Hillary Bless Us Every One
Posted December 22nd, 2007 by Da King
Hillary Clinton loves us, and she is going to take care of us. All us ignorant wretches out here in the sticks just have to be smart enough to make her the president. Thank goodness. Our problems are nearly over.
In a holiday television campaign ad, found here on YouTube, Hillary is seen wrapping her Christmas presents for America (but, of course, the word "Christmas" is never used and no Christian symbols are seen. We must be politically correct. Wouldn't want to offend an atheist or a Wiccan). These holiday "gifts" are marked "Universal Health Care", "Universal Pre-K", "Middle Class Tax Cuts", "Alternative Energy", and "Bring Troops Home". These are the things that the Great And Powerful Clinton is going to "give" to America. Isn't that just wonderful ? Elect Hillary and all this will be yours, America. I'm getting a little misty just thinking about the beneficence of our Once And Future Queen, aren't you ?
The great thing about gifts is that you don't have to pay for them. They are free. Somebody else pays, but you don't have to worry about that, right ? Hillary certainly doesn't want you to worry about that, because not only is she going to "give" you things like Universal Health Care and Universal Pre-School, she's also going to "give" you a tax cut at the same time ! Wow. This is one smart fem-bot, this Clinton 2.0. Evidently, Hillary's enormous new government programs won't cost anything at all. Very impressive. Dare I say miraculous ? She must be some kind of sorceress or something.
Now, in compliance with the Truth In Pandering Act (that should exist, but unfortunately doesn't), it must be pointed out that Hillary isn't a sorceress or a witch (insert own joke here). It must be pointed out that Hillary's enormous new government programs would cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, and somebody does have to pay for them. In the world of liberal Democrats, the payers are always the same: the evil rich and the evil corporations. These two entities, who are actually viewed as one and the same by the Hillary Clintons of the world, are the bottomless well that is always tapped to pay for anything and everything that liberals can dream up to "help" us. What is never supposed to be mentioned is who REALLY pays when business and the wealthy are hit with regressive levels of taxation: ALL OF US. Whether it's through higher prices, lower wages, or fewer jobs, we all pay for those so-called painless "gifts" from the government. In the liberal system of class warfare justice, you are supposed to work hard to achieve the american dream, and once you do become successful, the government takes everything away from you, so everyone will be "equal". How liberals think that will motivate people to achieve anything is unexplained. How liberals do not see that as theft is also unexplained. If equality of outcome can be achieved by sitting at home on your couch, a whole lot more people are going to choose the path of least resistance, the path that requires no effort. An inevitable decaying of society is the result of such socialist thinking. I don't know how many times socialism must fail before liberals realize how flawed the concept is, but I know they haven't realized it yet. They still think that socialism just hasn't been done right yet, even though socialism has a 150 year record of failure and repression. Liberals must call themselves "progressives" because they have to move forward to try to escape the past.
The other aspect of these "universal" government programs is that they remove your freedom of choice. In the private sector, there is a choice of health insurance programs. There is a choice of day-care centers. Well, there WOULD be a real choice of health insurance programs, except the government has already taken control of half the health care industry and has mandated so much to the insurance companies and employers that real choice is already a fantasy. You can't really pick the health insurance coverage you want, because the government has made the decisions for you already. That's one of the reasons why the cost of health insurance is astronomical, all the mandated coverage. Naturally, the liberal solution to government fouling up the health care industry is for government to take over the whole health care industry (and thereby foul it up the rest of the way).
And in Hillary's current half step toward socialized medicine, when she says she's going to "give" you "Universal Health Care", she means she's going to force you to buy health care insurance, even if you don't want to. Some present. That's like your best friend buying you a new Lexus for Christmas. The only catch is that YOU have to make the car payments. Thanks for nothing, buddy.
So Hillary, thanks for all your good intentions, but please don't give me anything for Christmas this year, or any year.
I can't afford it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
The real irony of this "holiday" commercial message is that here you have Witch Hillary playing the role of Santa Claus.
And notice how complete Hillary's disguise is; during the commercial, this loathsome creature didn't let out with even one of her characteristic cackles that so warms the hearts of Kool-Aid drinking Dims everywhere. (From this, we can surmise that the cackles aren't polling well with normal people.)
But as the fairy tales taught, kiddies, beware a witch bearing gifts. Reach for the "free" goodie, and you could end up in the oven, America.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 am
I'd be interested to know King if you had similar thoughts in 1992. I'd be interested to know why universal health care can work everywhere but here, the country that the WHO says has the 37th greatest health care system in the world. But mainly, like I ask whenever I post, can any of you tell me how she is any different than anyone on the other side? And when I ask that, I ask it seriously. Don't just call her names and say "dims spend and we don't" because you know the facts don't support that. Do you seriously believe that a Democrat would not defend this country if necessary and that a Republican would? If you truly believe that, you ignore history, you ignore facts, and you give the American people even less credit than I thought you did.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
"What is never supposed to be mentioned is who REALLY pays when business and the wealthy are hit with regressive levels of taxation: ALL OF US. Whether it's through higher prices, lower wages, or fewer jobs, we all pay for those so-called painless "gifts" from the government. In the liberal system of class warfare justice, you are supposed to work hard to achieve the american dream, and once you do become successful, the government takes everything away from you, so everyone will be "equal". "
Silly hyperbole…really…but….
So you are admitting that huge corporate and monied interests are holding the country hostage? You seem to be saying that if rich folks have to pay taxes at the same rate they did in the 90's, we'll be the ones who will have to pay that increase?
So you DON'T believe in the free marketplace after all? Instead, you DO believe that the wealthy run everything like kings and if they are forced, somehow, to pay higher taxes, they'll simply hold us hostage with the higher prices-fewer jobs-lower wages..gun to our heads?
I mean…wow King…..you admit a lot in your post here about how you really believe our "free" system works.
No one is talking about free. It's called income redistribution. Liberals like me believe that it's enough incentive to be able to make a few million dollars a year, like the European rich do. You, apparently, want to see the "filthy" part of filthy rich made permanent as a needed incentive. It's ridiculous.
If millionaires just refuse to work anymore because they can't find enough incentive, then f**k 'em…..there's 10's of millions of others to replace them. That's what a free market guarantees.
And by the way….I know you onservatives hate Hillary Clinton……but it was a commercial, and compared to Rudy's dictator/Santa approach….I found it very appealing.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
KING, YOU HAVE DONE IT!!!!! Finally someone has found a way to make old Rev Red make an admission that I haven't seen one of THEM make up to now. After years of trying to get him to admit what the real program of the left is you made him say: ***No one is talking about free. It's called income redistribution.***
Red has finally got irate enough to say the magic words, "income redistribution". Ain't it grand? I must commend you for what you have accomplished with Red after all this time. We didn't call him Red for nothing, as he has finally admitted. They were his words, not yours or mine, this time.
This may well be your best entry of your blog writing. You have THEM howling about your treatment and discussion of the plans that their heroine, Hillary, has for us. You so aptly described what so many of us believe about what she intends to "give" us if we will allow her to do so. Great job, King.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Wow, roys, could your nose be any browner?
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
da truth,
What's with this obsession with name-calling ? I didn't call anyone any names, though I probably will in the future. Btw, YOU just called Roy a brown-noser, which he isn't. It's just that he and I see things the same way on many political issues, and we both have a long history of discussions with the Reverend.
I don't know what you mean when you ask if I felt the same way in 1992. The same way about what ? If you're talking about Hillarycare, I was totally against it, like most people were.
The difference between the Republicans and Democrats on health care is pretty significant. The Republicans generally favor the tax credit approach, whereas the Dems generally favor Hillary's mandatory coverage and significant entitlement expansion.
I also don't know where you got the question about Dems defending the country. I didn't mention anything about that. But since you brought it up, the Dems have been trying awfully hard to lose the Iraq war, and they seem more interested in investigating the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror and scoring political points than defending the country from terrorist threats. In general though, of course I think the Dems would defend this country. Why wouldn't they ? Most of them aren't traitors, they just play traitors on tv.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Rev,
Calm down. I didn't say anything about corporations holding people hostage, you old word twister. What I'm saying is that if you increase someone's cost of doing business, then you either increase the cost of the product, or you decrease the business cost elsewhere, such as in lower wages or fewer jobs. I'm talking about economics, not slavery.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Roy,
Yeah, now that the Rev is admitting to 'income redistribution', maybe we can get him to take that final step, and call it what it really is - theft. He's pretty far gone, that one. He's acting like the private business sector is some kind of enormous criminal enterprise now.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Those who call for income distribution as public policy are typically parasites themselves in real life, too.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 am
King, I told you that this was one of your best. Rev went wild on it and said the magic words that progs never say and then truth went all the way and accused me of being a brown noser. I wonder what there is that you could do for me that would make me do a thing like that with you. I guess poor old lgtruth just doesn't know how long we have been agreeing where Rev Red is concerned.
Well, anyway, I am taking this thing to kestrel's to get some of the left reaction there. Maybe you should look in by Monday to see how they have reacted to it. I am sure many who claim they are independent will go out on the limb of redistribution and fall off just as Rev Red did.
Boy, did you waken some of them with this one. You picked the best of the socialists and tore into her and they just can't take it. I will try to remember to explain to the truthful one what I am doing when I agree with you in the future. Maybe not though, because it is so funny to read things like his.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 am
Vince, I don't know about the Rev's personal life, but I never will understand the entitlement mindset, which is no different than going to your next door neighbor and demanding that he give you money. We all know taxes are a necessary evil, but an evil is always an evil. What really bugs me is when the lefties call taxation 'charity'. Charity isn't taken by force with a gun, which is the bottom line of how taxation is collected. If you don't pay your taxes, eventually someone from the government will show up at your door with a gun and make you pay them, or send you to jail.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 am
Roy, I wonder why the left, who decries Bush's post-9/11 expansion of executive power to fight terrorism, doesn't see that the Hillary types would be expanding government power far more than Bush ever did if they were elected. Not only does Hillary list her Christmas 'gifts' in this commercial, she also has those other million ideas that the country can't afford. She has been pro-government expansion since Bill was elected president. Hillary even admits she wants to take things away from us for the common good. Making her the president would be a huge mistake. Socialism is a nightmare.
I'll try to stop over at Kestrel's and see what's happening later.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I finally managed to see some of Hillary's YouTube ad this morning on Fox News Sunday. She was looking around for Pre K and finally found it among the other packages. I wonder how many votes she can pick up with that little bit of crap. On the same show they showed the Obama family sitting next to a Christmas tree as Barack said he agreed with this, and one of the little girls said, "Merry Christmas" and the other "Happy Holidays". I saw Obama making sure that non-Christians didn't think he was playing only for Christian votes. It all stinks so bad and so many stupid people are taken in by their methods.
I forgot to mention that I have never seen but one YouTube clear through because my dialup takes so long to get them on my computer at about 4 seconds per button punch and I get tired of the opening parts of them. I didn't even try to load this Hillary thing knowing I would lose patience before I had all of her on.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Roys, you said:
I forgot to mention that I have never seen but one YouTube clear through because my dialup takes so long to get them on my computer at about 4 seconds per button punch and I get tired of the opening parts of them. I didn't even try to load this Hillary thing knowing I would lose patience before I had all of her on.
I think you just made the point every lefty tries to make. Thanks for proving our theory that conservatives judge things before considering them or before even knowing what they are about.
King, Roys words prove my brown nose comment to be correct. He reacted to your post without even knowing what you based your opinion on. And as for my question as to if you felt the same way in 1992, if you had read all of my post, which obviously you didn't (again a typical charateristic of new righties), you would have seen the specific questions that I asked you. Those specific questions were questions I had after reading your entire post on Mrs. Clinton. Not surprisingly, you didn't respond to any of my specific questions. The question about the dems defending this country came up because a typical theme of your blog is that they won't because they are too busy spending all of our money. As usual, you ignore the history since 1994 on that point as well.
It's great that you have your supporters in Roys and Ghost, and it's great that The Rev tries to fight you by himself. I'm just trying to get you to stick to facts and also find out how you came to your views. Your blogs that ignore this country's history and the history of Congress imply you started paying attention to these things in about 2006.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
And remember, King, although Comrade Hillary did not mention her zany idea of giving $5,000 to each new born baby in her "holiday" commercial, I'm sure she hasn't forgotten about it.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:39 am
da truth,
Don't go getting weird on me now. You have made some sense up until the last couple posts. Here are some corrections:
You said: "Roys words prove my brown nose comment to be correct. He reacted to your post without even knowing what you based your opinion on".
Wrong. I described the exact content of Hillary's video at the beginning of my article. Also, it's not like Roy needed me to tell him that Hillary is a socialist. She has a 15-year track record of that.
Then you said: "And as for my question as to if you felt the same way in 1992, if you had read all of my post, which obviously you didn't (again a typical charateristic of new righties), you would have seen the specific questions that I asked you. Those specific questions were questions I had after reading your entire post on Mrs. Clinton. Not surprisingly, you didn't respond to any of my specific questions".
Wrong again. I answered your question about how Republican ideas on health care were different than Democrat ideas, and I also answered your question about whether Democrats would defend the country. Not sure how you missed that.
It seems you are the one who isn't reading people's posts, because you missed an awful lot. I won't be so rude as to suggest that is a trait of the left in general though, as you did toward the right. That would be rather bigoted.
But I'm curious, what's a "new righty" ?
December 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
King,
You said:
Wrong. I described the exact content of Hillary's video at the beginning of my article. Also, it's not like Roy needed me to tell him that Hillary is a socialist. She has a 15-year track record of that.
Again, you prove my point. You gave your biased opinion of Mrs. Clinton's video and while Roys obviously agrees with you on literally every point, he still made judgments about something that you spoke on without having any personal or firsthand knowledge of it. That may be the way you folks do business, but I would think even you would admit that is a dangerous way to operate.
And as for reading people's posts, I am very specific when I respond to the things you write. The specific question I asked you that you still haven't answeres is how is she any worse than anyone on the right. In terms of the healthcare question, I pointed to specific evidence from the WHO that you did not respond to. Thus, my later post.
As for new righties, again, righties who ignore the history of the Republican party. Righties who believe the Republican Party was founded in 1994. The neocons of today have little in common with the Barry Goldwaters and the Ronald Reagans of past eras. I would hope we can at least agree on that. But thanks for the "corrections"……
December 24th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Mr. Truth,
I have here the very words of da King in his first post. Now cut and paste always works on my computer so lets hope these are the very words he described Hillary's latest ad. They seem to follow along with what Fox News Sunday showed yesterday. Here they are:
***In a holiday television campaign ad, found here on YouTube, Hillary is seen wrapping her Christmas presents for America (but, of course, the word "Christmas" is never used and no Christian symbols are seen. We must be politically correct. Wouldn't want to offend an atheist or a Wiccan). These holiday "gifts" are marked "Universal Health Care", "Universal Pre-K", "Middle Class Tax Cuts", "Alternative Energy", and "Bring Troops Home". These are the things that the Great And Powerful Clinton is going to "give" to America. Isn't that just wonderful ? Elect Hillary and all this will be yours, America. I'm getting a little misty just thinking about the beneficence of our Once And Future Queen, aren't you ?***
Read these words over and over until you find how I knew about what Hillary did. I thank Fox News Sunday for showing the earliest part of the ad so I could see what she really did or tried to do.
I think the very thing that King and I got together on first when we found that we thought alike was to do with Hillary Clinton. I am sorry you can't accept us thinking as we do where she is concerned but that is one of the facts of life you won't be changing soon. You do try very hard though, don't you?
December 24th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Mr. King,
You constantly amaze me. Where do you get your definition of political labels? You don't know what libertarianism is, even though you claim to be one. And you don't know what socialism is either. You must realize that those right-wing screeds you use as a source will bring out the "socialism" tag whenever they want to push your buttons.
Ms. Clinton's health plan is to require everyone to purchase insurance and subsidize those who can't afford it. Inasmuch as we would be purchasing it from private companies, it is not socialism. Do you think the requirement to carry auto insurance is a socialist plot?
We would be better served with a single payer system. I know, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM! But, a private system must run at a profit and the way the insurance companies do this is to deny care and inflate prices. Since many decisions about medical care are made under duress or by employers and insurance companies, there is little in the way of choice for consumers. Where is the compassion in a society that says caveat emptor to matters of life and death?
Our "system" has built in costs. The insurance companies profit first from malpractice premiums then from the 20% profit margins on healthcare coverage. Also the myriad of forms and armies of people who pronounce what is covered and to what degree drive prices up.
As to taxes, we all profit from government services such as maintaining the rules under which businesses operate, and maintaining the physical infrastructure, none more so than the wealthy and investor class. They should pay more. In the 45 years I've been working, the maximum income tax rate has been cut to less than half, and those whose income is derived from investments pay the same as the lowest income tax rate(15%). Warren Buffet states that he pays a lower percentage of his income than his secretary.
I think that most businesses would love to be relieved of their health insurance obligations. Every company I have worked for in the last 30 years has had a policy of paying for continuous overtime rather than hiring enough people for the job. The main reason for this is health insurance costs. So, it just may be that government run health care would boost employment.
Finally, you must get over this fantasy that Hillary Clinton is a leftist or a socialist. She is a corporatist. She and her husband helped found the Democratic Leadership Council which basically accepts the need for money from the wealthy and corporate support to compete with the Republican party. She also is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations as are most Republicans. As I write, it looks like next year's election will offer us a choice between her and Guiliani or Romney. Do you actually see much difference in any of them? Here's a prediction–if any of these three are elected, we will still have 100,000 troops in Iraq in 2012, unless withdrawn because of the coming depression.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I must respond to Roy's reaction to my use of those two words…..income redistribution. You didn't have to change your daytime diapers when you read what I typed….did ya' Roy?
Here's a quick income redistribution lesson even you'll understand. Payroll taxes are gathered up each and every week and are redistributed to seniors…..like YOU. We call it social security. The U.S. has been redistributing income for a long time. It's a good thing.
You, to just take one example, don't seem to complain when huge agribusiness or oil, you know, take redistributed tax dollar subsidies. But you know what….that's income redistribution, Roy.
And finally, conservatives who argue for lower taxes for the wealthy are either 1) wealthy themselves, or 2) blindly toeing the Republican Party line, the party whose line is to make the wealthy even moreso.
Cheerleading for the wealthy……I just don't get that.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Red, was the over 50 years that I paid into Social Security so others who were old enough could get my money the same kind of socialism? Many of those never paid more than 20 years but they collected as long as I have. I was always of the impression that the system was for workers to support thos who didn't work. And all of a sudden I found that with Medicare they allow me to now pay about $100 per month out of my SS payment to Medicare. Now that is bad but it isn't the kind of income redistribution you people are calling for when you say one has to buy health insurance and if one can't afford it the system will pay for theirs. Is that a form of socialism or not?
Red, I do feel sorry for you and your socialistic way of seeing things. The money that we pay to farmers as subsidies keeps them in a place where they can compete with all the subsidized farmers from the EU, Canada and so forth. I'll bet you didn't even know that the EU has a heavy system of subsidies for farmers. Well of course not, since they are all socialistic societies.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Frank, I see that you are one of those lefties that really doesn't understand auto insurance and its requirement to drive. Does any state that you know of pay the auto insurance for those who can buy cars but can't insure them? Please list them for me. While you are at it let me know about those states that require anything beyond basic liability to protect others from poor drivers. I think you are using the wrong example with car insurance when you try to stand up for Hillary's socialistic program.
Let me ask you if I am wrong when I say that what she is proclaiming as so good is anything other than the first step to socialized medicine. If I am wrong about this please explain how I am wrong.
December 25th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Mr. Roy,
You are, of course, correct that no government subsidizes auto insurance. So, perhaps my analogy is a bit weak. Yet, any government edict which forces you to buy a commercial service or product is not what I would call socialism. It is much more like fascism.
From your previous post, I take it that you are drawing Social Security and Medicare. For these, you were taxed, or had a forced investment, or whatever you want to call it. These are examples of socialism. Neither you or I would want our nation to be without them. Ms. Clinton's health care plan is closer to compulsory auto insurance in that it is a boon to the insurance industry. Mussolini defined fascism as the marriage of government and business. Ms. Clinton's subsidies only make it possible to enforce her plan.
One of my points to "da King" and now to you, is that you guys are hung up on this word socialism. We do not use the word when we talk about the defense of our country, or fire departments, police, the interstate highway system, copyright laws, etc. However, these are things that all of us pay for without the benefit of free enterprise competition. If we are fortunate, we will pay more for these services than we will receive.
Another point was that the involvement of insurance companies inflates the cost of healthcare in several ways.
My final point was that a compassionate society would make healthcare available to all. If that is socialism, then so be it.
December 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
There are 9 total, this is the first one. This is a must see for all voters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E
December 26th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Frank's right.
And Roys, you said:
I think the very thing that King and I got together on first when we found that we thought alike was to do with Hillary Clinton. I am sorry you can't accept us thinking as we do where she is concerned but that is one of the facts of life you won't be changing soon. You do try very hard though, don't you?
I could care less what you and da king agree on. I agree with a lot of lefties on a lot of things, but not without doing my own research first. Question everything. That is the only way to be on solid ground with any of your views. Also, there is obviously no hope for you and da king changing your views. But they should at least based on your own research and thoughts.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Frank isn't right. He's using semantics to ignore the commonly agreed upon meaning of terms. It's fascist.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
So, some don't believe Hillary Clinton is a leftist or a socialist, but instead think she's a corporatist.
But as Larry points out, this term "corporatist" another way of saying that Hillary is a fascist. Nurse Ratchet's programs in are a lot like those of FRD's that, too, were fascist in nature. Have government run the show — dictate this, dictate that. That's Dims playbook.
From a traditional American viewpoint, Hillary and most the rest of today's Dims are most certaintly of the Left and are for significantly increasing the size and scope of government. Anyone who can't see this is either willfully blind or too narrowly bipartisan to be trusted.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Frank do you realize that in the early days of our Republic fire protection was provided by little clubs that often vied with each other at fires to the point of letting buildings burn to prove a point? Do you now see that security is an obvious duty of the national government? i.e., defense done by the government just as fire protection is? Police protection is much better provided by governments than they ever could be by competing private people. The interstate highway system was built and is maintained by the states with some federal money. Promoting the economy was the reasoning for the system. Can you imagine the jungle we would find ourselves in without copyright laws? I just can't.
As for socialized medicine, that is the first step toward real government control of so many things that would establishes the kind of socialism that eastern Europe lived through and has come away from. As for Medicare I still pay more for it in deducted money from my Social Security monthly payment than many people will pay for medical insurance under Hillary's plan. I have about $100 withheld from that SS check each month and those who are on Medicaid right now pay nothing at all unless they pay income taxes and none of them do that.
I can go on if you need me to but why should I do that? We aren't going to convince each other concerning socialized medicine and most other socialized things. Sure Social Security is a form of socialism, but what President was responsible for that program? Medicare was established when a President of the same party was in office. Do we need more examples of this? Do you realize that each individual gets a nice letter from his insurance company a week or two before his 65th birthday that informs him that he will be switched to Medicare on that day? Mine didn't make me happy but I didn't see any way to fight it without paying much more for health insurance than I was paying at the time.s
December 26th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Roy: You have an uncanny method of not addressing the point.
What frank and others are getting at over against your comments is the very obvious fact that you are only against the dreaded word "socialism" when it's convenient. Every form of socialism now in existence in America you simply dismiss as needed. In the same breath you dismiss health care for all. Cafeteria socialist….that's you.
I realize you can't admit this…..because then you wouldn't have a leg to support your already flimsy excuses to deny all Americans equal access to health care.
But hey, keep cheerleading for Big insurance and Big Pharma. I'm sure they appreciate your efforts.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I also wonder how it is that alleged conservatives, some who comment here, who criticize Democrats as the people who want to mandate how we all live, ignore or are willfully blind to what the Republican Party has attempted to do the last 7 years.
Inserting the federal government into a family dispute involving an end of life tragedy…..isn't Big Brotherish??
Insisting that California doesn't have the "state right" to begin greenhouse gas reductions…..isn't Big Brotherish??
And what does a conservative have to say about the GOP led and arm twisted Plan D fiasco?? Is that GOP boondoggle somehow libertarian?
Cafeteria conservatives……all of ya's.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
"Bring the troops home" would pay for itself.
Next topic.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Larry,
Frank's absolutely right. If you read his entire post, he even calls it socialism at the end. But whatever you want to call it, he and the good Rev. are right: a compassionate society makes healthcare available to all. It's really not that difficult. And the Rev. makes the best point on this entire thread when he wrote:
I also wonder how it is that alleged conservatives, some who comment here, who criticize Democrats as the people who want to mandate how we all live, ignore or are willfully blind to what the Republican Party has attempted to do the last 7 years.
His point goes back to mine that I have made here and on other king posts. Did you guys all become conservatives in 1994? 2000? Because you look nothing like the conservatives of the 1960's and 1970's.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
It's odd I haven't seen any of the democrats here arguing for segregation lately.
Cafeteria dems.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Larry the lefties here don't manage to look when I tell them that we old people never did get a chance to be in or out of Medicare. The letter they sent me said that I had to leave private insurance and go to Medicare. That little deal, Medicare, was the Dem beginning of what Hillary wants. She says she is giving something to someone but her form of healthcare says that all must have it and if they can't pay for it the US govt. will do so for them. All I see there is that we will provide your healthcare that we demand you to have.
Also, they fail to see that it was a bunch of Democrats who established Medicare. It was also a bunch of Democrats who established Social Security. I don't mind either of them but nobody ever asked me how I felt about them, they just told me to get in and like it. Now the very same people are trying to take the next step toward complete socialism, socialized medicine.
I love these guys and the way they see things.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Roys,
the republicans have had ample opportunity to do whatever they wanted with those programs, especially from 2000 to 2006 when they had complete control. If the public really wanted it eliminated or privatized, it could have happened. As for your statement "I love these guys and the way they see things", if you and King and Ghost don't want us to comment on your thoughts, don't share them online. As long as you do, we will continue to make "corrections" as da king says.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I don't mind when the Lefties comment on my posting, but they are completely delusional if they think that they ever "corrected" anything in my commentary.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Ghost,
Here's a "correction" for you. You said:
From a traditional American viewpoint, Hillary and most the rest of today's Dims are most certaintly of the Left and are for significantly increasing the size and scope of government. Anyone who can't see this is either willfully blind or too narrowly bipartisan to be trusted.
By that standard, then all of the pubs since 1994 are lefties also, since even da king has noted how they have abandoned fiscal conservatism. They have increased spending at alarming rates without any thought to the size or scope of government; it's one of the basic tenets of neoconservatism. I guess you're too "willfully blind" or "narrowly bipartisan" to have noticed. But thanks for the corrections…..
I can't speak for the other lefties, but I base my posts on facts and my own opinions, and generally not on name calling. With the one exception, which da king rightfully pointed out. But the facts are what they are. Republicans since 1994 show no alarm or anxiety about the size of government or spending. Like their counterparts on the other side, they talk a good game. I judge both parties by their actions.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
1. That the GOP overspent since 1994 is a shame, and it one of the main reasons why the Republicans lost the congress in 2006. But the pertinent fact is that, during that time, the Dims agitated for even greater levels of spending. Oh yes, they did. So, no matter how bad the GOP was, the Dims would have been even worse regarding spending. [This is evidenced by the recent earmarks the Dim congress just passed after promising not to do so when running for election in 2006.].
For your further edification, being a Lefty comprises much more than government spending. It also includes things like abortion, a blame America-first mentality, affirmative action and racial quotas, stopping parents from getting school vouchers, higher tolerance for illegal immigration, appointing liberal judges, adoration of international organizations like the U.N., etc. Here, the Dims are out in left field.
2. “They [the Republicans in congress] have increased spending at alarming rates without any thought to the size or scope of government; it's one of the basic tenets of neo conservatism.”
Basically that is so. But the GOP is not synonymous with neoconservatism. Congratulations, by the way, in knowing what a neocon is. Here you show more knowledge and nuance than the typical Kool-Aid drinking lefties that post here. Yes, a compassionate conservative like Bush (and Huckabee) would be for more government. But when Bush ran in 2000, who know what a "compassionate conservative" really meant.
3. “Like their counterparts on the other side, they (Republicans) talk a good game. I judge both parties by their actions.”
Here we agree. Both political parties tend to be deceitful and are willing to back-stab their base once in power. This is because the GOP and the Dims together form a political establishment which looks out for its own interests over that of the people or even the country. This is why the GOP between 1994 and 2006 spent like Dims; it’s also why Ron Paul is causing such a commotion in the GOP primaries; and it‘s also why if a Dim wins the presidency in 2008, he/she will surely disappoint the base and not get out of Iraq, not to mention the 70 or so other countries our military is now in.
Both parties to an alarming degree are controlled by special interest groups. And because of this, the government is losing its legitimacy to rule. This will be a major problem in the coming years. The most likely result of this calcification of our political system will be a major political realignment of the type the Radical Center (Michael Lind) writes about. But that’s a subject for another time.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Ghost,
You are very right when you write: ***For your further edification, being a Lefty comprises much more than government spending. It also includes things like abortion, a blame America-first mentality, affirmative action and racial quotas, stopping parents from getting school vouchers, higher tolerance for illegal immigration, appointing liberal judges, adoration of international organizations like the U.N., etc. Here, the Dims are out in left field.***
I disagree with you on one item there so maybe I am not a GOOD Republican. I don't believe in those school vouchers, but then I am retired from the public school system sector and realize how much damage they would do to the whole system, IMO.
The most troublesome thing these days is the amount of control of both parties by various special interest groups. I am all for reforming our political system and getting the moderates of each party together in one party and letting the other two parts of both parties survive if they can and die if they can't. I don't believe in a multi-party system so must see two parties but if one is far left and the other all the moderates of both parties I think they can be controlled.
We have to reform our system if we are to maintain our status as a nation. I am not sure the Dems can repeat their performance of 2006 because of how they behaved in 2007. I think that many people will look at their promises of 2006 as nothing but lies which they largely were and not vote for them. The changes must take place in the next two or three election cycles and only people who really care for the United States of America will take part in trying to save her. Moderates must do the work.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Ghost,
With the exception of one paragraph, I could not agree with your most recent post more. As for your paragraph that read:
For your further edification, being a Lefty comprises much more than government spending. It also includes things like abortion, a blame America-first mentality, affirmative action and racial quotas, stopping parents from getting school vouchers, higher tolerance for illegal immigration, appointing liberal judges, adoration of international organizations like the U.N., etc. Here, the Dims are out in left field.
Trust me, having lived on both sides, I know what being a "Lefty" comprimises. As for all the things you mention, I would again point to the era from 2000-2006 when "Righties" had unfettered power and did little to change anything on the points you speak of. Again, I consider myself a lefty but I don't speak for anyone but myself. So as those other issues you mention come up, I will be glad to share my own personal views on them.
Like I said, I agree with everything else you said. I do wonder though about your points on compassionate conservatism and how the entire GOP is not neoconservative. I agree with that, but I believe that is the controlling faction at this point and I believe the GOPs behavior as a whole since 1994 supports that point. But the fact that you raised that point brings up a great question that supports your other points: how can we trust anything any of them say?
December 28th, 2007 at 8:09 am
da truth,
I guess you still didn't read my post, so I'm forced to correct you yet again. This is getting tedious. I won't keep playing this game. This is the last time.
You said, "The specific question I asked you that you still haven't answeres is how is she any worse than anyone on the right"
Previous to that, I said, "The difference between the Republicans and Democrats on health care is pretty significant. The Republicans generally favor the tax credit approach, whereas the Dems generally favor Hillary's mandatory coverage and significant entitlement expansion".
I hope we are straight now.
As for your comment about the WHO ranking the US 37th in health care, I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to argue with there. I'm aware of the WHO's ranking. So what ? That doesn't mean I should agree with Hillary's solution, and I don't.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:54 am
frank,
So, I don't know what libertarianism or socialism are, eh ? Hmmm. That's an interesting observation since you immediately followed that statement up with arguments in favor of government mandated health insurance (that's anti-libertarian, it limits freedom of choice) and in favor of single-payer government health care (that's socialist, turning 10% more of our economy over to the government). No, my friend, I don't think I'm the one who doesn't understand the political labels. I think it's you.
And I didn't use any "right-wing screeds" as sources. I used youtube. If that's right-wing, I'm unaware of it.
While you are considering the high cost of american medical care, perhaps you should consider this: 40% of health care is ALREADY controlled by the government. Government mandates lower than market prices through Medicare/Medicaid, which inflates the price to EVERYONE ELSE. Doctors would go out of business if they could only treat Medicare/Medicaid patients. Doctors don't even want to take Medicare patients. Add in all the government regulations, other mandates,k and the high cost of malpractice insurance (also tied to lawsuits awarded through the GOVERNMENT court system) and then you know why health care is more expensive here than anywhere else. A one-month stay in the hospital with three surgeries cost me about $6000 in 1973. That same care today would probably cost me about $350,000, if not more. Do you actually have the temerity to blame that on the insurance companies ? That is laughable. It has almost all been due to government interference in the health care industry. Naturally, in response to this government created problem, the socialists call for, what else, MORE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
On taxes, the wealthier people do pay more. The poor don't pay income taxes, and the tax rate is progressive the more you make. The wealthier people in this country pay the lion's share of the taxes. That's pretty easy info to look up. I don't mean to advocate for the wealthy here, though. I think everyone's taxes should be low (that's the LIBERTARIAN way. Economic freedom, you know).
As for investment tax rates being lower, you do realize that when you invest, you can also LOSE MONEY, right ? How hard do you want to make it for investors in this country ?
And if you don't think Hillary is a socialist, you really haven't been paying attention, either to her, or to the leftward drift of the Democratic party in general. Even the Republican party has drifted that way, to it's great detriment.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Roy,
You write that you're "all for reforming our political system and getting the moderates of each party together in one party and letting the other two parts of both parties survive if they can and die if they can't. "
This is exactly what the Radical Center movement is about. see http://www.radicalcenter.org or better yet, check out Ted Halstead & Michael Lind's book entitled, "The radical Center."
Their basic argument is that the "extremes" of Left and Right have captured the Dims and GOP, respectively, and that the bulk of the America voters are alienated by the situation.
In addition to policy recommendations from immigration to health care to taxes to social security/retirement, Halstead & Lind make an interesting historical case for how & when America has gone through three previous realignments before. They say we've had essentially three different republics since our founding and we now need a fourth.
Although I don't personally agree with all of the Radical Center's policy prescriptions, Halstead & Lind make a pursavise case for the need for such a relignment.
And like you, Roy, these Halstead & Lind say it is unlikely that a third party can grow to become a "radical center" party. Rather, they think it far more likely that either the Democratic or Republican Party will change into a radical center party and thereby dominate American politics for a generation.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Ghost,
I think you have just pointed out what will have to happen since the chances of a third party being successful are probably nil. The thing that too many people just don't see here is that there will have to be some kind of change that allows us to get away from control of parties by radical elements in either party. I think it is the Republicans who will have to try to gather in moderates because of how much control of the Dems those of the far left now have.
It will be very interesting to see the outcome of all this. I, at 75, doubt that I will be around for the entire show but will get to at least see the beginning of the necessary change. I am sure that there are too many people who realize changes will have to be made and they will soon come to see what is needed.
Either the far left will be successful in the upcoming election and the people they support will be swept into power or they will begin to wane as a real power. I hope it is the latter but I do question the intelligence of the voters in this country to see the light before they have made the ultimate mistake.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Roy,
One of the things in Halstead & Lind's argument is that, although the ground is now set for a political relignment to the center, things are not apt to change until there is a crisis.
They give historical examples of how a crisis was needed to bring about earlier relignments — the Civil War was one; the Great Depression was another.
It doesn't take much imagination to see many potential crises out there — a major terrorist attack in the U.S.; economic depression or severe recession; major devaluation of the dollar. bankrupcy and/or default on commitments on Social Security, etc.
Without a crisis, the status quo and political establishment can hold on for a surprisingly long time.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Ghost says: ***It doesn't take much imagination to see many potential crises out there — a major terrorist attack in the U.S.; economic depression or severe recession; major devaluation of the dollar. bankrupcy and/or default on commitments on Social Security, etc***
***Without a crisis, the status quo and political establishment can hold on for a surprisingly long time.***
Any one of those things can easily be enough of a crisis and any
two of them can do just as well. I see a strong possibility that more than one of them can come to be. That would be plenty of reason for the formation of a new party based on moderation and I do want to see that happen.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Ghost: Truth is going easy on you. I won't be following his lead. You say this….
1. "That the GOP overspent since 1994 is a shame, and it one of the main reasons why the Republicans lost the congress in 2006. But the pertinent fact is that, during that time, the Dims agitated for even greater levels of spending. Oh yes, they did. So, no matter how bad the GOP was, the Dims would have been even worse regarding spending. [This is evidenced by the recent earmarks the Dim congress just passed after promising not to do so when running for election in 2006.]."
This is incorrect. Overspending was not why the Republican Party lost the 2006 election. Overspending didn't even reach the top five reasons. The GOP lost because of 1) corruption, and 2) Iraq. I know that's not what you say, but that's what exit polling said.
Secondly. Think about what you said here. You are suggesting that Independents and some Republicans voted for Democrats, the party you say is the party of big spending, because Republicans spent too much. I mean WTF, over?
December 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Roy,
You say, "I see a strong possibility that more than one of them [crises] can come to be. That would be plenty of reason for the formation of a new party based on moderation and I do want to see that happen."
I believe you'll get you wish sooner rather than later.
The politcal polarization is growing intolerable. And in this climate, the absolutely worse thing that could happen is if a divisive and highly loathe figure like Hillary Clinton were to be elected president. That in and of itself might be the national crisis which causes a political relignment.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
King,
One correction, if you will allow it. Thank you for reading my post, but you still didn't respond to my specific question. I asked you specifically about Mrs. Clinton, not about dems v. repubs generally. The information from the WHO is certainly relevant to that point, since it is a discussion of health care. I'm not sure what game it is you think I was playing, I was merely trying to get you to point out how we would be any worse off with her than with anyone else. Thank you for the lesson on the differences between the parties, but having lived on both sides, I am well aware of the differences. Andt they are a lot less than you think. It is your blog and you can choose to respond to or ignore whatever you like….doesn't mean we can't keep trying to get responses to our questions.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:18 am
da truth,
I'm afraid you have me at a loss. I still don't quite understand what you are looking for, or what I didn't answer. Hillary's health care plan is almost identical to Edwards health care plan. It mandates coverage and increases government entitlements. As far as I know, none of the Republicans are advocating that. Even Romney, who passed a version of that as governor of Mass., wouldn't want to do it on the national level. The Republicans are generally favoring tax credits for health insurance. I favor that over increasing the size of government more and more.
If you want me to acknowledge that none of the candidates solutions if going to address the real problem, which is the cost of health care, then I will agree with you. We'd have to tear the whole thing down and start over to do that, and I doubt if anyone is willing, other than maybe Ron Paul.
Btw, I don't believe the WHO's rankings. I believe the quality of US health care is the finest in the world. The low ranking is due to the hight cost and the fact that we don't offer it "free" to all our citizens.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The low ranking is partially for the reasons that you state; but many reasons go into those rankings. You are correct that those are two of the factors.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
King, I wonder if the reasons for ranking the US 37th could have anything to do with the fact that the banking community has called the Chinese and other Asian economies about 1/4 to 1/3 larger than they really are. Sometimes I wonder how any group from the UN can make a fair assessment of things like this because of the desire of the UN to defeat the US and bring us under their control.
Surely, da Truth can see how we would suffer with federal government control of medicine. Maybe he has not been on Medicare for 10 years as I have and been able to see the mess that Medicare has contributed to by being a government operated health care system. Maybe he needs to look at the mess that Medicare and Medicaid have made of the whole thing. I wonder what it would take to convince people like him that the two entitities have have contributed much more the the creation of the mess we now have than the insurance companies have. I guess most of those who can't see it are just large corporation enemies and the insurance companies are large corporations.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Roy, I think much of what the UN says these days can be taken with a grain of salt. I barely believe a word they say.
And since I think most of the problem with the high cost of US health care is due to our government, I'm pretty skeptical that our government could solve it by taking over. Blaming the insurance and drug companies is pretty absurd. What is the biggest reason for the high price of prescription drugs ? The government, far and away. That's why when I hear John Edwards talking about those evil drug companies, I just want to slap him. That industry is heavily controlled by the government. Making them unable to turn a profit isn't going to help anyone. If they can't turn a profit, guess who the Dems will use to subsidize the needed research ? The taxpayers.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Just please note when you say that blaming the insurance and drug companies is absurd, you note that I did not say that. Not once. I am not foolish enough to believe that our government is not primarily responsible for the problem and have made it possible for the insane amounts of money drug and insurance companies make. And yes, roys, I can see how we would suffer if our federal government controlled health care. But if other civilized countries can do it, it is possible. The WHO rankings may be skewed to a degree, but they are not that far off. And there are far too many people in this country recieving inadequate care as you yourslef pointed out, roys.
King, as to your comment that the US has the best health care in the world, I don't disagree, but the US has the best health care in the world only for a small percentage of people and not for the common man who is controlled either by his government plan or an insurance company plan.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Wow, I just don't know what to say. The heck I don't.
I recently had a bad fall from a tree. About a 40' fall. Thank goodness there were many friendly limbs to slow my descent. LOL
I was in hospital for awhile and my insurance provider laid out an enormous amount of money for my care. The fella next door to me wrecked his car and was busted up almost as badly as me. He, however had no insurance. Auto or health, but he received as good or better care than I. He'll never pay a dime for it. That's a gaurantee. His insurance premiums won't go up as he has none. But he does know how to work the system. The health system, that is. And BTW, the best health system in the world.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
" ….but the US has the best health care in the world only for a small percentage of people and not for the common man ..'
Small percentage? Wrong!
The great majoritiy of Americans are covered by health insurance and that gives them access to the best health care in the world.
As for the "poor" and even the completely irresponsible, as Bad Dog notes, they do pretty good, too, in our system. Heck, we even service illegal aliens who have no business being here with little or no questions asked, and don't think that that doesn't add to health care cost.
Many things could be done to improve the U.S. health care system, but perhaps the most important would be to weed out fraud & waste, but that's something I don't think you'll ever see politicians seriously attack. It's so much easier for them to want to expand coverage to one and all — no questions asked.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
It looks like Roy and King have set forth the proposition that the government, I guess in the form of Medicare, is the reason health care in America is messed up.
This is totally erroneous. If anything, by setting prices somewhat, they have held total costs down.
20-25% of health costs go to advertisers and paper shufflers and to profits to be taken by a handful of up-the-ladder corporate types and major stockholders. Health insurance companies, they're only purpose really, is to add to the cost of health care. They add to the overall costs of health care…..they don't contribute anything positive to health care…..nothing at all…..and yet not one of the three main Democratic "liberal" candidates suggests removing this malignant tumor from the equation.
Single payer, government controlled health care for all. I don't even give a good gaddamn if their is a little waste involved. If all Americans have the right to health care without the threat of losing anything and everything they ever worked for…..it's worth it overall.
And my goodness, Christianists talk about morality and all that stuff. If this health care thing isn't a big moral test for a society….I wouldn't know what-ever-the-hell could be.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Nice use of facts, dog. You say it is the best health care system in the world, so it must be. Tell that to my mother, who has to decide which prescriptions she can afford each month, despite a lengthy career as a nurse. Or tell it to my father-in-law, who spent 44 years working for Ford, who now is told suddenly he can't see his own doctors anymore unless he wants to pay for it. And Ghost, perhaps you and Dog can get together and show me where this "best health care" in the world statement comes from, because these statements are not supported by any organization, private or public, that I have ever heard of. But hey, you say it so it must be so. Please. If you two have not ever had an insurer, employer, or provider screw you over on your health care you are in the minority. I used facts to cite my statements about our health care system. Please do the same.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:04 am
da truth,
Speaking of facts, if you look inside the facts that comprised the WHO's ranking of US health care as 37th in the world, you see how they came up with that ranking. The US is rankied number 1 in level of responsiveness in health care, which could easily be referred as the 'best health care'. However, the US is also number 1 in cost of health care, a negative to the WHO. The WHO also looks at the health of the population in general as a reflection of health care quality, even though I think that's rather subjective and not an actual correlation to health care quality. Americans are probably more overweight than the rest of the world, which leads to far more health problems, but I'd say that is more the result of an affluent, sedentary society than the quality of health care. The WHO also ranks the US 54th in 'fairness of financial contribution', which sounds to me like a knock on us for not having socialized medicine with 100% of the population insured for 'free'. The WHO takes a pretty holistic (and flawed) view to determine their rankings. I find it very difficult to believe that the US isn't either at the top or very near the top in medical technology and advanced medical procedures. People come the world over to be treated at the Cleveland Clinic, for example, because the Cleveland Clinic is the best.
You can find the WHO spreadheet on the rankings here:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html
You can count me as the minority who has never had an insurance company screw me over on health care. They have always covered what they were supposed to cover. Also, my mother is on medicare and takes 6 prescription drugs right now, which cost her $55.00 per month under Medicare Part D. These prescriptions would cost about $500 monthly if purchased at retail prices (though cheaper in Canada, that was the 2nd best route I found after Part D), so she's getting by pretty well.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Rev, you think the government has held medical costs down ???????????
Go tell a doctor that, and then let me know how long it was before they stopped laughing.