LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Guinness]

What do you mean both ways? The two parties we have work for big business. That's clear by now. There is nothing socialist that Obama is doing. He surrounded himself with people who worked for wall street, lobbyists, etc.. The healthcare plan they're about to pass seems more beneficial to insurers than people. I really don't think it's a rep/dem debate anymore. It is corporate world + government officials who either take their $ or are afraid to stand up to them VS people like you and me.

I agree, but what I was talking about is your support of social programs, which undermines individual freedom.

I agree with you and abhor the manner in which government has trampled our civil liberties, but allowing government to trample our economic freedom is essentially no different, and in many ways necessitates restrictions on civil liberties.

[Kraftster]

That's what it is. It's not socialism we're drifting toward or what I'm worried about.

You can't have it both ways, Sarcastic.

What do you mean both ways? The two parties we have work for big business. That's clear by now. There is nothing socialist that Obama is doing. He surrounded himself with people who worked for wall street, lobbyists, etc.. The healthcare plan they're about to pass seems more beneficial to insurers than people. I really don't think it's a rep/dem debate anymore. It is corporate world + government officials who either take their $ or are afraid to stand up to them VS people like you and me.

Hmm.. Its been a while since I read up on the current state of the healthcare plan, but, insurance companies actually seemed to face shouldering more of the burden created by the plan, at least relative to other parties like consumers, doctors, pharmcos, etc. Obama's doing plenty socialist in my opinion. I think you can argue that a socialist society (of consumers) is more favorable to a corporate state and I could buy an argument that the motivation isn't socialist, but, doesn't make something that's socialist not socialist.

[Sarcastic]

What do you mean both ways? The two parties we have work for big business. That's clear by now. There is nothing socialist that Obama is doing. He surrounded himself with people who worked for wall street, lobbyists, etc.. The healthcare plan they're about to pass seems more beneficial to insurers than people. I really don't think it's a rep/dem debate anymore. It is corporate world + government officials who either take their $ or are afraid to stand up to them VS people like you and me.

I agree, but what I was talking about is your support of social programs, which undermines individual freedom.

I agree with you and abhor the manner in which government has trampled our civil liberties, but allowing government to trample our economic freedom is essentially no different, and in many ways necessitates restrictions on civil liberties.

We can disagree on social programs. If you asked me 10 years ago, I'd be on your side. But considering everything went downhill so bad, so quickly, where people don't have enough money for food or mortgage, I jumped ship. I think what you describe works in an economy that is healthy, not in what we are seeing today. Maybe I've turned socialist, who knows. 10 years ago I listened to Rush Limbaugh on a pretty regular basis.

[ExPatriatePen]

Is there a more repugnant person in DC than Barney Frank? I'm watching him on CNBC right now and I'm constantly amazed just how condescending and self righteous he is.

[shafnutz05]

Is there a more repugnat person in DC than Barney Frank? I'm watching him on CNBC right now and I just can't believe how condescending and self righteous he is.

He is horribly obnoxious. It says a lot about the collective brainpower of the Massachusetts electorate that they reelect him every two years.

[Guinness]

We can disagree on social programs. If you asked me 10 years ago, I'd be on your side. But considering everything went downhill so bad, so quickly, where people don't have enough money for food or mortgage, I jumped ship. I think what you describe works in an economy that is healthy, not in what we are seeing today. Maybe I've turned socialist, who knows. 10 years ago I listened to Rush Limbaugh on a pretty regular basis.

Limbaugh doesn't believe in liberty, either. He's as much a statist as the rest.

You'll end up very disappointed in the "protections" government provides... to you, to the poor, to foreign countries... to anyone who government reaches out to "help".

[Sarcastic]

Hmm.. Its been a while since I read up on the current state of the healthcare plan, but, insurance companies actually seemed to face shouldering more of the burden created by the plan, at least relative to other parties like consumers, doctors, pharmcos, etc. Obama's doing plenty socialist in my opinion. I think you can argue that a socialist society (of consumers) is more favorable to a corporate state and I could buy an argument that the motivation isn't socialist, but, doesn't make something that's socialist not socialist.

Well, first of all, I don't have any problem with Western Euro-style Socialism. It isn't anything like what Eastern European nations had to endure under Soviet rule. Theirs is more of a hybrid between Socialism and Capitalism, which is my preference. People try to scare you on TV. The word Socialism has gotten an unnecessarily bad rap. Canada, England, France, Germany. Nobody can compare that to the Eastern Bloc nations back in the day. It is so obsurd, so silly.

As far as the healthcare bill, I am by no means an expert, but it seems that all they're doing is just forcing people to sign up with an insurance company, then calling that insurance reform. A few provisions they set are good, true, but in the long run the insurers will benefit the most because they're getting millions of customers. To this day, I see no mention of anything substantial that deals with the critical problem of healthcare - the cost. People can't afford to pay their medical bills.

I have a question to anyone who knows. Will this new system provide full, 100% coverage? Or will it be the same BS, where the insurer pays only so much, leaving you with a giant bill. And will they still deny procedures to some people? One provision is that they won't be able to dismiss anyone, but will they actually provide what you need once you're with them? There are so many questions that need to be answered, but, honestly, I don't see that much difference from what we have now, other than the fact everyone will have to sign up in a couple of years. Imagine having to pay $8500 a year for insurance if you can't afford it today. From what I read, any government help for poor people will not be enough.

[shafnutz05]

I can agree with a lot of what is said about the unwieldy American leviathan. However............it is dangerous and ignorant of history/religion to simply dismiss Islamic terrorist attacks as justifiable reactions to American "meddling" or our unjust actions abroad. I spent an entire semester studying the Koran and the origins of Islam. It is a religion that is based in spreading by the sword. Have our actions inflamed this tension? Sure. But it is hardly the sole cause.

[doublem]

Will this new system provide full, 100% coverage?

I'm pretty sure it will not.

[Guinness]

These soft, "Euro-style" socialist states, just like our corporatist state, rely entirely upon an unsustainable doomed-to-collapse inflationist monetary policy and fiat currency, and/or onerous taxation rates - immoral on it's face, full of unforeseen damage to innovation and advancement, and inevitably dependent upon encroachments on civil liberties.

[doublem]

It is a religion that is based in spreading by the sword.

Name one that hasn't been? The idea from Americans and the American media is to shrug our shoulders when we are attacked or attempt like the "evildoers" just picked us out of a hat at random and no reason id ever given for this, besides the non-sense they are evil.

[youtube][/youtube]

[doublem]

Bang, Bang, Glenn Greenwald is the best.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr. Ford declined to discuss what he is paid by the bank [Merrill Lynch, of which he is Vice Chairman], but publicly available data suggests that he earns at least $1 million a year. Asked what role outsize pay packages played in fueling the financial crisis, Mr. Ford said he objected to capping executive compensation on Wall Street. "I am a capitalist," he said. "I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well; they should lose if they don't."

So the rugged individualist Harold Ford -- who inherited his father's Congressional seat at the age of 26 -- is a self-proclaimed "capitalist" who believes that people "should lose" if they don't do well: unless, that is, the people who "don't do well" are his funders and controllers on Wall Street, in which case they should be propped up by the U.S. Government with bailouts and loans and Federal Reserve tricks until such time that they can pay themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses, at which point they should be left alone in the name of "free market capitalism" and keeping the Government out of the affairs of industry and away from their "rewards." What Ford is advocating, of course, is the exact opposite of free market capitalism: it's risk-free crony "capitalism," warped corporatism, the essence of decaying emerging-market nations in crisis, in which the coercive power of the Government is harnessed by a corrupt financial elite for its own benefit and at everyone else's expense, to ensure that people like Harold Ford can maintain their chauffeurs and weekly pedicures and helicopter rides he strangely boasted of enjoying.

The American public doesn't appear to react that way. A primary reason for this acquiescence is probably found in the blatant deceit of Harold Ford's comments. Americans have been taught for so long that the Joys of Capitalism are unchallengeable even when they result in great disparities, and that those who enjoy its fruits do so because they deserve it. As Ford said: "I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well." That would be all well and good if that were actually what was happening. But it isn't. The people who own the Government operate without risk and with the full protection of the coercive political power they have come to own. The rules are rigged completely in their favor, and (with some rare exceptions) the obscene rewards of today are anything but well-earned, anything but the by-product of "risky" entrepreneurialism. It's obviously possible to sell some pretty blatant lies to an apathetic and passive public, but the one that Ford and his funders are peddling here -- these huge Wall Street bonuses are the joyous by-product of fair and rugged "capitalism" -- seems a bit too blatant to be sustained.

[Firebird]

So, let me get this straight....non-union health insurance plans through company's will be taxed but union ones, which offer better and ridiculous benefits for less money won't?

I'm beginning to hate what's going rightnow

[Guinness]

It is a religion that is based in spreading by the sword.

Name one that hasn't been? The idea from Americans and the American media is to shrug our shoulders when we are attacked or attempt like the "evildoers" just picked us out of a hat at random and no reason id ever given for this, besides the non-sense they are evil.

Regardless of how religions have propogated themselves...

Is it any mystery why the Iranian government came to view the United States as an enemy? Could it have had anything to do with the American government's involvement in placing the Shah? Or is it because the people there have adopted a savage religion?

Is it any mystery why al Qaeda, which grew out of our involvement in the Soviet/Afghan conflict, grew to view the United States as an enemy? No, it isn't - because they told us why. Shockingly, it has nothing to do with "our freedoms".

Our foriegn policy has been that of an empire for 50-100 years. Our government - that benevolent entity that is going to keep us safe or keep us healthy, depending on your point of view - has gone around the world meddling in the internal affairs of foriegn countries in an effort to establish favorable trade relationships, or to establish buffer states from impoverished "enemy" states like Vietnam, or for any other number of benefits to our corporations and/or government. And we sit here in wide-eyed, jaw-gaping wonder when the victims of the Empire lash out... wondering what it is about "our freedoms" that they hate. It's called "blowback", as *they* well know. But *they* continue to propogate this myth that dirt-poor farmers sit around in huts in Afghanistan dreaming up ways to rain terror down on us because of our freedoms. And we buy it. And it keeps the ball rolling...

Edit to add: All of this does not mean that *we* are to blame for terrorism, as is so often the conservative response. It is to say that *they* (the federal government) a responsible for creating the conditions which make us the targets of terrorism.

[slappybrown]

It seems like every time it is brought how up how crappy of a job Obama is doing, everyone goes to the kneejerk defense: "Well Bush wrecked the country give the guy some time!!!!" Are we going to be hearing this in 2012 when he is up for reelection and unemployment is even higher than it is now (which I am predicting it will be, if he gets his way legislation-wise). Bush was bad, Obama is 10x worse IMHO.

Hes been in office less than one year. How can you compare that to someone who was in office for 8 years and jump to the conclusion he is ten times worse?

[SoupOrSam]

Can't wait until one of these come out for the great speaker Obama.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/about/news038.html

[shafnutz05]

Hes been in office less than one year. How can you compare that to someone who was in office for 8 years and jump to the conclusion he is ten times worse?

Simply because of the policies he is pursuing. I don't care how long he has been in office. Want to know what his agenda is?

-Government control of the healthcare system
-Economically destructive cap and trade legislation that will also drastically increase government control
-Amnesty (just like his predecessor)
-Complete failure to recognize threats (for example....the Yemeni airplane bomber. It was pretty clear that he had vital information about other terrorists training in the Middle East, something he even alluded to. Instead of getting this information, we immediately provided him with a court-appointed lawyer and read him his Miranda rights. There has to be some sense of realism)
-Increased regulation (some would call it control) of various portions of the private sector

I could go on...but these are all things that he supports, but hasn't even done yet. He has not accomplished most of his relatively left-wing agenda, and his approval is already below 50% and the unemployment is above 10. God forbid when he gets to this other points.

[Geezer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... lac-plans/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's sure fair at least in liberal eyes. Why not just have in the bill that people are exempted from the Cadillac tax if they're registered Democrats. I wonder if the mainstream media would be okay with a plan that stated that non-union workers would be exempt from a tax that union workers would pay.

[Firebird]

Obama is turning into more of a joke with each passing day

[shafnutz05]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... lac-plans/
That's sure fair at least in liberal eyes. Why not just have in the bill that people are exempted from the Cadillac tax if they're registered Democrats. I wonder if the mainstream media would be okay with a plan that stated that non-union workers would be exempt from a tax that union workers would pay.

Unbelievable....i KNEW this was going to happen. I am sick and tired of the blatant graft and corruption in this administration. Why should unions be entitled to not having their plans taxed? Like Geezer said, because they vote Democrat. Obama, and the rest of the Democrats suck at life

[shafnutz05]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/u ... IxXAm37DOM

I know this has been covered, but now it's official. I can't take this anymore........"we are going to tax "cadillac" health care plans to support this crappy bill....well, unless of course those plans are given to people in unions!! After all, they make up a solid part of our voter base..."

This administration is basically favoring certain POLITICAL groups through tax policy, and punishing others through the same. The government using taxes as punitive measures on its citizens....I have never been more proud to be an American.

I am also curious as to how the anti-corporatists in here will view this. IMO, unions are just as powerful if not more powerful than the corporations themselves. They are just as much a threat as the CEOs we are always made out to be so afraid of.

[doublem]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role." Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.

[doublem]

I am also curious as to how the anti-corporatists in here will view this. IMO, unions are just as powerful if not more powerful than the corporations themselves. They are just as much a threat as the CEOs we are always made out to be so afraid of.

That is crazy. Maybe, if all unions were like major league baseball I would agree with you.

[shafnutz05]

I am also curious as to how the anti-corporatists in here will view this. IMO, unions are just as powerful if not more powerful than the corporations themselves. They are just as much a threat as the CEOs we are always made out to be so afraid of.

That is crazy. Maybe, if all unions were like major league baseball I would agree with you.

Unions yield a TON of political power.............Democratic politicians are bought and paid for by them.

[doublem]

I am also curious as to how the anti-corporatists in here will view this. IMO, unions are just as powerful if not more powerful than the corporations themselves. They are just as much a threat as the CEOs we are always made out to be so afraid of.

That is crazy. Maybe, if all unions were like major league baseball I would agree with you.

Unions yield a TON of political power.............Democratic politicians are bought and paid for by them.

Okay, even if that was 100% true Unions don't have the power to influence the entire show. Unions haven't bought and paid for the entire media, senate and white house. Unions haven't been getting what they want for the last 40 years non-stop. The influence of Unions has been drastically cut since the 60s, Unions ideally fight against big money, big power big corporations. Why would you be against them again? Unions side with workers.