PDA

View Full Version : APP - An Incoherent Truth



FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 02:45 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

An Incoherent Truth

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 26, 2009

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.

But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people.

On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care. And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies — subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families.

Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.

But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

SmarterthanYou
07-30-2009, 02:52 PM
in other words, the blue dogs are too conservative, fiscally, for the wanna be socialists.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 02:57 PM
in other words, the blue dogs are too conservative, fiscally, for the wanna be socialists.

Well I can see the level of debate definitely has gone way up on this forum.

Fish
07-30-2009, 03:22 PM
The Democrats in Congress are not socialists. They're not even close to Socialists, they should not be discussed in the same sentence as Socialism. This is a terrible talking point and to parrot it is so completely dishonest that it's laughable.

meme
07-30-2009, 03:24 PM
No, the Democrats are now full blown Communist and fascist..

and it is not funny at all...

Fish
07-30-2009, 03:26 PM
When did the government disallow private business and seize the means of production?

Cancel7
07-30-2009, 03:27 PM
No, the Democrats are now full blown Communist and fascist..

and it is not funny at all...

Have you been scanned for a brain tumor?

meme
07-30-2009, 03:27 PM
When did the government disallow private business and seize the means of production?

they are friggen working on it right now...wake up and the smell the coffee..

Fish
07-30-2009, 03:28 PM
How is the government working on seizing the means of production?

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 03:31 PM
How is the government working on seizing the means of production?

She means the government is going to give you an option to buy not-for-profit health insurance plan.

COMMUNEST!

meme
07-30-2009, 03:31 PM
Have you been scanned for a brain tumor?

Have you ever been scanned to see if there is a nice person in your body..

rude rude rude..what a way to go through life..

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 03:35 PM
Have you ever been scanned to see if there is a nice person in your body..

rude rude rude..what a way to go through life..

omg retarded.

Seriously, someone put the stupid filter on this forum please.

Fish
07-30-2009, 03:36 PM
I personal attacks were not permitted in this forum.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 03:36 PM
I personal attacks were not permitted in this forum.

Name calling is permitted.

Canceled2
07-30-2009, 03:37 PM
they are friggen working on it right now...wake up and the smell the coffee..

Obama to Government Motors: "Let's Roll" (http://mises.org/story/3484)

"The last remnants of the American free-market system are experiencing a quick death by strangulation. Perhaps the most disturbing casualties of government intervention are General Motors and Chrysler, two disgraced automakers that have gone from private ownership to the public trough virtually overnight. The US government has effectively grabbed a financial stake in each company while attempting to control the reorganization process without any constitutional authority to commence such actions."

"The takeovers, which have occurred at breakneck speed, are alarming. A defining characteristic of economic fascism is the control of private property and business through a government-business "partnership." This public-private alliance, while permitting private business ownership, is an arrangement that allows government to control and plan private industry. What we are experiencing from the schemers in Washington, DC is a planned capitalism, or soft fascism, that is being rolled out at an unprecedented pace."

Fish
07-30-2009, 03:38 PM
General Motors is not the means of production.

meme
07-30-2009, 03:39 PM
omg retarded.

Seriously, someone put the stupid filter on this forum please.

Oh yeah.....OMGawd..

Cancel7
07-30-2009, 03:41 PM
Oh yeah.....OMGawd..

Um...do you want to be alone with ib?

Good Luck
07-30-2009, 03:45 PM
So much for higher level discussions....

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 03:48 PM
Um...do you want to be alone with ib?

Please, don't ever let that happen.

meme
07-30-2009, 03:56 PM
Please, don't ever let that happen.

you would never have to worry about that...I like real men, not wussies.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 03:59 PM
No, the Democrats are now full blown Communist and fascist..

and it is not funny at all...

Level of debate uber-high.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 04:01 PM
Obama to Government Motors: "Let's Roll" (http://mises.org/story/3484)

"The last remnants of the American free-market system are experiencing a quick death by strangulation. Perhaps the most disturbing casualties of government intervention are General Motors and Chrysler, two disgraced automakers that have gone from private ownership to the public trough virtually overnight. The US government has effectively grabbed a financial stake in each company while attempting to control the reorganization process without any constitutional authority to commence such actions."

"The takeovers, which have occurred at breakneck speed, are alarming. A defining characteristic of economic fascism is the control of private property and business through a government-business "partnership." This public-private alliance, while permitting private business ownership, is an arrangement that allows government to control and plan private industry. What we are experiencing from the schemers in Washington, DC is a planned capitalism, or soft fascism, that is being rolled out at an unprecedented pace."

Ice Dancer, Chrysler and GM were not nationalized. You know as well as I do that this is hyperbolic misinformation.

meme
07-30-2009, 04:02 PM
Level of debate uber-high.

what's to debate? it's the TRUTH.

I guess asking someone if they have a brain tumor is real debating..:rolleyes:

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 04:03 PM
Seriously, no one's socialist anymore. Not even socialists are socialist.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 04:05 PM
what's to debate? it's the TRUTH.

It's a hyperbolic disphemism.


I guess asking someone if they have a brain tumor is real debating..:rolleyes:

Nope, not really, IB1's not doing this forum much good either.

Fish
07-30-2009, 04:06 PM
I'll ask again. What do you perceive at the government seizing the means of production?

DamnYankee
07-30-2009, 04:19 PM
I'll ask again. What do you perceive at the government seizing the means of production?
Gee-em

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 04:20 PM
Seriously, no one's socialist anymore. Not even socialists are socialist.

so what are they, capitalist? isn't this really just rebranding ideologies....

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 04:21 PM
General Motors is not the means of production.

it sure is

Canceled2
07-30-2009, 04:22 PM
Ice Dancer, Chrysler and GM were not nationalized. You know as well as I do that this is hyperbolic misinformation.

As the below portion of the article illuminates, the government has positioned itself to be the arbitrator of how the company will be run and who will profit and how much they will profit. Again, as the article clarifies "a soft fascism" is the direction our nation is taking. One can presume if unaabted that it is a slippery slope into the very jaws of fascism.

"Thus the senior creditors were plundered while ownership was redistributed to the UAW, whose members are junior creditors. This makes a mockery of US securities law.

The bailout and ensuing appropriation of General Motors is no less tragic. The current restructuring plan calls for the US Treasury Department to have controlling interest in General Motors, which amounts to absolute nationalization. In GM's headquarters in Detroit there is a cluster of bureaucrats from the government's task force telling GM how to run its business. The task force, assembled by the White House, has the power to exercise significant control over product decisions. According to a GM news release, the Treasury Department will have the power to elect all of GM's directors and control the vote on matters brought before the stockholders. Additionally, the bondholders who have funded the company are being offered a paltry piece of the equity of the reorganized company — another major blow against the sanctity of contract."

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 04:26 PM
so what are they, capitalist? isn't this really just rebranding ideologies....

Socialism was a philosophy that advocated taking control of the means of production and giving it to workers. When the Socialist parties got into power they generally said "Well, gee golly gosh, this really isn't going to work as well as we planned" and didn't implement their radical programs. I can't think of a single democratic country where a socialist party took control that seized all private property. Not even on-paper marxists like Allendelle. At most they would perform nationalizations of a few key industries, which would then get privatized again by the eighties. They would move the goal posts and say that it was only about seizing important industries, but I'm like, what's the point of that? How does that gel with the distribution of goods to the workers philosophy at all? It was a pretty clear betrayal of their philosophy.

Now socialist parties around the world don't even use socialist rhetoric. They don't do nationalizations, they just govern a bit more left wing. Those that do actual socialism usually garner fractions of 1% of the vote. The ideology is dead.

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 04:26 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

An Incoherent Truth

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 26, 2009

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.

But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people.

On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care. And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies — subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families.
Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.

But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

absolutely wrong....why should the government stick its nose into our private medical lives? force me to get health insurance....what if i can't afford it? at least with a car you have the choice not to drive a car, but his, this is taking away freedom.

and it is an absolute lie that if you're rejected you can't get insurance...they have insurance for people with known health issues, it just costs more....

now, with my less government speeeeeel out of the way...

i have personally dealt with the current situation and have bitched because a family member got rejected with blue shield because of some lame thyroid issue that she had to get a whole slew of fucking tests to show she didn't have a problem but now we have to wait another 6 effing months to see if the non problem is still there....

but, she can get insurance, instead of 150/mo....it is 550/mo

fair...i don't think so and unfortunately there is no place else for her to get insurance....i am not sure though it is the government's responsibility to take this over....need i say

usps
dmv
vets

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 04:27 PM
Socialism was a philosophy that advocated taking control of the means of production and giving it to workers. When the Socialist parties got into power they generally said "Well, gee golly gosh, this really isn't going to work as well as we planned" and didn't implement their radical programs. I can't think of a single democratic country where a socialist party took control that seized all private property. Not even on-paper marxists like Allendelle. At most they would perform nationalizations of a few key industries, which would then get privatized again by the eighties.

Now socialist parties around the world don't even use socialist rhetoric. They don't do nationalizations, they just govern a bit more left wing. Those that do actual socialism usually garner fractions of 1% of the vote. The ideology is dead.

chavez.....

so what would you call this new ideology?

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 04:33 PM
As the below portion of the article illuminates, the government has positioned itself to be the arbitrator of how the company will be run and who will profit and how much they will profit. Again, as the article clarifies "a soft fascism" is the direction our nation is taking. One can presume if unabated that it is a slippery slope into the very jaws of fascism.

Again, this is nothing but hyperbole.


"Thus the senior creditors were plundered while ownership was redistributed to the UAW, whose members are junior creditors. This makes a mockery of US securities law.

The bailout and ensuing appropriation of General Motors is no less tragic. The current restructuring plan calls for the US Treasury Department to have controlling interest in General Motors, which amounts to absolute nationalization.

The government isn't exercising voting powers and intends to sell of their stake when everything is over. It does not "amount" to "absolute nationalization". That is, again, nothing but hyperbole.


In GM's headquarters in Detroit there is a cluster of bureaucrats from the government's task force telling GM how to run its business. The task force, assembled by the White House, has the power to exercise significant control over product decisions. According to a GM news release, the Treasury Department will have the power to elect all of GM's directors and control the vote on matters brought before the stockholders. Additionally, the bondholders who have funded the company are being offered a paltry piece of the equity of the reorganized company — another major blow against the sanctity of contract."

During the 1980's bailout of Chrysler (Reagan's bailout), they also used significant steps to trim the company to make it more competitive again also.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 04:34 PM
chavez.....

so what would you call this new ideology?

Yeah Chavez is certainly the closest to an actual socialist there is out there, and he's wrecking his nations economy.

But, for instance, the Labour party of Britain blatantly labels itself a "democratic socialist" party, which is almost absurd.

WinterBorn
07-30-2009, 04:36 PM
The government did not actually sieze control of GM. GM, through decades of mismanagement and high labor costs, found themselves on the brink of going under.

They went to the government for help and some astronomical amounts of money. The government put some harsh stipulations on the bailout.

GM gave their production to the government.

And GM is only a tiny part of our national production.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 04:42 PM
absolutely wrong....why should the government stick its nose into our private medical lives?

In the way of forcing you to get health insurance, yes. It's so that you can't game the system at the expense of society. If you get sick, we pretty much have a moral responsibility to take care of you no matter what, and it's not fair to the rest of us if you paid far less but get treated anyway. It's sort of the same reason car insurance is mandatory.


force me to get health insurance....what if i can't afford it?

Then the government subsidizes your plan. Everyone gets healthcare.


at least with a car you have the choice not to drive a car, but his, this is taking away freedom.

Yeah, because it's totally possible to live a normal life in modern America without a ca. What a reasonable condition on having a freedom.



and it is an absolute lie that if you're rejected you can't get insurance...they have insurance for people with known health issues, it just costs more....

That costs a ridiculous amount of money and isn't worth buying.



now, with my less government speeeeeel out of the way...

What?


i have personally dealt with the current situation and have bitched because a family member got rejected with blue shield because of some lame thyroid issue that she had to get a whole slew of fucking tests to show she didn't have a problem but now we have to wait another 6 effing months to see if the non problem is still there....

Yeah, that's a tragedy man.



but, she can get insurance, instead of 150/mo....it is 550/mo

Yeah, that's completely and totally unaffordable for most people.



fair...i don't think so and unfortunately there is no place else for her to get insurance....

Are you arguing against health insurance reform with this story?

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 05:23 PM
In the way of forcing you to get health insurance, yes. It's so that you can't game the system at the expense of society. If you get sick, we pretty much have a moral responsibility to take care of you no matter what, and it's not fair to the rest of us if you paid far less but get treated anyway. It's sort of the same reason car insurance is mandatory.



Then the government subsidizes your plan. Everyone gets healthcare.



Yeah, because it's totally possible to live a normal life in modern America without a ca. What a reasonable condition on having a freedom.




That costs a ridiculous amount of money and isn't worth buying.




What?



Yeah, that's a tragedy man.




Yeah, that's completely and totally unaffordable for most people.




Are you arguing against health insurance reform with this story?

i know a few people who get around with a car, all their choice....it is not impossible

it is not that i'm arguing against or for health insurance reform, because it is nto working well the way it is....i just do not believe in obama's plan. i've posted plans i do like, however, as the dems are in power i see that plan passing. hopefully it works out for the best if does, because if it makes it cheaper and more affordable to get health insurance and see the doctor, then i'm for it....i just don't trust obama's power grabs with the government and i see this as more of a power grab than true reform.....

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 05:28 PM
You realize, yurt, do you not, that the biggest executive power grab in American history happened under Bush right? Do you know anything about the theory of the unitary executive?

DamnYankee
07-30-2009, 05:48 PM
The government did not actually sieze control of GM. GM, through decades of mismanagement and high labor costs, found themselves on the brink of going under.

They went to the government for help and some astronomical amounts of money. The government put some harsh stipulations on the bailout.

GM gave their production to the government.

And GM is only a tiny part of our national production. GM was forced into bankruptcy by the UAW, a socialist organization. *shrug*

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 05:56 PM
GM was forced into bankruptcy by the UAW, a socialist organization. *shrug*

I'm sure it had nothing to do with legacy costs and poor management/product development.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 05:59 PM
GM was forced into bankruptcy by the UAW, a socialist organization. *shrug*

Calling labor unions socialist is... hyperbole.

There is shared responsibility in the GM catastrophe. I do not think that UAW was the primary contributor to the bankruptcy, although clearly the high wages they demanded contributed to it. But the company could have survived anyway had they not failed so hard at competing in general. The wages didn't take as much competitiveness away from GM as most people think - the executives probably made half or more of the total wages in the company anyway. :-/

DamnYankee
07-30-2009, 06:03 PM
I'm sure it had nothing to do with legacy costs and poor management/product development. The huge legacy costs were due to the UAW pensions and benefits programs.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 06:10 PM
i know a few people who get around with a car, all their choice....it is not impossible

I don't really think it's much of a possibility for most Americans. :-/


it is not that i'm arguing against or for health insurance reform, because it is nto working well the way it is....i just do not believe in obama's plan.

Obama's plan isn't really even all the way out yet.



i've posted plans i do like, however, as the dems are in power i see that plan passing.

Which one is that?


hopefully it works out for the best if does, because if it makes it cheaper and more affordable to get health insurance and see the doctor, then i'm for it....

Yep. Under the current situation, health care costs are going to double in the next ten years. That's 30% of our money being sunk into healthcare. That's as big a cost as taxes, for christ sake.



i just don't trust obama's power grabs with the government and i see this as more of a power grab than true reform.....

Obama's not in a cave cackling about how he's going to ruin American healthcare. I assure you - he wants this to work. Even if you refuse to consider that this is just because he's such a good guy, he definitely has a personal stake in this, because if it doesn't control costs he's going to lose in 2012.

There's a tendency amongst the partisans to unreasonably demonize the leader of the opposition. I know - I did this with Bush as well. But it's not really reality. Obama has economists and engineers working on this, trying to figure out a good way to both provide for everyone and keep costs under control. I'd just like it if you took a deeper look at his plan when it comes out, and look at the facts of the situation, and think about if you and your family are going to be better off under it, rather than just giving in to an emotional reaction and rejecting it outright.

Right now, there are like five different plans being worked up. So I really can't give you specifics yet on whether or not it will add to the deficit and how it will control costs. You say you're opposed to Obama's plan - but there isn't one right now.

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 06:32 PM
You realize, yurt, do you not, that the biggest executive power grab in American history happened under Bush right? Do you know anything about the theory of the unitary executive?

oh please.....do tell how bush did the biggest executive power grab in history....

since no one has a bright line rule or idea about it, how in the world can you call it the biggest grab....grab from what? there is not a set theory on it

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 06:37 PM
oh please.....do tell how bush did the biggest executive power grab in history....

since no one has a bright line rule or idea about it, how in the world can you call it the biggest grab....grab from what? there is not a set theory on it

Yes there is. It's called the unitary executive, and it was Cheney's entire purpose for being in government. And it worked, somewhat. Read up on it.

DamnYankee
07-30-2009, 06:37 PM
Calling labor unions socialist is... hyperbole.

There is shared responsibility in the GM catastrophe. I do not think that UAW was the primary contributor to the bankruptcy, although clearly the high wages they demanded contributed to it. But the company could have survived anyway had they not failed so hard at competing in general. The wages didn't take as much competitiveness away from GM as most people think - the executives probably made half or more of the total wages in the company anyway. :-/ Can you back this up?

Taichiliberal
07-30-2009, 06:40 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

An Incoherent Truth

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 26, 2009

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.

But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people.

On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care. And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies — subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families.

Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.

But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

:thup:

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 06:43 PM
QUOTE=Watermark;481897]I don't really think it's much of a possibility for most Americans. :-/

my point still stands...you can choose not to drive and not pay insurance...further, i don't want to compare the two....having to pay car insurance is a far cry from obama's plan



Obama's plan isn't really even all the way out yet.

then what is he doing running around the country banging away with the bully pulpit telling people that have to get the legislation passed before the summer recess?





Which one is that?

many ideas from a link i gave in another thread. another thought might be to fix the current system of medicare we have...if insurers enjoy certain benefits from regulation that are not good for the country, then change that...we do not need to create new laws and new bills everytime something goes wrong....and that is all obama has done since taking office



Yep. Under the current situation, health care costs are going to double in the next ten years. That's 30% of our money being sunk into healthcare. That's as big a cost as taxes, for christ sake.

ok, i've seen some private ideas (non government) that are currently reducing costs...walmart, safeway...


Obama's not in a cave cackling about how he's going to ruin American healthcare. I assure you - he wants this to work. Even if you refuse to consider that this is just because he's such a good guy, he definitely has a personal stake in this, because if it doesn't control costs he's going to lose in 2012.

yeah....how good did chrysler and gm workout?


There's a tendency amongst the partisans to unreasonably demonize the leader of the opposition. I know - I did this with Bush as well. But it's not really reality. Obama has economists and engineers working on this, trying to figure out a good way to both provide for everyone and keep costs under control. I'd just like it if you took a deeper look at his plan when it comes out, and look at the facts of the situation, and think about if you and your family are going to be better off under it, rather than just giving in to an emotional reaction and rejecting it outright.

i've given the man props when he deserves, marijuana for one...i don't demonize him, i don't trust him and i don't like his grab for power over citizens using the government....he weaseled his way around the "spread the wealth" comment, yet he just made nearly the same comment a month ago or so....


Right now, there are like five different plans being worked up. So I really can't give you specifics yet on whether or not it will add to the deficit and how it will control costs. You say you're opposed to Obama's plan - but there isn't one right now.

see supra

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 06:47 PM
Yes there is. It's called the unitary executive, and it was Cheney's entire purpose for being in government. And it worked, somewhat. Read up on it.

dude....you brought it up, why don't YOU explain how...i know what it is and i think you're wrong....and there is no set theory on it being a big power grab as you would like to claim...did you read about it....

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 06:52 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Can I get a PWWWWNNNND?

WinterBorn
07-30-2009, 07:00 PM
GM was forced into bankruptcy by the UAW, a socialist organization. *shrug*

They went into bankrupcy because of the redundancy of their products and their inability to adapt to new wants from consumers.

The UAW was part of the problem as well. But I said that in my original post on this topic.

PostmodernProphet
07-30-2009, 07:06 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Can I get a PWWWWNNNND?

hardly....your claim was silly....presidents and congress have been arguing about sharing power for two hundred years....consider Roosevelt and his attempt to pack the supreme court....consider what congress did to the presidency after Watergate....the whole Iran/Contra affair was nothing more than a dispute between the presidency and congress over power.....what Cheney did was rather minor on that scale....

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 07:09 PM
hardly....your claim was silly....presidents and congress have been arguing about sharing power for two hundred years....consider Roosevelt and his attempt to pack the supreme court....consider what congress did to the presidency after Watergate....the whole Iran/Contra affair was nothing more than a dispute between the presidency and congress over power.....what Cheney did was rather minor on that scale....

Crazy. So Regan was part of this power grab as well! That sure proves me wrong, doesn't it?

The point, child, is that you can't complain about power grabs when you fetishize Reagan and voted for the Bush administration twice.

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 07:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Can I get a PWWWWNNNND?

why are in this forum....all you're doing is your same childish shit...

you didn't prove your point...all you did was show that i was right...that is, according to wiki....it has been argued and debated over for a couple of hundred years....like i said...no one has a solid theory and how much is a power grab you self masterbating pwner

edit: and you still have not shown how bush was responsible for the biggest power grab in history....dude, you just majorly self pwned yourself....IDIOT

Cancel7
07-30-2009, 07:41 PM
It's a hyperbolic disphemism.



Nope, not really, IB1's not doing this forum much good either.

Actually that was me, not ib. I didn't realize what forum I was in. These f'ing forum things with different rules are going to screw me up. I'll be banned nearly as fast as asshat. (though you'll never see me go crawling to Damo begging and squirming beneath his feet to be let back in).

I use the "today's posts" feature and I never have any freaking idea of which forum I'm in, nor care. I'll try to pay more attention now that this creeping facism has been installed by the neohide Grind.

Minister of Truth
07-30-2009, 07:46 PM
BAN GRIND!!

belme1201
07-30-2009, 07:51 PM
hardly....your claim was silly....presidents and congress have been arguing about sharing power for two hundred years....consider Roosevelt and his attempt to pack the supreme court....consider what congress did to the presidency after Watergate....the whole Iran/Contra affair was nothing more than a dispute between the presidency and congress over power.....what Cheney did was rather minor on that scale....




Iran/Contra was a case of the President lying to his people and Congress. Reagan traded weapons for cash with a nation he campaigned upon as being our enemy and lied about it, later admitting only to "forgetting". Hardly the actions of a great man. Power was merely a part of it, lying, arrogance, and a touch of psychopathy being more dominant.

PostmodernProphet
07-30-2009, 07:57 PM
Iran/Contra was a case of the President lying to his people and Congress. Reagan traded weapons for cash with a nation he campaigned upon as being our enemy and lied about it, later admitting only to "forgetting". Hardly the actions of a great man. Power was merely a part of it, lying, arrogance, and a touch of psychopathy being more dominant.

or a case of Congress trying to prevent the president from taking action to protect the country in the manner he saw fit.....if Tipper hadn't been so hellbent on sucking up to the communists, none of it would have happened.....

PostmodernProphet
07-30-2009, 07:59 PM
Crazy. So Regan was part of this power grab as well! That sure proves me wrong, doesn't it?


the power grabbers at that point were the Democrats in Congress....so, yes....it does....

Fish
07-30-2009, 08:05 PM
General Motors is all the factories in America and all the raw materials used to make goods?

Cancel 2018. 3
07-30-2009, 08:20 PM
General Motors is all the factories in America and all the raw materials used to make goods?

irrelevent....the government in fact owns and controls the means and production for one of america's largest auto manufacturers...approx 20%

that is in fact socialism and it was done wholly under obama

BRUTALITOPS
07-30-2009, 08:32 PM
I'll try to pay more attention now that this creeping facism has been installed by the neohide Grind.
cute

Fish
07-30-2009, 08:33 PM
EDIT: Nevermind, bye bye Just Plain Politics.

belme1201
07-30-2009, 09:16 PM
or a case of Congress trying to prevent the president from taking action to protect the country in the manner he saw fit.....if Tipper hadn't been so hellbent on sucking up to the communists, none of it would have happened.....



Ah yes, I keep forgetting about the success this country has had through the years in nation building. I suppose Nicaragua was a huge threat after all, and my God, El Salvador, Honduras and Grenada should have had us all quaking.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:16 PM
the power grabbers at that point were the Democrats in Congress....so, yes....it does....

That wiki article disagrees with you.

PostmodernProphet
07-31-2009, 04:59 AM
That wiki article disagrees with you.

am I supposed to be impressed?.....just reread the wiki article.....it doesn't even mention Iran Contra....so, how do you conclude the article disagrees with me....

cancel2 2022
07-31-2009, 05:33 AM
irrelevent....the government in fact owns and controls the means and production for one of america's largest auto manufacturers...approx 20%

that is in fact socialism and it was done wholly under obama

You can call it what you like but without it the US car companies would have become extinct.

TuTu Monroe
07-31-2009, 05:40 AM
Have you ever been scanned to see if there is a nice person in your body..

rude rude rude..what a way to go through life..

Wait until she tells you, you'll be dead meat, like she did when she threatened Ice Dancer.

Cancel 2018. 3
07-31-2009, 07:43 AM
You can call it what you like but without it the US car companies would have become extinct.

false

ford

telsa

etc...

and now.....chrysler is not even american....get your facts straight and you have no idea that GM will stay """american""" as it just might sell foreign just like chrysler

Cancel 2018. 3
07-31-2009, 07:44 AM
That wiki article disagrees with you.

now ^that^ is some serious pwnage....

SmarterthanYou
07-31-2009, 10:00 AM
When did the government disallow private business and seize the means of production?

they are certainly considering it.

YouTube - Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America)

ib1yysguy
07-31-2009, 01:06 PM
am I supposed to be impressed?.....just reread the wiki article.....it doesn't even mention Iran Contra....so, how do you conclude the article disagrees with me....

Because you were trying to claim that during the Reagan years it was the Democrats that were power grabbing (which is laughable) when the article specifically mentions Reagan as being the precursor to Bush's expansion of the unitary executive principle.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 02:04 PM
they are certainly considering it.

YouTube - Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY)

ZOMG?!

PostmodernProphet
07-31-2009, 06:34 PM
Because you were trying to claim that during the Reagan years it was the Democrats that were power grabbing (which is laughable) when the article specifically mentions Reagan as being the precursor to Bush's expansion of the unitary executive principle.

do you recall the Democrats issuing orders to the President not to provide support to the Contras.....do you recall any time that a Congress has taken such a step prior to that date?.....woule that appear to you to be a deliberate action on the part of Congress to restrict the powers of the presidency?.....

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 06:56 AM
they are certainly considering it.

YouTube - Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY)
Epic pwnage by STY of Fish!

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 12:49 PM
So much for higher level discussions....Yea I know what you mean but don't give up on the forum. If we set the example and ignore the pettyness maybe we can change the tone, cause I have to admit (and I'm as guilty as anyone else of this), I'm really tired of the partisan bickering and name calling and would prefer a more intellectually satisfying exchange of ideas and differing views.

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 12:54 PM
Gee-emHow so? The government never seized GM. GM went, hat in hand, begging for money and the tax payers bought controlling interest in the company. How is that either seizing the means of production or socialism?

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 12:59 PM
As the below portion of the article illuminates, the government has positioned itself to be the arbitrator of how the company will be run and who will profit and how much they will profit. Again, as the article clarifies "a soft fascism" is the direction our nation is taking. One can presume if unaabted that it is a slippery slope into the very jaws of fascism.

"Thus the senior creditors were plundered while ownership was redistributed to the UAW, whose members are junior creditors. This makes a mockery of US securities law.

The bailout and ensuing appropriation of General Motors is no less tragic. The current restructuring plan calls for the US Treasury Department to have controlling interest in General Motors, which amounts to absolute nationalization. In GM's headquarters in Detroit there is a cluster of bureaucrats from the government's task force telling GM how to run its business. The task force, assembled by the White House, has the power to exercise significant control over product decisions. According to a GM news release, the Treasury Department will have the power to elect all of GM's directors and control the vote on matters brought before the stockholders. Additionally, the bondholders who have funded the company are being offered a paltry piece of the equity of the reorganized company — another major blow against the sanctity of contract."But why shouldn't the government be in that position? They, meaning us the tax payers, bought controlling interest in the company. We, the taxpayers, as owner of the company have the right under our capitalist system to run it as we, the tax payers, see fit. It's not like the government took the company away from GM at the point of a gun. GM essentially employed a faulty business model, went broke and sold their company to us, the tax payers. Please, explain to me in any rational sense how this could be socialism? You're argument just doesn't make any sense. Where would this be different in principle then from farm subsidies?

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 12:59 PM
How so? The government never ceased GM. GM went, hat in hand, begging for money and the tax payers bought controlling interest in the company. How is that either ceasing the means of production or socialism?
Learn to spell "seize" and its variants, please.

Obama fired the CEO, for crissakes. GovCo seized power.

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 01:06 PM
The government isn't exercising voting powers and intends to sell of their stake when everything is over. It does not "amount" to "absolute nationalization". That is, again, nothing but hyperbole.
It wouldn't matter if they did exercise their voting powers. It's still is not socialism or nationalization of this industry. Both imply coercion. GM was in no way coerced to sell controlling interest of their company. They employed a poor business model, went broke and were unable to pay their bills. That left them two choices. To sell controlling interest in their company to obtain the capital needed to survive or declare bankruptcy. They (emphasis added) chose the former. Any argument that this is socialism is either disingenous or that person does not understand what socialism is.

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 01:10 PM
They went into bankrupcy because of the redundancy of their products and their inability to adapt to new wants from consumers.

The UAW was part of the problem as well. But I said that in my original post on this topic.Unions being part of GM's problem is grossly over stated. Their wages and legacy payments are competative with the Honda and Toyota facilities producing in this country for the domestic market so that's really a bogus argument and has been largely contradicted by Ford's recent success. GM's problem was purely their business model and the inability of their senior and entrenched management to change to meet changing market conditions. Ford made serious sacrifices to make those changes and are now reaping the benefits and guess what? Ford didn't have to go to the government, hat in hand begging for money either.

I mean this line of reasoning really upsets me. These people are blaming those who are least responsible (workers and the tax payers) and failing to hold those who are ultimately responsible (the managers of GM) accountable for their mismanagement. That's just plain wrong.

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 01:18 PM
why are in this forum....all you're doing is your same childish shit...

you didn't prove your point...all you did was show that i was right...that is, according to wiki....it has been argued and debated over for a couple of hundred years....like i said...no one has a solid theory and how much is a power grab you self masterbating pwner

edit: and you still have not shown how bush was responsible for the biggest power grab in history....dude, you just majorly self pwned yourself....IDIOT
Come on you two. I want to apply a little peer pressure to the both of you and appeal to your better judgement. Please let's make an effort to make this forum work. Enough of the insults and pwnage and such. Lets discuss idea and concepts and argue differing points of view civilly.

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 01:21 PM
irrelevent....the government in fact owns and controls the means and production for one of america's largest auto manufacturers...approx 20%

that is in fact socialism and it was done wholly under obamaNo it's not and you don't have your facts straight. The government, through the tax payers, BOUGHT this business. They did not SEIZE the means of production. We the tax payers EARNED the right to control this company because we paid for it. That is not socialism. It may not be good governance and it may not be good business but it is not socialism.

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 01:25 PM
Learn to spell "seize" and its variants, please.

Obama fired the CEO, for crissakes. GovCo seized power.Thanks for the spelling lesson. I knew I had that wrong. Speaking of wrong. So are you. The tax payers in no way shape or form seized this company. They bought the controlling interest of a failed business and fired the CEO responsible for that failure. That's just sound business principle and if I had bought a failed business I would have done the same thing. Your argument is wrong and with out merit.

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 01:27 PM
Unions being part of GM's problem is grossly over stated. Their wages and legacy payments are competative with the Honda and Toyota facilities producing in this country .... Wrong-o. Honda and Toyota will have none of the UAW poison, hence none of their overblown costs.


To the Japanese automobile manufacturers, unions are the plague. And the United Auto Workers (UAW) admit to having a tough time getting new union members when they visit Japanese manufacturers' plants (called 'transplants') in the U.S. "People just aren’t interested," said one union organizer.http://blogs.automotive.com/6205652/miscellaneous/uaw-and-why-honda-and-toyota-workers-are-not-interested/index.html

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 01:28 PM
Thanks for the spelling lesson. I knew I had that wrong. Speaking of wrong. So are you. The tax payers in no way shape or form seized this company. They bought the controlling interest of a failed business and fired the CEO responsible for that failure. That's just sound business principle and if I had bought a failed business I would have done the same thing. Your argument is wrong and with out merit. A controlling interest is a seizure of power. Duh.

ib1yysguy
08-01-2009, 01:44 PM
A controlling interest is a seizure of power. Duh.

It's not a seizure if it's sold willingly. You think Obama walked in and twisted GM's arm until they decided to sell? No. They HAD to sell because they destroyed their own business with poor management.

Canceled1
08-01-2009, 01:49 PM
A controlling interest is a seizure of power. Duh.

I think he's looking at it as hostile. I could be wrong, but like an act of aggression.

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 06:05 PM
It's not a seizure if it's sold willingly. You think Obama walked in and twisted GM's arm until they decided to sell? No. They HAD to sell because they destroyed their own business with poor management. Semantics. It doesn't matter, seizure or not. The government still took over the means of production, which means socialism. *shrug*

cancel2 2022
08-01-2009, 06:14 PM
Semantics. It doesn't matter, seizure or not. The government still took over the means of production, which means socialism. *shrug*

It is only Socialism if they are not returned to the private sector in due course. If anybody qualifies as a Socialist then it would be Ronald Reagan.

http://www.truthout.org/032009R

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 06:16 PM
It is only Socialism if they are not returned to the private sector in due course. If anybody qualifies as a Socialist then it would be Ronald Reagan.

http://www.truthout.org/032009RYou seem to forget that the Democrats are near passing the takeover of 1/6th of the American economy with universal health care.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-01-2009, 07:44 PM
It's not a seizure if it's sold willingly. You think Obama walked in and twisted GM's arm until they decided to sell? No. They HAD to sell because they destroyed their own business with poor management.

you're right about GM the company, they willingly gave control to obama....

can't say the same for obama's handling of the dealerships

FUCK THE POLICE
08-01-2009, 07:54 PM
You know, yurt, you actually do support this bill. You are just being deluded by right-wing demagogues and putting on your personal blinders - so good luck with your bankruptcy filing due to medical costs in 2020.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-01-2009, 07:56 PM
No it's not and you don't have your facts straight. The government, through the tax payers, BOUGHT this business. They did not SEIZE the means of production. We the tax payers EARNED the right to control this company because we paid for it. That is not socialism. It may not be good governance and it may not be good business but it is not socialism.

And the main interest in buying up that much company stock is not to control it; they want to sell the stock off as soon as possible.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-01-2009, 08:16 PM
You know, yurt, you actually do support this bill. You are just being deluded by right-wing demagogues and putting on your personal blinders - so good luck with your bankruptcy filing due to medical costs in 2020.

no, i support change to the current way or system...

i don't support obama's bill in its entirety...further...does anyone actually know the details of this bill and just the other day you were saying nothing is concrete yet...but here you are telling me is support "it"....when you just said the other day that it is finalized....

i have no idea how you think i am deluded by these demagogues you speak of...maybe because i simply don't cow to your ideals....you have to make excuses about it....so you make stuff up in order to sleep better at night because someone out there doesn't agree with your world view

and as to 2020......
YouTube - In The Year 2000 - David Duchovny Edition

Canceled2
08-01-2009, 09:06 PM
It's not a seizure if it's sold willingly. You think Obama walked in and twisted GM's arm until they decided to sell? No. They HAD to sell because they destroyed their own business with poor management.


They should have been forced into reorganization before Bush left office. Bush dropped the ball when he left it up to left wing ideologues to handle the auto industry. The auto industry, whose work force has been in the hip pocket of the democrat party for 60 years, could not be unhappy about all their loyalty coming back to help them after their union decimated the industry.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 08:20 AM
A controlling interest is a seizure of power. Duh.No it is not. It's ownership via a purchase which means those whom make the purchase have property rights. You are implying that we, the tax payers, do not have property rights. It is you, who are advocating socialism of the authoritarian kind.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 08:24 AM
I think he's looking at it as hostile. I could be wrong, but like an act of aggression.SM's argument is a double standard. It's like the joke in Catch-22 where Major Major's father declares that subsidies for anyone but farmers is creeping socialism. SM is saying the us tax payers do not have property rights. In essence, he is the one advocating socialism by advocating a double standard that denies us, the tax payers, our property rights.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 08:29 AM
Semantics. It doesn't matter, seizure or not. The government still took over the means of production, which means socialism. *shrug*
Apparently you don't know what socialism is.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

A private company selling it's controlling interest of it's company to the government with out coercion from the government to do so clearly does not meet this definition.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 08:32 AM
And the main interest in buying up that much company stock is not to control it; they want to sell the stock off as soon as possible.That's not really relevant. That should be under a discussion of "Is this an appropriate service of government?". The government purchased the ownership interest in GM and thus we, the tax payers, have property rights.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-02-2009, 09:23 AM
Apparently you don't know what socialism is.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

A private company selling it's controlling interest of it's company to the government with out coercion from the government to do so clearly does not meet this definition.

Socialism does not necessarily involve force. When Mexico nationalized their oil industry, they paid for the oil companies.

This is not socialism because the government doesn't have an intent on running this company; it merely thinks it being there in the future is important for our economy.

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 09:24 AM
Apparently you don't know what socialism is.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

A private company selling it's controlling interest of it's company to the government with out coercion from the government to do so clearly does not meet this definition. The government's on its way to socialism. Duh.

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 09:26 AM
No it is not. It's ownership via a purchase which means those whom make the purchase have property rights. You are implying that we, the tax payers, do not have property rights. It is you, who are advocating socialism of the authoritarian kind. The government taxes the People and then uses that money to take control of a private corporation: socialism. *shrug*

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 04:51 PM
The government's on its way to socialism. Duh.
Our government has always used socialism to solve big problems when appropriate. Would you rather have our socialist military that we presently have or would you rather have our nation defended by mercenaries? There is a time and a place for public/private partnerships in our society to solve problem and knee jerk opposition is just plain silly.

cancel2 2022
08-02-2009, 04:58 PM
You seem to forget that the Democrats are near passing the takeover of 1/6th of the American economy with universal health care.

Every advanced country has UHC, apart from the US, but then you have always ploughed your own furrow. I have never been able to understand how you have a World Series for baseball yet no other countries compete, why is that?

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 05:13 PM
Our government has always used socialism to solve big problems when appropriate. Would you rather have our socialist military that we presently have or would you rather have our nation defended by mercenaries? There is a time and a place for public/private partnerships in our society to solve problem and knee jerk opposition is just plain silly. Our military has traditionally been supplied by privately owned corporations. That's why American weapons systems are coveted the world over.

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Every advanced country has UHC, apart from the US, but then you have always ploughed your own furrow. I have never been able to understand how you have a World Series for baseball yet no other countries compete, why is that?No country is as advanced as the US. You Europeans offer no valid comparison.

cancel2 2022
08-02-2009, 05:21 PM
No country is as advanced as the US. You Europeans offer no valid comparison.

Therein lies the problem, a truly advanced country, in my opinion, is judged by how it treats its poorest citizens.

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 05:24 PM
Therein lies the problem, a truly advanced country, in my opinion, is judged by how it treats its poorest citizens. No patient is ever denied heath care in the US due to inability to pay. The poorest have Medicade.

cancel2 2022
08-02-2009, 05:30 PM
No patient is ever denied heath care in the US due to inability to pay. The poorest have Medicade.

Yet around 60% of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid.

Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government, and is managed by the states.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid#cite_note-0) Among the groups of people served by Medicaid are certain eligible U.S. citizens and resident aliens, including low-income adults and their children, and people with certain disabilities. Poverty alone does not necessarily qualify an individual for Medicaid.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid#cite_note-autogenerated1-1) It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid#cite_note-2) Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States. Because of the aging Baby Boomer population, the fastest growing aspect of Medicaid is nursing home coverage.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 05:32 PM
[B]Yet around 60% of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid..... Because they have their own plan, or choose not to be insured.

cancel2 2022
08-02-2009, 05:38 PM
Because they have their own plan, or choose not to be insured.

Because, of course, poverty allows you the luxury of choice.

Damocles
08-03-2009, 08:05 AM
Therein lies the problem, a truly advanced country, in my opinion, is judged by how it treats its poorest citizens.
And the poorest are treated well here, it's the lower middle class that get the shaft in health care. We have programs that get the poorest covered, it's the tier between the poor and the middle-middle class that tend to be in the numbers that cannot afford insurance.

Damocles
08-03-2009, 08:08 AM
Because, of course, poverty allows you the luxury of choice.
Again, poverty will net you coverage here. Even most of the sites that talk about US health care problems admit to that one. It isn't the poor that aren't covered.

Canceled1
08-03-2009, 08:18 AM
Again, poverty will net you coverage here. Even most of the sites that talk about US health care problems admit to that one. It isn't the poor that aren't covered.

He'll have to adjust his hate monitor ever so slightly to the left.

A little more to the left...oops... down a little...there you go!

"Well the true measure of a country is how well they treat their middle class folks".

Damocles
08-03-2009, 12:34 PM
He'll have to adjust his hate monitor ever so slightly to the left.

A little more to the left...oops... down a little...there you go!

"Well the true measure of a country is how well they treat their middle class folks".
*chuckle*

Mott the Hoople
08-04-2009, 04:51 AM
Our military has traditionally been supplied by privately owned corporations. That's why American weapons systems are coveted the world over.
Don't change the subject. It's irrelevant. The US military, is the second largest socialist institution in our nation. You don't get to cherry pick what is and is not socialism. According to you the tax payer purchase of GM is socialism but GM is supplied by privately owned corporations too.

DamnYankee
08-04-2009, 05:29 AM
Don't change the subject. It's irrelevant. The US military, is the second largest socialist institution in our nation. You don't get to cherry pick what is and is not socialism. According to you the tax payer purchase of GM is socialism but GM is supplied by privately owned corporations too. I'm not changing the subject. You claimed that the US military is a socialist organization and I just proved to you that its not, and is superior to foreign militaries who are. *shrug*