.

Pierrot le Fou

02-10-2006, 09:17 AM

Debt is not the same as deficit. Deficit spending means that we spend more money than we get in taxes. Think about it as taking out a loan. Debt is the size of your loan. Even if you are earning exactly what you're spending, if you have a loan out, you will still end up with a bigger loan in the long run (because of interest).

The deficit was non-existant during at least the latter part of Clinton's presidency. The debt was still there, but not the deficit.

If you still don't understand, read this (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101500b.htm)

karthun

02-10-2006, 10:07 AM

Pierrot le Fou

02-10-2006, 10:26 AM

...did you read the site?

Honestly, this isn't complicated. I'll explain it in home finance terms for you.

John Smith has a credit card and a bank account. He makes $1000 per month.

If John Smith spends $900, he is running a surplus of $100.

If John Smith spends $1100, he is running a deficit of $100.

Follow me so far?

Now John Smith spends $2000 in a month. He is now running a $1000 deficit.

The next month, he has to pay off his credit card. Unfortunately, he spends his $1000 on living expenses, and cannot pay off the debt. Now he has to pay 20% of that $1000 the next month in interest on the payment he didn't make!

His spending is neither a deficit nor is it a surplus, because he didn't budget for the credit card interest. It isn't included in his checkbook or his Quicken program. Despite not running deficit or surplus spending, his debt has increased!

Now the next month, John Smith decides that he is going to be a good boy and run a surplus so that he can pay off some of his debt.

He spends $800 (a surplus of $200), but his debt interest payment has increased to 25%. So that original $1000 debt first increased by 20% (to $1200), and now it's increasing by another 25% to $1500! So despite him saving $200 that month, and running a surplus of $200, his debt still increases!

So as you see, despite receiving more money than he spends, his debt still increases.

The US government can do the same thing on a FAR larger scale. Increasing debt does NOT equate with deficit spending, and surplus spending can STILL result in a higher national debt.

Kass

02-10-2006, 11:55 AM

Honestly, Bush has been so abysmal that as long as the Dems run anyone BUT Kerry or Hillary Clinton, they will likely win.

Bush's economic policies are ridiculous. It stuns me that unemployment is down and several other key indicators (consumer spending, etc) are doing as well as they are. The only thing he's done on that front I like are the tax cuts, which contrary to popular belief, have been wonderful for single parents. My taxes have gone down over the last eight years after going up for the eight previous, but I still pay an absurd percentage of a pretty modest salary in taxes.

The problem is bigger than one party though. The problem is that for the Democratic and Republican Party, the people have become irrelevant. The party is more important than the people to them.

Well, I've got news. The party is NEVER more important than your constituents. There was a bloc of nations who built their govenrment that way once. Their govenrments collapsed because the policies that kept the party strong sapped every bit of strength from the nation.

Both parties are the same song, different verse. They both care more about staying in power than doing the right thing. They've allowed their sense of false moral superiority (yes, the Dems are just as bad as the Reps about this) to color everything they do. They've allowed their own avarice to cloud what Congress and the presidency are there for--TO SERVE THE COUNTRY. Not run it. Not collect a salary. Not a career. SERVICE.

There isn't a person in Congress or the White House who has a clean slate. They've all been guilty of putting themselves and the parties before the good of the nation. With perhaps one exception, not one of them has the slightest concept of what it means to serve your country.

We need to take a fire hose to Congress. Drag each one of them out by their nappy hair and ban them from ever taking national office again. Start completely over with a fresh slate of congressmen.

The salaries need to be slashed to the cost of living in their respective districts. No more of this $200k per year crap and middle of the night votes to raise their pay.NJo more getting rich off the backs of the people they are supposed to SERVE. No more making a career out of political service. Our representatives should be people who have worked for a living and now that they've earned their living, they want to give back and SERVE their country. No more of the Clintons and Kennedys of the country who go to school and have the singular goal of being in power.

The other thing that needs to happen is an end to the politics of hate. I've heard so many people say "It's not okay that you voted different from me." I have news. It is more than okay if people vote their own conscience. It wouldn't be okay if you could bully someone in to voting how you think they should.

I was actually told that because I believe everyone in Congress to be hopelessly corrupted and unworthy of continued reign, I didn't deserve to live here. I was un-American. Quite the opposite. The right to vote as we choose and the right to change our government through the vote is a fundamental right.

No politician who runs on a platform of "my opponents are evil and idiotic" deserves to hold office. It doesn't matter who your opponent is. It matters who you are and what you will do.

Politicians have no right to say anyone who doesn't think like them are irrelevant because they are stupid Walmart shoppers. I'm so sick of voters being marginalized and vilified for daring to disagree. People have no right to insult others for voting their conscience.

Quite honestly, the people of this country have screwed themselves. We have an absolutely pathetic voter turn out. Still less than half the eligible voters turned out for the last presidential election and that was a RECORD turn out in recent history. Many of those who did vote allowed themselves to be swayed by emotions over issues that in the long run, have no effect on the function of this country.

This country deserves every lousy politician it gets until people start demanding better.

karthun

02-10-2006, 04:06 PM

Trump

02-10-2006, 05:25 PM

Thank you Kass, you just explained what we heard in the last election. Both candidates were only saying what people wanted to hear, and not what they had any intention of doing. First, they say things that makes their party happy, then they say things to make everyone else happy. And just like the state of the union address, it is a whole lot of empty promises.

Pierrot le Fou

02-11-2006, 02:51 AM

If you're going to be an arrogant twat, you'd better be right. Why in God's name does everyone and their mother talk about a Clinton Surplus if there isn't one?

Why did the Clinton administration talk all about a surplus (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_113400_2000.html) if there wasn't one there, and why the Hell didn't any of your magical Enron accounting accusations come out during the 2000 election? I mean, flubbing the federal government's numbers to the tune of several hundred billion would seem like something important to mention, don't you think?

So how about you stop being a pompous little prick, stop 'smashing your head against tables,' and explain to us lowly idiots (like me) how exactly it is that debt = deficit, and that Clinton never ran a surplus, without just posting numbers with no explanation beyond, 'the debt is increasing.'

I am wrong sometimes, it happens. If this is one of those cases, I'll clearly state that I'm wrong. But so far you've provided no more support or explanation for your claims than 'It's Enron accounting!' and you've been a complete and total prick in the process. So explain yourself or piss off. Ok?

karthun

02-11-2006, 04:27 AM

If you're going to be an arrogant twat, you'd better be right. Why in God's name does everyone and their mother talk about a Clinton Surplus if there isn't one?

That is a realy freeking good question.

Why did the Clinton administration talk all about a surplus (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_113400_2000.html) if there wasn't one there, and why the Hell didn't any of your magical Enron accounting accusations come out during the 2000 election? I mean, flubbing the federal government's numbers to the tune of several hundred billion would seem like something important to mention, don't you think?

Because in 2000 Enron hadnt gone bankrupt now had it.

So how about you stop being a pompous little prick, stop 'smashing your head against tables,' and explain to us lowly idiots (like me) how exactly it is that debt = deficit, and that Clinton never ran a surplus, without just posting numbers with no explanation beyond, 'the debt is increasing.'

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

Interest payments are a line item in the budget, we pay them 100% of the time, on time. The debt increased every year because we had a deficit every year. We had a deficit every year because we spend more money then we recieved in taxes.

I am wrong sometimes, it happens. If this is one of those cases, I'll clearly state that I'm wrong. But so far you've provided no more support or explanation for your claims than 'It's Enron accounting!' and you've been a complete and total prick in the process. So explain yourself or piss off. Ok?

You are wrong and you are playing Enron accounting.

Pierrot le Fou

02-11-2006, 05:57 AM

Thanks for reprinting your original link. Obviously I didn't catch that the first time...

Again, as I asked, please present information showing how deficit = debt, or how they are directly related in this case and necessarily correspond to each other.

Showing me a table without background about the debt does not prove your point. It does not prove I use Enron accounting. All it shows is that by some unknown degree of measurement, the debt has increased on 9/30 of every year of the Clinton Administration.

And that doesn't prove your point.

Are you allergic to spelling out your argument? Are you allergic to logic and rationality? I have no problem tracking down slews of articles from both sides arguing about the Clinton Surplus, why is it that you can't find a simple article showing how the Clinton surplus is a myth, and exactly why it didn't exist despite everyone mentioning it?

Or why couldn't you write one, with really simple graphs and charts, and figures with the background pointed out, so that we can all come to the same conclusion?

Christ, are you intentionally trying to be a prick about this?

Masa the Masta

02-11-2006, 06:15 AM

I think what he's trying to say is that as the federal deficit increases, it adds onto the National debt the U.S has. Even with increasing GDP each year, the budget still has to accomodate every year to an increasing amount of national debts interest, which is owed to other countries. I think right now the interest at which the U.S pays back all the crap it owes is at 15%, and is steadily growing higher with more deficit spending. With deficit spending, the U.S has to find other means of getting some sort of income to pay for everything that's spent that we can't pay for ourselves with our own money, so they borrow from other countries. The 'theory' behind some liberal economists is that eventually this process is going to raise the interest rate on the national debt to something staggering like 25%. That's a quarter of the U.S's projected budget that might be going out to other countries because we aren't paying off our debts, which can be likely someday in the distant future.

If our GDP really was increasing to meet the demands of an increasing debt and then some, then why is the interest on the national debt going up? Why do we have to continue to borrow money?

Take that with a grain of salt, I'm definitely no economics major. :boggled: At the very least, this is what I've learned..

SinnerTim

02-11-2006, 08:31 AM

Here's how I see it...

The Republicans have blown a lot of things. It's not that Democrats aren't capitalizing, it's that they just bitch about it, and point out all the things wrong with what the republicans are doing without actually offering any solutions. In the face of hard times, people will stick with what they have when no better solutions are presented.

It also has to do with no real front-man persay. The democrats really don't have many popular politicians left that the majority of people in this country actually care for. On top of that, most of the democrats more popular people are very extreme, when micheal moore starts getting spots at the democratic national convention, you know things are far from center. That really turns most people off, it does me anyway. I'd be happy to vote for a democrat with some real solutions and a clear mind, but so far, there haven't been many.

Angelyne

02-11-2006, 09:04 AM

Hmmm (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:).

FYI, the 22nd Amendment is the one that sets a Presidential two term limit.

I guess if I want anything from the Dems right now, it's for them not to let this BS see the light of day.

Masa the Masta

02-11-2006, 09:07 AM

Kass

02-13-2006, 11:15 AM

Jeb Bush v. Hillary Clinton 2008, anyone? :watson:

Well, that would be a special kind of hell. About the only consolation is that Jeb is about .0000000005% more moderate than Shrub. If the choice is between socialist Hillary and another Dubya, I might just reclaim my German citizenship.

Trump

02-13-2006, 03:52 PM

I live in Florida, Jeb hasn't done a horrible job. Actually, I can't think of much that he has really done (that actually meant anything). Sadly, I might vote for him just because I don't know he would do anything as president either. And I'm a democrat.

Kass

02-13-2006, 05:22 PM

I can't see the Republicans running another Bush right off the bat. That's a surefire way to lose.

Dubya wasn't a bad governor of Texas either. The key is in those two states, the governor doesn't have the scope of power a president does. In Texas, the key position is the lieutenant governor, whose office proposes most of the legislation.

Dubya actually introduced some very family/minority programs in Texas, including the drive to ensure that all children are immunized regardless of income or residency status. Unfortunately, that "compassionate conservatism" didn't translate when he went national.

Jeb is a shadow of his brother. Some of his comments and actions in the Terry Schiavo matter were quite telling, especially on his social opinions.

Matt W

02-13-2006, 07:38 PM

Well, that would be a special kind of hell. About the only consolation is that Jeb is about .0000000005% more moderate than Shrub. If the choice is between socialist Hillary and another Dubya, I might just reclaim my German citizenship.

Hillary is not a socialist, she is pretty moderate.

Kass

02-13-2006, 07:46 PM

You've never read her social programs, have you? She makes Michael Moore look moderate.

MrQ

02-13-2006, 08:00 PM

You've never read her social programs, have you? She makes Michael Moore look moderate.

Ive made the same point in a different thread, no one here seems to be aware of her programs or voting history or recorded statements that points to her being ..... a socialist.

Star Market

02-13-2006, 08:05 PM

Mr. Q: Remember the part when I said "the party sponsors crazies dressed in moderate clothing"? Hillary was definately the first person I was thinking about when I wrote that. I've also read about some of her proposed programs, her statements to dems, and her voting record...and all arrows point to socialist.

Matt W

02-13-2006, 09:03 PM

Socialism is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." Thats according to PBS, and is a pretty standard definition.
Hillary Clinton clearly does not fit this definition. Aside from her and Bill's universal health care proposal back in 1994 (universal healthcare is something that is considered a basic right in most industrialized countries, the U.S. is way behind the times), what can you point to that shows she wants government control of the economy and the means of production. She isnt calling a top tax bracket of 80%, huge expansions of the welfare state, or for government control of Exxon Mobile, or anything of the sort. Yes, she is for some regulation of the free market, who isn't? Maybe she is more than you, but certainly not at all approaching socialist style control of the economy. Her fellow Senators have not found her to be a socialist, she is quite popular, as she is in New York even among moderates. There is a reason many Democrats feel she is too moderate and she is having problems with the base.

setrict

02-13-2006, 11:32 PM

universal healthcare is something that is considered a basic right in most industrialized countries, the U.S. is way behind the times

I'll agree that by definition Hillary may not quite fit the pure socialist description. Would Uber-Liberal work? Her views are definately not moderate from my perspective, and based on the above quote I would hazard a guess that I would not find your views moderate either!

Pierrot le Fou

02-14-2006, 12:08 AM

Hillary isn't a socialist. She just pushes for control of the economy by the central government, excessive regulation, and anti-free-market measures. If she could get away with socialism, I would suspect she may have very different opinions on the matter. It's just a given that socialist policies would kill any politician's chances.

SinnerTim

02-14-2006, 08:07 AM

Ive made the same point in a different thread, no one here seems to be aware of her programs or voting history or recorded statements that points to her being ..... a socialist.

She's not a socialist, but she's close. Supports government funded universal health care, government controlled market. Pretty socialist perspectives.

It doesn't matter, there's not gonna be another bush. Republicans are pulling a brilliant move right now. They're setting up Condaliza (don't know sp of her name) Rice to run against Hillary. It takes away EVERYTHING Hillary has going for her. Splits the female vote which is generally democrat, and takes the minority vote. Whether you like them or not, you gotta admit, if they have Rice run... it's sheer brilliance.

Matt W

02-14-2006, 09:59 PM

She's not a socialist, but she's close. Supports government funded universal health care, government controlled market. Pretty socialist perspectives.

It doesn't matter, there's not gonna be another bush. Republicans are pulling a brilliant move right now. They're setting up Condaliza (don't know sp of her name) Rice to run against Hillary. It takes away EVERYTHING Hillary has going for her. Splits the female vote which is generally democrat, and takes the minority vote. Whether you like them or not, you gotta admit, if they have Rice run... it's sheer brilliance.

She is not close to a socialist. She doesn't support a government controlled market. Everyone supports some government control of the market, she supports more than most I guess, but it doesn't come close to the level of socialism. As I said about universal health care, that is a basic human right in virtually every industrialized country, and is supported even in the U.S. in polls. She's liberal, but not extremelly liberal, and no where near socialist.

About Condoleeza Rice running, that would be such stupidity, not brilliance. She has been at the forefront of the Bush foreign policy, which has been an absolute disaster and which is unpopular in the polls. She has no domestic policy experience. The Republicans conservative base, especially the social, religious conservatives, have no reason to support her. She has, in my opinion, a cold, arrogant, and unlikable personality. She is not a politician, has never run a campaign. She would be a terrible choice, and she knows it and has said she wont run. Also, I doubt that many minorities would vote for her, she doesn't represent their interests.

SinnerTim

02-15-2006, 07:30 AM

About Condoleeza Rice running, that would be such stupidity, not brilliance. She has been at the forefront of the Bush foreign policy, which has been an absolute disaster and which is unpopular in the polls. She has no domestic policy experience.

Oh really? His foreign policy is a disaster? Who else has attacked us since 9/11? In what other war have there been casualties as low as the current one? That's your opinion, and I'm pretty sure that even in the face of all that unpopularity, she's extremely liked. I'll post some statistics if you'd like them. On top of all that regardless of the popularity of the current Iraqi status, there have been few better solutions to the problem. Leave now, everything collapses and everything has been a waste. What else to do but stay and slowly pull out, which is what we're doing.

The Republicans conservative base, especially the social, religious conservatives, have no reason to support her.

In the face of hillary running, they'll support any republican out there guaranteed. The Republicans have a far more lenient base than the Dems, Arnold and Guliani are perfect examples.

She has, in my opinion, a cold, arrogant, and unlikable personality

Your opinion vs. the population. Doesn't make much of a difference in an election.

She is not a politician, has never run a campaign.

Neither did Ross Perot, and he got more votes than any other 3rd party candidate in history.

Also, I doubt that many minorities would vote for her, she doesn't represent their interests.

Minorities tend to follow their own race in elections, regardless.

As I said about universal health care, that is a basic human right in virtually every industrialized country, and is supported even in the U.S. in polls. She's liberal, but not extremelly liberal, and no where near socialist.

Universal health care is not supported more than the current model, first off. Second, just take a look at what a universal health care does to the market. It results in lower quality health care, and excessive government spending, which is already a big problem. Right now Canada's health care covers 10% of the gdp, which is outragous. It also means we would have to increase taxes A LOT to cover the gap which is also completely outragous.

And where is it written that it's your basic human right to have a doctor? Where is that in the constitution or bill of rights?

Hillary wants government controlled health care, and the government to control even more of the market. Like I said, only thing left is for the government to control your job and it's socialism. Not a complete socialist, but close.

BigJDiesel20

02-15-2006, 02:12 PM

I’m Sorry to tell you but Condoleezza Rice wouldn't get the black vote. The majority of African-Americans like my self like Condoleezza Rice as much as we like George Bush right now. She may be able get the woman vote but not the black vote. The only Black Republican that could have gotten at least some of the black vote was Colin Powell but after he put that stunt with the yellow cake that help get us in to Iraq he lost almost all support by the black community.

The reason most minorities vote Democratically is because they Democrats actually care about discrimination a actively try to stop it while Republican tend to not care about discrimination (Because they don’t believe it existed any more) until it becomes blaringly Apparent and even then they excuse the people that do it. I’m not talking about Hate Crimes I’m talking about covert discrimination. Another reason most black people don’t like Republican is because Republicans historically were against anything that helped the black community (Affirmative action). As Time progressed Republicans were forced to oppose racism because of how the public viewed racism. But instead of becoming sympathetic to wards the black community they became indifferent. So Basically the Democrats said were sorry for all the wrongs we did let us make it up to you and all other minorities. And the Republicans gave a apology for slavery and discrimination and basically said get over it while ignoring discrimination and years of bad treatment during the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s(Not all republicans but allot).

There is only one person out there that can get a vote that crosses racial and political lines and his name is Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

setrict

02-15-2006, 03:45 PM

Obama is an awesome public speaker with great charisma... probably even more so than Clinton. I don't know if he's ready for a presidential run in 2008, but I'm sure he'll be a nominee eventually. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to goverment, but after hearing one of his speeches I was almost ready to vote for him! It prompted me to do a little research on his views online, and unfortunately (from my perspective) I found them to be waaay too liberal for my liking. He's farther left than Hillary, I think. Either that, or considerably more honest about his views than she is.

MrQ

02-15-2006, 04:20 PM

The reason most minorities vote Democratically is because they Democrats actually care about discrimination a actively try to stop it while Republican tend to not care about discrimination (Because they don’t believe it existed any more) until it becomes blaringly Apparent and even then they excuse the people that do it. I’m not talking about Hate Crimes I’m talking about covert discrimination. Another reason most black people don’t like Republican is because Republicans historically were against anything that helped the black community (Affirmative action). As Time progressed Republicans were forced to oppose racism because of how the public viewed racism. But instead of becoming sympathetic to wards the black community they became indifferent. So Basically the Democrats said were sorry for all the wrongs we did let us make it up to you and all other minorities. And the Republicans gave a apology for slavery and discrimination and basically said get over it while ignoring discrimination and years of bad treatment during the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s(Not all republicans but allot).
Jr.

You sure the reason is not ignorance? Last I checked the democrats policies with minorities have only hindered and not helped. Wheres your data supporting your position.

Jess

02-15-2006, 05:29 PM

[QUOTE=Matt W]As I said about universal health care, that is a basic human right in virtually every industrialized country, and is supported even in the U.S. in polls.QUOTE]

Universal healthcare is the death knell of freedom.

On the surface, it seems a great idea. Who wants to imagine a child dying of leukemia because his parents are too poor to afford the most aggressive treatment? Who want to think of a beloved grandparent dying because they spent all their money on continuing care, and when a stroke occurs, there is no money left for the rehabilitation that would allow them to lead more fulfilling lives? Who wants to allow a homeless man to die because he's unable to get anything more than emergency care for his cancer? Who thinks the rich deserve the highest tech, most expensive life-saving methods out there more than the average working joe trying to support his young family? I can't think of a single person. I'm sure there are sadistic people in the world incapable of sympathy out there, but it's not like these people are a significant portion of the population.

But you can't stop there, feeling good about your sympathy for the little guy. You can't just feel superior to those "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, neocon, rich white Republicans" because of your greater social conciousness. You are forgetting the law of unintended consequences - and ripping all freedom of choice from every single citizen in the nation.

As I see it, the greatest problem in America today is the abdication of personal responsibility - and this hinges directly on the "need" for universal health care. Our government is growing by leaps and bounds, soon past our economy's ability to support it, because we are willingly abdicating our choices over to the government in favor of a nanny state. This has bearing not only on entitlement spending, but on the ballooning set of regulations government imposes on daily life.

The government already imposes great control over the population through many methods, both in the law and through the tax code. The tax code gives benefits for "good" behavior, penalties for "bad" behavior (mostly penalizing those that work and are trying to better themselves...but tax code arguments are for another day, perhaps). There are also more and more laws governing private behavior - such as laws preventing people from smoking in their homes, by some local ordinances, or outside on the street. If smoking is so unhealthy that is within the local government's interest to prevent its use in private places, why is it legal at all(taxing addicts)? Or governments that dictate that you wear seat belts. Seat belts are a wonderful safety device. In head on accidents, the most common kind, they generally save lives. My dad's life was definitely saved by one. But in broadside accidents, seat belts have been known to trap people in their car...to deadly effect. My great uncle was killed because his seatbelt trapped him in his seat during such an accident. The point is - seat belts generally save more lives than they take - but is it really the place of the government to force you to wear a device that could cause your death? Safety has become the new reason for legislation. This makes sense when your choices can negatively impact the safety of others (driving while drunk), but is it really within the government's purview to control your life to minimize your personal risk?

These intrusions into your personal life are bad enough. But imagine the hold we'd give on all government to control our lives if we had government health care. I'm not even worrying about the automatic assumption that government beauracracy is an efficient method of management(a HUGE assumption), or the fact that we'd be giving the government control over a larger portion of the economy than the 30%+ of the GDP they already take from us in taxes.

If the government has to pay for your health care, they are completely within their rights to dictate your entire lifestyle, as it will have a direct effect on the amount the government will spend on health care. Imagine - tax penalties for being overweight. Government mandated menus for restaurants. No health care for smokers. Government control of who may have sex with who. Not being able to sue for medical malpractice because the government doesn't want to pay settlements. And this completely ignores the horror of bored civil servants or power hungry politicians in complete control of whether or not you are able to receive health care for your medical problems.

You may think I'm a crazy conspiracy nut - but it's already happening with corporate health insurance. Companies are mandating that employees lose weight or pay higher insurance premiums. They are refusing to hire smokers, and even firing existing smoking employees. And these are for companies where you can choose whether or not to work for them. If the government takes over, you will have absolutely no choice.

Wanting to help people is admirable. Helping them is worthy of praise. But if you don't review all the consequences of such a huge undertaking because you're just looking for a quick fix of "I'm better than you because I care more", you're being irresponsible and stupid.

Matt W

02-15-2006, 09:50 PM

JESS,

I think many of your concerns regarding universal healthcare are unfounded. You list a bunch of hypotheticals, like it could lead to government saying who you can have sex with. Government already gives healthcare to many citizens through Medicare and Medicaid, and they do not dictate how your life is run, why would giving it to more citizens lead to that? Also, as I said, virtually all industrialized countries have universal healthcare, and they don’t do these things either. About intrusions on personal lives, I don’t support that and I don’t see any correlation with healthcare.

Healthcare costs have been skyrocketing in this country, people are having problems paying for it, people are losing coverage, and companies are finding the need to provide healthcare to their employees a huge burden. It is a big cause of GM and other companies laying people off and not being competitive in the world, because so much of their budget is devoted to providing employees with healthcare. Other companies, like Wal-Mart, pay their employees so little that government has to give them healthcare, which is subsidizing Wal Mart and is hard on the states.

If you want more info on universal healthcare, Paul Krugman of the New York Times has had a great series of articles about why its good in the past few months. There was a great one about Taiwan, which recently instituted universal health care, and has actually saved money by doing so. Another article detailed how efficient and cost effective the governments veteran’s health care is. Healthcare is so expensive in part because of the huge administrative costs of trying to determine who they should give coverage to. If you accept everyone, its costs less. Right now, our economy and citizens are being hurt by not having universal healthcare, in which we could use our bargaining leverage to get cheaper drugs. I think it is a moral and economical imperative to have universal healthcare.

Matt W

02-15-2006, 10:06 PM

Oh really? His foreign policy is a disaster? Who else has attacked us since 9/11? In what other war have there been casualties as low as the current one? That's your opinion, and I'm pretty sure that even in the face of all that unpopularity, she's extremely liked. I'll post some statistics if you'd like them. On top of all that regardless of the popularity of the current Iraqi status, there have been few better solutions to the problem. Leave now, everything collapses and everything has been a waste. What else to do but stay and slowly pull out, which is what we're doing.

In the face of hillary running, they'll support any republican out there guaranteed. The Republicans have a far more lenient base than the Dems, Arnold and Guliani are perfect examples.

Neither did Ross Perot, and he got more votes than any other 3rd party candidate in history.

The Iraq war was unneccessary to begin with, and she was instrumental in bringing it about. She famously was, to be kind, less than truthful about the aluminum tubes, and said many other misleading things to get the country to go to war. The occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have been incompetently and corruptly done, and she was heavily involved in this. Because of the Iraq diversion, North Korea and Iran have become even larger threats that we are now in a much weakened position to deal with. It is recruiting terrorists, made the U.S. much less popular in the world, and has lead to the rise and increased support of anti U.S. governments around the world. Also, it is not like we were being reguarly attacked before 911, its good we havent been since, but it will probably happen again at some point, and Bush has not done enough to prevent it.

The Republicans do not have a more lenient base. Arnold and Guilani are from California and New York, two of the most liberal states in the country and two states that wouldn't vote Republican in a national election in a million years. Conservatives would never win these states, so of course Republicans run moderates there, just as Democrats run moderates in the South.

Of course they'll support any Republican against Hillary, but that doesn't mean they will support her in the primaries, which is whats important to get the nomination. Also, a bet much fewer social conservatives would bother showing up on election day if she were the nominee.

And Ross Perot lost. I'm saying she doesn't have a politicians personality, and she probably would not want to go around kissing babies and doing the other things necessary to win.

Trump

02-15-2006, 10:37 PM

All you are focusing on is how to pay for health care, but what about the root cause? Why is health care so expensive? I'll give you one good reason (and I'm sure there are others). Insurance. People in this country seem to feel it is their right to sue anyone for anything. I bet if you fixed this problem health care would be a lot less expensive and the whole issue of universal health care would be moot.

setrict

02-15-2006, 10:52 PM

Right now, our economy and citizens are being hurt by not having universal healthcare, in which we could use our bargaining leverage to get cheaper drugs. I think it is a moral and economical imperative to have universal healthcare.

Actually you can thank universal health care for the higher drug cost here than in places like Canada. In that case, it's their universal health care with limitations on drug costs that drives up the prices here. The pharmaceutical companies 'make up the difference' where they can, specifically in the US and other countries that have fewer controls.

If we institutionalize health care in this country, and put bargaining leverage on the drug companies the big pharmacueticals will have to compensate. The most likely way to deal with the limitations is by being very careful with R&D costs. This will slow progress on many long term/high risk projects, as the companies will probably focus on low risk/high payoff drugs. The interim result is that progress will be slowed. To compensate for this, eventually the goverment will start to try and prime the system with research grants, and the system will start to progress at the faster rate again.

At this point, you've got the same results back again - only at a higher cost. The citizens are paying for drugs once to the drug company, and then again through taxes to support the subsidies. Adding the extra layer of goverment in there adds to the cost and reduces efficiency in two ways. The first is obvious, it takes administration overhead to handle the program. The second is less obvious, unless you've actually worked with research grants; it's always easier to spend someone elses money. You don't usually even have to provide tangible results. The only thing you've done is moved the slider one step further toward socialism at the potential cost of medical advances.

In other words you get less medical help per dollar on average. In theory the only people it helps are those who can't afford to pay, and even that may not be entirely true. As others have mentioned in previous threads, hospitals cannot deny emergency medical care. Much of the high medical cost is due to compensation for those who cannot or do not pay. In a practical sense we already do have a form of universal health care.

My final objection to universal healthcare is the old adage "you can't put a value on human life". This is on serious can of worms that gets opened in the process of considering a universal healthcare plan. When is enough, enough? Do I want the goverment to decide that for me? No, I really don't.

Edit: I think the only portion of healtcare the gov't has any business considering is preventive care and diagnosis. It's the one area that could save money in the long run, and provide a much needed services to those who may neglect regular checkups due to the expenses involved. It would benefit everyone a great deal, and probably cost very little when compared to a universal care proposal.

Jess

02-16-2006, 02:52 PM

I think it is a moral and economical imperative to have universal healthcare.

It is only a moral imperative to have universal healthcare if you believe it is the government's place to take care of all the wants of it's citizenry.

Many nation states have universal healthcare - and it's killing their budgets. We have only partial government funded healthcare, and the cost is spinning out of control.

The problem with entitlements is...it encourages dependence. Welfare actually increased poverty in many places, because it paid people to do nothing, until reforms forced through by the '94 Republican takeover of the house and signed by Clinton placed limits on welfare and forced people to actually *gasp* fend for themselves. Providing universal healthcare will only make our healthcare problem worse - because government moves increasingly slowly.

Our government was designed to be inefficient and slow - in order to keep a government's natural tendency to take more and more power for itself in check. You want efficiency - go with tyranny. To place our medical system in the hands of the government is crazy. It will slow medical discoveries, the use of new technologies, and TRULY allow only the rich who can afford to get health care somewhere else the only good care.

Why do you think so many foreign doctors go to medical school here? Because we are the leader in medical technology. and the reason is a free market economy, which encourages research by allowing companies to profit off of said research. Which encourages excellence by paying doctors vast sums of money for said excellence. Why do you think so many of the rich worldwide leave their home countries, with universal healthcare, for the United States? Because they want the newest technology, or because they don't want to wait for months to schedule an operation they can get within days or weeks in the United States.

Medicare and Medicaid are already causing huge price raises for people not covered by it because the renumeration is so low that hospitals and care facilities have to make the difference up somewhere. When there is nowhere else to make up the difference, what we will be left with is fewer people willing to enter such a difficult field, shortage of supply of qualified professionals, and a general degradation in the care that does exist. It will happen - I know it was over 10 years ago that it disbanded now, but does anyone know anything about the former U.S.S.R.?!? Controlled economies are not prosperous. Controlled portions of a generally market economy even blow up in your face - witness the recent energy fiasco in California.

There are a few reasons costs are so high. None of the solutions are going to be easy, but they need to be done.

Probably the easiest is lawsuit reform. It costs doctors so much to defend themselves against lawsuits that their malpractice insurance usually settles. suits that do go to trial often have ridiculous amounts rewarded - in the tens of millions, even. Some states are so unfriendly to doctors that all the doctors in the area move out, unable to stay in business and pay malpractice insurance. Something needs to be done to limit stupid lawsuits, and to set reasonable boundaries on rewards, to keep the costs down, while still being fair to those who are truly screwed over by real medical malpractice.

Another problem is simply a side-effect of human nature - our ability to become so used to small, incremental changes that we no longer notice them. The government makes good use of this aspect of human nature by withholding income tax from our salaries, rather than making us pay the whole amount on April 15 in one lump sum. In a way, they're taxing us twice, because we lose any interest or investment profits we might have made on that money while the government holds it for us - and yet the government convinces us we're getting a windfall when we get a return - which is really money the government took from us that wasn't even owed, and are giving back to us 2-4 months later! The same quirk of human nature allows us to "forget" our insurance premiums as payments for medical care, and when we go to the doctor, we take all the treatments a doctor might offer, and don't bother to check our bills or shop around intelligently for the best deal within our "price range". We've taken a large portion of the free market out of medicine with insurance - and this causes abuses and problems all down the line.

Other problems are cultural, and difficult to change. We Americans(I am definitely included in the "we" here) want quick, immediate fixes. I have a cold. I don't necessarily want to hear "It's a virus. There's nothing I can do for you except advise rest and lots of liquids." We want a pill, darnit! So we get a pill that won't help us just to shut us up. Maybe they need to create the "Miracle Cold Pill" placebo brand for us idiots or something.

Medical care is not a right. Shoot, it's not a "right" to have food. You have the right to life (i.e. not being killed), liberty (freedom to pursue your own goals and dreams as long as it doesn't seriously inflict on others' rights), and the pursuit of happiness. We have some other rights, such as free speech (tied to liberty), right to bear arms (life and liberty), fair trial ( life, liberty, probably pursuit of happiness), etc. The big overreaching idea here is not that government is going to spoon feed your life to you - the role of government is to provide just enough law and order to keep general civil peace, It is to handle foreign relations and the national defense. It is to provide only the basic structural foundation upon which we can feel safe enough to build our own lives - and dictate through hard work, sacrifice, and luck how successful we are in our own life.

As for my hypotheticals on the danger of universal healthcare - of course they are hypotheticals. But I don't they're that ridiculous. Government, by it's nature, seeks to grow, and exert more and more control over the citizenry. When social security was introduced, it seemed harmless enough. Provide basic subsistence for older people in the last few years of their lives. Everyone was promised, when the program was introduced and people were first assigned social security numbers that these numbers would never be used for "identification puposes". There was (and still is) great resistance to any sort of national id card. Anyone want to try to argue that your SSN isn't your major form of id? In Michigan, 20 years or so ago, the law changed to force drivers to wear seat belts - for their own good. when the law was passed it was promised that not wearing your seat belt, alone, would not be cause to get you pulled over. Only if you were violating some other traffic rule and were then found to be without your seatbelt would you be fined. Then, a couple years ago legislators modified the law and, surprise! Now not wearing your seat belt can get you pulled over.

My point is not that the immediate and obvious effect of universal healthcare will be total government control of your life. But it is an extremely likely effect. As I've said, look at how companies, in order to keep insurance costs down, are firing smoking employees, even if their smoking does not affect work performance. Or companies forcing people to lose weight or lose medical benefits. When the government has responsibility for your health care, they have access to all your health information, and they have a right to dictate the way you live your life - because they're paying for it! Do you really think, when costs begin to rise, that the government won't deny benefits to overweight people, or start regulating what restaurants may serve to "healthy" choices? Universal healthcare places the entire medical industry into the hands of government bureaucracy. Doing that is handing them the wherewithal to dictate every aspect of your life that falls within medical purview. And that is one of the most dangerous moves this country could ever make.

Trump

02-16-2006, 02:55 PM

I do agree people need to take responsibility for their own health, their own life instead of letting the government do it (through welfare, etc).

Jess

02-16-2006, 04:19 PM

Whoo, there's so much I want to say. I will pick and choose. :)

I’m Sorry to tell you but Condoleezza Rice wouldn't get the black vote. The majority of African-Americans like my self like Condoleezza Rice as much as we like George Bush right now.

I find this very interesting - and nearly incomprehensible. Republicans have a long and storied history of supporting the black community, from the Civil War, where the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, ended slavery after the war was won, to Republican lawmakers in Congress overriding strong Democrat support of segregation to force integration during the Civil Rights unrest of the 60's, to President Bush (Sr.)'s appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, to President George W. Bush's raising of African Americans to some of the highest and most honored positions in the entire Executive Branch.

Democrats have been paying lip service to the black caucus's issues for decades - and little more. In fact, the black voting bloc's inexplicable loyalty to an ineffectual Democratic party has had the effect of removing what power the black voting bloc would normally have from its hands. The Democrats know they only need to make a few nods in the black community's direction to get their vote - and do little more. Leaders in the black community cement the black vote for Democrat candidates in return for a powerful position in the Democrat councils - which seems to have little positive effect on the black community's issues of concern, but do a very nice job of lining certain people's pockets rather comfortably. Republicans don't even bother to pay attention to the black community's vote because no matter how much they offer, no matter what they do, no matter how much they point out the hypocrisy and uselessness of Democrat "action" in regard to racism, the voting bloc does not move. So why bother? The black community is in serious danger of losing what little power they still have as the Hispanic community grows in numbers and both parties try desperately to appeal to them.

The reason most minorities vote Democratically is because they Democrats actually care about discrimination a actively try to stop it while Republican tend to not care about discrimination <snip for brevity> I’m talking about covert discrimination.

I would argue the opposite. Republicans believe that all people, regardless of race, religion, sex or skin color are equal. You should get equal opportunity. Unfortunately, people are born into equal situations - so while every American has the ability to better themselves, some will start out with more advantages than others. Democrats, on the other hand, offer affirmative action, welfare, and the destruction of strong black families. To me, this is the definition of "covert discrimination". The unspoken assumption of affirmative action is that minorities are not capable of actually meeting the requirements - so special lower requirements or special "minorities only" slots have to be created. Welfare - you're too incompitent to take care of yourself, so we'll do it for you. And the welfare state has destroyed many black families - especially fathers. The strongest indicator of poverty in a family is not race, or where you live - it's whether the family consists of a married couple...or not. I believe the welfare state of the 70's and 80's destroyed the strength of the black community, robbing children of good, strong father figures.

I personally find it insulting that I have an easier time getting programming jobs than a man, simply because "women can't handle math and science as well", so women choosing that particular carreer path are snatched up by companies that need to meet quotas and are filled to overflowing with male only programming departments. Hire me on my qualifications, damnit, because I HAVE them, and am PROUD of them!

I guess I also don't understand the attitude in sectors of the black community that successful black people are "Uncle Tom"s. The hatred and vitriol I've seen poured out against Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice just stagger me. These are amazing people of strength, determination, intelligence, and drive. I don't have the abilities of any of them, and admire them all - especially considering that they were all young when discrimination was often crippling to a black person's dreams. I would think such success stories would be impetus for the black community to strive to succeed as these people have, rather than an opportunity to exercise jealousy and disgust.

The Democrats have been promising to "help" the black community for decades - and have only managed to strengthen the divide between races, by making race more important, rather than less. Voting Democrat hasn't worked for the black community for 40 years straight. Why is the learning curve so long?

Matt W

02-17-2006, 03:55 AM

It is only a moral imperative to have universal healthcare if you believe it is the government's place to take care of all the wants of it's citizenry.

I know it was over 10 years ago that it disbanded now, but does anyone know anything about the former U.S.S.R.?!? Controlled economies are not prosperous. Controlled portions of a generally market economy even blow up in your face - witness the recent energy fiasco in California.
My point is not that the immediate and obvious effect of universal healthcare will be total government control of your life. But it is an extremely likely effect. As I've said, look at how companies, in order to keep insurance costs down, are firing smoking employees, even if their smoking does not affect work performance. Or companies forcing people to lose weight or lose medical benefits. When the government has responsibility for your health care, they have access to all your health information, and they have a right to dictate the way you live your life - because they're paying for it! Do you really think, when costs begin to rise, that the government won't deny benefits to overweight people, or start regulating what restaurants may serve to "healthy" choices? Universal healthcare places the entire medical industry into the hands of government bureaucracy. Doing that is handing them the wherewithal to dictate every aspect of your life that falls within medical purview. And that is one of the most dangerous moves this country could ever make.

Overall, that was a great post, and well spoken for your side of the argument. I still don't agree though. Of course I wasn't saying healthcare is a constitutional right, I believe, and you obviously don't, that it is governments responsibility to provide welfare, a social safety net, for its citizens, i.e. social security, healthcare, etc. and that government should be involved in such fundmental things. Healthcare shouldn't be about profit, we have a disease industry right now and the primary concern of businesses are not people's well being, but how much money they can make. Fine, for nonessential things, but healthcare is essential. What are uninsured people supposed to do when someone in the family gets seriously ill? How is it smart to have people only going to the doctor when they are seriously ill because they don't have enough money, instead of being able to nip problems in the bud. Why should how much money you have effect whether you live or die, whether a health problem is fixed and cured or whether you have to suffer the rest of your life from something treatable? I could go on, these are just rhetorical questions. 45 million Americans dont have health insurance, and that number is growing. Ive already stated in previous post why I think it will work and be good for people's health, and the economy, so I wont repeat myself.
I still think that your concern that universal healthcare would lead to government control of your life is unwarranted, as I said look at other countries with it, and the fact that it has happened in current government health programs. Actually, I think leaving healthcare in private hands increases the likelihood of control. As you pointed out, corporations are already starting to do that, and it will only get worse. However, if healthcare is universal, how can they demand people do certain things? A business can fire someone for not following health rules it sets, or deny people health insurance if they dont meet the requirements and accept control. Universal healthcare is universal, it is available to all, cant be denied.
In regards to your point about the energy fiasco in Cali, that was the result of deregulation, and private companies price gouging, lying, creating false shortages, and ripping people off. It wouldn't have happened if it had still been regulated. Also, having the entire economy controlled by government ala Soviet Union, is very different from having universal health care, and I dont think that it applies.

Sectrict,

R and D is the industries bread and butter, so they wont stop. Already, they are researching in areas they consider profitable, not on the basis of peoples health, just look at all the erectile dysfunction and penile enlargement drugs. Companies profits are not my main concern, health is. These companies still make a profit and it is still worth it for them to do business in Canada and other countries with universal healthcare. They are making tons of money, we shouldn't allow them to charge such artificially high prices. Government already provides a lot of money for research into cancer and other important things, and I believe they should provide more for things that government (the people), not business, thinks is important to cure. I have never worked with research grants, and I can see your point, but you'd think they would be able think of a way to make people accountable for how they use the governments money. Also, I agree with you about the importance of preventive care.

Jess

02-17-2006, 04:07 PM

I will continue the love fest by saying I appreciate the ability to have a discussion, rather than silly namecalling. It's refreshing, and I thank you.

Of course I wasn't saying healthcare is a constitutional right, I believe, and you obviously don't, that it is governments responsibility to provide welfare, a social safety net, for its citizens, i.e. social security, healthcare, etc. and that government should be involved in such fundmental things.

Yes, I would say that this is the fundamental difference between your typical liberal and conservative. Liberals believe that governments should steal from the rich to give to the poor - essentially, governments should be the force for social equality by punishing achievers, taking their possessions, and redistribute them to others who need it more. It's the first step toward socialism. Conservatives believe that, laudable as goal is, the means are wrong - the forced redistribution of wealth. We would rather encourage charities and offered help - and offer the help ourselves - then force others to give. Conservatives believe it is the place of the government to give everyone a good opportunity to rise to the top (not even an equal opportunity, because there are always going to be inequities - of capability, resources, upbringing, etc.) on their own, and encourage good works and helping others - to enforce laws that prevent abuse or misuse of power.

Healthcare shouldn't be about profit, we have a disease industry right now and the primary concern of businesses are not people's well being, but how much money they can make. Fine, for nonessential things, but healthcare is essential.

Food is essential. Housing is essential. Clothing is essential. In most parts of the country, except for major urban areas, transporation is essential. Does this mean farmers are not allowed to make a profit in order to feed, house, and clothe themselves and their families? Construction workers are not allowed to make money off the sale of houses? Basic clothing should provided at cost to everyone in the nation?

Who would then farm? People who enjoy working their lives away for no reward? Such people undoubtedly exist, but not enough to feed everyone else. Housing forced to be provided at cost would hardly contain quality materials - if it would be built at all.

You seem to be missing the point of a market economy - the quality and quantity of goods and services are provided in proportion to the amount of renumeration received for said goods and services. If medical technology companies are not to make a profit off of their business - then what is to prevent them from dropping med tech in favor of "non-essential" businesses that can provide them with a profit? If doctors are not richly rewarded with high paychecks for all their intensive years of schooling and the excellent, if not perfect performance expected of them in their job, then what would happen to the general quality of their performance, or the number of people willing to enter the field? You pay for what you get. Medicine is a tough field, for everyone from doctors to nurses to medical technicians, to the poor hospital janitors. They need something in recompense for the long hours, demands for perfection, dirty or disgusting or just arduous work required of them.

In regards to your point about the energy fiasco in Cali, that was the result of deregulation, and private companies price gouging, lying, creating false shortages, and ripping people off. It wouldn't have happened if it had still been regulated. Also, having the entire economy controlled by government ala Soviet Union, is very different from having universal health care, and I dont think that it applies.

No, I'm afraid not. California decided that energy should be provided at an arbitrary price - ignoring the fluctuations that necessarily appear in a market economy. They forced companies to provide energy at the regulated cost for years - while the companies' infrastructure aged, and went unupgraded because the artificially low cost mandated by the state government prevented them from maintaining or improving their business. It got so ridiculous that the companies' couldn't even produce the energy needed for the state, and had to buy it from other companies in non-price controlled states. Then they had to sell it at the government mandated cost, at a loss to customers in California because the government required them to provide services they were no longer able to provide.

When deregulation was forced, as it became obvious that these power companies were swimming in red ink, they began to charge exhorbitant prices not because they're greedy bastards, but because they were trying to make back the money the government essentially stole from them and gave to the people of California through regulation - in order to stay in business and increase their ability to provide the power Californians wanted and needed.

The problem came to a head after de-regulation, but it was caused by regulation - by the control of a portion of the economy by the government. When the government imposed artificial price caps were removed, the price correction was horribly painful for everyone. If the government had retained the price caps, the entire energy infrastructure would have just fallen apart as debt, no money for salaries or maintenance eventually destroyed the entire California industry.

Controlled economies do not work - it's just human nature - when we are not rewarded in proportion to the work we put in, we will find another avenue that rewards us, or slack off.

For my opinion on this, outlined more fully: http://www.jessdoor.com/personal/2-1-00.html

However, if healthcare is universal, how can they demand people do certain things? <snip for brevity> Universal healthcare is universal, it is available to all, cant be denied. <cut and pasted for brevity and continuity of flow>R and D is the industries bread and butter, so they wont stop. They are making tons of money, we shouldn't allow them to charge such artificially high prices.

Uh...I would think this would be pretty obvious. You're going to assume that the government will provide good care for chain smokers that refuse to kick the habit? You're goig to assume that the government, out of the kindness of its heart, wouldn't force laws on people requiring so many hours of excercise each day to keep medical costs down, or regulate what foods can be produced or not produced "for the good of the country"?

You also seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that government provided health care is good health care. Have you talked to people in countries where the government handles the health care? They don't have quick health care, they don't have advanced health care, and many of those who can afford it get their health care somewhere else. We already have emergency care prodvided - emergency rooms are forced to treat anyone, whether they are able to pay or not. The burden on hospitals that provide emergency rooms is huge because of this government mandate. You want to add all continuing care and general practice care to this rule. Who will pay for it? Who would enter an industry so controlled by the government?

The overreaching faulty assumption I see here is that profit is evil, individual people running companies are evil, and the only source of safety and good intentions is government control. Let me state it again: Controlled economies are NOT prosperous. They may limp along for a while on the hard work of a few, but they never do well, and the "customers" are never pleased with the quality or quantity of service.

Competition and the possibility of real success is what creates excellent performance. When you deny reward to a sector of the economy, people will naturally gravitate away from that industry in search of greener fields. You would destroy the medical industry and leave people without anywhere to turn, all for the "greater good".

Good intentions aren't enough. You have to think things through to their ultimate conclusion. The end result of government controlled health care is bad health care, or no health care.

Bread and circus didn't work for Romans. Why do you assume that fundamental human nature has changed for the better since then?

setrict

02-17-2006, 05:21 PM

I don't think I could frame the practical conservative argument any better than Jess just did, but I do want to expand from a more ideological aspect.

All government exists for the purpose of exerting force, and restricting those it governs. That is the nature of goverment. When used wisely, it shapes society and supports us. When used unwisely it either crushes us, or we fall apart from lack of support. It's a continual balancing act between to much, and to little, depending on what society needs at any particular momement in time.

In the US our government is a republic, or respresentative democracy. Our goverment exists for the purpose of forcing the views of the majority on the minority. It's no less rule by force than a dictatorship, and must be treated with just as much caution. A true conservative wants to use just enough force to support our society, but wants society to shape itself. A liberal wants to use just enough force to shape society in a way that it supports itself. Keep in mind here, that the terms conservative and liberal in this context do not mesh with thier current political meanings. Republicans are not truly conservative, or they wouldn't care about so much about things like gay marriage and censorship.

Which is more representative, more democractic - Allowing society to shape itself, or forcing society to fit a particular mold? Even if there was majority approval of a Universal healthcare system, keep in mind what that really means: The system would be forcing the minority into a system they do not support. In current day politics the minority is literally be hundreds of millions of people. I guess you have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omlette.

Suppose 60% of the american people want Universal healthcare, enough to make it a government mandate. The majority rules concept would seem to make it a clear choice. It's better to give 60% what they want than only 40%. There are other options though.

There is nothing preventing those 60% from banding together and forming their own 'Universal Healthcare' system. Nothing at all. Think of the lobby power, the buying leverage. If you can't make a sucessful go at it with 60% of the population, what makes you think it will work with 100%? It might even work so well that 80 or even 90% of the people want to opt in, and at the same time doesn't force the system down the throats of those who do not wish to participate.

Goverment rules by force, and force should always be the last option in my view.

MrQ

02-17-2006, 07:01 PM

Jess"Democrats have been paying lip service to the black caucus's issues for decades - and little more. In fact, the black voting bloc's inexplicable loyalty to an ineffectual Democratic party has had the effect of removing what power the black voting bloc would normally have from its hands. The Democrats know they only need to make a few nods in the black community's direction to get their vote - and do little more. Leaders in the black community cement the black vote for Democrat candidates in return for a powerful position in the Democrat councils - which seems to have little positive effect on the black community's issues of concern, but do a very nice job of lining certain people's pockets rather comfortably. Republicans don't even bother to pay attention to the black community's vote because no matter how much they offer, no matter what they do, no matter how much they point out the hypocrisy and uselessness of Democrat "action" in regard to racism, the voting bloc does not move. So why bother? The black community is in serious danger of losing what little power they still have as the Hispanic community grows in numbers and both parties try desperately to appeal to them."

This is why I asked him for evidence supporting his belief, since I have learned in my 29 years of being half black and half white it has more to do with ignorance than facts.

Matt W

02-19-2006, 01:40 AM

JESS,

Once again, good post. I dont believe profit is evil, but excessive profit is. Just look at history, even recent history, and it is plain to see that corporations have the bottom line at heart, not peoples well being, and they cant be trusted. I mean Exxon Mobil, one company, made more than 10 billion dollars in PROFIT in one quarter. That is outrageous. Tax that, and use it for good. I do believe government should be redistributing the wealth, or else it will all just concentrate in the hands of the rich minority, while the majority suffers. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Right now, the rich are getting much richer, and more and more people are sinking into poverty, through no fault of their own. The rich get rich of the work of the masses, and without them all the good ideas in the world would just remain ideas. I am fine with their being some people who are richer and some who are poorer, but not with the huge and growing disparity there currently is. No one deserves a billion dollars. Most people work hard, they deserve some basic standards of living, and since scummy companies like Wal-Mart, who have five members of the family in top 200 richest people in the world, with around 18 Billion each, are too stingy to give their hardworking employees, who have made it possible for the Walton’s to be so rich, health insurance, government has to step in and do it. I don’t share your reverence for the free market, the market is hardly free, and is not always best.

To me, universal healthcare is kinda like public education; yeah classes are more crowded, less individual attention, but clearly worth it for society. I know universal health care will mean longer waits, but it is better than having 45 million people be screwed. One of my best friends is from Taiwan. She is in school, taking 4 classes a quarter plus one online class, and has two jobs. She is very overworked, and gets depressed a lot. She had to have surgery a couple years back, and being poor with out health insurance, she could not afford to pay for it, so she flew back to Taiwan, where there is universal health care, and got her surgery.

I saw John Edwards speak last month, and he brought up a very good point. He said (paraphrasing) that, you know, everyone has bad luck at some points in their life, shit happens. The difference is, when bad stuff happens to me, I am able to recover, because I have shit to fall back on. When bad stuff happens to poor people, they find it very difficult to recover cause they don’t have anything to fall back on. Government needs to provide a social safety net, look how well social security has worked and helped the elderly. A progressive tax system, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental regulations, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, all make society possible, without these types of things, the masses would be at the mercy of unscrupulous multinationals that treat people like shit.

I know a lot about the USSR and the PRC (when it was more communist) and they both didn’t work well. But there is a difference between controlling the entire economy, and just regulating business and having government run essential things like health care. All you have to do is look at all the other industrialized countries, who admittedly have problems and are struggling in some ways, but are overall successful and whose population enjoys much more equality.

Matt W

02-19-2006, 01:52 AM

Which is more representative, more democractic - Allowing society to shape itself, or forcing society to fit a particular mold? Even if there was majority approval of a Universal healthcare system, keep in mind what that really means: The system would be forcing the minority into a system they do not support. In current day politics the minority is literally be hundreds of millions of people. I guess you have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omlette.

Suppose 60% of the american people want Universal healthcare, enough to make it a government mandate. The majority rules concept would seem to make it a clear choice. It's better to give 60% what they want than only 40%. There are other options though.

There is nothing preventing those 60% from banding together and forming their own 'Universal Healthcare' system. Nothing at all. Think of the lobby power, the buying leverage. If you can't make a sucessful go at it with 60% of the population, what makes you think it will work with 100%? It might even work so well that 80 or even 90% of the people want to opt in, and at the same time doesn't force the system down the throats of those who do not wish to participate.

Goverment rules by force, and force should always be the last option in my view.

Your example would mean all the rich, healthy people opting out of a universal health care system, and the poor, unhealthy, disabled and elderly people in another. Of course putting all the high cost people into one system wouldn't work, you need the healthy to balance it out. I dont want government having too much control, I dont trust government. However, right now corporations have too much control, and I trust them much less. Our government is supposed to be representative. Government is the people, and does what the people want and is accountable to them. Of course its a tyranny of the majority, all government programs are like that. Social security is like that, the tax system, it is all a decision of what is best for society as a WHOLE. If the individual people who don't benefit from a program can opt out it would never work, the point is do what's best for everyone, not individual cases. And who decides what is best, the people. The absence of government rule doesn't mean no one is ruling, it just means the rich, powerful people get to rule, instead of the people.

Jess

02-20-2006, 07:55 PM

I dont believe profit is evil, but excessive profit is. Just look at history, even recent history, and it is plain to see that corporations have the bottom line at heart, not peoples well being, and they cant be trusted. I mean Exxon Mobil, one company, made more than 10 billion dollars in PROFIT in one quarter. That is outrageous. Tax that, and use it for good.

Define "excessive profit". I challenge you to come up with an objective definition of it. It's just like most liberal economic theory - you have to place arbitrary limits on the changes you introduce because, at their base they're fundamentally flawed.

It's like the minimum wage. What's a fair minimum wage? Surely $6/hr is too little. How about $10? But why stop there? Why not enforce a minimum wage of $15? $25? $50 an hour! Everyone will be rich!

As soon as you hit a value that minimum wage proponent admits is ridiculous, you have them - because this points out the fundamental flaw - forcing wages up through regulation only increases the costs of goods and services, or lowers the employment rate, or both. Raising the minimum wage causes inflation. It's broken. End of story. The liberal response is that breaking things "just a bit" makes everyone happier. Craziness.

Another misnomer that is common is that we have to tax evil money grubbing companies - that these taxes will eat into their profits and save the world. Heh, I knew this would all end up coming back to the tax code. :)

Here's some economic theory for you: There is no such thing as taxes on a company. When you tax a company, either through direct taxing or expensive regulation, you actually pass that cost on to the company's consumer.

***
Acme Sprockets makes sprockets. They use widgets to make their sprockets. Beta Widgets and Charlie Widgets are two of their possible suppliers. Acme Sprockets sells their sprockets for $100. Beta Widgets and Charlie Widgets make comparable widgets that they sell for about $20 apiece, though they will offer sales, promotions, and price changes during the normal course of business.

The Federal Gov't decides that widget makers are making obscene profits, so they increase taxes on all widget makers - adding an extra 5% tax on all profits. The widget companies don't want to lose money - their shareholders will be upset at the money loss and pull out, killing the companies, so they adopt strategies to cope with the new and unexpected cost of business. Beta Widgets decides to cut costs. They fire as many workers as they think they can get away with, and then require that those left work harder for the same pay. They buy cheaper materials and skimp on inspections. Charlie Widgets just decides to raise the price of their widgets to $24.

Now Acme Sprockets has a choice - they can buy inferior widgets from Beta Widgets, and keep their product at the same cost. This will actually drive up costs for the company, though, dealing with returns and angry customers. So if they go with the inferior widget, they will charge $102 for the inferior widgets. If they go with the more expensive widget, they will have to raise the price to $104 per sprocket to keep treading water at their current levels.

This means the consumer either pays more for an inferior product, or twice as much more for the same product it bought for $100 before the tax hike.

If another widget company, Delta Widgets, just went with screwing over it's shareholders (losing profit) in order to pay the taxes, then who gets taxed? The shareholders! Senior citizens living off the profits of their retirement investments, families trying to save money for a home or college for their kids.
***

There is, ultimately, one source of wealth and productivity in any economy - the economy's workers. It sounds great to "tax those excessive profits" of some company no one feels any emotional attachment to. But the only people you really end up taxing are the workers - because they're the only part of the economy that actually produces anything.

In fact, the current tax code is the vehicle for keeping those who work and earn money from becoming independently wealthy. Income tax penalizes those that work and earn money, while happily preserving the capital of the already wealthy. Only the wealthy can afford to play the current insanely complex (and often contradictory) tax code to avoid paying taxes, or to significantly reduce their tax outlay.

If you truly want a fair tax system that levels the playing field (and gets the American economy roaring, btw), go to a consumption tax - a national sales tax. Give families a payout at the beginning of the year to cover some set amount of sales tax costs (say the equivalent of $25,000 in expenditures, tax-free), and you're even preventing those that don't owe taxes today from starting to pay them! This tax system would encourage savings and investments (since these are not taxed, unlike today, where your income is taxed before you even see it), lower the costs of tax preparation, meeting regulations and tax enforcement exponentially, and encourage companies now outsourcing to more business friendly countries to come back to the U.S.

I do believe government should be redistributing the wealth, or else it will all just concentrate in the hands of the rich minority, while the majority suffers. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

This is, first of all, not proven. Where do you get the idea that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? I suppose you could make an argument that what was considered rich 20 years ago is now probably upper middle class, but that's just a product of inflation. While there are families that have been rich for generations, and continue to be rich now, there are also many people discovering or creating new wealth for themselves. The new group of millionaires in Texas from all those old oil fields are one such group. Bill Gates is another. Entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs. And the Waltons. :)

No one deserves a billion dollars.

Now we get to the crux of it. Class warfare - the old standby of liberals. Other people are richer than you! They suck! Let's take their money! It's nothing but thinly disguised jealousy.

You deserve a billion dollars if you can make it, or inherit it and keep it without screwing up. End of story. Go earn your own billions - don't steal it from others. Using the government to steal it for you may appear to be "socially conscious", but it's still stealing.

I don’t share your reverence for the free market, the market is hardly free, and is not always best.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: The free market is a poor way to run an economy - but the others are all worse.

I know a lot about the USSR and the PRC (when it was more communist) and they both didn’t work well. But there is a difference between controlling the entire economy, and just regulating business and having government run essential things like health care.

Right, as with my California example stated above - you only totally screw up that section of the economy, instead of the whole thing.

All you have to do is look at all the other industrialized countries, who admittedly have problems and are struggling in some ways, but are overall successful and whose population enjoys much more equality.

Really? More equality? I would be interested in hearing about this.

Equality can mean any number of things - and your sentence doesn't really make clear what kind of equality you're talking about. Equality of rights under the law? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome?

Matt W

02-21-2006, 03:07 AM

Define "excessive profit". I challenge you to come up with an objective definition of it. It's just like most liberal economic theory - you have to place arbitrary limits on the changes you introduce because, at their base they're fundamentally flawed.Define "excessive profit". I challenge you to come up with an objective definition of it. It's just like most liberal economic theory - you have to place arbitrary limits on the changes you introduce because, at their base they're fundamentally flawed.[/QUOTE]

Well of course it arbitrary to an extent, but you just do as detailed an analysis of all the factors, and come up with a number. Most things are pretty arbitrary.

It's like the minimum wage. What's a fair minimum wage? Surely $6/hr is too little. How about $10? But why stop there? Why not enforce a minimum wage of $15? $25? $50 an hour! Everyone will be rich!

Again, you calculate people’s needs as best you can, and come up with a number, clearly the current 5.15 is too low, you cant live on that, let alone raise a family, and it is very low by historical standards.

As soon as you hit a value that minimum wage proponent admits is ridiculous, you have them - because this points out the fundamental flaw - forcing wages up through regulation only increases the costs of goods and services, or lowers the employment rate, or both. Raising the minimum wage causes inflation. It's broken. End of story. The liberal response is that breaking things "just a bit" makes everyone happier. Craziness.

Raising the minimum wage does not raise inflation enough to cancel out the benefit of minimum wage. I don’t get why conservatives think maximum efficiency and the most economic growth possible is so great. I would rather have less growth and less efficiency, and more equality, happiness, time off, a cleaner environment...

Another misnomer that is common is that we have to tax evil money grubbing companies - that these taxes will eat into their profits and save the world. Heh, I knew this would all end up coming back to the tax code.

Come on, you think a windfall profit tax on Exxon and other oil companies will cause gas prices to soar? They are still making a shitload. What you are saying is obviously true to an extent, but just like minimum wage, taxes and regulation on business produce more benefit then they bring about in higher costs. When a company pollutes and doesn’t pay for cleaning it up or pay for being cleaner in the first place, prices are lower. But, they are artificially lower; the price should take into account environmental damage.

The widget companies don't want to lose money - their shareholders will be upset at the money loss and pull out, killing the companies, so they adopt strategies to cope with the new and unexpected cost of business. Beta Widgets decides to cut costs. They fire as many workers as they think they can get away with, and then require that those left work harder for the same pay. They buy cheaper materials and skimp on inspections.

This is exactly what happens anyway, profitable businesses want to make as much money as possible, screw everyone else. If an already profitable business cuts jobs, the CEO gets huge bonuses. My main fault with your argument is that we should put shareholders and the riches profits above everyone else’s well being. Shareholders don’t do shit, and they just make money because they had enough extra money to buy stock. The less you pay people who are working and producing, the more profit for the company and the more money shareholders stock makes for them. If you have extra money, that money makes money, which makes money, and so on.

If you truly want a fair tax system that levels the playing field (and gets the American economy roaring, btw), go to a consumption tax - a national sales tax. Give families a payout at the beginning of the year to cover some set amount of sales tax costs (say the equivalent of $25,000 in expenditures, tax-free), and you're even preventing those that don't owe taxes today from starting to pay them! This tax system would encourage savings and investments (since these are not taxed, unlike today, where your income is taxed before you even see it), lower the costs of tax preparation, meeting regulations and tax enforcement exponentially, and encourage companies now outsourcing to more business friendly countries to come back to the U.S.

A national sales tax in place of income tax would not be good at all, it is just a tax break for the rich and a tax hike for everyone else. It is not fairer, someone has to pay the taxes, this system just makes the middle and lower classes pay more. Why is it fairer to base taxes on how much you spend, rather than how much you earn? Income is a better indicator of your ability to pay. Right now, we have a progressive tax system, in which those who have more pay more because they have the ability to and they owe the most to society, which has made them so wealthy. A national sales tax is in effect regressive, and would amount to a tax increase for lower and middle class people, because they spend a greater portion of their income on consumer things then the rich do. A national sales tax would have to be extremely high to create the same amount of revenue the government currently gets. It would increase crime, as people would not want to pay high sales taxes and a black market would develop. It is also harder to enforce. What would you do about things sold on the Internet? The wealthy spend their money on things like stock, and investments, yet they would have to pay no tax for some reason. The wealthy are the one’s with the money to invest and save, so they benefit. The wealthy spend money on vacations around the world, no tax, on multiple homes, no tax, etc…Yet a college student would have to pay high taxes on textbooks, or a someone earning 30000 a year on food, clothing, a new refrigerator, a new car, the gas to commute to work, its absurd. It is clearly not arguable that a national sales tax would not shift more of the tax burden to the lower and middle classes, while the rich, who can afford to pay more, are taxed less. It might be efficient, and I agree the tax code needs reform, loopholes need to be closed, but a national sales tax is not the answer.

This is, first of all, not proven. Where do you get the idea that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? I suppose you could make an argument that what was considered rich 20 years ago is now probably upper middle class, but that's just a product of inflation. While there are families that have been rich for generations, and continue to be rich now, there are also many people discovering or creating new wealth for themselves. The new group of millionaires in Texas from all those old oil fields are one such group. Bill Gates is another. Entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs. And the Waltons.

Of course it’s proven, plus its just common sense. From 1993 to 2000, the percent of Americans living below the poverty line decreased. Every year of Bush, it has increased; it’s a bit more than million more people each year. Real wages have fallen during the Bush presidency, and millions more Americans are uninsured. Corporate profits are going up, the amount CEO’s make compared to their workers has skyrocketed in recent years, and taxes on the rich have been cut, and the gap between rich and poor continues to rise.

Now we get to the crux of it. Class warfare - the old standby of liberals. Other people are richer than you! They suck! Let's take their money! It's nothing but thinly disguised jealousy. You deserve a billion dollars if you can make it, or inherit it and keep it without screwing up. End of story. Go earn your own billions - don't steal it from others. Using the government to steal it for you may appear to be "socially conscious", but it's still stealing.

The problem with this is that you don’t just make a billion dollars on your own; you can only make it through the help of others. Business owners depend on their workers and customers, you can only get rich with the help of society. You really think the Waltons have worked so hard and contributed so much to society that they deserve tens of billions of dollars, while people working very hard at Wal-Mart are barely getting by on the pittance that the Waltons throw down to them. I’ll say it again, no one can possibly deserve a billion dollars, no one contributes that much more then everyone else. With so many hard working people lacking basic things, how can you justify people having more money then they could possible think of ways to even spend.

Really? More equality? I would be interested in hearing about this.Equality can mean any number of things - and your sentence doesn't really make clear what kind of equality you're talking about. Equality of rights under the law? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome?

Equal in the sense that the gap between rich and poor is smaller than here, and that everyone has a guaranteed social net they can rely on.