»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
TheHeight of Hypocrisy
| The Alley |
|
TheHeight of Hypocrisy |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/ |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That was then.....this is now. Administration Support: “‘This package is designed to help us [use reconciliation] if the Republican party decides to filibuster health care reform,’ said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. ‘That was certainly a factor that went in to how we put this proposal together…’The president expects, and thinks the American people deserve, an up or down vote on health care reform,’ Pfeiffer said.” (White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, Talking Points Memo, February 22, 2010) Majority Leader Support: “If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes.” (Statement by Senator Reid Spokesman Rodell Mollineau, The Plum Line, 2/19/2010) Feinstein Support: “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) became the 11th Senator to sign on to a new effort by Democrats to press Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to pass a public option for insurance coverage using reconciliation, her office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Wednesday.” (Huffington Post, 2/17/2010) http://www.conservativeblogwatch.com/2010/02/24/obama-dems-in-2005-nuclear-option%E2%80%99-is-%E2%80%98arrogant%E2%80%99-power-grab-against-the-founders%E2%80%99-intent-video/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you all for allowing me to win my bet with my girlfriend, regarding how many responses this would get...I even gave her odds!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Scarcely had the words faded from the mouth of that man whose name you asked me never to mention — a precedent, by the way, set originally in Scripture in relationship with YWHA — the THAT PERSON's words mysteriously find their way into our blue pages. I said I'd not mention the name if you'd stop spreading the misinformation. I haven't used the name; you haven't researched the information. Since exactly when is "reconciliation," the long used process by which bills with versions that are substantially different between House and Senate are reconciled by a committee of members by both houses. This is a practice that gone on for as long as I can remember and has been used by governments with both Republican and Democratic majorities to come up with compromise version that are most likely to get past veto from the white house. Has your memory gone up in smoke, man? This is a regular occurrence. It is part of the democratic process that's been going on since before you were born, without much more than an occasional bitter grumble about the nature of the compromises reached. "The Nuclear Option" was a threat by Trent Lott. If the Democrats didn't knuckle under and give advise and consent the series of Supreme court nominees the Republicans were pushing, then he threatened to change the Senate rules so that it would be impossible to allow the Democrats to use the filibuster as a possible recourse. I believe he wanted to raise the number back to 66 from 60, where it was at that time, making it close to impossible for the Democrats, with only 47 or 48 senators at that time, to go for a filibuster against a highly rigidly controlled Republican majority. That was what Trent Lott and his friends called "The Nuclear Option," because it essentially reduced the chance of the Democrats doing anything to nuclear dust. And that is what President (then Senator) Obama was objecting to, not the use of reconciliation. In fact, the term "nuclear option" was coined by then-Republican Sen. Trent Lott in 2005 to refer to a possible Republican attempt to change Senate filibuster rules, while the budget process, known as reconciliation, is already part of Senate procedure, and Republicans have used it repeatedly in the past. The height of hypocrisy is for somebody who knows very well what the reconciliation process is about, such as that fella who thinks he's YWHA, and to try to pretend that it means something else indeed: The Nuclear Option, which was a threat his party made against the party now in power. I can't help but understand why he's worried about such treatment. After all, when he's busy suggesting such things and saying they're a great idea for use against Democrats, he's got to be sure that the Democrats are just looking for a chance to use such things against him and his. It's one of those things about being paranoid in your treatment of others; you simply don't expect to be well treated in return. It's a behavior pattern that is so often successful in creating its own enemies and its own truth. Poor What's-his-name. It must be a terrible shock to find out that it may actually be possible for business to get done in the Senate with only 51 votes at times. He makes this sound so anti-democratic, I almost feel sympathetic, except of course that it's quite democratic and he's been indulging in one extended case of special pleading since the Democrats came into office. And getting the best of it too, for much of the time. This wasn't even Lying by Omission. This was simply Lying. He was claiming that Lott's "Nuclear Option," then, which is what the Democrats were complaining about, is the same as having a bill go through the quite standard legislative process of reconciliation now, and then tries to paint the the Democrats as liars in the process. Now anybody who suggested that health care reform and insurance reform would be easy, there we might all agree, would be a liar. In this case, I think not; and I can imagine more obvious candidates for being hypocrites than the guys that Mr. Excellence in Bat-puckeying might be so quick to nominate. He might try looking in a mirror and trying not to think of pink elephants. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Blind links frequently earn few responses, Mike. Especially to a video that freezes? You sure you didn't purposely rig the bet?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't understand, Ron. Which blind link are you referring to? Which video that freezes? The link and video I provided work just fine on my computer. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Bob, I'm well aware that Republicans have used the same tactic... At that time Senate Democrats had been blocking some of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees through use of the threat of a filibuster; of 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals, 42 were confirmed, five never received hearings, and 10 were blocked by threat of filibuster. Democrats said this was nothing compared to 60 or so nominees of President Bill Clinton for whom Republicans refused to even hold hearings. http://www.conservativeblogwatch.com/2010/02/24/obama-dems-in-2005-nuclear-option%E2%80%99-is-%E2%80%98arrogant%E2%80%99-power-grab-against-the-founders%E2%80%99-intent-video/ Democrats have made that very clear in their effort to justify their consideration of it also. So how did our current group of Democrats react when that happened? The video points that out very clearly.. “And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers -- the House and the Senate -- but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended,” ....Obama So now Obama feels doing what the founders did not intend is fine? “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab….I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” ....Biden So now he approves of that arrogance of power and same naked power grab? “The right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases a filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.” .....Reid So now Harry cries about filibusters and doesn't believe they are a check on power when HIS party controls congress and the white house? The checks and balances which have been the core of our constitution are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option, the checks and balances which say if you only get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way all of the time. It's almost a temper tantrum. The (republicans) will make the rules, change the rules to have their way every time so that they will get their way. ...Shumer So now he doesn't care about the core of the constitution being evaporated? It's not a temper tantrum when democrats act that way? The nuclear option, if successful, can turn the Senate into a body which can have it's rules broken at any time by the majority of senators. If the republican leadership insists on pushing the nuclear option, the senate becomes ipso facto, where the majority rules supreme and the party in power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power. ....Feinstein But if the party in power is the Democrats then the domination is fine? The founders understood that there is a tyranny of majority ....Dodd UNless that majority is the democrats, Chuck? This is the way democracy ends, not with a bomb...with a gavel....Baucus Except for when the Democrats own the gavel, one must assume. C,mon, Bob, there is no way you can look at the incredible reaction of the democrats in 2005 at the thought of using the 51% majority rule in the Senate, from the ignoring of the founding fathers, the destruction of the constitution, the arrogance of the republicans, the unraveling of the fabric of our nation......and then look at their complete reversal and support of the same tactic now that THEY might use it to their advantage. If you don't call that hypocricy, then we use different dictionaries. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
A blind link, Mike, is one with no explanation of what we should expect to find when clicked. That was your opening post? I clicked on yours, but honestly I usually don't. And, yea, the video in that first link played about 5 seconds for me and then froze. Probably my connection, but I doubt I'm alone. I'm connected with Sprint wireless and it's just not as fast or hearty as cable or DSL. People with dial-up are even farther behind the eight-ball. You seem to be claiming that the Democrats and specifically President Obama are talking about getting rid of the filibuster as, apparently, the Republicans have threatened in the past? I haven't seen anything about that. A quick search on Google doesn't support your claim either. Could you, perhaps, provide more information? |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Balladeer may be a bit tied up looking for another link to support something else he said, so I’ll be a good Pipster and lend him a hand on this one even though it was only a passing fancy on the part of a couple of Dems: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/some-democratic-senators-want-to-end-filibusters/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Thanks, Jennifer, but I'm sure that can't be what Mike is referencing. The two senators mentioned in your link aren't trying to eliminate the filibuster, just limit it in terms of how long it can be used to promote discussion and delay action. Nor, I think, would Mike be likely to charge these guys with hypocrisy? "Mr. Harkin said he comes to the issue with 'clean hands': in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority, he proposed a similar rule change." |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
You're probably right Ron, and no doubt Balladeer will set me straight as soon as he has a chance. However, I do know for sure Obama's position on the filibuster. I'll hold off on the link unless Balladeer needs it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No. Let me be clear, since Mike apparently didn't read my post. "The Nuclear Option" was a term created by Trent Lott. He created it in 2005. If The Democrats did not permit Republicans the addition of Democratic support in their Advise and Consent, Lott threatened to exercise "the Nuclear Option." By this he meant the increase of the threshold for filibuster from 60 votes to 66 votes. Since this is basically the prerogative of the majority party, who sets the rules for the Senate, as I understand it, this provided a dire threat. It was indeed Nuclear in many ways for a party as disorganized as the Democrats have tended to be historically. Apparently Mike needs to look about and notice no such threat is being made today. Mike is angry, as are many Republicans, that Health care may be passed on a straight majority vote. This is the way the founders sort of intended legislation to be passed. If they intended a party in a clear minority in both houses of the congress to be able to block legislation, they did not offer a constitutional means of doing so. The Senate has the right to make its own rules, and made no rule to keep this course of action from going through; in fact, this course of action is one used with incredible regularity because house and senate versions of a bill are seldom if ever identical. The Republicans are here exercising The Blow Hard Option and are trying to Reconcile it with the Lie Hard Option. They are squirming like eels in attempting to avoid the Cry Hard Option. In fact, they have just about everything they could have wanted from this bill, and have been given the heart and soul of the bill on a platter in return. It is, in my opinion, essentially an eviscerated version of what should have been a single payer plan that should have taken the private players out of the health insurance business and which should have put some actual market competition into the bidding for drug prices. I cannot hold the Republicans entirely responsible for the manifold apparent weakness of the bill that looks like it may appear out of the reconciliation process. I cannot even say with any certainty that it will be a bill that would get the required 51 Democratic votes. I can say that the Republicans are distorting the facts and reality of the matter beyond anything that I find recognizable. And that they would (in the form of The Great Unmentionable) suggest that the reconciliation (a standard practice between a house Bill and a Senate Bill) of today and the Nuclear Option (an actual change in the Senate Rules, requiring an alteration the the way that all legislation potentially be handled in the future for the purposes of gaining momentary political gain) of 2005 are identical, is simply bizarre. The first is following the agreed upon rules for both House and Senate operations in dealing with differences. It is normal. The Second is a threat (You don't suppose that Trent Lott used the term "The Nuclear Option" because he was inviting everybody out for Root Beer, do you?) to change the way that things were supposed to be done within the Senate itself, greatly to the disadvantage of the party out of power. The Democrats haven't done that; they haven't even threatened to do that. Not that I suppose they couldn't or wouldn't, mind you; they simply haven't. Oddly enough, for all the Republican excoriation or The President, I believe that he seems to be a moderating influence on at least the Democratic side of the bare-knuckles aspect of this kerfuffle. In the spirit of helpless puzzlement that takes mo on occasion, I offer the question, why is that in all the time that there has been cause to speak of that famous Republican, Trent Lott, has there been so little discussion of Lott's Wife? Inquiring minds want to know. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks for the help, Jennifer, but, as Ron surmised, I wasn't referring to those two gentlemen. I was referring to the grand poobas of the Democratic Party.... At a briefing with reporters this morning, Harry Reid said that Republicans attempted to "ruin our country" when some tried to change Senate rules so that only a simple majority would be needed to confirm judges, a legislative maneuver dubbed the "nuclear option." But yesterday Reid said that it would be okay for Democrats to pass nationalized health care and massive cap-and-trade energy tax with a simple majority through a slightly-less-scary-sounding maneuver known as "budget reconciliation". Reid said today of the GOP's toying with the so-called "nuclear option": The nuclear option is only one of the things that the Republicans in power at the time did or tried to do to ruin our country. As I said at the time, the nuclear option is the most important issue that I had worked on in my entire career because if that had gone through it would have destroyed the Senate as we know it. I said at the time that if I became a majority leader and the nuclear option were part of the Senate's [rules], I would change them. There is no way that I would be part of using the nuclear option. And I want every Republican to hear that. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/reid_nuclear_option_for_me_but_2.asp Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to avert a Republican filibuster to pass changes to the health care bill within 60 days using the reconciliation process. The Hill reports: Reid said that congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster. "I've had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi," Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" in Nevada. "And we're really trying to move forward on this." The majority leader said that while Democrats have a number of options, they would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate in November. These changes are needed to secure votes for passage of that original Senate bill in the House. "We'll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we've already done," Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process. "We're going to have that done in the next 60 days." It's hard to know whether this is more tough talk for the Democrats, but it's important to keep in mind that any bill would still face a tough road to passage in the House. http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/20/reid-vows-to-use-nuclear-optio President Obama wants to keep the option of using reconciliation to pass health care reform despite calls from Republican lawmakers that he agree to drop the parliamentary maneuver as a "good faith" gesture" before their bipartisan health care summit. White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday that Republicans coming to the West Wing for the much-anticipated February 25 meeting would be better off arriving "without preconditions." Asked whether Obama would commit to not using reconciliation -- which would allow aspects of health care legislation to be considered in the Senate by an up-or-down vote -- Gibbs replied: The president is not going to eliminate things based on preconditions. And if that's one of their preconditions, the president doesn't agree to limiting the way we are going to discuss this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/obama-wont-drop-potential_n_455625.html Pelosi Makes Case for Budget Reconciliation To Pass Health Reform During an exclusive interview with Roll Call on Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested that Democrats would not hesitate to use the parliamentary procedure of budget reconciliation to push a health care reform bill through the Senate with only 51 votes. According to Roll Call, the Democrats' loss of a crucial seat in the Senate to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) last month -- ending their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the chamber -- has "revived" discussions in the party to bypass potential filibusters by the Republicans. In recent weeks, Pelosi has rebuffed calls from the White House for the House to pass the Senate's reform bill (HR 3590) as it stands and instead has urged Senate Democrats to make revisions to the bill that would draw sufficient support in the House through a separate filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill. http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2010/2/11/pelosi-makes-case-for-budget-reconciliation-to-pass-health-reform.aspx Feinstein Support: “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) became the 11th Senator to sign on to a new effort by Democrats to press Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to pass a public option for insurance coverage using reconciliation, her office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Wednesday.” (Huffington Post, 2/17/2010) http://www.conservativeblogwatch.com/2010/02/24/obama-dems-in-2005-nuclear-option%E2%80%99-is-%E2%80%98arrogant%E2%80%99-power-grab-against-the-founders%E2%80%99-intent-video/ The recnciliation, or nuclear option, is the elephant in the room. It is the baseball bat held behind the back while the president asks you to play nice. Considering everything those Democratic leaders said in the video, this would be hypocritical, at best. On a side note, CNN reports that, during the health care show this afternoon, Democrats were given 114 minutes (with Obama having 59 of them) and the Republicans were given 55 minutes in total. I don't find that surprising at all. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mike is angry, as are many Republicans, that Health care may be passed on a straight majority vote. This is the way the founders sort of intended legislation to be passed. Not according to Obama and Hillary in the video, Bob. Are you disagreeing with them? The Democrats haven't done that; they haven't even threatened to do that. Not that I suppose they couldn't or wouldn't, mind you; they simply haven't. You may want to rethink that statement, Bob. Btw, I did read your post, that is, up to the point where you accused me of not researching information and asking me if my memory went up in smoke. After that, I sort of lost interest. [This message has been edited by Balladeer (02-25-2010 06:57 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If anyone had the chance to listen to the interaction between McCain and Obama concerning using reconciliation, Obama danced all around it, stating that he does not think the American people are interested in the procedural system in the senate, only that "they want a vote and that most Americans feel that a majority vote makes sense." That's pretty clear.....and extremely hypocritical with regards to his previous thoughts on the subject. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – After a day of debate and disagreement, President Barack Obama concluded Thursday's unprecedented live talkfest on health care with the bleak assessment that accord between Democrats and Republicans may not be possible. He rejected Republican preferences for seeking a step-by-step solution or simply starting over. Obama strongly suggested that Democrats will try to pass a sweeping overhaul without GOP support, by using controversial Senate budget rules that would disallow filibusters. And then, he said, this fall's elections would write the verdict on who was right. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Not only did the Dems hog most of the allotted time, but the President sometimes interrupted the Republicans or slapped them down when they were finished. Obama’s rebuttal to McCain was so petty and demeaning. Really, what a cheap shot to bring up that McCain lost the election. And Pelosi’s closer, whining on and on and shaking a finger at Boehner and Camp and calling them liars. Kabuki theater at it’s finest. "If we're unable to resolve differences over health care, we will need to move ahead on decisions," he said, alluding to using reconciliation, a controversial maneuver that prevents a GOP filibuster by requiring only 51 votes to pass legislation. Obama added that if voters are unhappy with results, then "that's what elections are for." So much for caring about what Americans want. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Don't you mean "are the elephants in the room," Mike? You know, plural? As in two separate things? The filibuster is a parliamentary procedure used to block an immediate vote. Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure, too, used to reconcile two bills that have already been passed. I think the emphasis is not unimportant. Still, I'm not here to defend reconciliation or to condemn it. I'm just pointing out they're entirely different things, Mike. I don't see anything hypocritical in being against a so-called nuclear option, which essentially eliminates filibusters entirely, and still being for the reconciliation process being used in a specific and very limited instance to make one particular filibuster more or less impotent. quote: Neither do I, Mike. Using your CNN numbers, it seem the Democratic congress got 55 minutes, the Republican congress got 55 minutes, and the leader of our nation got 59. Considering this is a White House initiative, that seems reasonable to me. From a different perspective, one might argue that Congress got 110 minutes and the White House only 59. Is that what you think unfair? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Since the President is a Democrat, seems like 114/59 is a fair call. Kind of hard to dialog when you’re hogging the floor. A five minute open and close with brief remarks to move the discussion along when necessary would have been far more appropriate. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure, too, used to reconcile two bills that have already been passed. I confess, Ron, that this whole health care odyssey has my head spinning so much I get lost easily. The House passed a health care bill, right? The senate passed a health care bill, is that right? Then the two were sent to be merged into one and voted on as the final health care bill...is that right? So then the final health care bill hasn't been voted on yet. Therefor it's not a bill that has been passed. Only two individual parts that must be fused together in some way have been passed, but seperately. It seems Pelosi's plan is to pass the final version, regardless of who agrees with it, by using the majority reconciliation vote....and then they can always change it after something has been passed. The nuclear option eliminates the filibuster and, in reality, so does reconciliation in this form, since any majority vote effectively knocks out a filibuster which would prevent a bill from being voted on. They may be two different procedures but they are used to achieve the same purpose, a bypass of the filibuster. In the video which I hope you been able to watch by now, the democrats were speaking out against the same thing the democrats are gently threatening to exercise now, be it referred to as reconciliation, nuclear option or whatever. As far as the president getting more air time, don't you consider that defeating the purpose in a meeting designed to hear the views of both sides? The republicans weren't invited there to listen to Obama speeches. They were invited to participate....and given 1/3rd of the time to do it. I don't think the invitation read, "Come to the conference and listen to Obama and the democrats speak...and you can have a little time, too, unless we decide to cut you off". |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Kabuki theater...now THAT brings back memories! Thanks, Jennifer |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No, Mike, they are not the same thing. I have explained the difference twice. Ron has explained that they are different in a mild and non-confrontive way. I wish I were better at that sort of thing. The videos are taken from a debate about five years old about raising the number of votes to invoke cloture. This, "The Nuclear Option," which those Democrats were against then and are still presumably against today since no attempt has been made by the Democrats to raise the number of votes required to invoke cloture today, even though it is a prerogative of the majority party in the Senate to do so. Nor, I repeat myself, have they threatened to do so. They are invoking reconciliation. I must say I'm sorry about one earlier statement I made about this term. I thought that it was much much more common than it in fact is. In fact the President said that it's been used only about 20 times since 1974, including by Republicans. I thought it was more frequent, but it is still a common-enough parlementary tactic for you to remember its use as well as I do. My memory is no great shakes, but even I remember its use on budgets in the past. "The Nuclear Option" has never been used. Never. It was invented by Trent Lott, and the only threat of its use, as far I as I know has been by Trent Lott. You are confusing apples and elephants, Mike. Only apples make a refreshing and palatable drink which, when fermented, is often called cider. In England, one Variety of this is called "scrumpy cider," for some charming reason. There has never been as far as I am aware, either a delicious fruit drink called "scrumpy elephant juice," or a nuclear option called for by Democrats in 2010. "Reconciliation," yes; but neither "The Nuclear Option" nor "Scrumpy Elephant Juice." Democrats on the whole are far too serious to consider either of these two things funny. For all I know, Republicans may be too serious as well, especially after watching the normally somewhat pro-humor John McCain in Today's exchange with the President. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I am not sure I would say filibuster and the nuclear option and reconciliation involve the same things. Reconciliation involves budgetary matters. One might look at the Byrd amendment. As I recall it was a fairly liberal Democrat from West Virgina who stopped the Clinton Health Care initiative when the Democrats had 57 votes in the Senate back in the early nineties. Byrd, who I rarely agree with, indicated rules are rules and procedures are procedures. In reconciliation, debate is limited to 20 hours. Byrd thought making such a major change to the American system and way of life ought to be fully debated and legislated. He put principal above politics and backed the Democrats down on reconciliation. Nope, I don't think reconciliation is an often used procedure except in budgetary matters. Maybe if a few Democrats have the integrity that Senator Byrd (not to be mistaken as a Republican) did during the Clinton administration, we wouldn't be talking about reconciliation. I also hope the Republicans have the intregity to not rely on reconciliation in a partisan power play to end run the legislative process. Filibuster deals with stopping action. Reconciliation involves ensuring decisions that will dramatically effect our country's future will take 60 votes and will be fully and openly debated. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Perhaps that's why our friends across the sea see it this way... the Times of London wrote that "watching American politicians argue about health care can be seriously damaging to your health. Symptoms include migraines, extreme fatigue and sudden violent urges." |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I don't think it is a question of hypocrisy, but a question of attempting to subvert the legislative process and the will of the American people. We are now venturing past partisan politics and hubris. We are now periously approaching the precipace of damage to our system of government. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Our Friends in That Newpaper across the sea are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Sometimes they are better at being objective than others. One might inquire which particular section of The Times of London might have printed this piece of news, however, and what their source material was. I suspect that it was editorial or in their well known and widely beloved letters section. I would suggest to you that their opinions are certainly just as valuable today as they ever were. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Tim, it would appear your excellent post ended the thread....as well it should have. Nothing more needs to be said.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Perilously approaching the precipice of damage to our system of government? You'd think after twenty times we'd be well over the ledge and half-way to the bottom. Again. The filibuster is a parliamentary procedure. Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Should we, perhaps, expect threats of a nuclear option for reconciliation now? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
The difference is whether reconciliation is being used for budgetary matters as it was intended or for passing legislation intended to make basic alterations in our system of government. I will side with Senator Byrd on this one. The purpose of filibuster and reconciliation are polar opposites. The purpose of the nuclear option and reconciliation are the same, to subvert the legislative process and disallow the voice of the minority party in Congress. In this case it involves disallowing the voice of the majority of the people. There is a reason we have a government of checks and balances and one is to prevent approaching the precipice. I am no great intellect or political ideologue, but that does not prevent me from being seriously concerned about our government. That concern would exist no matter which party attempted to thwart our political process by the use of reconcilation as now being threatened. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Absolutely. It's called balance. I'm no political ideologue, either, Tim, and I'm certainly no expert on parliamentary procedures. Still, I don't see where budgetary matters are so unimportant that reconciliation can be used there but not elsewhere. I always thought the budget more or less determined the shape of our government? Until money is allocated, nothing happens. Seems real important to me. Besides, in a very real sense, the bulk of the health insurance bill (I won't call it health care) IS a budgetary matter. My understanding is that reconciliation is only a possibility because a Senate bill has already been passed. That's what is being reconciled? Two bills, from the House and Senate, that have already been passed by majority rule? Reconciliation, this being the case, is a very special instrument and certainly not the same thing as a nuclear option. The idea, as I see it, is not to subvert the filibuster, but rather to make it unnecessary to break a filibuster again and again and again and again. Once a bill has been passed, I think it seems reasonable that a filibuster should no longer be an option. Again, it's called balance. quote: I keep hearing that from different quarters, Tim, and it confuses me. Didn't the majority of the people vote the Democrats into power? What voice of the majority are you alluding to? The polls, perhaps? I think it would be my turn to be seriously concerned if we started running the country by polls instead of elections. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The Republicans are attempting to recast this business on health Care and insurance in terms of a debate that has not been allowed sufficient time to play itself out. This is a fallback position. The position prior to this one was that it should not be allowed to come up for discussion, debate or vote, and that this would be prevented by use of the threat of filibuster. To me, these two methods are contradictory in logical terms, though not in tactical terms. It is hard for the Republicans to have a legitimate complaint about not having enough time for discussion when the Republicans have been trying to keep the subject from being debated by using these tactics: "Your Honor," one can hear them say, "We should not be tried for murdering our parents; aren't we now poor suffering orphans, unsupported and alone in the world? Have pity on us!" If the discussion has been insufficient to this point, it is not the fault of those in favor of health care reform. We have brought it up time and time again since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. If it were the intention of the opposition to do other than kill the entire thought of anything like health care reform and reform of health insurance, then they would have brought it up themselves at some point in the past hundred years and offered a program from their conservative side of the aisle. They would have presented it with appropriate fanfare and passed it. It would have reformed insurance coverage and it would have reformed health care and we would not be having this discussion today. If the plan has not passed, they would have brought it up again and again until they worked out a compromise that did work. On those issues that Republicans have any sort of commitment to working on, that is what they have done. They have worked with Democrats on defense priorities, and have even shifted the Democrats to the right on that issue. They have pushed on trade issues, and pushed Democrats to the Right on that issue as well. I think the Democrats, my folks, were wrong to go along, but we did. On Health Care and insurance reform, I have seen no such give. For Republicans to pretend otherwise is silly. For Republicans to pretend that they are negotiating in good faith here is silly. They are not. They have been forced into a corner. They have screamed and yelled every step of the way. They have bent the truth about a great many issues and people during the whole process. I have mentioned a number of these over the past year or so; I don't want to go into it again unless I must. It is plain impolite to do so. After a very difficult battle in which the Republicans got virtually everything they asked for and during which the Democrats sacrificed the very heart of the proposal they should have insisted on — the single payer option — the Democrats finally put their collective feet down. At least it looked that way to me. Folks here have been saying that the Democrats couldn't get anything done even with a majority in the senate and the house. I pointed out the fragility of that majority. Nobody wanted to listen. If power was to be exerted, this was the way that it probably would have had to be done. On Reconciliation, the Bill can probably be passed. Probably. It simply won't be the bill that the country needed and should have had. If the Democrats had been able to be a bit tougher a bit earlier, maybe it could have been different. If the Republicans could have been more cooperative, perhaps it could have been a bit different. But no. So it appears here we have it. First, however, it looks like the Republicans are asking for one of the biggest Mulligan's in World History. I am truly blindsided and awestruck by the chutzpa of this, asking to start over with a clean piece of paper, and pretending to act hurt when it is not given to them without a single thought. I go into mild hysterics at the thought of what the reaction would be if the shoe were on the other foot. I pray there's not somebody Charlie Brownish enough on the Democratic side of things who's not silly enough to consider the question with any sort of seriousness. It's not like Lucy would. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s sort of true Ron but not quite. Reconciliation is a mechanism that allow laws to be enacted to bring spending , revenues, or the deficit in line with the budget. The health care bill(s) and their current status don’t come into it. In fact they wouldn’t even need to exist for changes in health care spending to be raised in reconciliation. The things being reconciled are the budget, revenue and spending – the proposed legislation is simply the mechanism to achieve that reconciliation. If you wanted to use an analogy it would be like a student setting a rule that he can’t go out on the town Friday and Saturday because he can’t afford it, or that he’s a little better off than he thought he was and can actually afford to go out Thursday too. Reconciliation, as Tim said, is indeed specific to budgetary matters, though as you correctly pointed out the majority of the health care bill(s) are directly and inextricably linked to spending and as such are perfectly legitimate subjects to be considered via the reconciliation process. Is the nuclear option the same? No, for lots of reasons already mentioned but the most fundamental reason hasn’t been touched on. While both are processes to curtail or negate the filibuster the reconciliation process is designed to be used on one specific subject and occasion. The nuclear option however, if invoked and upheld, would result in a fundamental change in Senate rules. That's because the nuclear option isn’t a tactic that can be used on one particular target proposal or occasion, the nuclear option is basically a call to vote on whether the use of the filibuster itself constitutional. If the nuclear option is used and is successful there’s no going back – the filibuster would be deemed unconstitutional and would be unavailable as a political tactic for any future minority party. Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face, or nuking your neighbour to maintain your nuclear deterrent, which is why it’s called the nuclear option. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Two bills, from the House and Senate, that have already been passed by majority rule That's what confuses me. Yes, two different bills have been passed but final product of combining those bills for a finalized new bill hasn't. The final health care bill has not yet been created. How then can one use reconciliation on a bill that has not yet been created? Didn't the majority of the people vote the Democrats into power? Sure, but the phrase "That was then, this is now" pops into mind. The American people bought a pig in a poke. They bought Obama's call for change and his flowing rhetoric which is his only strong suit. They bought that he would clean up Washington and all of the other things that they now find was nothing but empty campaign promises. They were tired of Bush and starving for something fresh. They were like people drunk on promises of a new day, only to wake up with a stranger in their beds and saying, "Oh, no! What did I do??" The mindset that put Obama and the Democrats in power is not there any longer. Their popularity has plummeted. The polls unanimously show that the poeple think the the government is spending too much money too recklessly and that the government itself is the major problem of the country. Yes, the people voted them into power. Does that mean they must continue, even when they feel that the government is not performing? We now pay for our foolishness, as a parent who raises a juvenile delinquent must pay for having had a baby in the first place. The wonderful difference is that the parent has to stand by the delinquent, right or wrong, for 18 years....we only have to for two and four - thank God. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
While I’m on the subject of reconciliation, though it’s a legitimate way to pass health care legislation, it isn’t the way I’d go. The current proposals would need to be further diluted and pared down to go down that route and they’re already too weak to make a difference. I’d take the Republican’s call for a clean sheet start and go back to the fundamental question that’s at the root of the issue – should access to affordable health care be an immutable and inalienable right. If the answer is yes then you need health care reform to deliver and fund it, if the answer is no you can scrap all the existing subsidised health care systems you have before the costs cripple your economy. Your representatives should stop piddling around and remember the fact that you're country is a constitutional republic – raise a proposal to amend the Bill of Rights to add the right to access affordable health care and then vote on it. If it passes, universal health care is unavoidable – if it’s defeated the health care deficit that’s about to eat its way through your GDP disappears. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
amend the Bill of Rights to add the right to access affordable health care and then vote on it. Nice but a little simplistic. One would have to define what determines affordable health care. Affordable to whom? BY what means? We would be right back in the same situation we are in now. It's not exactly the same as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....even though those fall short of the mark also. People are still making the mistake of thinking this is about health care. It's not. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s blatantly obvious to any independent observer Mike. So why not make it about health care? – Let me ask you directly - Do you think affordable health care should be an inalienable right? quote: Of course one would, but you don’t need to answer those questions to answer mine, they’re details to be worked out later or to be totally ignored dependent on the result of the fundamental question. Should access to affordable health care be an inalienable right? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Amen, brother. And, yea, Mike, that might mean getting rid of VA, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other similar health care entitlements. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Pass the amendment first. Without an amendment in place, we would have to fight the battles won over the past 85 years all over again, one at a time. Even with the amendment in place, we'll be tied up in legal challenges for a long time as we try to put it into action. Restraint of trade, communist conspiracy, fascist dictatorship and even more of the old chestnuts will come out of the oven and get hurled around. Heck, they're getting hurled around now. With money like that at stake, commerce would toss so much cash into the congressional hopper that the whole institution would overheat then melt down from excitement, especially since the supreme court has hung out the Fire Sale on the Country as a whole. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Do I believe affordable health care should be a right that all Americans are entitled to? Again, you have to define affordable. All health care is affordable to those who can afford it. If you come up with insurance that costs only 100 dollars a month, there will still be people that will find that unaffordable. It is not a question to be totally ignored dependent on the result of the fundamental question. It IS part of the fundamental question. Do I believe that emergency health care be provide to anyone who needs it? Yes....and they have it. Ron, as you well know, the VA is not a gift, it is a payment for services rendered. It comes with a price. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You're doing it, too, Mike. If you insist on affordable being defined you'll also have to define emergency health care. Life threatening? How imminent? Isn't every necessary medical procedure ultimately an emergency? Defining affordable, fortunately, is much easier. Is the health care affordable to the person who needs it? Essentially, though I suspect Grinch might disagree, you can substitute the word free for affordable if you want. (Free, as in, someone else pays for it.) Certainly, it's going to be free to some. Just as your emergency health care already is. And, yea, of course I know full well that VA benefits come as a result of previous service. That argument, however, like the one for emergency health care, has to be carried through to its logical conclusion, Mike. Shouldn't it apply to ALL those in government service? What about police and fire? Ultimately, Mike, when push comes to shove, doesn't every person who lives and pays taxes serve his country? Do we give everyone who serves two years free health care for the rest of their life? The paradox here, of which I think Grinch highlighted, is that everyone wants to provide entitlements to someone but no one wants to provide entitlements to everyone. In a thread about hypocrisy I can't help but see more than a touch of irony in that. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Ultimately it comes down to the fear of death. No one, in the West at least, is confident there's any better after, if anything at all, so we demand the right to cling on as long as we can until there's a choice in the matter. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why? There’s no need at all to define affordable to answer the question Mike, all I’m asking is whether you agree in principle, it’s a simple question similar to “Should people pay taxes” and “Should Americans have the right to bear arms”. How much tax or what type of arms Americans might bear is immaterial if you don’t agree with the initial principle. It’s not a trick question Mike, there’s no right or wrong answer, I’m simply asking for your opinion. If you don't want to offer one - that's fine - just say so. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There’s no need at all to define affordable to answer the question Mike, Of course it's a trick question, grinch. You put "affordable" in the question and then state that affordable doesn't need to be defined to answer it. That makes no sense. If you don't think the word affordable is necessary, then take it out of the question. you'll also have to define emergency health care. Life threatening? How imminent? Isn't every necessary medical procedure ultimately an emergency? Ron, you getting close to "It all depends what "is" is." Yes, life threatening and ,yes, imminent without immediate atention. Is every medical procedure ultimately an emergency? No. doesn't every person who lives and pays taxes serve his country? Now you are VERY close to what "is" is. Do you serve your bank by investing your money with them and allowing them to prosper? Do you serve your local diner by giving them your business? Can you go up to them and demand free dinners for all of the years you supported them? Good luck. Shouldn't it apply to ALL those in government service? In my opinion, yes. Everyone in government service who signs up as willing to fight and die for their country should be included. Please don't try to equate that to everyone in the government or we will be dancing down the road toward lunacy. Police? Firefighters? Yes. John, I have to disagree. It is not so much the fear of death. It's the fear of living a life of pain or disability. Show me a person confined to a bed with machines attached and in constant pain with no hopes of recovery and I'll show you a person who would welcome death. Death is easy. One second later you don't feel a thing. Living is much harder, especially when the only way one can get better is to die. When one needs immediate care to prevent their illness or injury from expanding into that, the fear of it not being there is much scarier than dying. It is the fear of screaming out, "Help me!" and having no one there to answer. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Getting back to the hypocrisy.... Pelosi...We're not in a big rush.., referring to passing health care. 01/21/10 (after Brown victory) Americans, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "don't have time for us to start from scratch. Many of them are at the end of the line." 02/26/10 WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue's massive role in this election year. Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program "This Week." "We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people." 2/28/10 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-28-health-care_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+Wa shington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo I don't even see how Democrats can stomach Pelosi. The job for the American people? She could care less about the American people. She's only interested in Pelosi Power. Fall on your swords, Dems, make Nancy happy. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
So you don’t want to answer the question Mike. That’s ok. My answer, as a Conservative, is a resounding no. Access to Health care is not a right, it’s a service and just like any other service the cost should be the responsibility of the individual who would ideally purchase health care direct from the health care provider at prices set by free market principles. In my opinion all subsidised health care should be scrapped - they are unsustainable. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That figures. You don't want to define the question which translates into I don't want to answer it. That's about what I expected. Have a good day. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: In other words, Mike, you get to decide? (How come you don't need to know if it's affordable or not?) What about the soldiers in support positions, Mike? The ones who aren't fighting and have almost no chance of dying? What about peace time grunts? Do WACs get benefits even though they are non-combative units? What about civilian test pilots? How come you don't want to provide health care for people who work in huge NYC towers or go up in commercial jets? They're risking their lives, too, you know. War stopped being about battlefields a long time ago. I think there's a good argument to be made that servicemen should get free health care while serving. We need our soldiers to be healthy, after all. I think there's a good argument to be made that servicemen hurt while serving their country should have free health care pertinent to what happened while serving. Their pain should be shared by all. However, I see little logic in paying for some guy's appendectomy forty years after he left the military. Does this country owe him? You bet! And giving him the opportunity to make a good living and pay his own bills is exactly the payment he was fighting to preserve. Don't you understand, Mike, that you're making completely arbitrary and unsupportable decisions based on the status quo you know and love? You're making emotional responses, little different from the people who see poor Americans suffering and want to do something to help. Wanting to help servicemen and the poor is admirable. And absolutely comparable once you get over the fact you like one more than the other. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I asked a simple question, one that I thought was easy to answer Mike, so easy in fact that even I could do it, you decided to dance around a few bushes to avoid answering it. Where I come from that’s a sure sign that you don’t want to answer the question, which isn’t a big deal, as I said, if you don’t want to answer you don’t need to. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, it's no big deal at all, Grinch. I agree. It's the same routine we've been through a number of times. You are right, Ron. I do not see wanting to help servicemen and the poor as being comparable. Perhaps we should just include in every job application the phrase stating that they are required to stay in that job for a number of years and may, without notice, agree to be sent to foreign countries to fight for their country and kill people, if necessary. SOmehow I don't think there would be a lot of folks willing to go for that. You think unemployment is high NOW!  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Almost sounds like you're describing an inner-city high school, Mike. Of course, for them, the foreign country they get sent to is . . . America. I hope word doesn't get out they can get free medical by killing people, though? Again, Mike, all you're doing is setting YOUR criteria for receiving an entitlement. And that's fine. I just don't understand what necessarily makes yours right and everyone else's wrong? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I wonder if personal experience is what determines how we feel. If I’d served in Nam or Iraq and experienced first hand the horrors of war, I’m sure I’d be standing up for lifetime bennies for every serviceperson, who, regardless of actual duty, by signing up, showed they were willing to put their life on the line, as Balladeer said. My experience has been quite different. I know first hand the suffering of the poor, elderly, disabled. The courage it takes for some of them just to face another day is, in my eyes, often heroic. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer, you are absolutely right. What we basically have to guide us IS our own experiences, which should also answer Ron's question to me. Ron, you are saying that I consider that I'm right and everyone else is wrong? That makes it sound like I am the only one with my opinion and the rest of the world thinks differently. I really don't consider that a valid assumption. Of course I'm giving my opinion. That's what we do here. If you have a different one, that's fine with me. You will follow yours and I will follow mine. I'm not going to try to change yours and chances are you won't change mine. We simply present our own way of thinking here and where our thoughts come from. I do agree with Grinch that health care is not a right but a service. If he had simply asked that instead of tossing "affordable" in there, I would have said so. The thread was about hypocricy...the Democrats screaming bloody murder over the same tactics they are threatening to use now. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Superb, we’re in agreement, though for a while there it was a bit like pulling teeth. Now we’ve established that health care isn’t a right all we need to do is to work out how to dismantle Medicare and those other subsidised systems that nobody has a right to. With the spiralling cost of Medicare and Medicaid etc. removed, the fiscal tsunami threatening to erode your GDP is averted and the economy saved. That was simple – job done- next stop social security. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And that last exchange, friends, is why I suggested that we pass any health care amendment first. The right wing appears interested in dismantling any sort of security net that benefits the disadvantaged. I say this because I do not see equal right wing fervor directed toward advantages for the wealthy. Perhaps some of the folks here would like to end some of these corporate welfare deals and the laws that enable them. The law that enables banks to own insurance companies, for example, and laws that allow companies to log public lands. I happen to favor there being a VA, and favor it being fully funded for those who have been in the service. Sorry guys, I think we do owe a debt, and I think that what you folks are talking about is trying to find a way of welching on a debt by picking it apart like lawyers. Soldiers are instruments of national foreign policy, and they accept a special set of conditions during the time that they act in this capacity, including certain abridgments of their civil liberties. Their ability to go where they wish when they wish and for the reasons they wish — never absolute of course — are seriously curtailed. And they must accept orders which have behind them the force of law from people that would not ordinarily have any right to issue such orders. The list goes on. The fact that the VA is there for backup for the rest of their lives is certainly one of the inducements. Even so, the government does try to deny services to people who believe they need them. Sometimes they are right, I suppose, often they are wrong. Sometimes lives can be lost when they are wrong. Overall the VA program makes a lot of lives a lot better than they would be if the program weren't there. And what, I inquire, do you folks visualize the result would be of dismantling the entitlements system. You suggest that it might stop the drag on the gnp. I would ask you how, and then I would ask you what it would do to the bankruptcy rate and loan default rate, and what it would do to the cost of credit? Many of these people are now able to be consumers at this point; what would such a change in the entitlements programs do to their ability to consume products? What would happen to the medical sector? These are interesting speculative questions that you have left untouched, and I would enjoy hearing your speculations on some of the possible answers. I ask this, not because I have thought out answers myself; I don't. But because I hope that the discussion would spur my own thinking in that direction. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
What would the effect be? Well tax rates could drop substantially, increasing the amount of cash available for consumers to spend. Health care costs would rise without the massive input of government money but that’ll just lead to employers dropping health benefits and hopefully using the money to employ workers they couldn’t afford to employ when they had to pay health care costs. Alternatively, wages could be raised in place of employee health benefits further increasing money for consumer spending. Anyone who couldn’t afford health care simply wouldn’t get it, remember it’s not a right it’s a service and like any other service if you can’t pay for it you shouldn’t get it. No pay, no play and no credit. VA health care? That should go too. Pay the armed forces more money and let them sort their own health care out – Though Ron’s suggestion makes a lot of sense – pay for their health care while they’re serving and for any future costs for injuries sustained while serving. The biggest consequence though would be that your country might just avoid bankruptcy if it sheds the massive costs that you can’t afford, which was the whole point of reforming health care in the first place. Of course all the above is based on Mike and I being correct when we say that access to health care isn’t a right, if it is a right that’s a whole different ballgame. You could test that by introducing a proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights as I suggested earlier. If it was defeated universal health care is the most viable option, if it didn’t scrapping Medicare etc. is the obvious solution. Until that happens health care isn't a fundamental right. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So then, a disabled person has a right to park close to the door of a hospital, but doesn't have the right to the health care inside the hospital? The right to park close to the door at Wal Mart but not health care? The right to force an employer to accommodate his disability but not to health care? And where exactly did George Herbert Walker Bush get off mandating the private sector to furnish those parking spaces? The question isn't if it's a right but who pays for it. We have many rights that we're required to fund, one way or another. In fact -- we're required to fund all of our rights. This one is no different. The only question for all of our rights is how do they get funded? I say -- invade Russia!! But really -- where is the role of government? To furnish our rights when they are in short supply - that doesn't mean that it's free -- it just means that we actually have to pay for the government instead of expecting China to do it -- a task that would be easy enough if we merely rolled back Reaganomics. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We have now reached Oz....or the fabled land of your choice. We've arrived at disabled parking spaces? Yes, I guess those signs cost a lot of money, probably thousands of dollars when you add them up. What other expenses are there? Well, a non-disabled person would have to walk a few feet farther. I guess that could be considered cruel and the shoe leather wasted from those extra steps could also add up to another expense. Personally, I have no problem with disabled receiving that extra step (or non-step) of courtesy. I think it's one of the things that make our country what it is. I've never really heard anyone complain about it before, no outcries, no mass rallies, no calls for George Bush to be tarred and feathered for mandating them. Any comparison between the right to park near Wal-Mart and health care is a stretch that would give Elastic Man a hard time. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
So here we have Mike voting against his own interests. Mike now has no health insurance. He has just been through two substantial bouts of illness, and there is no VA because the VA is one of those entitlements you all were talking about and tummy trouble was not a service connected illness anyway. At least that's what a government who is taking the no entitlements sort of position you folks are talking about is more or less obligated to say. Is Mike now dead? How has Mike managed to get the money to pay for the operations, the complications from the operations, the post surgical care, the rehabilitation, the medication, the nursing coverage and the time he's had to take away from work? Some of it, entitlements or no entitlements, he will never see again. Will Mike be alive today or not? If yes, what will account for that. Does Mike want to go back to the fabulous health care system we had during the 20's and the 30's, where G.P.'s would take out your appendix on the dining room table for a sawbuck, take your chances with the mortality rate on your own? Heck, for five hundred, I might even try a shot at the operation myself. Never tried it before, but I hear it can't be all that hard. That's what competition's all about, isn't it? If Mike survived, he'd probably save a tub of dough. Then, of course, the calculations that Grinch makes don't take into account what the cost is to the society of having a very large number of sick people running around untreated. The reason we treat sick people in civilized societies is not only because we're swell folks. We like to think we're swell folks, of course, and a lot of us are, and it's nice to think that there's the reason that we support health care among the poor and the disadvantaged. But that's very short sighted thinking. When people who cannot afford health care get ill, they become part of a group of folks who become a reservoir for illnesses in the society. As the living conditions get worse for that group, the environment conditions in turn become more congenial for endemic and epidemic illnesses. Polio makes a resurgence in such conditions, where people are too poor to get education (another of those entitlements) or get inoculated against such illnesses. Polio doesn't stay in one place. Neither do many of the other illnesses that need these sort of populations to thrive upon. TB, for example, or Cholera. These illnesses once they get a foothold in a society are not thrilled to leave. They require massive public health programs in order to address them. These are the basis for the entitlement programs of today, the knowledge that if we don't make sure that the conditions for everybody in the society don't meet and exceed a certain minimum level, the society as a whole disintegrates periodically into illness and the chaos that comes with it. Removing some of the barriers that stand between humanity and Plague, traditionally on of the four Horsemen, is basically . . . ill considered. What percentage of GNP does National health take in the U.K., Grinch? I ask because you so often have the facts at your fingertips. Does it eat up a sixth of your GNP? Are your health care costs wildly out of control? What about France, just an grueling swim away? I remain convinced that a large part of our problems here remain linked to the lock that insurance companies have on the practice of medicine and to the absurd mark-up that drug companies tack onto drugs. Perhaps if they were willing to research drugs that didn't have to be blockbusters in addition to the stuff they're doing, the government could give them a longer patent on the non-blockbuster drugs in return? Of course the field is ripe for fraud no matter what you do. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Wow, where do I start? Jennifer, I was in the service just about the same time Mike was. A year or two later, perhaps, since I'm at least twenty years younger. Maybe thirty, Mike? I also lived on the streets for a short time in 1980 and, like many, had to struggle to get back on my feet. So my personal experience includes both side of that street and I feel the same way about both them; entitlements don't help people except in the short term. People get addicted to help in much the same way they get addicted to heroin or alcohol. And, I believe, to much the same effect. Color me an equal opportunity pragmatist? quote: Social security should be first on the list, Grinch. quote: Constitutional amendments are a whole lot harder to pass than filibusters are to break, Bob. I rather strongly suspect that's why Grinch suggested it. His point, I believe, is that if it's not in the Bill of Rights it's not a right. Not for anyone! Passing an amendment first essentially defeats any possible health care reform. As well it should. quote: Of course we owe our veterans a debt, Bob. And that debt continues to be paid every single day they have a free country in which to live. It's why we fought. It's why many died. If a guy rushes into a burning building and pulls you out, Bob, trying to pass him ten bucks isn't a good way to say thank you. Frankly, it's just an insult. If your honestly know any soldier who was induced into risking his life for a metaphorical sawbuck, trust me, he's not the one you owe for his service. And before someone asks, upping your tip to a hundred, or even a hundred thousand, isn't the right answer, either. quote: I have, Bob. It would encourage a lot of people who depend on the entitlements to stand on their own two feet again. That, I think, would be a good thing. Not all people who depend on entitlements would be able to rise to stand, of course. And that's where a good thing gets a whole lot better. Getting rid of entitlements would encourage people to start helping people again. Family. Friends. Churches. Neighborhoods and communities. Instead of shoving that job off on an impersonal bureaucracy, the job of helping each other would be put back where it belongs. The people who need help would benefit tremendously, but the people who GIVE the help would benefit even more. Ultimately, entitlements rob people of the help they need and rob everyone else of the help they need to give. quote: Of course, Reb. Just like a disabled person has a right to park close to the grocery store, but doesn't have the right to load up a shopping cart and walk out the door without paying for it. Disabled parking and other such courtesies are an attempt to give everyone equal access, or at least as equal as we can make it without a laying on of hands. That doesn't have anything at all to do with getting people to pay your bills for you? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I confess I don't know a lot about social security, even though I'm just a year away from it. What I do know is that social security taxes has been taken out of my paychecks for the last 40+ years. It has always seemed to me that social security was pretending to be generous by giving back what the government has taken from you. I would hardly consider that an entitlement. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, The thing that may allow you to believe that it isn't generous is perhaps never actually having done the math. I don't expect that actually doing the math would stop you from bad mouthing the program, mind you; but it would certainly deny you the reality of that particular complaint. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, Bernie Madoff was recently sentenced for running his own social security scheme. You know, where you use the money that just came in to pay off the earlier investors so the ball can keep rolling just a little longer? Trouble is, as Madoff discovered, that ball won't roll up hill forever. Bob, of course SS is generous. People are frequently generous with someone else's money. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Constitutional amendments are a whole lot harder to pass than filibusters are to break, Bob. I rather strongly suspect that's why Grinch suggested it. His point, I believe, is that if it's not in the Bill of Rights it's not a right. Not for anyone! Passing an amendment first essentially defeats any possible health care reform. As well it should. Even rights in The Bill of Rights are very slippery. They seem to have a way of being there one minute and vanishing the next. The whole business about people having a right to be secure in their property and the various elements upon which the necessity of warrants has been based seems to have been seeping out the door over the last ten or fifteen years. The Posse Comitatus business is being munched away. We could go on all day. A new set of rights has been set up that seems alien in nature. All of a sudden companies can be people. They can have the rights of people, but oddly can't be put in jail and have a very interesting set of tax privileges that people such as you and I don't seem to have. They may also have achieved something like immortality, which is something that people haven't achieved yet, so they never have to deal with the various legal ramifications of death. And they can exercise free speech, though they have no mouths and the notion of them having a single body that might be jailed for serious misbehavior is laughable. They have all the privileges and none of the responsibilities. Oh goody. And they may have in fact created a second class of citizen, a sort of super citizen with more voice in government and policy than that of the ordinary citizen. The entire nature of rights in this country is up for grabs. The rights of corporations may be considerably wider in many ways than the rights of regular citizens. They are based only tenuously in the bill of rights. They take their legitimacy from the nature of money itself, because quite a few of these companies are multi-nationals and still have the same rights here. News Corp, for example, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an American in name only, and a Saudi Prince who functions as a stand in for the Saudi Royal family. It is a multi-national and it does its best to promote a lot of global oil and fuel interests and the politics that seem most likely to make those politics work out. Passing a health care amendment may be impossible, by the way. But I think that the Democrats shouldn't drop the current attempt to pass the current legislation for less of an incentive. They have nothing to gain by doing so; and they've already given up almost everything that would have made the legislation worth fighting for in the first place. This way, if they get it passed, they might be able to get some sort of single payer rider inserted at some future date. It would be less effort than starting from scratch and trying to build it in. quote: quote: My dad agreed with you, Ron. He was a WWII vet, and flew C-47s into Yugoslavia and other places that were occupied to bring in supplies and take out wounded partisans. Also other things. He figured that he did something that needed to be done, and that doing it was enough. He didn't want anything from Uncle Sam. He figured he made enough money to pay his own way, and that's what he used for his own health expenses and for those health expenses in our family. He figured some vets weren't lucky enough to be able to do that, and he thought that it was wonderful that the VA system was there for them. Not everybody was as lucky as he was. I knew he worked like a dog, and he knew it too, and so did everybody else. But he never lost sight of the fact that no matter how hard you work, a large part of what happens to you is simply luck, good luck or bad luck, and that you can feel better about yourself when you work hard, but there are plenty of hard working guys who died died in the gutter for one reason or another. He knew some of them, and so do I. And there are some people that wars simply wreck, Ron. Wars throw sand in some people's mechanisms, and there's nothing that's going to clean it out. No matter how hard they work at it, no matter how sincere they are. If you haven't seen folks like that, I don't know what I can say to you. You're plainly an observant guy with open eyes and a reasonable mind. I can't explain how I could see something like that and you would not. I suspect you would probably chalk it up to something different, some different cause, or something. I asked how you folks would envision the result of the end of the entitlements system, and I've got to say thank you for giving a solid shot at the answer. Here's what you said: quote: Well, I think that's certainly a possibility, Ron, but there isn't much evidence for it. The reason I say that is because we have a substantial amount of history to look at in which there were no government programs to deal with this sort of thing. There are a lot of folks, and I mean perfectly well meaning folks, who say the same sort of thing that I hear you saying here, but they set the notion forward as if we don't have hundreds of years of experience with societies which don't have this sort of government program to provide some minimal level of support to people in need. The answers that a lot of the Libertarian and Conservative folk give when asked about how to deal with the poor or the suffering is almost always very close to yours, and it is tremendously well meaning and idealistic. It acts as though we don't have experience with trying this sort of solution before. The facts were that private charities were terribly ineffective. The problems were massively larger than anything they could even hope to begin to cope with. Before that, in England, debtor's prisons were a common solution, and many people died there from malnutrition and disease. In the 19th century, conditions in the slum areas in many of the larger cities were so horrific that police didn't dare go into many of them, even in groups of three or four for fear of not coming out. Try looking up some data on the Five Points area of New York. The book on which the movie The Gangs of New York was based was non-fiction and pretty well researched. It wasn't until actual government programs began to put money into sanitation and building codes and fire codes that some of the most basic horror began to subside. There were of horrific number of endemic diseases that periodically ravaged these areas, in part due to slumlords and lack of housing codes, in part due to lack of medical care for such diseases as cholera, and in part for lack of basic social work support for family structure. Don't take my word for this, I urge you. I want you to doubt me enough to do some of the basic research for yourself so that you can see. The assumption that if you take supports away from people at the edge will motivate them to get moving on their own has some truth to it. It was true for you, right? But it is only true for people who do not think of themselves as helpless and hopeless, and whose only open courses of action, therefore, are the courses of last resort: Those things that desperate people do when they cannot believe that anything they plan will work out, courses of violence and impulse and short term gain. If you've lived on the street, then you've seen this happen time and time again. And remember, most of the time when people are desperate, they don't particularly care how they get the wherewithal to pay their bills. All they want is a moment where they aren't being hounded, and a warm place to sleep and a full belly. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, I was commenting to Mike about his comment about the stinginess of Social Security. As you are well aware, Social Security does the best it can do with the money it has and far better than stingy in relationship to what Mike's put in. If you want to think of it as your money going to Mike, you've got a point. If you want to think of it as everybody's money going out to those who need it at the moment, not so much. And of course all those illegals are paying money into the system that they'll never see, and all of that is something that Mike will get paid as well. Don't tell Mike about that, though; it'll complicate his thinking about illegals. So there needs to be a rethink of Social Security, probably the most popular program in the country. The thought that they're batting around that seems possible to me is upping the manditory retirement age. When the program was first instituted, most people didn't live much more than a year or so beyond retirement age anyway, so it was really a pretty solid deal. Now we've gone and decided to outlive our social security benefits. Do you think this attempt to defeat the health care bill is really an attempt to bring social Security back into financial health? Mr. Bob |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't tell Mike about that, though; it'll complicate his thinking about illegals. Bob, you are a piece of work. If you want to insult, at least come out and do it honestly, instead of going through the back door in some attempt at glibness. Besides, I have no idea what you are saying. I made no complaint about social security at all. If you hadn't read my comment looking for something to criticize, you would have seen that. I simply said that social security is a way of giving us back our own money (and looking generous doing so) that we put into it. What part of that do you see as a complaint? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Getting rid of entitlements would encourage people to start helping people again. Family. Friends. Churches. Neighborhoods and communities. You sound as if that's not being done now, Ron. I can assure you that it is. Come on down and I'll take you over to the Outreach Center, the free clinics, our church which sets up kitchens three times a week to feed the poor and uncountable other acts to aid the homeless or unemployed. Oh, never mind. I'm sure Michigan is not so far back in the Middle Ages where they don't have the same programs. Giving and generosity is alive and well, sir. Just look at the millions raised to help the earthquake victims, who we don't even know. Not everyone is an "I've got mine..to hell with you."The reasons why the government gives aid doesn't have as much to do with charity as with prevention. I've never been a fan of unemployment but right now I would hate to have 8 million people out there homeless and starving. That leads to crime, sir. I'm not going to complain about a few of my dollars going to help prevent someone breaking into my house to steal because they are destitute. Yes, there are those who abuse the system but there are many who are honestly helped by it in a temporary situation. For anyone espousing charity and giving, it seems strange they would be against this. True, a hundred years ago, people didn't have this. Would you like to live back then instead of now? ps... After re-reading my comment, I agree and disagree with it. (so what's new?) I prefer your world, Ron. I just don't think it exists. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The UK currently spends 9% of GDP on health care Bob, roughly half the amount in percentage terms that the US spends. There’s a big difference though between the UK and US when it comes to health care, in the UK access to affordable health care is a right for all UK citizens, it’s so solidly written into law that the government is obligated to supply access to it and wouldn’t last very long if they tried to remove it. That obligation was handed to the government of the UK by the people. By common majority, we wanted it, we demanded it and woe betide any politician who tries to take it away from us and I’d be the first to start complaining if they tried. That might sound a little odd given my previous statements, it isn’t though, I live in a democracy and can quite happily maintain my own opinion while simultaneously supporting the choice of the majority. The people of America need to decide what they want, the halfway house answer you have at the moment is about as useful as a chocolate ashtray, and even less sustainable. . [This message has been edited by Grinch (03-01-2010 12:56 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Mike, Bernie Madoff was recently sentenced for running his own social security scheme. You know, where you use the money that just came in to pay off the earlier investors so the ball can keep rolling just a little longer? Trouble is, as Madoff discovered, that ball won't roll up hill forever. Bob, of course SS is generous. People are frequently generous with someone else's money" http://article.nationalreview.com/426405/when-responsibility-doesnt-pay/mark-steyn?page= . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mr. Steyn is positing a direct connecting between Greece and the United States that he has shown no evidence for actually existing. He throws a lot of numbers at this gap in the hope of dazzling his readers into thinking that this connection has been established. He has as much of a chance of establishing a connection between left wing thinking and Greece's current situation as he does in establishing the connection between right wing thinking and Greece's current situation should be wish to take his history back to the rule of the Colonels and their secret police. You may also lay Greece's declinming population at their door, should you wish; the connection is in reality as tenuous. It is, however, good enough for for Mr. Steyn. Mr. Steyn also suggests that the heart has been taken out of the German people by their leftist leanings, and this has led to their low reproductive rate. Preoccupation with the level of reproduction of Europeans and Americans seems something of a "thing" with Mr. Steyn. Why I would care about the rate of Liederhosen wearing Germans is a complete puzzle to me. I do take issue with the suggestion that the Germans have lost their edge by having their productive edge bled away by taking care of the Greeks and other non-contributing members of the EU, however. As Mr. Stein should be very well aware indeed, it was West Germany that was the economic powerhouse of Europe, not Germany; and with reunification, West Germany took on an enormous burden in dealing with a whole society that had been segregated from the German "mainstream" for almost 50 years. It was in terrible shape economically and it needed massive amounts of investment, much of which came from West Germany. And that is where the economic powerhouse that was West Germany went, John; and that is where the powerhouse energy of Germany still goes, to trying to raise the corpse of East Germany from the dead. As for the difficulty in Europe overall, this is a global recession. The Republicans would focus on the suffering here, and for good reason. We need to deal with our own problems. But to expect the recession not to hit other countries as well, and not hit them hard, is a bit on the naive side. Mr. Steyn is not naive. He is using the predictable consequences of a global recession to make political hay here. Greece has been in a fragile state since world war two, at least, and to expect it to suddenly act robust is silly. Mr. Steyn appears to me to be more interested in making partisan points than in understanding the situation. He doesn't seem above distorting things a bit in order to do so. Or perhaps he simply didn't do his research. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Think of Greece as California: Every year an irresponsible and corrupt bureaucracy awards itself higher pay and better benefits paid for by an ever-shrinking wealth-generating class. And think of Germany as one of the less profligate, still-just-about-functioning corners of America such as my own state of New Hampshire: Responsibility doesn’t pay. You’ll wind up bailing out anyway. The problem is there are never enough of “the rich” to fund the entitlement state, because in the end it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they’ve run out Greeks, so they’ll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans. And in America, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are saying we need to paddle faster to catch up with the Greeks and Germans. What could go wrong?" http://article.nationalreview.com/426405/when-responsibility-doesnt-pay/mark-steyn?pag e= . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I already read Mr. Steyn's article, John. Repeating it doesn't make anything I said go away. Nor does it substitute for actual thoughts and words of your own, which are infinitely more interesting to me than anything Mr. Steyn might say, either in the National Review or in his frequent guest hosting gigs for He Who Must Not Be Named. He doesn't tie anything together, but simply makes a series of accusations. The evidence for many of them, such as the ones that bring in Germany, are flimsy at best. Repeating such stuff doesn't turn it into gold. It doesn't even make it better fertilizer than the last time it was spread before us. It's the same old unsubstantiated . . . stuff. Your thoughts and your opinions are far more interesting and generally far better thought out. They certainly have the virtue of being more obviously heartfelt. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
[URL=http://www.breitbart.tv/naked-emperor-news-hypocrite-harry-reids-filibuster-flip-flop/]http://www.breitbart.tv/naked-emperor-news-hypocrite-harry-reids-filibuster-flip-flop/[/ URL] (if you get a box stating php file, just x it out and play the video) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Well, Mike, considering that for most of us the statement is not true, I would say quite a lot of it. For most of us, the actual amount of money we put into social security is exhausted fairly quickly, within a matter of a couple of years. When the bill as originally passed, the amount of money that was paid in by each retiree only had to last a very limited amount of time, since most workers tended to die within a year or two of retirement, and many didn't even make it that far. Your statement at that time may well have made some sense, but then the government was only trying to offer a supplimental retirement program. That's all the program is supposed to be now as well, though it's expanded considerably. The downside of the miracles of modern medicine is that people now tend to live considerably past the age of 65, and the money to pay for social security needs to come for someplace. Very soon after you retire, you will have run through everything you've put in and the interest that acccumulated from that. After you've gotten back your own dough, Mike, within a year or two, the money is emphatically not a matter of "giving us back our own money (and looking generous doing so) that we put into it." It is a matter of the government and its citizens feeling and ac6ting as though they have a committment to the health and basic well being of its citizens. And that is generous. It is also the position supported overwhelmingly by the majority of the citizens of the United States, though everybody gripes about the price. It is the single most popular program the government has. I don't know even that the government thinks that it's being generous. It's doing what the people have decided they want done, and it's doing it pretty straightforwardly. Both Democrats and Republicans are very careful when it comes time to mess with that porogram or any of the things related to it, though the Republicans will frequently pay more lip service to the program than actually put votes behind their statements of support. So, in short, just about everything that you say about social security is something that I see as a complaint. As I recall, you wer5e even in favor of privatising it when President put that forward as one of his suggestions. Correct me here, but I recall you saying something at the time about people should have the right to manage their own retirement money, and my response was sonmething on the order of, whatever money they have over their social security money that they want to invest on their own, they should feel free to do so. But that the market is unpredictable, and that people have forgotten that the market can go down as well as up, and it's reasonably easy to loose your shirt in a down market. As I recall, you scoffed. But of course, my memory is poor. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. And heaven forbid, Bob, people should be held responsible for what they do? I feel very sorry for those who know what's best for everyone else; it must be a very weighty burden to carry. p.s. I haven't done the math in a long time (and it's much to late tonight), but 15.3 percent of your gross income from some fifty years of work, plus accrued interest, should last a little longer than "a year or two." Invest that same amount of money throughout your life at a decent ROI and, even paying taxes on it, you'd still retire a fairly wealthy man. Don't take my word for it, of course. Fire up a spreadsheet and figure it out for yourself. I'd be interested in listening to your results? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: That’s an interesting value, Ron: People should be held responsible for what they do. It sounds clear and straightforward, but it’s really shorthand for something that’s probably a bit more complex. By the way, I agree with it when you state it in this form, but I suspect we’ll diverge when it comes to the details. Which people are we talking about here, Ron? Are we talking about adults? Are we talking about bed-ridden elders? Are we talking about prisoners in concentration camps? Are we talking about patients in asylums? Are we talking about Presidents? Are we talking about infants in arms? Are we talking about legislators? Are we talking about sleepwalkers? Are we talking about those who are unconscious? The list goes on. People [should be held responsible]. The use of passive voice here raises questions. “Should” suggests that a moral necessity here, a value that is pre-supposed. What is that pre-supposition? Why do we need to agree to it? What forces us to accept that it is the supposition that is the necessary condition for the actions of people? There is no evidence at this point that this is the case. “[B]e held” suggests that there is some element of compulsion that needs be exerted, though it does not explain either the “why,” which will presumably be clarified once we understand the “should” that comes before, or the “by whom,” which use of the passive voice allows to go comfortably unstated. Yet these things do need to be clarified to understand the actual meaning of the original value. And how should they be held? They should be held “responsible.” Now there is a curious word: Responsible, quite literally, able to respond in some fashion, but clearly this in not the meaning that is being required of “people” in this situation. “People” may respond to losing their money in the stock market, say, in all sorts of ways; and this would fit the requirement of the stated value. People might, for example, learn to skydive, take up knitting, become a race-car driver, retreat from the world into a life of meditation and so on. We are not actually concerned with the responses of “the people” themselves, it appears, so much as we are concerned with the responses of those who ”hold them responsible.” The grammar of the statement really leaves us no other option. If “People” “are to be held responsible,” then the variable that psychologists call “locus of control” lies outside of “the people” themselves and with those who “should be h[olding].” The story that people holding this particular point of view often tell about their point of view is that they are teaching people to be responsible. This point of view is widespread in the United States today. Oddly, the United States always seems to have fresh need for prisons, and is in a close to perpetual panic about the number of criminals within its borders. My contention is that this sort of point of view teaches people that control is something that comes from outside. It is frequently savage and punitive, and it is something to be avoided as much as possible. In effect, it teaches exactly the opposite of what it seeks to teach. And the message it conveys is precisely the message that Ron has, at least indirectly, attributed to me: quote: Oddly enough, I have a certain amount of agreement with you, Ron, in your post-script. I stumbled upon a book a couple of years back called “The Wealthy Barber” that laid out a decent investing plan that focused on putting regular money into selected mutual funds. The idea was that, while the fund would go up and down, if the fund was well chosen, it would go up generally over the long term at a fairly regular rate, generally at over bank interest rates, and that you could, by being regular about it, become a millionaire if you stuck with the plan. I do wish I’d followed it, and I do think it’s a very real possibility. I think that it’s a retirement plan. I think that social security is something else entirely. It’s a supplemental retirement account. It’s not meant to be enough for your retirement. It’s meant to be enough for everybody in case there’s a huge disaster, or in case your plan falls through or in case things for some odd reason don’t work out. During the depression, a lot of retirement accounts went south, a lot of banks failed, a lot of financial services went belly up. ROI is all very nice when there are institutions who won’t default, like a large number of some of our companies have done or threaten to do, taking their employee retirement accounts with them. These are folks who have been responsible for themselves, Ron. Might I mention Enron, for example. People had very large and, they thought, well funded and secure retirements there. I’d point out to you that people are no wiser in their investments in retirement plans than they are in other plans. While you may believe that it’s fine to let people starve for having bad judgement in their financial moves, I disagree with you. If unnecessary political upheaval is something to be avoided, and predictable economic disasters are a primary cause of political upheaval, you’d have to be foolish not to plan to minimize it. And that’s simply on pragmatic grounds. I find it distressing watching people starve on the streets, or suffer illness on the streets or, on occasion, die on the streets, especially when I’m reasonably certain that a substantial part of it can be prevented with decent planning. Given that 15.3 % to play with, some folks might do very well indeed. A good many would lose every cent and the problem would still remain of needing to supply a safety net that would supply everybody with a certain minimum standard, because the nature of the country is that we are a country that shouldn’t play favorites, and being certain that some portion of the folks will need it at some point, it’s better that it be there for everyone should the need arise, than it not be there for those who really will need it, and have them be singled out for scorn. There may be less reason for the scorn, of course, but that hasn’t really stopped it all that well now, has it? Personally, I think we make errors both ways. I think there’s more under our control than we are apt to think is under our control, and that there is more that is completely out of our control and attributable to chance than we would have ourselves believe. And we seldom know which dynamic is operating most forcefully at any one time. [This message has been edited by Bob K (03-04-2010 03:07 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
