Well, besides nutcases like Bachmann who literally can't spell "America" in her press release, who are part of the Tea Bagger crowd, there are too many Republicans whose idea of a denunciation is "that was bad, but...the Democrats started it!". No, the race baiting started with the Tea Baggers, and their historical antecedents.
This is why I also posted the Christopher Buckley article. He's certainly a man of conservative pedigree, and he's expressing frustration with the wingnut branch of his party.
But back to my original question: How is providing health care to more Americans a bad thing? People certainly seem to like Medicare.
First to Vic: This is the nuttiest thread in the world, don'tcha think? I think we should have named it, "Let's debate with Michaelintp about everything" thread. Because we've gone so far afield from the original topic. But whatever (I wish we had created a new thread; first about "racism" in the Tea Party Movement, and second, differing views on Obamacare (or at least have this discussion in the "Health Care" thread). But ... what is done is done, haha.
I am highly suspect of ANY new program of the magnitude of Medicare, operated by Government (with all the inefficiencies that entails). I think anyone who thinks that Government costs will diminish as a result is deluding himself. Just as I think those folks are deluding themselves when they mock Conservatives because those Conservatives' mental time-frame goes beyond March 21, 2010, with regard to issues of the deficit, national debt, taxation, and the like.
Now to Reginald: Regarding Bachmann, I understand that you don't like her. I donno about the typo you refer to in some press release, but of course that is relevant to absolutely nothing. The reference does more in disclosing your feelings about the woman than anything else.
As to the Buckley article, he's pretty much pointing fingers at everyone, with the ultimate conclusion that we are in one hell of a mess. Like me, I think he agrees that all this "slurring" back and forth is terribly unproductive. But not likely to stop. The Wall Street Journal op ed outlined some of the origins of the mess we find ourselves in, and where it is now likely headed.
So long as political discourse is typified by the language of "hate" (nothing new, as in the mantra "I had Bush" -- remember that?) we can look forward to going further and further down the toilet. I think that was, in part, the message of Buckley as well.
As to Buckley's comments as to tax increases ... how high is he willing to go? Federal effective rates moving up to, say, 50% plus state rates exceeding 10% plus the "Alternative Minimum Tax" that denies deductions to folks who live in states that impose high income taxes, plus a plethora of other taxes (sales tax, use tax, and a number of others). For goodness sake, why the hell work at all, if you are a slave to Government for 60-70% of the year?
Throughout this thread we have seen references to other Federal Programs, and just about everyone here ignores the reality that these programs (as projected) will bankrupt this country, and nobody (in DC) has the balls to address 'em because they are too politically sensitive. I'm talking about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on, all the "nondiscretionary entitlement programs." The WSJ op ed touches on this a little bit as well. Add on top of that the other "income redistribution" programs, including the one that has recently engendered such controversy.
Everyone is so frickin' short-sighted (and in this, I am pointing the finger at both Republicans and Democrats). Like "Fiscal Responsibility" ... what's that? Doesn't go beyond today (or at most, the next election). Seems like our Congress needs a good dose of Repo Men, to remind them that our national financial planning must actually contemplate tomorrow.
But, of course, my primary concern has always been the geopolitical (notwithstanding the content of this thread).
So I guess I should step back, breath deep, and enjoy a moment of calm. At the end of the day, I guess all these economic realities don't matter. Because true economic hell will not really break loose for a number of years, and by that time it is more likely than not that most of our cities will be in cinders, or at least significantly depopulated. That
will reduce the cost of all those doggone entitlement programs.
Oh, and Reginald, I am really interested in your answer to my "personal note" questions, in my prior post. Honest.