How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Just because you're not living like a guerilla revolutionary with a grenade and knife in hand doesn't mean you aren't trying to help one out.

Oh look guys I went to the pet store today and bought another talk radio parrot. I'll set his cage right here. Sup 11 year old Obama connected to Ayers' radicalism.



This thread is a dipshit magnet.

[Kuya]

I feel the need to question who the entrenched interests are. Are you referring to the Blue Dogs? Or the progressive/leftist organizations mentioned in the article you posted? It seems like you're implying #2 has no goal but the status quo, which could be true but I need to know what interests you're talking about, but which again I think in some/many cases is just you not looking favorably on political utilitarianism/not realizing that the GOP can still be re-elected.

It's contextual; it will depend on what we're talking about. In the case of the health care debate, the entrenched interests are the health insurence industry, the hospitals (this is not the correct phrase), and Pharma. The Blue Dogs have interests too, but those are different. Everyone has interests. Entrenched interests in this context is when a person/group/institution's interests run contrary to some form of change.

However, talking about #1 here, I believe that a public option would be a compromise goal that could lead to perhaps a universal (or just expanded) system down the road, and Sotomayor is an action that hopefully sets up for a more liberal court in the future and at least protects certain decisions as is.

Explain how. How will the public option lead to x situation (assuming its even still on). This is what i've been asking you; if you really think these compromises are made with some form of strategy in mind, then explain what that strategy is-though what means will it accomplish its long term goals, otherwise, you are relying on faith. The Sotomayor thing is not important, although your statement is too simplistic (liberal judge will lead to a liberal court; that doesn't really explain anything).

I think it's more an issue of political strategy failure- the Obama admin has erred too far on the side of caution and political utility, and it has backfired to a degree. Obama's "post-partisan" strategy worked wonders in the election, but that's likely because he was wooing genuine moderates and large swaths of the average Dem voter. However it's becoming painfully obvious that GOP officials and conservative backers are not moderate in the slightest.

Another problem is the lack of playing up grassroots PR- this is something the Obama camp was able to inject into the public discourse during the election, but are failing to do now. Instead it's the astroturf movements from the conservative side dominating the headlines and giving the public misleading impressions about what their fellow voters think. In reality, there are actually large, active movements in favor of health reform right now, for example, but they get no coverage. Similar to how the pro-immigration rallies of the Bush years got limited coverage compared to say, Minutemen and more currently, Tea Parties.

So yes, I think currently it is a matter of the administration playing their hand a bit poorly. But actions from groups like PCCC are showing some promise at getting the dems to snap the fuck out of it (without demonizing fellow liberal/progressive groups). I'll remain hopeful.

You are focusing on one specific issue; the health care issue. You are saying that their strategy failed, which would mean that this compromise will not be leading towards that goal (single payer, single providor, what have you). If the strategy is to lead to that goal, and you are saying their strategy failed, then the goal will probably not be achieved. However, here you are talking about a specific situation, yet you have countless times made the general statement that these compromises are baby steps towards these liberal goals you speak of. Apparently, according to you, health care is not one of those small steps towards that liberal goal, but rather a failure, but what of the other compromises that we also label "wattered down policy"?

I've asked you to defend your belief that these compromises are baby steps towards these supposed goals, however you have yet, again, to explain how it is that these compromises will lead to said goals. You have limited yourself to thing such as this: "a public option will lead to a possible single payer" (how? when? what are the mechanisms?) How is cap and trade a baby step towards a goal?

I get the feeling that you don't know exactly how they will lead to a specific goal, but rather, you simply believe that they will.

Krugman may be right about the stimulus not having enough funding or teeth to fix it, but we are starting to see evidence of the bleeding slowing, which is at least gives hope for seeing the economy return to normal sooner rather than later

I'm not talking about the Stimulus.

And the bailouts/stimulus did prevent some major employers from shutting down and maintained liquidity financially, which is a prevention of tangible consequences. But yes, the idea that there was not enough teeth to prevent some of the things that went wrong from even happening in the first place, not to mention the shittiness of massive payouts to some of those who caused it all, is something I agree with. Doesn't constitute a full failure though given the losses that were prevented, but yes, perhaps an instance where the admin erred too far towards cautious utilitarianism (I think there was significant public support for not letting those fuckers get so much).

This is not what i am referring to, you did not understand my point. My point, with this specific example, is that the factors that lead to the financial crisis have not been fixed, and that the actions taken have only facilitated a future financial crisis. Compromise here is not possible because it would be too volatile, that was my point. You can't cede to the interests of the financial sector, because the financial sector wants to keep the very same systems that lead to the collapse.

Concerning the habeus corpus/etc... sadly while you are ideologically/philosophically right, that very unfortunately doesn't carry over practically, because of how insulated the average American feels from foreign affairs.

This is frustrating. What ideology/philosophy? This isn't about ideology/philosophy, this is about concrete consequences. If you do not punish those who broke the rules, it will happen again and it will go much further. Why are you mentioning philosphy? The real effects of all of this emanate from the fact that if an administration from the opposite party goes along with policy that is extreme and was used by the other party, it becomes normalized. If both parties agree to something, it creates an illusion of concensus; an idea that if both parties agree to it, then it can't be wrong.

There's a high degree of electoral complacency regarding the issue, and only progressives seem to give a shit. I don't see a benefit, politically, by immediate fixing those things, which leaves possible blowback by giving the right more ammo to play with. Now don't confuse that with my personal stance on it, but I feel it does explain Obama and the dem's very half-hearted approach thus far (more about gestures and token actions rather than actually cleaning up the situation).

What? The people's complacency is an aside; it's not an excuse to not fix issues that are major threats to the polity. If the boat is sinking, you don't check if the people care or not, you have to fix it; you were put in a position of leadership.

So I believe the proper conclusion would be that the current administration and democratic legislature is making some worthwhile compromises (public option, cap and trade, working toward a more progressive tax scale, at least still talking about repealing DADT/DOMA) but are simultaneous playing politics a bit poorly in several areas.

This argument was fun, but i think i will stop replying now. If you read all my posts thus far, and you still said this, then you either did not comprehend or you simply do not care.

If you want to know, for future reference, one of the many things you've done wrong here, is that, for example, here you said: "worthwhile compromises" yet you have not once proven them to be worthwhile.

[Beckwin]

example of one thing leading to another: since the inception of medicare, it's gone on to spawn medicaid for the very poor, and perhaps paved the way for state-level health insurance for children who need it. so at least there's a possibility of a public option growing in some way.

kuya, with the detainee/habeus corpus issue: I'm not saying it's not wrong. I'm saying that the only consequences are external as far as the average american is concerned right now, and that the current administration doesn't see legitimately tackling the problem as viable right now, considering there are pressing and controversial domestic issues being dealt with. so while anyone genuinely critical of the practices will get to say "I told you so" after the next terror attack, the general public won't react that way because right now it's too far removed from the discourse (generally, a failure of our media).

What's important to remember too is that in a sense, these practices are already normalized. You think that in the proxy wars we've fought and regimes our CIA has propped up, that we've pushed for due process and proper treatment of prisoners? Of course not. What brought this into the forefront was the Bush administration taking things into their own hands, and poorly trying to cover up what they were doing. In essence, the actions haven't changed. Now this doesn't excuse the Obama admin's course of action so far (again, which has mostly been token gestures rather than sweeping change) but it shows that we're not losing ground or really creating a normalization of the practices- just stagnation on the issue.

This is not what i am referring to, you did not understand my point. My point, with this specific example, is that the factors that lead to the financial crisis have not been fixed, and that the actions taken have only facilitated a future financial crisis. Compromise here is not possible because it would be too volatile, that was my point. You can't cede to the interests of the financial sector, because the financial sector wants to keep the very same systems that lead to the collapse.

yes, the idea that there WAS NOT enough teeth to prevent some of the things that went wrong from even happening in the first place, not to mention the shittiness of massive payouts to some of those who caused it all, is something I agree with.

yeah I'm pretty sure I understood your point. I'm don't know why I bother responding at all if you're just gonna pretend I don't say things just so you can wear a fucking monocle and act condescending.

I've said in several instances that elements of the current progressive movement and the Obama administration have erred too far toward utilitarian caution, and that Obama's post-partisan approach is not working with the GOP, but you seem absolutely incapable of even considering what the realistically obtainable net gains and losses could be.

Do you really think it's close to feasible for America, within 4 years, to have end both wars, completely reverse our foreign policy and how we treat detainees, castrate corporate America, introduce a universal single-payer healthcare system, provide full rights for LGBT people, drastically reduce emissions and introduce alternative energy on a wide scale, make trade agreements that actually work, and so on?

I sure don't. But I think it is possible to prevent regression in those areas, and make a little progress in a few of them.

[Beckwin]

While there is a difference between a fast(violence, overthrow, war) and a slow revolution(working within the structure to achieve your version of 'utopia' over many years), they both are trying to achieve the same goal and in the end, it's the same damn thing. Just because you're not living like a guerilla revolutionary with a grenade and knife in hand doesn't mean you aren't trying to help one out.

Also, you assume way too much judging by your post. Where did I imply that I was allergic to communism/socialism? Just because I disagree with the way those political systems work that means I'm uniformed and an (you imply stupid when you say this) American? There goes your bias. Ironically, I even find some socialist policies to be agreeable and healthy for a country.

In any case, I wasn't really attacking you outright for your views. I was just clarifying to guartz who seemed surprised that you were biased, something that should be clear to everyone after reading a few lines in your posts.

@Rhinox: Celebrating Eastwood's character in 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' told you all that? And yes, if those 'niggers' and 'spics' you're talking about are criminals, I would gladly shoot them anyday.

everyone is biased then, politically. yourself and guartz included. however your tone when addressing me as a communist/socialist and some sort of parallel to Leif was obviously one of derision, so cut the bullshit and in the future, refrain from saying retarded shit.

[kuronosan]

I'm still amazed how many socialist aspects of our country exist that people completely overlook. Like... financial aid... or medicare... or welfare...

Hmph. People are so fucking stupid in this country.

[Lee]

everyone is biased then, politically. yourself and guartz included. however your tone when addressing me as a communist/socialist and some sort of parallel to Leif was obviously one of derision, so cut the bullshit and in the future, refrain from saying retarded shit.

By biased, I mean unable to see the light right when it shines in your eyes. I'll clarify my point of calling you 'a radical', a person who is very entrenched in a doctrine that renders them incapable of acknowledging facts when it conflicts their political ideologies. With all the signs of a radical in your views (which you bring up in your posts) and your signature (lol it sounds childish to bring this up but it's relevant), I can only assume that you are close-minded and not willing to take any consideration for valid opposition to socialism/communism (thus causing my derision). I'll leave it at this as I don't want to distract what this thread is for.

[Beckwin]

well buddy, why don't you present one of those facts I seem to be ignoring?

[Sirrus_Asura]

I'm still amazed how many socialist aspects of our country exist that people completely overlook. Like... financial aid... or medicare... or welfare...

Hmph. People are so fucking stupid in this country.

Actually most are pretty well aware of this.

Government is like water my friend; too little and you'll go thirsty, too much and you drown.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

By biased, I mean unable to see the light right when it shines in your eyes. I'll clarify my point of calling you 'a radical', a person who is very entrenched in a doctrine that renders them incapable of acknowledging facts when it conflicts their political ideologies. With all the signs of a radical in your views (which you bring up in your posts) and your signature (lol it sounds childish to bring this up but it's relevant), I can only assume that you are close-minded and not willing to take any consideration for valid opposition to socialism/communism (thus causing my derision). I'll leave it at this as I don't want to distract what this thread is for.

Nice try at the old conservative tactic of attacking his strengths. Any argument Beckwin, myself, Rhinox, Olo, and company give are almost always backed by facts where you dipshits always post shit from right wing bogs or parrot talk radio.

This tactic of calling Beckwin a radical is along the same lines of saying death panel, nazi, and re-education camp. You people are mentally disturbed and I can't wait until you fanatics make the first move so I can you start being picked off from a water tower.

You can disregard the hundreds of threads and posts made where Beckwin or any other "radical" have debated and considered various stances, but if you're not going to research before you make accusations in a thread then shut your fucking mouth.

[guartz]

Actually most are pretty well aware of this.

Government is like water my friend; too little and you'll go thirsty, too much and you drown.

If the only way to have social order is to have a institution that holds monopoly on violence, then I don't want to be right.

[Skjie]

I find it very hard to believe deep inside there is anyone in this thread who truly believes they would be better off in a pure anarchistic or communistic society. Not to mention that believes such a society is actually possible.

[Kuya]

the idea that there WAS NOT enough teeth to prevent some of the things that went wrong from even happening in the first place

This statement is speaking of the past. That there weren't guards (whatever you mean with that) that prevented the financial crisis. This relevant if we're discussing the Bush administration. If you meant that the Obama administration has not fixed the things that lead to the financial crisis in the first place, then your statement was poorly made. It should have said: "the idea that no teeth were placed to prevent some of the things that went wrong from happening again".

I think that is what you meant.

Do you really think it's close to feasible for America, within 4 years, to have end both wars, completely reverse our foreign policy and how we treat detainees, castrate corporate America, introduce a universal single-payer healthcare system, provide full rights for LGBT people, drastically reduce emissions and introduce alternative energy on a wide scale, make trade agreements that actually work, and so on?

I never mentioned any of that(except the reversing treatment of detainees, but that was in reference to punishing officials from the previous administration). This argument is over.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Nice try at the old conservative tactic of attacking his strengths. Any argument Beckwin, myself, Rhinox, Olo, and company give are almost always backed by facts where you dipshits always post shit from right wing bogs or parrot talk radio

Simply because it's right-wing doesn't mean it's not facts. The "editorial" might be wrong, or look into it to much, but it merely being a right-wing blog, etc doesn't mean it's not backed up by facts.

[Beckwin]

This statement is speaking of the past. That there weren't guards (whatever you mean with that) that prevented the financial crisis. This relevant if we're discussing the Bush administration. If you meant that the Obama administration has not fixed the things that lead to the financial crisis in the first place, then your statement was poorly made. It should have said: "the idea that no teeth were placed to prevent some of the things that went wrong from happening again".

I think that is what you meant.

considering we've been talking primarily about the Obama administration, that's the meaning you should've gotten in the first place.

As for the other positions, they were all mentioned in the article as causes the progressive groups sought or are just generally considered part of the progressive agenda.

And still, you refuse to look at feasibility and net gains/losses. Not surprising, since the past regressive-ness of the Reagan and Bush administrations and the reasonable speculations of what course McCain
would take does not do service to your stance here.

[Sirrus_Asura]

If the only way to have social order is to have a institution that holds monopoly on violence, then I don't want to be right.

I honestly don't think people are ready for a completely governmentless society right now, otherwise I'd be all for anarchy.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Totally off topic but Finesse, I was thinking about the State Run Healthcare idea again the other day and the issue with border hopping for other states insurance.

Don't we already deal with that w/ immigrants? (Or we would under single payer / public opt). If that's the case, I don't really see that as a reasonable hinderance.

[tyven]

18 page summery of Baucus's framework for health reform just hit my desk WOO-HOO

[Dimmauk]

18 page summery of Baucus's framework for health reform just hit my desk WOO-HOO

No public option right? Just skip ahead to that part. I know its the cheapest bill so far, but it also fails for no Public Option. AMIRITE?

[Max™]

I find it very hard to believe deep inside there is anyone in this thread who truly believes they would be better off in a pure anarchistic or communistic society. Not to mention that believes such a society is actually possible.

Perhaps...

If everyone in the world were a scientist, or a mathematician, if we were all educated, thoughtful people.

If people were informed enough to be aware that they are not in fact the center of the Universe, and that everyone else riding along around the Sun with them has their own wants, needs, and dreams.

If the most heated debates arose over the interpretation of a theoretical work which was recently shared with the world, or the best manner in which to perform calculations on a computer (level index, bitches!)...

Sadly, we're stupid, disgusting, hateful, crazy monkeys.

Oh, but I can dream can't I?

[Sirrus_Asura]

Perhaps...

If everyone in the world were a scientist, or a mathematician, if we were all educated, thoughtful people.

If people were informed enough to be aware that they are not in fact the center of the Universe, and that everyone else riding along around the Sun with them has their own wants, needs, and dreams.

If the most heated debates arose over the interpretation of a theoretical work which was recently shared with the world, or the best manner in which to perform calculations on a computer (level index, bitches!)...

Sadly, we're stupid, disgusting, hateful, crazy monkeys.

Oh, but I can dream can't I?

Some day. =(