The Official Political Debate Thread (P. 2)

A couple points: Bastard, since you did not edify on your hypocracy statement, I will assume you reassed you position and came to the realization that my point to hatetheceltics about not using terms like "everyone," or "all of us," in no way relates to my position on the gay marriage thread nor was it hypocritcal in anyway, shape or form. I had a feeling you might draw that conclusion. I still don't have even the slightest idea how you even came to say what you did. But I am glad you see now that it was just really a strange charge to make. You have not apologized for leveling this spurious charge of hypocracy, but I will assume that is implicit in your silence as well. I also know that perhaps you just missed my reply to you or forgot to respond. If so, once again please tell me how the two threads and things said in them correlates to hypocracy on my part. I would still like to see that explaination if you still feel that is the case. Then I can respond to you in an intelligible way. To those who think somehow the Republicans are going to kiss it and make it better, lol. Right, keep telling yourselves that. They sure did make it better when they ran things into the ground. People are mad because of the bank and business bailouts. I don't blame them one bit. It sucks to see these companies who were so instrumental in the economies collapse get their fat taken out of the fire. It is an issue I honestly can't answer. My heart says screw them all and let them go under. Most major economists said we had to bail them out or go into a great depression. Which is the right side?....

We do agree that most Americans do want some sort of public "option". The type of public option that people want is a gray area though. Also, most people don't want a government takeover of the healthcare system. For now, let's talk about the cost of the socialized public option. I'd like for you to show me data on how much it will cost us tax payers and our children for this. Don't come up with Gibbs economical numbers that he pulls out of his arse everytime he tries to dodge the question of cost on the healthcare bill by reporters. He says it will save money, when medicare, medicaid, medical, and social security will probably be bankrupt in a couple of years. What's you take on the fraud and corruption going on now with medicare and other social health plans? Everyone like SPQR likes to think that the voters of Mass. are happy with their public option but they are not. They voted against the Obama plan because it's deceitful and dishonest to the American people, not because it didn't have a public option. They already have it. Let's hear the rebuttel on that one. By the way, I grew up in the barrio in East LA (poor area) went to school and got a BA in Business Management. I was lucky to have a solid head on my shoulder's to work for everything I have, not get something handed to me like I was entitled to it. I have two kids that are in high school that are going to pay through the teeth in taxes et al. It seems to me that liberals are so spoiled that if they don't get their way they piss and whine about it. I'd like to see them grow some balls and make something of themselves first before they get on their high horse and think they are right on every issue. By the way, my parents never used Welfare or Medical as a crutch to live off of either. They worked two, even three jobs at times to keep food on the table and pay for healthcare when necessary.

Wait wait wait. First off Spankees, in the interests of correctness: I don't want you to use that term, "I claim." I have said a few times that it seems perhaps you don't really follow events or the news. This is not a slam on you. Just an impression I get once in while when you seem not to know general informatioin that is well known. Before we take one step further on this, please retract the "I claim" part of your response and insert, "talk about the cost of socialized medicine that the polls show americans want." If you don't for some reason know of the polls, and I don't see how you don't, I will give you time to research it. That way you are not impugning me by saying a fact is just a claim by me. Once you find out about those polls, then we will continue with both of us acknowleging the truth of what the majority of american want. Fair enough? Once you have the information, we will proceed. We will proceed with this discussion from facts Spankees, none of that right wing inuendo or 'claims' charges that you guys use to muddle the facts. The first fact we will start with is what the american people want in regards to the public option. Once you get that first, simple fact straight on what the majority of the people want, then we can proceed to wherever you wish to go. If not, then once again we will back at my point that while you seem to always take up the standard, "the will of the amercan people should come first," in this case, because of your personal feelings on this issue, you are very ready to disregard that very will of the american people you always seem so....

Well, maybe Randy and I will get into it later. If we do, we should probably preface anything that might follow with who we are politically. I am a now-disillusioned lifetime democrat, that can no longer find it conscientiously coherent to ally myself with what I consider that the Democratic party has now become. So, for want of a better word, I am now an independent, with anarchist tendencies (in not having faith with any form of government, large, small, extreme right, extreme left). I am also fiscally conservative enough to want to see where the money comes from before I seriously consider any proposal of law. Randy's positions speak for themselves, but I should say that they seem (and I purposely use the conjunctive because I am presuming here) to find their origin in that part of the far-left radical theory that I have always actively contrasted even when I still considered myself a Democrat. My aversion to such political positions does not stem from any a priori rejection of these theories in and of themselves. For what they say, theoretically, I find much to be laudable and even auspicable. However, I find them also, for historical reasons, for philosophical reasons, etc., but especially for the more germane reasons of a profound comprehension of human nature, to be simply non-feasible, and more than that, I find them too easily open to being co-opted by power-seekers, and therefore immediately corruptible. History has taught us that pervasively controlling political systems, of whatever paternity, right, or left, tend to reach a point of absolute power and totalizing repression. Certainly, all for the common good so they have repeatedly said. It is the unfettered concentration of power always through the economy, that....

Steve, Spankees, I really didn't come here to debate health care. Me, Spankees and others went down that road already and chewed that scenary over pretty good. If you guys want to redo it, I am willing. The point I am really trying to make is lets have a bit of honesty in this political talk. The new mantra of the right (seems like they always love to find new mantras, don't they?) is this: "We just want Obama and congress to do what the majority of the Americans want." This is the bogus new cry of some LTB members, the Teabaggers and now the republican members in congress. This is of course an outright lie and very easy to prove, which I just did with Spankees. They say they just want the new democratic majority to implement the majority of the peoples wishes. I can show you just how much bullsh*t this really is. These people are not interested one bit in having the 'will of the American people' enacted by Obama and congress. They want THEIR OWN AGENDA enacted by government. Want proof? Ok. Poll after poll shows the people are against the democratic health bill. This is true and I have no problem with that or them saying that. The democrats have a real problem there that they are going to have to deal with. Poll after poll show say the people don't want anymore bailouts for corporations. Once again, people like Spankees, the tea baggers and republicans are right and I have no problem with them saying the democrats need to follow the 'will of the people' here. But this is where their whole fake house of cards falls down and they get exposed as just people pushing their own agenda. Every poll says the American people want the public....

Hi Randy,

You will have noticed that my political positions are based on my general philosophy as to political theory, and economic theory. These positions are positions that I have developed throughout my about 45 years of pondering, and learning, and certainly, they are not aimed specifically at any sort of personal Obama (as a concept), but rather as a representative of that which I have contrasted on differences of political philosophy for decades. For this reason, if I intervene further it will be on general questions of philosophy, and certainly, my philosophy can not be contrued as tea-bagger, or conservative.

However, I will respond specifically to what you are talking about in the latter part of the above. I agree with you on this. I was extremely dismayed at this court decision. We have talked about our positions before vis-a-vis electoral politics and how they should be financed, and we are in agreement as I recall. Rather than this unfortunate decision of yesterday, I have desired for decades a system in which you can not gather the so-called soft money, and for which there is a hard cap established state-by-state, of equal money, to each candidate. I would also wish to disallow the splicing in of personal fortunes to augment this money. I would rather see each candidate, with equal money, and hopefully the campaigns based on the substance of the political questions at hand.

Steve,

No problems. Unlike some others here, I never thought you were dogmatic in your opinions. I know you come at things from a personal philosophy nor do you try to couch, lie and hide your true intentions like some other people, groups and political parties do..as expressed and exposed by my post. You are like me. You look at an issue and make up your mind on what you believe is right and best. You don't make excuses. You have the courage to say what you think and why you think it. You don't try to fool people with phoney baloney crap like, "I just want what the american people want." Even though I don't agree with some of youre opinions, I respect that you are being honest in your reasons you give. Not like some others.

I can't wait to see Spankees endless posts now on LTB about the usurption of the common mans powers perpetrated by his very own right wing, conservative supreme court. I am sure he is in fact just livid and enraged by this power grab of the elite engendered by the conservatives and right wing. Knowing how much Spankees does not hesitate to bash those when the thinks they are doing this, I am sure he has a nice, huge loaded gun ready to fire at the conservative rightwing. I am also sure we will see effusive praise from him for the liberal, left wing of the court that tried to save and protect what little power we still have left on our representatives.

Right Spankees?

I think Steve pretty much summed up my personal feelings on the court decision yesterday and it will be just as bad for conservatives as liberals. The fact is I can be upset with the court ruling and I have no problem admitting so. I am very disappointed that the "conservative" judges decided to do this. I am not a fan of any corporation, union, Hollywood, etc. dumping tons of money to push, influence, and endorse lawmakers. However, the ilk of Keith Olberman crying and whining about this, yet they have little to say about the backdoor dealings with the healthcare and congressman being bought off for their votes is something they don't talk about on the liberal networks. What happened to the Obamamaniacs push for change, transparancy, bipartisanship, etc.???? Only when it's convenient to push the blame Bush button do the liberals get all riled up. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Doesn't Olbermann and other liberal networks work for corporations like GE that dumped tons of money into the liberal campains? Hmmmmm. Let's talk about the power of unions and how the crime bosses there fund dirty campaigns too. Don't run away from the fact that it happens on both sides of the aisle because it does. I can admit that the Republican party has failed this country by being endorsed by big banks, the rich, and big corporations. Can you admit that the liberal left is endorsed by Hollywood, unions, big companies and is failing the country as well? Randy likes to lump us conservatives with the radical right and that's just not true. I like some things that the democratic party stood for and did consider myself a democratic a few years ago, however, George Soros, Obama, and the Chicago....

Spankees, I could not agree with you more about that quote. Obama has disappointed me in many ways. But I will say your response about the conservative, right wing ruling seems so very tepid by a man who is known for really piling on the vituperation when something really bad happens to peoples rights. Where is that indignation you bring to the left? Your own ideology just creamed us in that ruling and all you can say is, "I agree with Steve"? Where is that moral outrage you seem so well at expressing? Come on my friend. Let that conservative court have it like I know you can, like I have seen you do so many times in the past against liberals!! What they just did is ten times more dangerous to our self government than anything Obama has done. Lets see some some of that nice, white hot outrage that you so easily muster up against the left!! And hey, how about some VERY WELL DESERVED praise for our left wing branch of the court. I haven't heard any praise from you about how they tried to preserve some the infuence of the common man. All in all Spankees, I have to rate your response as surprisingly tepid, considering the calamity that just happened. If the left had voted that way and the right had tried to protect us, I suspect you would have had a brain hemmorage here on LTB accompanied by a nice, juicy, long post about how we are losing our rights to the left. But then again, considering who brought about the calamity, maybe your quiet response is not so surprising after all. In fact, I don't see any of LTB's rightwingers on here ripping what the conservative, rightwing branch of the court just did to its citizens. Nor praising the liberal....

I don't know what more you want me to say on the issue of the ruling. I am listening to fellow conservatives try to justify the ruling on AM radio and am baffled how they can be so giddy about this. I actually almost choked on my coffee when one guy said that corporations should be like people and are protected by the first amendment therefore should be allowed to endorse and funnel money into any campaign. I am truly lost for words that anything as horrible as this passed the "Supreme Court" for crying out loud. I'm with you Randy on this one, but even MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc. will all be affected in luring blind sheep into voting for "their" man in future elections. I do see the huge disappointing ramifications by this law passing. Why is it that whenever I agree with you on an issue and humble myself, you try and degrade my answer? Do you despise me that much? Sheesh. I have tried to meet you in the middle on many issues, but you just continue to whine at me and belittle my points of view. You seem to paint a picture that conservatives like to keep the poor poor and that we don't want to help them. Well, I can only speak for myself in that I donate my time and money to help the less fortunate. I am no community organizer, but I do go with my church to low income areas and pass out food, clothes, etc. especially during the Holidays. I donated money to Haiti, Katrina, etc. I just bought a homeless guy a meal at Denney's the other day when people were just walking by him as he was sitting on the steps of the front entrance. I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back, but I am a good person and not some greedy middle class American that is selfish.

Spankees, Take this or leave it. Because I am going to tell you something that any observant person who follows issues closely already knows: The right wing, the republican party, does not have your interest, my interest or the common mans interest at heart. They have big businesses interest at heart. They always have and always will. Their history shows this with intaglio clearity. THATS WHY THEY ARE GIDDY about yesterday. No offense my friend, but you and other 'common men' who actually believe that the right in this country wants whats best for you are simply not aware of what they have done all these long year. Maybe this will open your eyes just a bit. That is just a canard they put out very effectively and that unfortunatly, too many common people have bought into. I know you don't like the left, and I am not asking you to. But if you honestly think the answer to the common mans problems lies with the right, you could not be more off base. The republican party has a much different agenda than whats best for the average american, as witnessed by so many things they have done and most recently by yesterdays ruling on the court. Spankees, I don't want you to humble yourself. I don't hate you AT ALL. In fact, I like you and always have. I was just making a point, a very tough one, that the right is not what people think it is, including you. I am very disappointed in the left and have never respected the right. Once again, I will go back to saying, where are the political parties who do want real change? Where are the politicians who really care for people? Where are they? As for what I want you to say? Well you have seen....

Spankees, I also agree with Randy with being so upset with the Supreme Court decision. But there is hope as we saw in Massacusetts. And I dont mean hope as in getting Republicans back in office either. Republicans look all gitty thinking they have it made in the upcoming elections and they may be right but people are now locked in as never before and the power of the people will not be denied. We have let both parties get away with irresponsible spending and playing footsies with corporate giants. We need to know how much they are getting and from who. I believe this will be allowed by the way. Then lets see if their talk matches up with their actions.

We need to stop making life term politicians. It has got to stop and Massachusetts has gotten the ball rolling. People didn't elect Scott Brown because they were fed up of the so called and already washed out saying of, "we inherited this mess or for the past 8 years..." President Obama does not seem to get it. As Cuckoroller mentioned, the people of Massachusetts were so fed up with the Bush Administraion that they decided to vote in a Republican? Makes no sense. Brown ran against Obama's policies and the people agreed. The blame Bush game is over. Nobody wants to hear it as both parties were involved with the subprime mortgage scam. The Democrats forced Fannie and Freddie to lower their standards and the greedy banks took the opportunity and took off with it knowing full well of the consequences. I know they saw it coming. They all lied to the American people.

If you were waiting for me to praise the Supreme Court judges for voting against yesterdays ruling then that's fine. For once in a few issues, the left finally got something correct yesterday. I can admit that. I've asked you a slew of questions that you do not answer either. You just seem to want to get your points across and ignore questions pertinent to the issues. Like the Cost of Healthcare. You throw up a roadblock whenever this happens and steer clear of the obvious questions that may debunk your way of critical thinking also. I think that many LTBer's can see my points of view and how I can bend a little on my stance on issues. However, I can't seem to say the same thing about you when it comes to sugar coating Obama and other topics. I only see you being "tepid" on bashing him and his agenda. Obama has abandonded the left and is being controlled by someone else up there. I have never seen such disorganized, arrogant, anti-American policies trying to be forced through at this moment. As long as the left continues to stay on the left and doesn't bend like I can on certain issues, there will always be a fork in the road and nothing will get resolved. The radical right and hardcore left need to realize that there is a middle road and BOTH need to get there. I sure hope that this Scott Brown can truly think Independently and not succumb to being bought by the radical right. I am conservative, not Republican so let's get that straight. The Republican party is in as much disarray as the Democratic party is. Republican's can thank Bush and the Democrats can thank Pelosi, Obama, and Reid. I would like to see a third party formed for those as flexible as I am but we'll just have to wait and see. However, for now, I have to stand by whoever lines up with the majority of my points of view and it's NOT Obama and the chronies in Congress.

Clutch,

Absolutely!! I used to vacilate on term limits but no more. They are needed badly, even if we do lose some good politicians in the process. I also think that we need more political parties that can actually do some damage to republicans and democrats. For the life of me, with all the discontent out there now, why on earth can't any real challengers to this two party mess come about? I would leap to the chance of a good alternative.

The guy from Mass, incidently voted for universal healthcare for his state. It will be interesting to see if the republican leadership co opts him like they will try to do, or if he really does vote by conviction. If he does, it will be a welcome relief what is going on now. I will be watching him closely to see what he does. Maybe he will be the start of something. But once again, how many people in either party will really buck any trends and try to do whats right? I am dubious.

As for Browns win, it was an obvious reaction to what the democrats are doing. Obama has not kept his promise on health care- unless he did use the reconcilliation process to pass the public option and then of course the right would be screaming holy hell about a dictatorship- he has not been transparent. His bailout of big business was not popular with the masses and who can blame them? It made me sick watching that happen. The people are hurting and it seems all parties are just interesting in helping big business. The democrats will pay a huge price for the decisions they have made...just as the right did last year. But the problem is, the republicans will simply take over and continue their agenda of aiding and abetting the co opting of this country by big business like they just did on the court. So where do we find hope?

It gets to the point of saying where do you turn. I mean, will it take an actual attempt at revolution to change anything? The older I get, the more I watch this stuff, the more I wonder about that.

None of us know the answer for hope? The bank issue drives me nuts. What these ivyleague gradutes in Congress don't seem to understand is that what ever they do to try and regulate banks, it is we the people who suffer. Not long ago Congress passed a law that was supposedly going to limit banks and what they can do regarding fees and rates. Well guess what? Because the law just recently went into effect the banks in the mean time decided to send letter to everyone (good or bad credit historty)about rate changes. Then they send the nice letter telling us about our new rights as customers. How can Congress be so stupid and not see this coming?

Clutch,

One thing I did like was Obamas proposal yesterday. He wants to make it illegal for banks to use our money to speculate on wall street. He also wants to cap the size a bank can get so that if in the future they do go under, as they just did last year, we don't have to bail them out, to save them, in order to save our entire economy. Now that actually sounds like legislation aimed at holding them responsible and preventing them from repeating that last caper. Something that is good for the common man.

I will have to read and understand his entire agenda here before I say yea or nay, but from what I heard yesterday, its something I may get behind if nothing rank and smelly pops up in the details.

Man this is a juicy thread. Great comments from everyone involved. I feel smarter and more informed for reading it. It's great to see SPQR and Spankees argue the Liberal VS Conservative viewpoints. At least here I trust that the opinions are honest, unlike anything we get from the political parties and their leaders. When are Americans going to stop believing the lies from these politicians on both sides of the aisle? I no longer trust Obama, and I trust the right wing conservatives even less. Who do you trust? Apparently no one. Hell in a hand basket, that's where this country is headed.

Yup it's a pick your poison type of environment. At least I'm flexible enough on certain issues to offer some compromise and not so stubborn not to move on my opinions of issues. It's very hard to get the left to move to the middle because they think that conservatives are all out to suppress the poor which is simply not true. Though it was well intentioned due to the depression, the democrats and FDR are the one's that created the welfare system that still allows people to juice the government and working taxpayers are the ones paying for them. It still gives welfare recipients a reason not to be motivated, buy drugs, have babies, and to not be motivated to find a job. You're right, this is Not a good situation for this country at all. Both sides need to get off their high horses and start thinking about creating jobs and not put everyone on welfare!

Good night all!

Certainly, he had to shift the focus from health care, and the Financial sector is a convenient, and culpable whipping boy. However, and this is a big however for me, I have still not seen any indication whatsoever that the likewise even more complicit situation stemming from the CRA, the Senatorial committees, mostly dominated by Democrats many of which are still in power (v. Schumer, Frank, Dodd, etc.) that had so much to do with inflating the artificial housing bubble, the unholy alliance of the Fed (including Bernanke) with the Federal Government through their favorite sons, i.e., Fanny and Freddy, the GSE's, all of which created the situation for allowing sub-prime lending and unsecured toxic loans, has been seriously looked at. My point is that, yes, the financial sector has its' faults, but the lack of oversight, and in many cases the political inducements wanted by our politicians, is that which created the pablum upon which the financial sector was allowed to operate without restraint. Until such time as I see serious investigations into the operations of the Fed, and of the GSE's, and the politicians still in power (Democrat and Republican) facilitating this non-oversight, then I will think that this current feigned anger that I am seeing is, well, convenient, but not comprehensive for explaining the entire background that allowed the crack. There are still too many people covering their butts with their hands here! It is obvious, that whichever political party would have been presently in power, that political expedience would dictate that neither would have willingly opened the closet. There are just too many skeletons in the closets of both parties, and the fact that the present administration has sandbagged opening up serious investigations into the sectors that I mentioned above,....

I am for Universal Health Care. But, I soon realized current theory of universal health care based on economic principles do not work. Just look at all the other Western nations. The US does not does not have the best health system (US is ranked 37th), while France, Italy, etc, the list goes on whom all have some sort of universal health care system are on the top of the list.

What really ticks me off is when misinformed individuals compare Obama's health plan to socialism and Hitler. Really? Then that means every other Western nation is socialist and totalitarian.

The second affermation is quite a loaded proposition. There is no "special case" economics that is invoked just for health care, and that magically seems to work against every common sense understanding of basic economics. Money does not grow on trees, as I am sure you have heard. Even Government, even huge all-intrusive Government, has to pay the piper, and is not immune from market sources try to spin as they might. Personally, I am not willing to pass on to our children a society in which the maximum aspiration for them will be a rather dingy, greyness of equal poverty and no dreams that will surely come with this insane out-of-control deficit spending, and passing on the debt for which it is already highly improbable to service even the interest! It is not enough to just dream with starry eyes utopistic dreams while we all drink kool-aid. At some point we must come back to earth, and to use our capitalistic system to fund our social programs! I certainly count myself as being a westerner that is highly informed on this count having lived in Europe for more than three decades. There is no blanket approval of socialized medicine in Europe. Some seem to work better than others. That of Denmark works well, but you should also realize that they pay approximately four fifths of their total incomes for their very small welfare state. That of Italy, is terrible. Nobody in Italy, that is nobody with money, and that has a serious pathology tries to work through the Italian system. An average waiting time for a Cat scan here is about four months. Try telling that to somebody with a fulminating case of cancer of the liver....

Please register or log in to view the entire post.

Vinny, Your points are correct. One other thing too is this: Our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world-by far. Thats because the insurance companies are just middlemen between the doctors and patients, they are in their line of work to make a PROFIT. They also have highly paid executives and management. They need to show large profits for the stockholders. They do not try to lower prices or negociate for lower prices for their clients- us- for treatment or meds like 'socialized' systems. They want to MAXIMIZE profits by charging as much as possible and MINIMIZE cost to themselves by getting rid of anyone who is chronically sick or has very expenive treatment. Think about that concept, that reality. That is not someone you want running your healthcare system. They are in fact, completely unnecessary for our healthcare. Just a leech that has attached itself to our healthcare and is sucking us dry. No system is perfect, but it is long past obvious that our system is too expensive and leaves millions out of the loop, literally condemning people to death or to suffer from disease when they don't have to. It is also long past obvious that other industrialized countries have found better ways to do this. Yet for some weird reason the thought of 'socialized' medicine is anathma here, like we will become red communists or its a red communist conspiracy if we follow suit with the other industrialized nations, lol. Its so goofy. You know, if there is a better way to do something, and it is more cost efficient, why not do it? To just brand it 'socialized medicine' and disgard a better way is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. So instead of learning and taking the best from the other countries and....

Randy, There is no question whatsoever that our so-called healthcare system, such as it is, and such as it presently exists, is untenable. As you know, my opposition to the present proposals, though rooted in primis on considerations having exquisitely theoretical bases, is not based only on theory. There are a considerable number of social questions that have never been answered even hypothesizing an eventual Universal Healthcare Program. Personally, some of them I could possibly overlook, such as federal money for abortions, since I am pro-choice. There are others for which the positions must be cleared, and for which it is the Federal Government that has kept it unclear, e.g., full healthcare coverage funded by regularly tax-paying american citizens of illegal aliens, just to name one, and not even that which I consider most important. As I see it, and since I do consider collectivism to be a social evil, I always look for other ways to resolve problems. I certainly agree with you in considering the unrestricted business practices of health insurance operators to be out of control. However, it does give one pause to know that the biggest insurance players (i.e., those considered too big to fail apparently) have already had their place at the Obama table, behind closed doors, and have already cut their deal! Likewise, big Pharma! These sorts of measures do not give me, at least, any reason to believe that this is other than a shuffling of the deck, since these two sectors will become privy to another huge army of health conscripts coerced into a system that they may or may not desire. They will still be making their money hand over fist. It is not even true that I am in opposition a priori to establishing any sort....

Nope because the right is labeled as the party of NO according to Randy. Where I have showed on many of my postings that I (conservative) am willing to travel more towards the center and agree in the middle, but the left are stuck on their ideologies and are stubborn. They have this "all or nothing" approach which America has seen and is revolting on. Americans wants solutions to healthcare, no doubt, but stop squeezing the middle class/future generations and forcing them pay for every damn thing these liberals want.

Steve, I agree with alot of your points. Number one: No insurance for illegals. The one thing I want to stress that in the Obama plan, this was the case. No insurance for illegals. As to your thoughts on federally funded abortion. I can't say I disagree with you there either. I personally would not want it. I am for a womans right to choose, but to fund it with tax payer dollars is not something that I advocate. A compromise of some sort would have to be reached. Perhaps a voluntary tax on those who support federally funded abortions or something else. I am sure something could be worked out. I also agree with you that the health care bill currently on the table is not a good one. It does give too much to the health insurance companies and many describe it as a cash cow for them. You and I are not so far apart, Steve. The good things about the bill are that no longer would people be exclude for pre existing conditions and all americans would finally have health care. The lack of the latter in this day and age goes hand in hand with slavery, the genocide of native americans, discrimation against gays and gay marriage and segregation as our national disgraces. It's proponents also say it will bring costs down. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. While this bill is not the one I wanted, it is an improvement over what we have now. But I also want to stress this very, very important point that all must understand: This 'bastardized bill' for want of a better term, was foisted on the american public because the right wing and blue dog democrats did not have the integrity to include a public option, which all....

Just a stray thought. I have always been a stickler for semantics, and the true meaning of words. As I am sure you have seen I give no discounts (I am talking about politicians, and how they misleadingly define their terms here) to anybody, of whichever political affililiation. That said, I have always found the choice of calling it a "public option" extremely misleading, at least in the terms in which they were proposing it when it was still being seriously considered part of this proposal of law. To rephrase, I find it intellectually dishonest the inference that there is some sort of real economic choice that could have been acted upon by individuals, when the choice was to either exercise this so-called "option" or be taxed to the tune of 40% in order to maintain the pre-existing insurance plans of which many were satisfied. Some "option"! Unfortunately, and I do admit it, there are certain viewpoints that when I consider them, get my back up, and make me think of regime. This is exactly what happens when I consider viewpoints that are real choices only in a virtual sense, but not really! If this had been proposed as a "true" option, that is having to vie for the minds and hearts of the american public on its' own merits, then fine, let the better one win, but not when you handicap it in this manner. In business, they would say that such a proposal is unfair competition.

Steve,

Actually many very astute liberals agree with you. They say that term public option was misleading and alien sounding that it actually scared people who did not really understand or know what it was.

They said that if the left had been smart, they would have coined the term 'Medicare for everyone'. Or even more accurately, 'Medicare for anyone who wanted it.'

That is something the American people would have understood and that the right could not have used to scare the sh*t out of people who did not really know what a public option meant.

Spankee,

I must say that on one point I agree more with your viewpoint than with that of Randy. Having followed the whole course of this proposal of law minutiously throughout the year, and though I do see the sins of some of the more conservative republicans, my impression has been that there were never any serious attempts by the ruling democratic majorities (in particular I must stress, by their leaders) to seriously enlist the opposition. This has always appeared to me to be a question of a fait accompli on their part, and the only times that I have seen any sort of movement across the aisle seemed to be dictated more by political reasons of giving themselves political cover, than of actively wishing to consider the possible viewpoints of the opposition. Therefore, what little opening that I did see from the majority towards the opposition, has always seemed to me to be that of "my way, or the highway"!

Spankees, Steve:

Did not Obamas lack of use of reconcilliation in not forcing the House bill throught the Senate not show very much a bending of his will to the right? The fact is the right did not want to compromise on anything in the health reform arena. So if someone does not want to compromise, how do you compromise?

MEANINGFUL health care reform is going to take major change to what we have now. The Republicans are against that. So how do you compromise with a group that is against real reform? You can't, because then you don't get real reform! Just a cosmetic thing that does nothing.

So when you boil it down, you guys keep saying the left won't compromise. Well how do you compromise when if you do compromise, you get no real reform. Can you explain to me what the good of useless compromise then is?

Obama could have forced the house bill through the Senate. He didn't. He didn't because he did not want to offend the sensibilities of the right who were dead set against something the American people, including the majority of Republicans wanted in that bill. There are many ways to compromise and to not grab all that you want. In not using reconciliation, Obama was giving up one of his cherished goals in health care for the rights sensibilities.

I think he could have resolved all of it on CSPAN like he proposed many times in his campain. Then we, the American people, could see for ourselves firsthand who the "corrupt" players were in the whole healthcare debate. He should have dragged the Republicans into a room with the Democrats, turned on the camera's and said...."Let's get healthcare done." Period! Then let the chips fall where they may! That's what I would have liked to see personally other than this bickering between parties. I believe that both parties have good ideas, but neither want to let the other take credit for truly reforming healthcare. This is the biggest problem here. I hate the Republican's for doing this also. If the Democrats have the best ideas, then by all means, work with them for the American People's sake. Who cares if they get credit for resolving health care? And visa versa with all political issues. We have some smart people on capitol hill, but the idiots seem to always screw things up. Both parties seem to have their own interests at heart and we (American's) get left out in the cold!

Randy, You are certainly politically astute enough to not want me to seriously respond to your first question (in re: reconciliation). I will if you like however. What I believe is that there was a small window of opportunity that could have been useful, useful that is if the majority was serious in wanting to consider other viewpoints, but that was slammed shut because the ideas of the opposition were not required, only their support was wanted. That is my impression at least. Certainly the opposition had then more inducements to becoming diamantine and monolithic in their opposition. They had nothing to gain from silently supporting the will of the majority. Not only was their reaction extremely politic, but also human nature. I will even personalize it. If somebody came to me enlisting my support for a weighty question, one that I have my own ideas about and would wish to lend my input, hopefully contributing to a better resolution of a problem, and then have this person tell me that all they want is my unconditional support and that they couldn't care less if until the end of my days I ever had another thought in my poor addled little brain, well, I know what I would say. I would say, screw it, I am not your doormat! Another thing. I also do not believe that "real reform" is possible much as Athena springing from Zeus's forehead, and only appanage of the democratic party. For however much we have correctly vilified many of the representatives of the Republican Party, nonetheless, many of them love their country, and know full well that the health care system must by necessity be revamped! I am not for "my way, or the highway", what....

Steve, Spankees:

Once again I will ask, what is the point of compromise if comprise provides no real change or reform? If the republicans had their way, there would be no universal coverage, no forcing of insurance companies to take people with pre existing conditions. There would be no lever to lower drug prices. The Insurance companies would still have carte blanche to do as they have been doing all along. So where is the benefit of this compromise reform? Why not then just scrap the whole thing and tell people who can't get insurance, or afford it or their meds, "too bad, curl up and die" like we do now.

You guys keep saying to compromise. And I keep repeating, If the right does not offer compromise that actually addresses the problem, why would you waste time and torpedo reform by doing the compromise?

It takes two to compromise. It takes two who are willing to make real, substantive changes. If one offers chimera compromise, an illusion that does not address the real problems, why should you attack the other side for saying, "ok, they don't want to address the real wrongs here, so we just have to go on ourselves."

Tell me, what compromises have you two heard that would have addressed the real problems we have now that was offered up by the right? I would be interested in hearing them.

The right did not want any of the substantive changes proposed by the left that would help the common man in health care. Yet you attack the left for 'not compromising'?

Obama should have used reconciliation to force the House Bill through the Senate. Obama's biggest flaw is that he feels the need to compromise and reason with the right wing republicans. As you stated, Randy there is no compromise with those people. Their agendas are clear and they directly oppose what Obama initially set out to accomplish. If Obama truly had the best interest of the American people at heart, the public option would NEVER have been removed from the bill. Period.

Randy,

I am sure that it has not escaped you that Republicans believe in market solutions to problems. Democrats do not. This is not a difference that is lightweight. I too believe more in market solutions than idealogical mandates creating deficit spending and totalizing social control structures. By the way, I am not for something called Universal Health Care, mandated and coerced. I am for controlling the sectors of health care, opening up more competition in a strictly-controlled insurance market, opening up competition with big Pharma, and for programs of social amortizzation to provide for those that are not able to afford good health care. I repeat, I am not for the Federal Government assuming the total control of one-sixth of the GDP, and attempting to administer it. I have never, ever, ever, seen any social entitlement program of any weight, and this would be a huge one, that has ever been efficiently administered. They just do not know how to do it, and they just always rack up huge deficits. I just do not believe that this should be the purview of the Federal Government. Randy, this is certainly a large difference in our viewpoints. Federal oversight, yes, Federal Administration, no.

The original proposal was all over the board remember? It was that monstrousity of a health care bill that none of the congressmen could read or interpret. Remember? This is why the Republican's were pissed off about the healthcare bill. One day, Harry Reid opened up his drawer and whipped out this massive novel that the Dems called a healthcare bill and the Republicans called "Government Takeover." This is why those townhalls got so heated and the Democrats were getting drilled over it. People wanted the public "option", they just didn't want government takover. How many revisions needed to be taken out? I lost track. It was so flawed that it took congressman and their staff weeks to read and decipher what it covered/meant.

Spankee,

I will just recopy. The option was not an option as originally posited in that bill, and therefore to talk of takeover, was not out of order.

"Just a stray thought. I have always been a stickler for semantics, and the true meaning of words. As I am sure you have seen I give no discounts (I am talking about politicians, and how they misleadingly define their terms here) to anybody, of whichever political affililiation. That said, I have always found the choice of calling it a "public option" extremely misleading, at least in the terms in which they were proposing it when it was still being seriously considered part of this proposal of law. To rephrase, I find it intellectually dishonest the inference that there is some sort of real economic choice that could have been acted upon by individuals, when the choice was to either exercise this so-called "option" or be taxed to the tune of 40% in order to maintain the pre-existing insurance plans of which many were satisfied. Some "option"! Unfortunately, and I do admit it, there are certain viewpoints that when I consider them, get my back up, and make me think of regime. This is exactly what happens when I consider viewpoints that are real choices only in a virtual sense, but not really! If this had been proposed as a "true" option, that is having to vie for the minds and hearts of the american public on its' own merits, then fine, let the better one win, but not when you handicap it in this manner. In business, they would say that such a proposal is unfair competition."

Steve,

I agree with you guys one hundred percent. The right sees markets as the solutions to problems. But then I would ask this: If the markets don't provide real reform, if they can't address the real problems, what does one do?

As to compromise I will bring up one more point that I am sure you guys are aware of. When Obama initiated health care reform, that memo was discovered that was sent by the RNC that said, "we can and must use healthcare to destroy Obama. We can make this his waterloo."

Now Spankees and Steve, let me ask you an honest question: Did this memo indicate to you that the right had any intention of trying to reform healthcare or work with the president? Or did it clearly show they were going to use that issue, that is so important to americans, to just try torpedo Obama for their own political purposes?

And these are the people you two say Obama must compromise with?

Reality check please.

And the other Steve, lol. Yep, he should have done it. He would have given the people exactly what they wanted, he would have stuck the knife in those leeches we call insurance companies and he would have won the gratitude of the american people. Obamas problem is that he is too nice to the right. Another example of this: Some of his party said he should rush the vote through before Brown was seated from Mass. Obama said, "no, the people of Mass have spoken and we won't do a thing until he is seated." Their history shows us that the right would not have been so understanding either with reconciliation in the Senate or in waiting for Brown to be seated.

Exactly Steve,

I talk frequently in depth with the President and CEO of the company I work for and he stated that if the Public Option" became available, he would ditch our current medical insurance company because it would save the company tons of money. Can you imagine the influx of people that would move to the Obamacare plan? Yes insurance companies would lose out on customers, money, etc. thus making it essentially a government takeover on healthcare. But the Dems like to smokescreen people in saying you could keep your current healthcare? Yeah right, when a company sees an outlet, they would ditch their current healthcare provider if it will save them more than a few bucks to their bottom line.

Steve,

You mean like in all the other countries in the world? lol. So what? It would still be less expensive than the system we have now?

And it would also fix the inequities the insurance companies are pulling now. Why is that so hard for you to understand. Why don't you want the better solution?

Also Steve and Spankees, I would appreciate an answer to that question I posed to you in my prior post about the aims of the right as expressed by the RNC.

To me that's dirty politics Randy. I despise any Republican making such statements and I do not stand by any conservative, etc. that wants to see Obama fail. I want real change that is in the best interests of All Americans. I can admit when someone in the Republican party says something out of line, but there have been many on the other side of the aisle that have said some pretty aweful things too. So I try not to believe that one guy speaks for the whole party! If that were the case, then many people on both sides of the aisle would have to be thrown under the bus.

Spankees,

Agreed! And that takes me back to my orginal point. You two keep saying the left needs to compromise. And I retort by saying, compromise with a group that showed they were going to use this as a political issue to torpedo the Obama presidency? Using this issue that is so important to the american people just to further their own political aims of destroying the Obama presidency. Doesn't it take TWO sides acting in good faith to compromise?

I will ask both you again, how does one comprise with a group that expressed that type of aim?

I await both of your answers.

Randy,

right now, conservatives are taking notes on the ill members of the Republican party. We are trying to get new blood in there that will step up to the table with the Democrats that want real change. If it were up to me, I would start a new party because the Republican party is so tainted right now, that we need to cut out the cancer that is making the party look bad. I also think that Pelosi, Reid, and other congressmen that are Democrats are really making Obama look bad right now because I think Obama has good intentions. This is why you saw such a dramatic election in Mass. with the Scott Brown win. It had nothing to do with Republicans per se, only a reach in that we need a more moderate Republican party that can meet "progressives" in the middle and bring real constructive change to the table for the American people. I can dream of the day when Democrats AND Republicans hold up their arms together in unison and do good for the American people TOGETHER! This bickering between parties is really why Americans are FED UP!

Agreed, Spankees. With Democrats or Republicans; whoever you align yourself with you are still getting a crappy party. I'm fed up with both parties to be perfectly honest. I'm disgusted with the Democratic Party right now in general and I absolutely loath the Republicans and what they stand for. It's hard to imagine any real progress and improvement of life in the USA while either of these two horrible political parties is running the show.

Spankees,

I hope you are correct about taking notes on 'sick' Republicans. But as long as you have idealogs like Senator Boehner as your minority leader or have as your 'out of politics' icon Rush Limbaugh expressing the conservative view, I will have to remain VERY skeptical of change or good intentions from the right. Those are not the type of people who foster good will, compromise or change.

I agree with you ever so much about a new party or parties. I am just waiting for one to come along so I can get on a new and better bandwagon. But as this country hits such bitter hard times and nothing emerges, I wonder, "whats taking so long?" lol. I did see a guy on CNN (can't remeber his name) just the other day who said he thinks there will be an explosion of new parties and candidates. I would welcome that in no uncertain terms.

I appreciate your remarks about Obama. I know you don't agree with his politics or his solutions, but he does actually try to find a common ground and he is not radical. He does have an agenda, but his decision not to use reconciliation on healthcare in the Senate showed he will not pass something that the right so vehemently opposes. That he will 'play fair' so to speak and not force it down the rights throat at any cost.

Its a shame that the right did not want to work with him on healthcare. Perhaps something good could have happend that please both of us. I have feeling now that we have just taken a HUGE step back and lots of poor americans will now suffer, and yes die, because healthcare became a political football instead of the crises on capital hill that it is in the real country. I am not in a very optimistic mood about any of this. I'm really not.

I agree with you too Randy. I am as fed up with a lot of the things that come out of Fox news right now like they are so fired up and that they are getting the best of Obama. I believe we need more fair and balanced news because either way you look at it, MSNBC is for the Democrats and FOX is for the Republicans. I try to toggle between the two, but always come out disappointed one way or the other. I used to like Hannity and Colmes, but when they took Colmes out, they lost the balanced part of the show. He had many good points and often times he and Hannity would come to agreement on many issues. Not sure what happened there, but I would like to see more shows like that to give us both perspectives. I too am not in a very optimistic mood about anything going on right now in the political arena's. I just hope the next wave of politicians can break away from their ranks and think on their own.

Spankees,

I heard that Brown voted for universal health care for his state. I found that very interesting. I also know Obama has spoken with him in private because he thinks this guy may be someone who actually does want to try fix things and is a person who he can work with. It will be very interesting to see where that goes. If it comes to some type of fruition, who knows, maybe the start of something?

I agree Randy. I sure hope Brown is more than just another typical windbag politician.

Spankees,

You may be disappointed with Fox News at times but they are by far the best right now. The "Lame Stream Media" lost all of their credibility in not reporting both sides of a stroy. Just look at the ratings. Fox dominates at all times. Their ratings are so dominant that they beat both MSNBC and CNN combined with viewers to spare. And for those who say, " Fox is a right wing network" well look up the numbers. Fox's viewers are well balanced. Republicans, Democrats and Independents all watch Fox News consistently. Do I agree with everything Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck say? No. So there have been times where I do go to MSNBC or CNN. Then I understand why their audiences have swithed. CNN is not as bad as MSNBC but they are boring . MSNBC is the Obama Headquarters where commentators get, " tingly feelings" going up their legs when they mention Obama.It has gotten so bad that even the President has gone after Fox News. And speaking of the President, can anyone give me some advice on where I can go to see a an excellent interview of him? He has been in so many and I have yet to see a fastball thrown at him. Yes, the majority of our liberal media is in the tank for the President and the American people on both sides have figured this out and their ratings prove it.

Randy, To answer your question, I think that you should by now have a pretty good idea of what I consider to be legitimate, and what not. However, it is obvious that those far-right conservatives certainly feel that their opposition to the Obama administration, is not purely a policy politics question. Conversely, I have seen many statements from radical left pundits that augur the personal death and destruction of those they consider their adversaries. It is in both cases, unseemly and distasteful to me! Far-right conservatives view Obama as a marxist, intentioned to form a utopian classless (except for the elites, of course) society, with equal distribution of wealth to the masses, and working towards setting up all sorts of huge-government administrations that will be used for shackling the minds and bodies of the entire country. They also view the radicality of many of his associates as proof of this intent. That is their viewpoint. As you know, I am neither a Socialist or a Marxist. Neither am I a conservative, but I am much too educated to not understand, however, their aversion to the establishment of huge beaurocracies, controlled presumably by the radical left, and used as means to further chain what remains of the economy in the conversion to market socialism. I am sure that it does not come as a surprise that most view the Obama administration, well, I will say seems to be (rather than is hoping that I am wrong) totally anti-business. This is the opinion also much of the European press, which I regularly read. Certainly, there have been very few initiatives to give any sort of hope to small business, which is after all, the motor of our economy. We have seen, however, lots of proposals of tax....