Reality Sinks Into A Too Liberal Obama-land

Quite am amazing combination of two You Tube clips via Townhall here and below. The first involves Obama's Olympian defeat and the concept of Michelle Obama's noble "sacrifice."

The second clip involves a press conference around the uncharitable William Henry Gates, Jr. Watch the shock and awe experienced by CNN in both instances. This is the liberal conventional wisdom, that everyone somehow owes an apology to them, struggling to come to terms with reality. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to what most liberals think.

Most Americans more likely believe that the liberal and elitist establishment that trumpets them owes America an apology for their behavior over too many long years. How much of their feigned outrage and hand wringing does America have to endure before they finally get the message. America isn't buying what they're selling. And that now includes Barack Obama, too.

They've lectured us, run us down, spit on the flag, apologized for an America most of us don't believe is bad and, most particularly, tried to diminish the office of the presidency over the last eight years - to say nothing of how it was diminished by Bill Clinton during his scandalous eight years. But now they've captured it. Suddenly they think all because of one man, one election, that's suddenly all magically reversed?

They believe they actually have the power, as if broad public opinion doesn't count for much anymore. But it always has and always will in America. And now that they are totally exposed, both in Congress and in the WH due to their presumed control, they are also exposed to the message from middle America their previous marginal status allowed them to ignore.

You don't speak for us. Your defeats and sorrows are not necessarily ours. You taught us that, if you've taught us anything over the years. We are separate and we are not equal. And so long as you remain outnumbered in America, your ultimate influence will remain marginal at best.

Deal with it. Boo hoo hoo! We're not apologizing for anything, least of all for being Americans and proud. And we don't need a slogan to rely upon, or try and prove it to you. You have our word and words. And we've come to understand that we could never trust yours. It isn't the center-Right that is endangered and in full retreat. It's liberalism in America that might not survive Obama's one term.

Cross-posted to Right Wing News.

Comments

[Bob]

"This is the liberal conventional wisdom, that everyone somehow owes an apology to them, struggling to come to terms with reality. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to what most liberals think."

Riehl is throwing everything he's got into fomenting racial hatred now. I don't know if Riehl himself is a racist or not. It's really irrelevant, because the wing nut agenda is fundamentally insincere anyway. They're banking on there being enough racism in some of their followers that these appeals will succeed in stirring up resentment against Obama. Since they have no principles and no good-faith policy agenda of their own, wing nuts can only incite hatred any more. It's really all they've got. And Riehl shows himself to be a good little wing nut soldier by flogging the race meme at every opportunity. It's so transparent.

[Ad rem]

That's "Raaaaa-cist" with five A's Bobby!

[JustOneMan]

racial hatred????????????????

How dare anyone let alone a white man question the greatness of King Barry!

LOL...I thought the world was in love with this guy!

Obama..the weak and impotent!

[iftheshoefits]

It's so transparent because it's not there to begin with.

Grow up, learn your lessons, and move on, if that's possible. This is such small potatoes, nothing's at stake, which is why we can laugh so heartily at the ham-handedness on display.

Rio is the perfect city to host the Olympics - worldly and vibrant in every sense of the word, never had the Olymipics before, it's their turn. Not that a lot of care one way or the other. Really, Chicago was always a long shot, at least if you don't look at things like your typical patriot yahoo, right?

[fb274]

Axlerod says politics entered into the fray keeping Chi-town from getting 2016 Oylimpics---------you know, he's right!

CORRUPT Politics from captain Zero (including "bare arms" and cohort oprah)and his minions of earth cheats surrounding him in DC down to what's left of the corrupt gang in Chi-town is obvious world wide.

Too bad for Chi-town ..........no kickbacks!

Congratulations RIO.

[Ran]

Chicago was the first city out...
Gold-Medal FAIL!

Gotta love this: "They're banking on there being enough racism in some of their followers that these appeals will succeed in stirring up resentment against Obama." My, but a little sickness in others makes one feel relatively fortunate, if not a wee bit of pity. Get help, Bob.

Fact is, we resent any President threatening bankers with "pitchforks." We resent any President who "fires" CEO's of private firms. We resent any President who steals billions of private equity to give to Union donors. We resent any President who blatantly LIES about his intentions and forgets that he is in the age of recordings. We resent a President who stupidly put the prestige of his Office for sale to Chicago interests and to top it off... FAILS.

There is NOTHING Riehl can do to "stir resentment" towards the Failure In Chief's pathetic record, just as there is nothing you can do to save his sorry political ass. This hyper-arrogant moron is a one-termer, that is, unless he is impeached for rank corruption first. [Heh ... and I had thought *Biden* was inept.]

[Bob]

It's not to say that all conservatives are racists. Far from it. But the point is that even non-racist conservative operatives are happy to exploit racism on the part of some of their followers if they can use it to get what they want. That's what makes it so cynical and insincere. And the more some of them protest that it's not true, the more you know it IS. Methinks they protest too much.

[Ad rem]

"Methinks" thou doth be an idiot....Bobby.

[Tom Lamb]

All those media dollars that are lost... Oh the humanity....

That's called Karma hitting the media for pimping the Big O.

[rrpjr]

No, the charge of "racism" is all YOU'VE got. We know that now. Because no policy and no international apology is doing anything other than fail. Whether it's from Obama, Biden, Reid or Pelosi or any of the army of little leftist zealots scurrying through the corridors of Washington, every actual idea they propose stinks, and the arrogance which insists on shutting down debate as it rams these stinky down the throats of an unwilling public matches the magnitude of the stinkitude.

Americans don't like being treated like lab rats in a grand and pointless socialist experiment to wreck and remake a free country. Nor do they like being called "racist" for exercising their full-throated outrage at overlord elitism. That's why they're pissed. But by all means keep calling it "racism" -- all the way to the wailing reaches of humiliating defeat.

[Ad rem]

"....all the way to the wailing reaches of humiliating defeat."

Oooooh....that's good!

[Robert Belvedere]

Dan: You really uplifted my spirits with that stemwinder; thanks.

Awarded the THE SPOT-ON QUOTE OF THE DAY at: TCOTS.

Also, you might enjoy checking out MY INITIAL REACTION here.

[mike191]

Bravo Dan.
Instead of any honest introspection The Media will demonize "fly over America" more and write about that sinister right wing that wants President44 to fail.The reality of a naive ,poor instincts and leadership lacking President ,will never be in the narritive.

[Bob]

"Americans don't like being treated like lab rats in a grand and pointless socialist experiment to wreck and remake a free country."

What a stupid comment. "Socialist" coming from know-nothings like you essentially means nothing. You might as well say "antarctic" or "deciduous." But I guess since you can't be smart enough or honest enough to come up with a rational or principled objection, meaningless pejoratives will have to do. It's not like wing nuts care if it's factual or true or even sane, since all you're engaging in is random whining.

[Ad rem]

The only whining around here is you Bobby...... you pedantic, pretentious asshole!

[Bob]

"The only whining around here is you Bobby...... you pedantic, pretentious asshole!"

Another case in point. No substance, no intelligence, just insults and whining. You have no principles. It's just "us against them" with you guys. It might as well be tribal warfare, and there's no concept at all of the greater good. Wing nuts see politics in this country as a zero-sum game, where the only way for them to win is for everyone else to lose.

[Bob]

This just in: what a perfect example of what I was just saying. Wing nuts don't care who loses if it can be portrayed as hurting Obama. Watch these "patriotic" conservatives cheering as Chicago is announced to have lost its bid for the Olympics:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/conservatives-revel-in-ob_n_307794.html

Personally, I think it's fine to give the Olympics to Brazil, since they've never hosted it before. South America deserves a chance. But I find it odd and creepy that conservatives -- who you'd think would want the U.S. to win in a case like this -- would actually cheer. I think a lot of Americans are going to be turned off by such a show of petty vindictiveness directed at one of America's great cities. Some "patriots," these folks.

[Seth]

What does any of what YOU said matter in a political setting either? Who cares about which trees lose their leaves and the southernmost parts of the world?

We care about the state of the world, but the problem is that you can't claim that taking money from 'rich' people is okay because it's the government doing it, and then turn around and blame them for taking themselves (and their businesses and jobs) out of the country. Our country is too full of people who don't do anything, but somehow 'deserve' to live better than their means. Look at the housing crash, look at unions that get their companies shut down or moved overseas. There's a lot of balancing to do, and once the boat tips over, there might not be enough life preservers. Or any at all.

[Bob]

"Our country is too full of people who don't do anything, but somehow 'deserve' to live better than their means."

Oh really? Show me some statistics to support your claim. I've always thought that U.S. workers were among the most productive in the world. I guess we're at a point where conservatives are so bereft of ideas that they have to blame the Bushies' inability to balance a budget on some imaginary welfare queens.

[Seth]

Who said anything about welfare queens? Sure, U.S. workers are productive. But just because a person is productive doesn't mean that on a minimum wage job they can buy a house valued at 500K. You have to live within your means. Choosing to live above them doesn't mean you deserve it, no matter how hard you work. Yes, people were hurt when the economy went bad, and jobs were lost, but you have to take that sort of thing into account. Save money, live frugally for a while, and spend it well. Sometimes bad things are going to happen, and yes, we'll suffer for it. I'm in college, in the military, and I practically live on bulk ramen. I don't need to borrow money from anyone, I'm pulling my weight, even when it does get a little lean. The house I'm in is... very much a fixer-upper. But it's enough, and I'm still able to put money back while working on it. I'm proud of it, and it shows.

I think I've left the point, though. Perhaps I misstated myself earlier. In fact, I'm sure of it; I was wrong. Hyperbole doesn't help an argument, and you were right to point it out. However, there ARE people who don't do anything and choose to believe they 'deserve' to be taken care of. I have relatives that think that way. There are also people I know in college, friends of mine even, who have so much credit card debt and student loans that I don't know how they'll EVER pay it off. And they shrug it off as a problem for down the road. There are people who work hard, but want nice things for their family that they just can't afford, and put themselves in risky situations to have them. That's what we need to get away from. Solve problems now, get what you NEED, then the money exists later to enjoy. Your kids may not have a PS3, but so what? That PS3 isn't going to do them a darn bit of good in their life. If you can afford it without compromising yourself? Awesome, go for it. If not, don't buy the blasted thing. Go to the library, that free entertainment that's probably better for you and the kids.

As for the games... Personally, I keep hearing how bad they are for a country as far as corruption, and how little money is actually made. It's a prestige thing. Considering our economy right now, we need to worry more about fixing that than a bunch of games. To be fair, I don't care about sports in general, so I'm going for pragmatism. Maybe it's not going to save much, but hey. A penny saved...

[Bob]

"As for the games... Personally, I keep hearing how bad they are for a country as far as corruption, and how little money is actually made. It's a prestige thing. Considering our economy right now, we need to worry more about fixing that than a bunch of games. To be fair, I don't care about sports in general, so I'm going for pragmatism. Maybe it's not going to save much, but hey. A penny saved..."

You make some fair points, Seth. I would only say that if our society suffers from a lack of personal responsibility, then people in all walks of life, from all ethnic groups, political persuasions and income brackets share some of that guilt. I'd say it's likely that for every deadbeat living beyond their means, there's also a shyster attorney fleecing his clients, or a plumber charging some little old lady three times the going rate, etc, etc. We should all try to pull our own weight, and to me, importantly, look out for each other.

And again, I'm not too concerned about the Olympics thing either. I'm perfectly happy for it to go to Rio de Janeiro this time around. It sounds like a lot of trouble, and I think a lot of Chicagoans weren't all that keen on it either.

[Seth]

Total agreement. Do unto others, right? And as long as you are, chances are there's somebody going to see that you're being fleeced.

For example: My family wanted to buy a piece of property near our own. Older woman, husband died not long before. My dad had been helping them out for a long time, and offered her a good amount of money for it and told her she could stay on it and he'd keep doing the upkeep, but her husband's daughter told her she could make double that. And she did, to our surprise, but... then she had to move out, and then her daughter got the idea in her head that she deserved some of that money for helping with the sale...

Poor woman ended up giving all of her money to a local church (whom ought to be totally ashamed of themselves for accepting it!) just to spite the daughter, and living in a retirement home and giving them what little money she has left to stay. Now nobody's happy, and all because what's left of her family thought she was going to be their cash cow. Now the family got no money (not that they deserved it!), she's worked her whole life and has nothing to show for it except for former neighbors who visit more than her own rotten family. All because of a little greed. Helped out nobody, really, except the guy who REALLY wanted a piece of property that he was willing to pay through the nose for.

[Seth]

Er. See if you're being fleeced and let you know. I think you know what I meant, bah.

[democratsarefascists]

Bob is retarded.

As for Obama's MASSIVE, EPIC WHALE OF A FAIL:

Chicago is a toilet.

Obama the Chunk floated out of it.

Europe knows that.

Obama went over there to try to sell America to people who hate America almost as much as he does.

The failure was entirely predictable....to those who don't worship him.

[x11b1p]

Bob - you said this: "They're banking on there being enough racism in some of their followers that these appeals will succeed in stirring up resentment against Obama. Since they have no principles and no good-faith policy agenda of their own, wing nuts can only incite hatred any more. It's really all they've got." Now PROVE It link to your facts and data.

You also stated "But the point is that even non-racist conservative operatives are happy to exploit racism on the part of some of their followers if they can use it to get what they want. That's what makes it so cynical and insincere. And the more some of them protest that it's not true, the more you know it IS" Now PROVE It link to your facts and data.

here you said this: "It's not like wing nuts care if it's factual or true or even sane, since all you're engaging in is random whining." Now PROVE It link to your facts and data.

don't forget this wingnut debunked your 18,000 death claim if that sparks your memory.

Not trying to bust balls Bob just tired of blanket statements being made out to be facts to support a point of view to justify a position- especially one that paints me with a broad brush stoke.

[Bob]

x11b1p, there's a well known history of coded appeals to racial resentment in Republican politics. Lee Atwater, the famous Republican campaign manager referred to the gist of the GOP's "Southern Strategy" like this:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nig**r, nig**r, nig**r." By 1968 you can't say "nig**r" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."

The approach is specifically designed to allow a kind of deniability on the part of those who use it. And again, even the people who use such coded appeals -- as cynical as they might be -- don't necessarily even have to be racists themselves. But the Republicans have a history of using this approach, some of their main proponents have admitted to it and even apologized for it. So please don't cop such a willfully naive attitude about it.

As far as the 18,000 death claim goes, well, I'm trying to be intellectually honest about it. But you know what? There was an even more recent study that was done by some researchers at Harvard, and you know what they found? Their conclusion is that the death toll from a lack of insurance was not 18,000, but 44,000!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17

A summary of the study said:

"The authors analyzed information from surveys and health examinations of more than 9,000 people that was collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 1986 and 2000 and checked against death records. Even after controlling for age, gender, race, income, education, employment, smoking, alcohol use, assessed health and BMI, the researchers found "lack of health insurance significantly increased the risk of mortality"

So, x11b1p, since we're trying to be intellectually honest, and going by the most up-to-date information that we have available, shouldn't you now concede that I might have not only been right after all, but that the actual number might be far larger than even I had realized? Does fairness go both ways with you, or only when it works in your favor?

[anon]

don't 100,000 people allegedly die due to hospital errors?

so, if we're all about saving lives, seems that fixing the hospital error problem would be more important than getting the less than 20% of Americans who don't have health insurance covered--whether they want it or not.

also, since again, allegedly about 300,000 people die each year due to smoking, think of all the lives we could save if we only made tobacco illegal.

oh wait, we can't do that can we? because we need all those billions in tax dollars.

think of the lives we could save if we simply forced everyone to eat 1700 calories a day of fruits and protein and complete an hour of exercise each day

i guess that means that "life" isn't always the most important consideration, is it?

[Bob]

"don't 100,000 people allegedly die due to hospital errors?"

I guess conservatives can only envision dealing with one problem at a time -- like first you chew gum, and THEN you walk. Why, for example, would doing something about hospital errors be mutually exclusive with healthcare reform? Isn't electronic record-keeping already part of the proposal, and wouldn't that reduce hospital errors? Why, yes, even George W. Bush thought it likely would:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-27-bush-medical-records_x.htm

"Bush wants a computerized nationwide system of patient records that links hospitals, pharmacies and other medical providers. He said the system would improve health care, REDUCE ERRORS and lower costs."

Anon, I don't think you were entirely serious in your proposal, but even people stuck in a state of callous cynicism can inadvertently stumble on a win-win solution to a real problem sometimes.

But our healthcare system also results in hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies per year, to the tune of around half-a-million, if I'm remembering correctly. Is this, too, a trivial issue that deserves only mockery from right wingers? I mean, at what point should we simply assume that Republicans/conservatives have nothing but callous disregard for the problems of regular people, and no serious proposals to do anything at all about it? Their approach to domestic social problems reminds me of that old joke:

Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Zero. They just define darkness as the "industry standard."

[anon]

We've already been over the bankruptcy issue, which by your own links shows that 70% of people who declare bankruptcy because of medical issues ALREADY have insurance, so again, univeral health coverage does nothing to address that issue.

And, to be honest, NO, I don't think that the federal government can do more than one huge project at the same time, in fact I think that the federal government does almost everything extremely poorly.

I mentioned it because you cited the 18,000 alleged deaths from lack of insurance as some kind of moral argument in favor of universal health coverage, so I only pointed out that if we're about saving lives, there are many other allegedly more serious health related issues that would allegedly save hundreds of thousands more lives.

My opinion is that until the cost issues are addressed in Medicare, Medicaid AND private insurance where a system is created/tweaked/whatever that provides for stable cost of health care that we should not be adding ANYONE to any government plans let alone be created dozens more new agencies, czars and bureacracies.

My proposal is that we provide base line catastrophic health insurance for the working poor...coverage that would address serious diseases, accidents...not your yearly physical or going to the doctor because you have a fever. This would be much cheaper, would address the alleged major reason for why we need to spend trillions covering an extra 10-20% of people and it would not require much new bureaucracy.

But, see that isn't what supporters of universal health care want, what they want is to bring ALL health care under the purview of the government so that the government will control all of those jobs and wages and elected officials will have even more leverage with which to get elected..e.g. by giving away more goodies to citizens "for free"

All the talk about hurting small business and the economic issues is BULLSHIT because none of the proposals from Democrats include any serious, realistic, pragmatic or workable solutions to the cost problems.

What you want is "medicare for all' becuase you've somehow convinced yourself that Health Care Is A Right and so the government should provide it "for free".

Emotional arguments don't move me, only facts do, and not selective facts, but big picture facts. So I am moved by looking at Massachsuetts universal health insurnace plan and I see a disaster, the same disaster that awaits the country if we follow suit.

You'll see, or rather, you won't see because when everything that conservatives have said will come to pass: massive cost overages...declining quality of care, migration of doctors and research to other countries...you will just find an excuse and if you can't manufacture and excuse then you'll blame it on greed and rich people, like you do everything else, even though, of course, the greed of the rich people is what provides the money for all your give away programs and once you've bled them dry...its USSR style living.

[Bob]

"What you want is "medicare for all' becuase you've somehow convinced yourself that Health Care Is A Right and so the government should provide it "for free"

Other countries can do this while controlling costs. Why can't we? I mean, according to your logic, why not ask,

"you've convinced yourself that POLICE PROTECTION is a right and now the government should provide it for free"

"you've convinced yourself that a FIRE DEPARTMENT" is a right and now the government should provide it for free"

"you've convinced yourself that PUBLIC SCHOOLS are a right and now the government should provide it for free"

According to your logic, why shouldn't the government get out of the business of doing anything at all? I know, Republicans would LOVE that. In the perfect wing nut world, everyone would be totally on their own. However, I seriously doubt that even wing nuts, in the end, would want to live in the kind of world that they envision.

[Anon]

Other countries do a lot of things that we "can't do" including educate our children or properly control crime. So, in truth, that is a straw man argument on many levels.

There IS NO OTHER COUNTRY that is as large as the U.S. with the same level of ethnic diversity, so comparing the U.S. to France or Switzerland or China is leaving out huge variables....so what these "other" countries can do is going to have little or no bearing on what the U.S. can do.

The cost of police, fire and public schools is generally predictable...the number of policemen, teachers, etc. does not fluctuate wildly it is directly tied to the population, the demographics and the history of need.

Health care is not comparable because its cost cannot be predicted, the person who is healthy today may discover a cancerous brain tumor tomorrow, it is not a predictable commodity in terms of cost other than as people age, they use more health care...

But, again this is a straw man argument, no one is saying that we shouldn't have police deparmtents, fire departments or public schools.

I personally don't think there is any Right To Education, but I believe it is good for society to educate its citizens in the long term. Unfortunately, the U.S. no longer does this at a credible level.

The Constitution does give us several actual rights that are dependant on a stable society...thus there is a need for the government to be able to keep the peace so that its citizens may enjoy these rights...right of assembly, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right of security of personal papers...

But you will notice that ALL of these RIGHTS are intrinsic, they depend not on other people doing things..like educating you, giving you housing, giving you health care, but they depend on the opposite...on government leaving you alone...letting you be free to get on with things.

That to my mind is the difference between a true right, one that can only be "lost" by the actions of another and a fake right, like health care/education/housing/right to work, which are ALL dependant on the labor and actions of someone else to give it to you....that isn't a right, not in the sense that the founding fathers understood it.

This country was founded on the idea of LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Period. The creators of our government were deeply afraid of centralized government and they were also deeply suspcious of direct democracy, which is why they put so many checks and balances and layers to government...to prevent mob rule...which is why Congress has so many enumerated powers and the president so few...they did not want a huge overbearing federal government run by an autocratic executive branch...and if you've ever read anything they wrote on "welfare" you would know they would never have supported the modern safety net we have in place.

Unfortunately, over time we've destroyed much of what the Founding Fathers put in place and our country is the worse for it.

You make me tired, Bob, all you ever have is either emotional arguments, straw men or wildly out of context stand alone statiticis.

[Bob]

"I personally don't think there is any Right To Education, but I believe it is good for society to educate its citizens in the long term. Unfortunately, the U.S. no longer does this at a credible level."

Anon, your arguments are not even serious. The U.S. education system may have its problems, but we have a highly educated society, and our colleges are famous for attracting people from around the world who want the benefit of of an American public university education. This is just one example of the kind of false and disingenuous arguments that you constantly deploy. So spare me the whining about how "You make me tired, Bob . . ."

You've determined a priori that universal healthcare can't, or shouldn't, be done here in the U.S. even though other countries have managed the same problem just fine. Your argument about ethnic diversity being a supposed complication is just another false, straw-man argument with no facts to back it up.

Go ahead and deploy the tired libertarian trope about the Founding Fathers and Limited Government. You know perfectly well that not even Republicans truly believe in limited government. The Bushies would have had the NSA keeping records of every time you used your Starbuck's gift card if they could get away with it. Libertarians can bore us all with their fantasies with the safe knowledge that their prescriptions will never be enacted. Likewise, you can rest assured that none of your own prescriptions for health care reform will ever be enacted, because if neither the Democrats nor Republicans will champion those proposals, they're completely irrelevant. So, in essence, you have no REALISTIC or ACTIONABLE plans to do anything about the healthcare problem. In other words, you propose to do nothing about it. That happens to be the Republicans' plans too: propose no serious or meaningful reform measures and hope for Obama to fail, regardless of the toll of tragedy that may result from it.

[rrpjr]

Bob -- if you can seriously examine any one of operational flow charts for so-called "healthcare reform" and not admit at least to the rationality of the proposition that this represents a "socialist experiment", drafted by novice social enineers who view human beings as a scientist would view laboratory animals (and in fact how every centralized Statist system similarly sees and treats its end users); and if you cannot see how the sweeping accusation of "racism" in matters of huge importance to the lives and freedoms of people serves as a kind of trump card of "bad faith", then we have a basic clash of terms and experiences which makes conversation in these conditions difficult.

You accuse me and others of emplying "meaningless pejoratives" yet in one short post you use derogations such as "stupid", "know-nothing", "not honest enough", "not smart enough" and "wingnut." But I'll give you credit where you seemingly could not, i.e., these terms do not appear to be meaningless to you.

[Anon]

Well, Bob, you constantly trot out how "other countries" do things better than the U.S., and so it seems only fair that I am able to trot out the fact that the U.S. spends more money education and gets a worse result than the rest of the West...it seems logical to me to expect a similar society wide program will have similar results, the US will spend more and get less.

If you honestly don't think that having millions of immigrants who don't speak English, who have never had any health care at all, dozens of different groups all with their own attitudes about health care, and a larger percentage of poor people than any other country in the West has any bearing on the efficacy of universal health care in THIS COUNTRY, then you are just not very smart.

I never said we shouldn't have universal health care, I said BEFORE we add millions to a new government program we need to FIX the COST ISSUE. You try to make that sound like its patently insane, but, to me its perfectly logical, until you have a system that is financially sustainable, anything you add to it is ultimately going to fail, because the system itself will fail until the cost can be controlled.

What you want is the good/fun/feel good part of universal health care without doing any of the hard work of figuring out how to make it sustainable. You want to punt that down the road for another generation to worry about.

What Bush believed has no bearing on anything. He was an asshat and a radical. He was certainly no conservative.

There is also absolutely no logical reason why catastropic care can't be extended to the working poor except that it isn't sexy and feel good enough for the Democrats, because this isn't really about health care for the working poor, its about feeding the egos of the "I know what is best for you" liberals who care most about feeling self important and special because they really, really care about all those poor people who they never see in real life.

Maybe you want to consult your stat book and check out the differences in health outcomes for ethnic groups in this country and then get back to me on whether or not its an issue.

[Bob]

". . . it seems logical to me . . ."

I'm sorry, Anon, but the fact-free suppositions of someone who's already admitted to be against the very principle of universal health care carries no weight whatsoever.

"What you want is the good/fun/feel good part of universal health care without doing any of the hard work of figuring out how to make it sustainable. "

I swear, anon, it has nothing to do with my personal need for validation or "fun." And if other countries hadn't already figured out how to do it, perhaps you'd have a leg to stand on. But conservatives like you set up the automatic and seemingly (to you) insurmountable dilemma that we can't afford universal health care because costs are going up too fast, but that anything that's done to reduce healthcare costs interferes in the wonderful free market, or some such gibberish.

So let's just conclude that you don't care about real healthcare reform -- you've already said that nobody should expect to have it -- and that you therefore have no good-faith committment to finding how to do it (even though other countries have already demonstrated more than one way). Why even bother discussing it, when your only concern is finding ever more specious reasons why it's impossible -- even though, once again, other countries have ALREADY done it. Your own willful blindness and apathy is your problem.

[harkin]

Obamacare is welfare coupled with a desire to increase union membership (look and see how many of Canada's health care workers are unionized).

No thanks to buying votes for people who refuse to take care of themselves.

The next thing they'll be saying is that everyone deserves to own a home (whoops! they already tried that and that only cost a trillion in defaults).

[Bob]

"if you can seriously examine any one of operational flow charts for so-called "healthcare reform" and not admit at least to the rationality of the proposition that this represents a "socialist experiment", drafted by novice social enineers who view human beings as a scientist would view laboratory animals (and in fact how every centralized Statist system similarly sees and treats its end users)"

rrpjr, you provide a perfect example of where it's easier and more sensible to dismiss a statement as "stupid" and leave it at that. So, Obama administration officials view human beings as "laboratory animals," eh? Yeah, sure. Such a statement pretty much disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously. Get back to us when you have something thoughtful and intelligent to say about it, and please stop with the wing nut play-acting.

[Anon]

It is an absolute fact that the U.S. spends more on education than most of the rest of the West and Asia and we are in the middle or near the bottom in terms of results.

If that is your idea of "fact free" then I have to say, Bob, you really are too stupid to bother with, I suggest you go to Daily Kos where emotion and straw men arguments against evil, racist, health care hatin conservatives are the mainstay. I'm tired of your talking points and tired of talking to a brick wall.

[Bob]

"It is an absolute fact that the U.S. spends more on education than most of the rest of the West and Asia and we are in the middle or near the bottom in terms of results."

Are you basing this conclusion on yourself, or do you spend an inordinate amount of time around stupid people? Maybe you're not in a position to know, but we have a highly educated society that's produced one of the best places in the world to live. We're at or near the top in almost every technological field: computers, aerospace, biotechnology, medicine, etc, etc. We have more universities in the top rankings than any place else in the world. We didn't achieve these things by giving up.

I swear, all you've got is dour, cynical bitching about how the U.S. can't do anything. Thank God the Apollo missions to the moon or the Manhattan Project didn't rely on a whining defeatist like you.

[anon]

We're resting on our laurels, Bob.

Fall of Rome Part II, believe me it's coming, we could never put a man on the moon today, and all of those colleges have loosened their standards and American students are getting dumber each decade.

Ask any professor.

The character traits that made this country great are being trained out of each successive generation of Americans by whining liberal do gooders like yourself who care about political correctness more than results.

[Bob]

"We're resting on our laurels, Bob."

I guess I can only speak from my own personal experiences. For one, I work in a technological field that's in its golden age of accomplishment, where my American company is unsurpassed in the entire world. My coworkers are almost without exception smart, dedicated and conscientious. I also get to see two teenagers going through high school having way more homework and are studying more advanced subjects than I ever did when I was their age.

When I start hearing phrases like "political correctness" or "liberal do gooders," I immediately know that I'm dealing with someone who believes deep-down that rights and benefits in our society should be doled out strictly according to income level and social status. It goes beyond mere apathy and a lack of concern for fellow citizens, to a wish for people to actually be punished, preyed upon and discriminated against. People who subscribe to this viewpoint invariably ignore or excuse the increasingly predatory actions of those at the top, preferring to blame the losers at the bottom for all of our problems. Is it the fault of illegal immigrants that we wasted over a trillion dollars invading Iraq, or that our economy melted down because of lax regulation and reckless financial sector gambling with other peoples' money? Is it the fault of the uninsured that our healthcare policy has to first lock-in the highest industry profits anywhere in the world before it can try to control its costs?

This idea of blaming the poor for everything will only lead to more discrimination and less opportunity for them, which will only add to the numbers of the poor and put them in an even deeper hole while the rich, as always, get richer. Meanwhile, the middle class will continue to erode as more people find it more difficult to send their kids to college. Our society will continue to suffer from the drip-drip-drip of half-a-million personal bankruptcies per year that countries with more sane and humane healthcare systems DON'T have to deal with.

Trickle-down economic theory is just bait to fool people who are too dumb to look out for the greater good in our society. If we go the way of Rome it will be because the people at the top were too dumb to see that even their own self-interest ultimately rests on a society that looks out for all of its citizens and puts opportunity and justice ahead of greed and selfishness.

[anon]

LOL,

Great post to show exactly what I'm talking about...I bet you felt really great and rightious after that rant against several straw men, didn't you?

Of course, back in the real world, the various points are nothing more than typical Democratic talking points that have little to do with anything I've posted or anyone else has posted or even with what Republicans believe or support.

The rich get richer, blah, blah, blah, you don't care about the poor blah, blah, blah, trickle down doesn't work, blah, blah.

I've got some news for you, Bob, "greed" and "selfishness" are exactly what puts dollars in the government coffers for people like you to spend on quiotix programs to help the poor that ALWAYS FAIL, and indeed fail spectacularly.

Without self interest as a motivating factor you would have a society like the USSR, where there is little point in trying to be better or more productive than anyone else, because you're all eating the same gruel at the end of the day, whether you were the best worker or the worst.

That is really where your society that 'puts opportunity and justice ahead of greed and selfishness' leads.

Oh, and of course the fact that your paternalistic approach to the poor/minorities/immigrants virtually ensuresz that they are not able to take advantage of any opportunity...which is why you don't really offer them opportunities but hand outs...totally unrlated to their drive or talent...they get the 'gimmies' for just being poor...which is why your programs never ameliorate poverty..no incentive exists.

[Bob]

"Without self interest as a motivating factor you would have a society like the USSR . . ."

Anon, you disappoint me. You're following the lamest wing-nut template of arguing from the standpoint of one-dimensional caricatures of your political opponents rather than trying to be intellectually honest. I'm pro-capitalist, and don't need to be lectured about "the evils of communism." Any semi-intelligent, semi-educated person should be able to distinguish between sensible regulations and programs that promote social justice and economic well-being versus totalitarianism and communism. I used to think that you were at least serious and intelligent. Now I realize you're just another wing nut poser. You sound more like North Dallas Thirty every day. Pretty soon you'll be going on about "your Obama party . . ." LOL.

[anon]

But you can't distinguish between the two, that's the problem, you think if its anything short of 100 foot high posters of Lenin and everyone saying comrade that it isn't a totalitarian state or an authoritarian state.

Programs to promote social justice and economic well being are bullshit.

What is need is programs that provide opportunity.

When you provide opportunity those who are smart and motivated will rise to the top, those who are not will sink to the bottom as it should be.

It's a basic truth that is as old as mankind and no amount of social engineering is ever going to change it, the absolute best you can hope for is to create a two tiered society, the rich will always be rich and there will always be a small group of rich and powerful people, everyone else will be ground down to the lowest common denominator, so instead of a continuim, with the largest group in the middle, you will eventually elimiate the middle class entirely [even though you think you are protecting them] and everyone who isn't rich will live in virtual squalor.

Brave New World.
1984.

Zealots are dangerous, they are dangerous whether they're on a quest for non existant WMD, social justice or witches, and they ALWAYS BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING IT FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. Always.

That's actually how you can tell someone is truly dangerous, when he cares more about your life and lifestyle than he does his own.

[Bob]

"Zealots are dangerous, they are dangerous whether they're on a quest for non existant WMD, social justice or witches, and they ALWAYS BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING IT FOR YOUR OWN GOOD."

Of course there's a kernel of truth in all of your doomsday posturing. But it's just silly to pretend that something like universal healthcare represents any kind of dangerous "social engineering" perpetrated by "zealots." Has universal healthcare rendered social conditions in Canada, France and the UK in any way comparable to those of the USSR? (don't blame me for using that comparison, you're the one who brought up the USSR.) Have capitalist incentives been ruined in those countries? I've worked with people from all of those places, and it sure doesn't seem like it to me. Life in those countries is just about as good as it is here -- probably better in some respects -- so please don't act like universal healthcare represents the end of American freedom and enterprise as we know it.

You're getting too carried away with your own rhetoric, to the point where you make meaningless distinctions between something that provides "social justice" versus something that provides "opportunity." Isn't opportunity part and parcel of social justice? No wonder that you seem to be perpetually frozen in a state of grumpy defeatism if you spend all your time making such silly and pointless distinctions.

[Anon]

No, Bob, 'social justice' is a term that means creating a society where 'everyone' has access to the same level of services, it is egalitarianism writ large, it's a term of art for every social engineering program that takes from the productive and gives to the unproductive with no strings attached.

You don't seem to comprehend that I have no problem providing SOME TYPE OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE for American citizens, I just don't agree with the scope and design of Obama's program, I believe that Obama's program will be hugely expensive and reduce health care quality over time [ten years].

And, when taken in context, with all of the other 'social justice' programs that Obama and the Democrats support and all of the taxes, or I mean 'user fees' that go with them, on top of the stimulus, the bank bailout and the auto bailout and the continuing pressure to provide mortgages to people who can't afford them...when taken together...it all adds up to zealots trying to engineer 'social justice' using the crudest and stupiest possible means.

Did you know that the New York City public schools have prohibited bake sales because baked goods are contributing to obesity?

This is the kind of thinking that you probably agree with...OMG children are getting fatter and fatter, so rather than ya know add more exercise at school or make sure school lunches are healthy or fund an education campaign...nope Big Brother reaches out his long arm and forbids parents [private citizens] from holding bake sales [enterprise] to fund school projects.

That is our future whether you admit it or not.

[Bob]

Conservatives and libertarians have constructed an entire anti-government mythology based on cherry-picked items like the New York school bake sale ban. One trivial matter like this is supposed to "prove" that "government zealots" are intruding into every aspect of peoples' lives, as if Obama and the Democratic leadership were personally invested in it. These cherry-picked bits of trivia are wildly extrapolated with no concern for intellectual honesty. It's the same kind of reasoning that allows tea party protesters to act like they're making an intelligent comment about American democracy by drawing Hitler moustaches on posters of Barack Obama. I've never begrudged people to have honest disagreements about policies, but the modern conservative movement has made dishonest rhetoric their central tactic. So now we can't even discuss sensible ideas that involve counseling for end-of-life healthcare directives -- something that you yourself have recommended -- without having to brawl over "death panels." You can't have a rational discussion on government policy with people who are invested in the myth that taxes in the U.S. are way too high, when the truth is that our taxes are actually somewhat less than most other countries like ours:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000976

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp

I'm trying to be honest, anon, and I don't appreciate debating with someone who tries to pretend that I give a rats' ass about obesity in New York City school kids and want to ban bake sales, or that I advocate for social justice out of a sense of misplaced guilt or whatever. It's the same as so much of the B.S. about liberals "wanting America to fail," or "caring more about terrorists than our own citizens," or how Obama is supposedly a marxist/socialist/fascist/chicago gangster, etc, etc. It's dishonest bullshit. If you want to discuss these things then please don't dishonestly ascribe motives and intents that you yourself know are false. Thanks to people like Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck, there's gotten to be a style of right wing posturing that ignores facts and honesty, the better to create these ridiculous dramatic expressions of fake outrage. I thought you were above such nonsense.

[anon]

The tax policy center is in partnership with the urban league, which forces me to call into question their neutrality.

Does that tax rate also include the state taxes or just federal, if it doesn't include state its hugely misleading...just like the talking point about the top tax rate being 90% in the 1930s is hugely misleading because it doesn't include the facts about the tax exemptions that existed then that don't exist now, so its apples to apples.

I can tell you that I pay too much in taxes, income tax, property tax, sales tax, capital gains tax and user fees for things that my taxes should have paid for in the first place, such as a driver license or a passport. And I can further tell you that over my lifetime I have seen the quality of the government services that my taxes pay for precipitously decline. I can tell you that my state is among the most corrupt in the nation [Democratic and deep blue] and that almost everyone feels they are overtaxed and under serviced.

New York City schools banning bake sales is a logical outcome of the nanny state, we will soon have a tax on soda, probably candy and then, after that, fast food, all in the name of fighting obesity and using the money for health care, except of course it won't do anything about obesity and the money will go in the general fund, just like the tobacco money does and did.

I believe Obama is a socialist, every program he proposes requires MORE federal goverment intervention, I'm sure he thinks he's a centrist Democrat, but that tells me that the Democrats are socialists by another name.

Given the level of "fake outrage" over Sarah Palin, and all the fake outrage over racism that isn't there, I hardly think any liberals/Democrats are in any position to criticize the right for hypocrisy or fake outrage over anything.

The behavior of the left since Obama's election has convinced once and for all that the country is doomed, they are no better than the right. Just like the Bush Administration called anyone who wasn't 100% on board with the war on terror, iraq war, patriot act...the left now calls anyone who isn't on board with Obama's plans a racist, a traitor and even worse, they have added the insinuation that anyone who opposes Obama is probably violent. THe left is using all the same tactics the right did, the only change is the specific issues to which the tactics are affixed.

system broken

[Bob]

"I believe Obama is a socialist, every program he proposes requires MORE federal goverment intervention, I'm sure he thinks he's a centrist Democrat, but that tells me that the Democrats are socialists by another name."

That's just silly. Neither Obama nor any other mainstream Democrat has proposed that the state should control the means of production, which is the specific definition of socialism. Bailing out failing industries like GM or AIG not only doesn't make them socialists, if anything, it makes them overly cozy with the capitalist powers-that-be. Maybe they SHOULD have nationalized the companies of some of those greedy, reckless bastards. At least that way the taxpayers might have had a chance of getting all their bailout money back.

Anyway, anon, I think we've probably beaten the stuffing out of this topic -- if not each other -- so I'm going to move along for now. Have a good one . . . see you around.