the black tea partier. Yeah he does exist.

[Redjack]

No. The tea baggers don't give a damn about the country. They care about their own wallets. That's it.

Me first.

The insane notion that it was GOVERNMENT COERCION that caused those greedy f*cks to screw us all out of trillions of dollars is proof positive that this "movement" is created and sustained by people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Those poor ethical bankers were led astray by the sinister forces of Bush's Imperial Presidency?

Give me a freaking break.

I find it odd that a man who would CONVERT to a version of a faith that is ALL ABOUT rules and group identity over that of the individual would have such a hard time telling the difference between what is happening with healthcare and "socialism" or God forbid, "communism."

The whole thing is a ludicrous distraction.

[michaelintp]

No. The tea baggers don't give a damn about the country. They care about their own wallets. That's it.
Me first.
The insane notion that it was GOVERNMENT COERCION that caused those greedy f*cks to screw us all out of trillions of dollars is proof positive that this "movement" is created and sustained by people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Those poor ethical bankers were led astray by the sinister forces of Bush's Imperial Presidency?
Give me a freaking break.
I find it odd that a man who would CONVERT to a version of a faith that is ALL ABOUT rules and group identity over that of the individual would have such a hard time telling the difference between what is happening with healthcare and "socialism" or God forbid, "communism."
The whole thing is a ludicrous distraction.

Geoff, you are confusing taxation with charity.  If you look at the way Candidate Obama and President Obama has sold his agenda, it is always with the proviso that "you" (the majority of voters) won't have to pay, only "the rich" will pay.  Who is, in fact, being selfish?

This should not be confused with Tzedakah. Tzedakah (Hebrew: צדקה‎) is a Hebrew word commonly translated as charity, though it is based on the Hebrew word (צדק, tzedek) meaning righteousness, fairness or justice. In Judaism, tzedakah refers to the religious obligation to perform charity, and philanthropic acts, which Judaism emphasises are important parts of living a spiritual life; Jewish tradition argues that the second highest form of tzedakah is to anonymously give donations to unknown recipients. Unlike philanthropy, which is completely voluntary, tzedakah is seen as a religious obligation, which must be performed regardless of financial standing, and must even be performed by poor people; tzedakah is considered to be one of the three main acts that can annul a less than favorable heavenly decree.

The Left has significantly undermined any personal sense of charitable obligation in our society.  It is they who are, in truth, fostering selfishness.  This is one of the other terribly destructive side effects of the Mommy State, where all responsibility is pushed off onto "the Government" and to "those other people" who are required to fund it.

So no, there is no inconsistency in my position, whatsoever. Tzedakah must be given. All should give it. As a personal obligation. Not coerced by the State.   

[michaelintp]

Jay, is there any circumstance where outspoken Conservatives, critical of the policies and philosophy of the Administration, could NOT be accused of racism?  We can't test it other than speculatively: Were Barack Obama a white Left-winger, implementing the same programs and seeking to make the same appointments and following the same policies, who was elected after fostering a large grassroots movement, would a Conservative grassroots movement emerge to oppose his policies and seek his "replacement" in the next general election?  My guess is yes.  Or, alternatively, were the black Barack Obama a Conservative Republican, would you still expect a Tea Party movement to emerge finding fault with him, because he is black?  My guess is no.

As to the issue of the size of Government, my concern is with the absolute magnitude of Government spending in the aggregate, the devastating fiscal crisis that will definitely emerge in the future as a result, and the destructive impact all this will have on our economy and, ultimately, on our nation as a whole. 

A part of the health care problem is the cost of insurance, and one proposal that made a great deal of sense was to allow competition of insurance companies across state lines.  My understanding was that this was not included in the final bill.

I am sympathetic to the plight of parents who give birth to a child with a debilitating and costly medical condition, that nobody could have anticipated. But a number of concerns have been expressed regarding the health care bill, now law, that suggest that the end result will be a deterioration of health care in the aggregate.

I shared this on the muti-issue "Tax Protester" thread. The editorial from the Wall Street Journal the day before the vote:

The ObamaCare Crossroads
The vote is really about who commands the country's medical resources.

With the House's climactic vote on ObamaCare tomorrow, Democrats are on the cusp of a profound and historic mistake, comparable in our view to the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act. Everyone is preoccupied now with the politics, but ultimately at stake on Sunday is the kind of country America will be.

The consequences of this bill will not only be destructive for the health-care system and the country's fiscal condition, though those will be bad enough. Inextricably bound up in a plan as far-reaching and ambitious as ObamaCare are also larger questions about the role of government, the dynamism of American enterprise and the nature of a free society. Above anything else, this explains why Democrats have had such trouble convincing the public, let alone their own Members.

***
Most acutely in the balance is the future of U.S. medicine. On the opposing page we reprint a 1996 essay by the great Milton Friedman that is more relevant than ever. Drawing from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's novel "The Cancer Ward," the late Nobel laureate traces the ways that national health care fundamentally alters "the consensual relation between the patient and the physician."

In our world of infinite wants but finite resources, there are only two ways to allocate any good or service: either through prices and the choices of millions of individuals, or through central government planning and political discretion. This choice is inexorable. Stripped of its romantic illusions, ObamaCare is really about who commands the country's medical resources. It vastly accelerates the march toward a totally state-driven system, in contrast to reforms that would fix today's distorted status quo by putting consumers in control.

Friedman lays out how the country arrived at our current pass, starting with the World War II-era decision to offer tax subsidies for employer-sponsored coverage only. Like the company store, this inefficient and inequitable preference encourages workers to be paid in kind rather than cash, and over the years the third-party payer system it entrenched has inhibited competition and desensitized patients to the costs of their own care. With the 1965 creation of Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor, government has come to play the leading role in shaping the way care is paid for and provided.

Naturally, the result has been high and rising costs. Since 1962, the share of the economy devoted to health care has risen to about 17% from 6%. Today, health entitlements account for about 5% of GDP but on current trend will rise to 7% in 2025 and about 15% in 2062.

That is the problem President Obama inherited, as it were. Yet rather than fundamentally changing these incentives, he chose instead to create a new middle-class insurance entitlement that will transform the way U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered. Such a "universal" system has been the core liberal aspiration since the age of Bismarck. But time and again this political ambition has been thwarted by American individualism, distrust of government power, the checks and balances of the political system, and, every so often, good judgment in Washington.

Once the health-care markets are put through Mr. Obama's de facto nationalization, costs will further explode. The Congressional Budget Office estimates ObamaCare will cost taxpayers $200 billion per year when fully implemented and grow annually at 8%, even under low-ball assumptions. Soon the public will reach its taxing limit, and then something will have to give on the care side. In short, medicine will be rationed by politics, no doubt with the same subtlety and wisdom as Congress's final madcap dash toward 216 votes.

As in the Western European and Canadian welfare states, doctors, hospitals and insurance companies will over time become public utilities. Government will set the cost-minded priorities and determine what kinds of treatment options patients are allowed to receive. Medicare's price controls will be exported to the remnants of the private sector.

All bureaucratized systems also restrict access to specialists and surgeries, leading to shortages and delays of months or years. This will be especially the case for the elderly and grievously ill, and for innovation in procedures, technologies and pharmaceuticals.

Eventually, quality and choice—the best attributes of American medicine in spite of its dysfunctions—will severely decline.

Democrats deny this reality, but government rationing will become inevitable given that overall federal spending is already at 25% of GDP and heading north, and Medicare's unfunded liabilities are roughly two and a half times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008. The ObamaCare bill already contains one of the largest tax increases outside the Great Depression or the world wars, including a major new tax on investment income—and no one seriously believes it will be enough.

So a vote for ObamaCare is also a vote against the vitality of American capitalism. Business elites have mostly held their tongues, or calculated that they can later dump their health-care liabilities on the government. Yet ObamaCare will lead to much higher levels of taxation across society. The tax wedge—the share of labor costs that never reaches workers but instead goes straight to government—will start flying towards the 50% that prevails today in most of Europe. In America, without the same welfare state obligations, it hovers near 30%.

***
A self-governing democracy can of course decide that it wants to become this kind of super-welfare state. But if the year-long debate over ObamaCare has proven anything, it is that Americans want no such thing. There is no polling majority or any bipartisan support, much less a rough national consensus, for this expansion of government power. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy's seat, of all things, was as direct a referendum as you could have.

So if the health bill passes in the House, it will only do so the way it did in the Senate, with a narrow partisan majority, abetted by political bribery and intimidation, budget gimmicks and procedural deceptions. An entitlement the country can't afford and doesn't want may pass because of sheer ideological willfulness. The ugliness of the bill, and of its passage, means that some or all of it might be repealable, but far better not to make the tragic mistake in the first place.



 

[Jay]

Jay, is there any circumstance where Conservatives, critical of the policies and philosophy of the Administration, could NOT be accused of racism?  We can't test it other than speculatively: Were Barack Obama a white Left-winger, who was elected after fostering a large grassroots movement, would a Conservative grassroots movement emerge to oppose his policies and seek his "replacement" in the next general election?  My guess is yes.  Or, alternatively, were Barack Obama a Conservative Republican, would you still expect a Tea Party movement to emerge finding fault with him, because he is black?  My guess is no.

John McCain can criticism his policy without being considered a racists.

http://getitfromboy.net/john-mccain-daughters/

I also suppose no one would say Alan Keyes is a racist, either.

 

As to the issue of the size of Government, my concern is with the absolute magnitude of Government spending in the aggregate, the fiscal crisis that will definitely emerge in the future as a result, and the destructive impact all this will have on our economy and, ultimately, on our nation as a whole.  

A part of the problem is the cost of insurance, and one proposal that made a great deal of sense was to allow competition of insurance companies across state lines.  Though I may be wrong, my understanding was that this was not included in the final bill.

I remember John McCain suggesting that. Although I'm not sure how that makes a great deal of sense. Insurance companies are very similar so that option only seems to allow false hope.

OH yeah, the insurance is better in .... ___________! You get to _________________ and it's not any different. Is it? I don't think insurance companies will be throwing themselves to get at people from different states.

And it might have been included in the final bill. I hear it's pretty long.

I am sympathetic to the plight of parents who give birth to a child with a debilitating and costly medical condition, that nobody could have anticipated. But a number of concerns have been expressed regarding the health care bill, now law, that suggest that the end result will be a deterioration of health care in the aggregate.

deterioration? Are you sure that's not just a scare tactic? Sure this new law will be expensive and I would have much preferred if Obama waited until this country was stronger financially but it is what it is.
But here's the thing. If our side is right, then this law will save us money in the long run and everybody will have medical care. People won't have to worry about going broke. Or googling there symptoms. They can just go to the doctor and get it treated when the disease is relatively inexpensive and easy to treat.

I'm pretty sure President Obama has weighed the issues and took into account how things will play out if this new measure is a success or if this new measure will be a failure or not. I trust his judgment. Heck, I did vote for him. 

Now if your side is right. We go where we're going now, only a lot faster!

Given the option, I choose the former. And besides if worst comes to worst we can always repeal the law if those assumptions turn out to be correct. I can promise you if things get really bad then I'll be protesting with the tea bagers. I don't think President Obama would put the country at risk like that and also at the same time similar systems are in place over in Europe and there Euro was actually worth more money then the dollar. In fact, I think it still is.

And Canada also enjoys a public health option and there named by the U.N as one of the best places to live. No U.S city makes it. They may have to go through some long lines to get treated by they ain't economically broke.

Now I don't want to live in Canada (Although I have thought about being a dual citizen) You have to ask, how can these systems have universal health care and not go bankrupt but the minute someone suggest america does the same. This country will go bankrupt and health care will detoriate.

France has the best health care system in the world. Universal health care and no long lines. If it's so bad why does the most of Europe persist in this idiocracy?   Why not become more like us if we're the best. Why does the Left want to reform it if we have the best?

[michaelintp]

Who has been footing the bill for Europe's defense? 

I wonder what percentage of GDP France commits to its national defense?  How about Germany? How about Canada, for that matter? I don't know. Just asking, though my guess is that it has to be a whole lot less. I wonder what the global consequences would be were the United States to dedicate the same percentage of its GDP to these Western European style social programs, and the same percentage of GDP to national defense? Even our resources are limited. It may not be possible to fully fund both, particularly as the cost of not only Health Care but all Entitlement Programs rise. (Knowing folks on the Forum, I'm sure many would be delighted with this prospect, particularly given the controversy surrounding Afghanistan and Iraq, but that prospect scares the hell out of me)  Would this lead to the decline of the United States of America as a global power? Supplanted by what? The United Nations? (More accurately "The United Governments" many of which are less than democratic). The Islamic Republic of Iran or those who advocate a similar ideological movement?

[Curtis Metcalf]

Who has been footing the bill for Europe's defense? 

I wonder what percentage of GDP France commits to its national defense?  How about Germany? How about Canada, for that matter?

That is a red herring. The point is we pay more per capita and as a percentage of GDP for health care than all of those countries for fair to middling results.

[Curtis Metcalf]

A couple of observations:

It seems to me that the NY Times Tea Party poll I referenced earlier indicates that the Tea Party is pretty synonymous with the right-wing of the Republican party. The whole Tea Party thing has been a rather effective public relations campaign.

The debate about the appropriate role for government is at least as old as the country. I guess it comes down to who do you trust least, the public sector or the private sector? That is to say, which is more corrupt, big government or big business? By the way, it seems that historically, trust in government is tightly correlated to the health of the economy. 

[Redjack]

No. The tea baggers don't give a damn about the country. They care about their own wallets. That's it.
Me first.
The insane notion that it was GOVERNMENT COERCION that caused those greedy f*cks to screw us all out of trillions of dollars is proof positive that this "movement" is created and sustained by people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Those poor ethical bankers were led astray by the sinister forces of Bush's Imperial Presidency?
Give me a freaking break.
I find it odd that a man who would CONVERT to a version of a faith that is ALL ABOUT rules and group identity over that of the individual would have such a hard time telling the difference between what is happening with healthcare and "socialism" or God forbid, "communism."
The whole thing is a ludicrous distraction.

Geoff, you are confusing taxation with charity.  If you look at the way Candidate Obama and President Obama has sold his agenda, it is always with the proviso that "you" (the majority of voters) won't have to pay, only "the rich" will pay.  Who is, in fact, being selfish?

This should not be confused with Tzedakah. Tzedakah (Hebrew: צדקה‎) is a Hebrew word commonly translated as charity, though it is based on the Hebrew word (צדק, tzedek) meaning righteousness, fairness or justice. In Judaism, tzedakah refers to the religious obligation to perform charity, and philanthropic acts, which Judaism emphasises are important parts of living a spiritual life; Jewish tradition argues that the second highest form of tzedakah is to anonymously give donations to unknown recipients. Unlike philanthropy, which is completely voluntary, tzedakah is seen as a religious obligation, which must be performed regardless of financial standing, and must even be performed by poor people; tzedakah is considered to be one of the three main acts that can annul a less than favorable heavenly decree.

The Left has significantly undermined any personal sense of charitable obligation in our society.  It is they who are, in truth, fostering selfishness.  This is one of the other terribly destructive side effects of the Mommy State, where all responsibility is pushed off onto "the Government" and to "those other people" who are required to fund it.

So no, there is no inconsistency in my position, whatsoever. Tzedakah must be given. All should give it. As a personal obligation. Not coerced by the State.    

Blah blah blah.

WE are the only tribe that matters in this context. Americans. Not blacks, not apache, not jews. Americans. We pool resources to maintain the house we share and we call it taxation. Charity my ass. This isn't about being nice to people. It's about being in the same house and sharing the burden for its upkeep as equally and fairly as possible.

WE are "the state," Michael.

If you don't get and embrace that fact, you're not actually an American, regardless of what your passport says.

By your logic, since i disagree with pretty much everything our government has done militarily over the last twenty years, I should be  able to opt out of supporting it financially and, moreover, shunt the military's duties over into the private sector where competition will give me more choice and better service.  Oh, wait. We did that last bit with Blackwater. How'd that play out again?

The "movement" is a crock of sh*t. It's baseline, standard, right-wing selfishness and hypocrisy wrapped up as service to the Constition which I doubt most of those idiots have actually read.

Curtis is right.

[michaelintp]

Who has been footing the bill for Europe's defense? 

I wonder what percentage of GDP France commits to its national defense?  How about Germany? How about Canada, for that matter?

That is a red herring. The point is we pay more per capita and as a percentage of GDP for health care than all of those countries for fair to middling results.

Interesting statistics.  But I'm puzzled, as even President Obama admits that health care costs in the United States will continue to rise under his program.  Probably significantly (though one can argue as to whether the costs will rise more, or less, than under the prior regime).  Tort reform and allowing competition between insurance carriers between states might help. But it is unlikely that medical costs as a percentage of GDP will decrease in the United States, though it does appear that the Government (tax funded) cost will significantly increase under the new regime.  

So, my question is not really the red herring that you say it is.  My concern is based on the anticipated growth of ALL entitlement programs, not just health care.  It may be the numbers work out in such a way that it is not a problem, and that neither defense nor entitlement programs will have to give.  But it is a fair question, given the projected increase in total government entitlement costs over the next two decades.  

[michaelintp]

A couple of observations:

It seems to me that the NY Times Tea Party poll I referenced earlier indicates that the Tea Party is pretty synonymous with the right-wing of the Republican party. The whole Tea Party thing has been a rather effective public relations campaign.

What the article actually states is that Tea Party supporters tend to be more conservative than Republicans as a whole. That is all it says on that point. Of course Tea Party supporters are conservative. In the same sense that Progressive Activists tend to be more Left-wing than Democrats as a whole. It also says Tea Party supporters are more highly educated, older, and more successful financially, than the statistical norm. 

The rest of your statement, above, is your own inference and opinion.  I agree with you that this protest has been successful.

[Curtis Metcalf]

A couple of observations:

It seems to me that the NY Times Tea Party poll I referenced earlier indicates that the Tea Party is pretty synonymous with the right-wing of the Republican party. The whole Tea Party thing has been a rather effective public relations campaign.

What the article actually states is that Tea Party supporters tend to be more conservative than Republicans as a whole. That is all it says on that point. Of course Tea Party supporters are conservative. In the same sense that Progressive Activists tend to be more Left-wing than Democrats as a whole. It also says Tea Party supporters are more highly educated, older, and more successful financially, than the statistical norm. 

The rest of your statement, above, is your own inference and opinion.  I agree with you that this protest has been successful.

If you were to draw a Venn diagram of the set of conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers, there the latter would lie almost entirely within the former.

By public relations campaign, I mean only that they have been successful in drawing attention to themselves.

[Battle]

A couple of observations:

It seems to me that the NY Times Tea Party poll I referenced earlier indicates that the Tea Party is pretty synonymous with the right-wing of the Republican party. The whole Tea Party thing has been a rather effective public relations campaign.

Absolutely...
Last Thursday, there was a tea party rally in Columbia, South Carolina and guess who showed up to protest?  

"The rally---smaller than last year's crowd, estimated at 4,000 --- had colorful signs and costumes.  Some waived the S.C. Sovereignty Flag, a symbol of the state's 1860 secession from the Union.  "Save our State Self Rule for S.C."  read one sign.  Another warned of the "Commie Red Tax Monster."

O'Connor, John, The State, Friday, April 16th, 2010:page A1, A8

Confederate sympathizers, that's who!!!  You don't get anymore right-wing republican than that.

[Jay]

Who has been footing the bill for Europe's defense?  

I wonder what percentage of GDP France commits to its national defense?  How about Germany? How about Canada, for that matter? I don't know. Just asking, though my guess is that it has to be a whole lot less. I wonder what the global consequences would be were the United States to dedicate the same percentage of its GDP to these Western European style social programs, and the same percentage of GDP to national defense? Even our resources are limited. It may not be possible to fully fund both, particularly as the cost of not only Health Care but all Entitlement Programs rise. (Knowing folks on the Forum, I'm sure many would be delighted with this prospect, particularly given the controversy surrounding Afghanistan and Iraq, but that prospect scares the hell out of me)  Would this lead to the decline of the United States of America as a global power? Supplanted by what? The United Nations? (More accurately "The United Governments" many of which are less than democratic). The Islamic Republic of Iran or those who advocate a similar ideological movement?

Micheal do you just want to argue with democrats on health care? You've got to be tired by now.

Anywho my thing is if we can't fully support both, CUT down national defense. Let Eurpoe protect themselves. And you're right I'm delighted over that aspect. Why would it be scary? Less funding goes to national defense but we already have: CIA, NSA, FBI, homeland security, and the national guard. How much protection do we need? Instead of having all those programs to protect ourselves from terrorist hows about we merge them all into one big unit. Call it

S.W.O.R.D + S.H.I.E.L.D  

As to growing cost. Isn't there are things in the law designed to make getting medical care more efficient? I remember a rally where President Obama stated this bill (which is now law) identified things most would classify as wasteful expenditure.

Micheal I'm kindof looking at this like forming a new business. You have to put money in it to get started. (Money that we don't have. This is the thing that most scares me about this law) and hopefully you start generating profits. Or in this case eliminating wasteful spendatures.

Let's for the sake of argument give off two scenarios. One this law is a success and the other it's a huge failure.

I don't think China will loan us the money we already owe them like a billion dollars. You have to redistubt spending on the federal and state level. And finally you have to tax someone, say Business (which I know you hate), the rich (which I think is unfair) and finally everybody has there taxes increased.

Now you said earlier that no one minds taxes for good programs or something like that. I believe in this that I wouldn't mind being taxed for it.  Personally, I would like to be selfish and just get that wealthy 1% taxed but meh.  lol

So let's say everybody's taxes goes up and you cut the national defense budget (like you suggested, good idea by the way) and there's enough money now to cover this health care bill. The first question is if eveybody is paying a flat tax increase for this health care bill how much does taxes actually go up?

I think there's 250 million people in america. So that's 250 million dollars right there for health care if we all just give a dollar. But you can't tax the unemployed and under President Obama's plan you would tax the rich more.

So the pressure to squeeze more money comes out of the wealthy's hands.
So in a sense, it turns into a case of the HAVE NOTS VS. the HAVES!

I get that business worked hard for their money. People worked hard for their money. I don't want to take anybody's money away and yet at the same time this is really important to me. The african american community has always had a high unemployment rate. And now that unemployment rate is 16 % and you have to ask yourself why?

Poor education. Less Networking skills. You said your son is a lawyer or going to law school from your own words, (you didn't exactly say) but are you a lawyer too? Did you not provide the best education for your son and did you not open one or two doors for him at the same time. (Network for him) You know to help him get started.   

You are most likely part of the HAVES in this equation.

And just for sake of getting all racial up in here. 
Let's look at a black man who's well educated (Got his Masters and knows how to Network) stastically speaking you still have a higher unemployment rate for this man then say the white man. 

And I know you must have heard all this before but bear with me.

So you have a bunch of people in the African American Community who are towards the LOWER and/or Middle income family for whatever reason who could benefit a lot from this health care law. Because essentially we tend to be the HAVENOTS in alot of ways. Not saying that all Blacks are Havenots

But it would be nice to have a system in place were the government was doing more for people who simply can't afford it (health care) or at least making the effort to treat it's sick.

and the other scenario. We invest in this and it doesn't save us money. It fails and now the American people owe billions/massive debt. We lose our global place in the world and now another country takes the lead maybe China (we owe them alot of money already)

So we lose our global place in the world. America is no longer a super power. Isn't that the worst that would happen? (And yeah, I'm well aware of that prospect freightens you) But America will still be here if it's nolonger a super power. We will still be the same country of left wing/right wing idiots fighting over health care or something else.

What does being a super power really mean? That the world looks to US for support?   In food, defense, blah blah blah! Let Europe and Africa and everybody else handle their own damn problems. Screw them. Put Americans first!  And at least we tried to do that if this law fails. At least we tried to put Americans first by giving everyone a decent basic level of care. 

[Battle]

Micheal do you just want to argue with democrats on health care? You've got to be tired by now.

Mike isn't here to argue...

Mike is here to gather information.

[Jay]

Micheal do you just want to argue with democrats on health care? You've got to be tired by now.

Mike isn't here to argue...

Mike is here to gather information.

Mike = One of Obama's Governmentmen from the US cenus!