Heathcare May Be Dead in USA

[Bud Struggle]

It seems the Republicans will win a 41st seat in the Senate.

Massachusetts swings Republican.

Boston, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Republican Scott Brown grabbed a solid lead in Tuesday's special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat controlled by the Kennedy family since 1953.
Brown, a Massachusetts state senator, had 53 percent of the vote to 46 percent for state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic contender, with 69 percent of precincts reporting in results from the National Election Pool, a consortium of media organizations including CNN. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy, a libertarian who is not related to the Kennedy political family of Massachusetts, had 1 percent.
At stake was President Obama's domestic agenda, including health care reform.
If Brown upsets Coakley, Republicans will strip Democrats of the 60-seat Senate supermajority needed to overcome GOP filibusters against future Senate action on a broad range of White House priorities.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/19/massachusetts.senate/index.html

America turns conservative.

[Robert]

Debt. Too. Much. Debt.

The Independents of Mass are very worried about it, and so am I.

[IcarusAngel]

They watered it down too much. Made progressives and many independents hate it. They should have just tried to ram a progressive bill through and if the Republicans tried to block it it would have made them look like obstructionists. And then they could have started compromising on other issues like the economy.

I love how republican and Libertarian assholes are saying that it's Universal Health Care when the bill is even less progressive than the system they have in massachusetts.

It also shows some problems of people who already have what they need (health care) but aren't concerned with giving it to anybody else.

Markets are a sickening thing.

[b]The good news is that I got a new avatar, although the avatars on this forum are so small you can't see shit.

Newton's method (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NewtonsMethod.html), *****es. (I bet Windows 7 uses the exact same implementation as I used for their new calculator that computes the radical of a number for any given index; I also bet the capitalist economists here have never heard of it.)

[Bud Struggle]

Robert is right--the problem is debt. We just can't spend all this money we don't have. And there is no doubt that spending on healthcare for the poor in retrospect would have been a better idea than chasing all over the Middle East for mustaschoied madmen and their non existant weapons of mass distruction.

But that's a mistake we've made and we have to live with it. (And it wouldn't hurt if we learn something from it--but that would be quite a bit to ask. :( )

[Robert]

It also shows some problems of people who already have what they need (health care) but aren't concerned with giving it to anybody else.That's true in general (see my perspicacious post on the vacation industry in the Ben Tucker thread), but arguably unfair in this particular case. Every citizen has to make a judgment call about when entitlements have become excessive. Social security is currently underfunded, Medicare is beyond unsustainable, and the Dems cannot convince the majority of Mass. (or me) that the current initiatives are not going to make things far worse. CBO estimates or not. I frankly would prefer a complete revolution to a dishonest Liberal Democracy if it could balance the damned books.

Seriously, let me ask this: do you think the election would have been closer if that dull, clinical candidate M. Coakley had been on the Republican side and the handsome, dashing, truck driving ex-model had been the Dem? I'm afraid I do. He's got sex appeal and moxey and everything people like. I'm watching Ms. Coakley in her concession speech. SHE STILL LOOKS LIKE SHE DOESN'T CARE THAT SHE JUST LOST A PIVOTAL AMERICAN ELECTION! UNBELIEVABLE.

"Sometimes it's more important to travel hopefully than to arrive." I swear she looks relieved that she didn't win.

on edit:
I also bet the capitalist economists here have never heard of it Which capitalist economists? I don't know of any member who claims to fit that bill. We (the few, the proud, the restricted) are mostly bourgeois businessmen -- small and not so small -- providing goods or services for a fee. The mysterious Green Dragon may qualify as a Capitalist Economist, but he ain't talkin'. Tungsten maybe qualifies but he's history. If you work for yourself, you've got little time left over for economics and philosophy.

Now guitars I'll make time to talk about.

[Publius]

I'm a supporter of single payer health care, and I absolutely detest this bill.

I'm glad it's likely going to fail, simply because the Democrats had a golden oppurtunity to (at least) give us a public option.

I'm a realist -- I knew that single payer was off the table from the start, but I thought that at least there could be a government option for those that can't afford private health care. I mean, Obama campaigned on exactly that (though now he lies and denies it.) But of course the public option got tossed away too (for what reason I don't know -- to appease the Republicans? No Republican [except the one in New Orleans] is ever going to support this bill, so why compromise?), leaving us with nothing.

Actually, worse than nothing, because this bill mandates that people buy health insurance. From private companies. Rather magnificently (in the sense that Mt. Vesuvius was magnificent) this bill has turned from something designed to help the poor into a giant subsidy for the insurance lobby. It's Wildean in its irony, isn't it?

We're so fucked. Barack Obama has proven to be more spineless and ineffectual than I could have feared -- and I'm a cynic.

Providing health care coverage to those that really need it would be a pittance. I forget the actual number, but it's absurd.

This bill, should it pass, will be a monstrous failure far worse than the Medicare drug act.

But I guess at least Sarah Palin isn't the vice President. I just remind myself of that fact every day, and it helps. A little.

[Martin Blank]

I'm usually not one for the tinfoil hat, but I'm thinking that the Dems threw this race. Obama and the Dems wrote a lot of promissory notes that they (or their paymasters) didn't want to cash, and health care "reform" was the biggest one of all.

You could see the progression from campaign promise (universal coverage, strong public option and no mandates) to the House version (semi-universal coverage, weak public option and mandates) to the Senate version (no universal coverage, no public option, mandates, a tax on employer plans and non-compliant people), with the White House shepherding every step away from the first drafts. It became pretty clear pretty fast that the Dem leadership knew they promised too much ... and they were going to pay for it at the polls.

The liberals who still want this "reform" to go through are now talking about using reconciliation. Of course the Dem leaders realize that such a move would be lambasted in the media and would fuel the teabaggers' angsty nonsense ... which would translate into presence at the polls in November. And perhaps that's what the Dems want, since it relieves them of the "burden" of actually having to do anything other than warm a seat.

[Bud Struggle]

on edit: Which capitalist economists? I don't know of any member who claims to fit that bill. We (the few, the proud, the restricted) are mostly bourgeois businessmen -- small and not so small -- providing goods or services for a fee. The mysterious Green Dragon may qualify as a Capitalist Economist, but he ain't talkin'. Tungsten maybe qualifies but he's history. If you work for yourself, you've got little time left over for economics and philosophy.

Now guitars I'll make time to talk about.

Indeed. I took some required macro/micro intro course in college--all I remember of it is that some guy next to me wrote "you bubblehead" in the margin of my Samuelson book. Pretty book--lots of grafs.

And guitars------you know this place would make a lot more sense if it was a Guitar/Communist forum. GuitarLeft.com :D


I'm usually not one for the tinfoil hat, but I'm thinking that the Dems threw this race. Obama and the Dems wrote a lot of promissory notes that they (or their paymasters) didn't want to cash, and health care "reform" was the biggest one of all.

Or they could have lost because America's turning Conservative again. Which actually looks like the case.

[Dean]

The liberals who still want this "reform" to go through are now talking about using reconciliation. Of course the Dem leaders realize that such a move would be lambasted in the media and would fuel the teabaggers' angsty nonsense ... which would translate into presence at the polls in November. And perhaps that's what the Dems want, since it relieves them of the "burden" of actually having to do anything other than warm a seat.

They're managing to appear progressive and whine about their own impotence, while vehemently supporting capital with some of the most vile, twisted "reforms" ever thought up. They are actually succeeding quite nicely at what their apparent goals are. The liberals will ***** and moan all the way to the polls when they vote for their next train wreck, and they will do this because they have bought into the flimsy message that the dems want progress. Of course they bought into it: they don't want to think that they have been following and supporting monsters.

BTW, Good to see you around again, Miles, your views are always interesting.

[Robert]

I'm thinking that the Dems threw this race.

Threw it ... how?

If you mean they knew in advance that Coakley was the worst candidate in terms of political skills they could possibly find, you may have something there.

But no, nobody likes egg on his face, and that's what we have right this second, and marginal candidates for re-election in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Nevada and elsewhere are shitting little green apples right about now.

[Bud Struggle]

BTW, Good to see you around again, Miles, your views are always interesting.

If he's so interesting then why isn't he Restricted here in OI. :D

'nite all.

[Robert]

Dean and Miles are both global moderators.

What's with all the extra muscle tonight? :scared:

[RedAnarchist]

Dean and Miles are both global moderators.

What's with all the extra muscle tonight? :scared:

Well, actually Miles is an Admin. Also, there's not more moderators online than there usually is.

[Martin Blank]

Or they could have lost because America's turning Conservative again. Which actually looks like the case.

From where? This was the "crisis of illusions" coming home to roost. Just because the teabagging Nativist fascists are able to hold some large protests, that does not automatically translate into "America's turning conservative". On the contrary, if you actually read the data that's behind the poll numbers, the reason for the sagging popularity of Obama and Congressional Dems is because people are not seeing them do what they said they'd do fast enough.

Let's not forget that most people in the U.S. actually favor a single-payer health care system, and most favor withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. They also oppose the billions in corporate welfare given out by the governments, and favor tighter regulation of the banking and credit-lending systems. This hardly seems like a "conservative turn" to me.

Historically, this country "goes conservative" when the compromising of the liberals has sufficiently demoralized enough people to depress the vote and skew it in favor of the right. (And let's not forget that, even in the last presidential sweepstakes, which saw significantly higher voter turnout than has been seen since the early 1970s, a majority of the working class still abstained, in large part because they still didn't feel any of the "viable" candidates represented them.)

In the end, liberals and conservatives work as two elements of the same machine. When one side overplays its hand (either in the course of a campaign or its governance), it is pulled in the direction of the so-called "center" to shift the weight and regain equilibrium. We're seeing that now, and that "governor" on this machine is the "independent (middle-of-the-road) voter" -- categorically the most bone-stupid element of the electorate. Jim Hightower said it best: the only things in the "middle of the road" are yellow stripes and dead animals.

(Do I also need to remind people that, when it comes to Massachusetts, these are the same folks to elected Mitt Romney and, a generation before, rioted against African American kids being bused into mostly-white schools?)

[Robert]

Jeeze Louise, now there's THREE of ya's!

Ummm ... welcome, comrades. :thumbup1:

Why don't you guys come over to our side? We're the real dissidents. :lol:

[Martin Blank]

Dean and Miles are both global moderators.

What's with all the extra muscle tonight? :scared:

I'm bored and wanted to bat the mouse around a little. ;)

[IcarusAngel]

Robert I've been impressed with the social-capitalists knowledge of history and so on. I was just thinking out loud for a moment; we all have a lot of thoughts in our heads.


I'm a supporter of single payer health care, and I absolutely detest this bill.

I'm glad it's likely going to fail, simply because the Democrats had a golden oppurtunity to (at least) give us a public option....

Good points. It is indeed a very regressive bill, whether or not is more regressive than not having health reform is something to be debated but it seems like it.

Good to see you making posts again, hopefully college life is going pretty well.

[Robert]

(Do I also need to remind people that, when it comes to Massachusetts, these are the same folks to elected Mitt Romney and, a generation before, rioted against African American kids being bused into mostly-white schools?)

Jazzratt, please come back.

[Antiks72]

Great, kill the fucking bill. I nor anyone else should be forced to subsidize health insurance corporations. Dems can kiss their progressive base away.

[Guerrilla22]

It is dead. The democrats have proven to be spineless once again.

[IcarusAngel]

Hate to break it to you Antiks72 but we already fund the health care corporations to the tune of billions of dollars a year, not to mention the government and insurance companies can garnish our wages etc. if we don't pay them. The amount of bankruptcies and so on from health care is enormous, all while not everybody has access to the care, and when they do it often wrecks their lives.

[desperadoy]

Spineless dems, lying reps, a doomed America

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

...Considering that Americans spend, on average, twice as much on their healthcare as British people do (and recieve a substandard service for that price)...I'm not entirely sure why people are worried about "debt."

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

And personal debt is twice as high as government debt in America:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png


There is simply no excuse for those who know the facts. If you are worried about debt, waste, or the small, small issue of the millions of people who can't afford something as basic and integral to human life and dignity as medical care, then get on board with Universal Healthcare.

[RGacky3]

I don't think its that America is turning conservative, its that the democrats have failed the progressive majority, and the progressives in the country (which is a larger block than free market types) have simply become disenfranchised.

If you look at the numbers a lot of democrats just arn't turning up to vote, and I don't blame them, they've been let down majorly, whats going on with healthcare is and outrage and a slap in the face to anyone that believed in Democracy in America.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't think its that America is turning conservative, its that the democrats have failed the progressive majority, and the progressives in the country (which is a larger block than free market types) have simply become disenfranchised.


I think it shows that no one is interested in Obama's agenda. It shows that the election of '08 wasn't an endorsement of Obama at all--just a repudiation of George Bush. America is a centrist country. When the Democrats are in power it votes Republican, when the Republicans are in power it votes Democratic--America keeps both parties in check this way--and thus doesn't grant any other parties room to get traction and grow.

Look for more people to bail from the Healthcare plan--especially in the House of Representitives.

[RGacky3]

I think it shows that no one is interested in Obama's agenda. It shows that the election of '08 wasn't an endorsement of Obama at all--just a repudiation of George Bush. America is a centrist country. When the Democrats are in power it votes Republican, when the Republicans are in power it votes Democratic--America keeps both parties in check this way--and thus doesn't grant any other parties room to get traction and grow.

Look for more people to bail from the Healthcare plan--especially in the House of Representitives.

Thats not at all the way it is, the 08 election WAS an endorsement of the campain Obama, it was an endorsment of the community organizer who was FOR single payer health care. What this does show is that it it was not an endorsement of the corporatist Obama that backstabs his voters.

The American public is'nt swinging, its still solidly progressive, however the democratic party responds to corporate pressure as well, and that disenfranchises people and they don't vote.

America is not in the center, America is left of the establishment, whats on the right is the Corporations.

[Dimentio]

I think it shows that no one is interested in Obama's agenda. It shows that the election of '08 wasn't an endorsement of Obama at all--just a repudiation of George Bush. America is a centrist country. When the Democrats are in power it votes Republican, when the Republicans are in power it votes Democratic--America keeps both parties in check this way--and thus doesn't grant any other parties room to get traction and grow.

Look for more people to bail from the Healthcare plan--especially in the House of Representitives.

That is tremendously inefficient. Something has to be done about US healthcare before its spinning out of control.

[Havet]

We the few, the proud, the restricted...

That sentence pwns

[Havet]

Something has to be done about US healthcare before its spinning out of control.

You're right. I already gave some suggestions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-libertarian-approach-t115079/index.html?t=115079)...

[Publius]

Good points. It is indeed a very regressive bill, whether or not is more regressive than not having health reform is something to be debated but it seems like it.

I think it probably is.

Forcing poor people (or even just people who don't want health insurance) to buy into PRIVATE health insurance plans, under penalty of law, is just a tyrannical money grab.



Good to see you making posts again,

This issue, more than any other recent one, is pissing me off.


hopefully college life is going pretty well.

It is. I'm thinking about applying to grad school in philosophy.

[ComradeMan]

What is the problem with this health care bill? It's ridiculous or perhaps they should just lift all the travel restrictions and everyone can go to Cuba for decent healthcare! :D

[Antiks72]

Hate to break it to you Antiks72 but we already fund the health care corporations to the tune of billions of dollars a year, not to mention the government and insurance companies can garnish our wages etc. if we don't pay them. The amount of bankruptcies and so on from health care is enormous, all while not everybody has access to the care, and when they do it often wrecks their lives.

But the Senate bill mandated insurance coverage for everyone.

[Left-Reasoning]

The bill was a hand-out to the capitalists propagated as being for the working man.

I'm glad it's dead.

[Chambered Word]

What is the problem with this health care bill? It's ridiculous or perhaps they should just lift all the travel restrictions and everyone can go to Cuba for decent healthcare! :D

Screw living in America, why not just cross the border to Canada, providing you have a bit of cash?

[ComradeMan]

Screw living in America, why not just cross the border to Canada, providing you have a bit of cash?


LOL!!! So viva the South Canadians...? Perhaps it's time for Canada to kick some Yankee ass...! :) LOL!!! Just kidding!

[Chambered Word]

LOL!!! So viva the South Canadians...? Perhaps it's time for Canada to kick some Yankee ass...! :) LOL!!! Just kidding!

Eh, you could take a hint from Sicko and start a trend of Americans marrying Canadians just so they can get their hands on Canada's healthcare. :D

[Bud Struggle]

Here's an interesting article on the subjec by Charles Krauthammer:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzA1ZWRmYjgxOGVjM2YyZWYxYWIwNDY1MmJlYzEzMTY=


You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social-democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.

The evidence was unmistakable: Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Here's an interesting article on the subjec by Charles Krauthammer:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzA1ZWRmYjgxOGVjM2YyZWYxYWIwNDY1MmJlYzEzMTY=

I stopped when I got to this shoddy non-sequiter posing as a logical progression:


An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin, & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare.Of the 56% percent of Massachusetts voters who called health care their number 1 issue... 53% VOTED FOR THE DEMOCRAT compared to 46%to Brown. Oh, and this is according the SAME POLL the TV pundit Krauthammer cited! Did he not read the Rasnussen report (just got the rundown from an intern - or talking points fax from a think tank) or is he consciously spitting bullshit?

What is his shoddy logic and math anyway... "Jill has 10 apples in her basket, 4 of them are green, 3 apples in the basket have worms inside them = most green apples have worms inside of them"?!!?! It's a non-sequiter designed to make you think that 56% of voters were worried about helathcare and 78% of them are against it.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/a_final_look_at_massachusetts_election_night_pollT his kind of destroys his whole thesis in the article that the vote was a referendum on "Obamacare".

But it does back up my thesis that the country in not "an inherently conservative (or liberal for that matter) country". In fact the country is incredibly polarized right now. The conversations happening among black people in Oakland about health care and the banks and so on have no resemblence to the tea-party conversations - though both conversations are fuled by incredible anger. Of course while Limbaugh and Glen Beck talk about "America where white kids get beat up for being white" and "Blacks taking over and trying to force reparations or reverse racism"... the black people in Oakland who are facing 50% unemployment predictably are not sitting around and talking about how much power they have in this society.

The reason that it seems like the right wing has momentum right now is not because they are the majority opinion, but because they DO have the political momentum. The republican establishment is opportunisticlly appealing to this populist anger and the media is promoting it (I've been on many protests and marches that were the same size as the 9/12 protest or larger and did not receive any television coverage... including the national equality March that was the same size and happened shortly after the tea-party one).

On the other side, all the populist anger from a more left or working class perspective is being demoralized and disoriented by the Democrats. I think Obama recognizes this a little as prooven by his opportunist attempts to be "tough" on the banks. If he had done that last January instead of giving the banks $700 billion, I think things would probably look a bit differnet in terms of political momentum right now. But of course he has no interest in really appealing to mass populist anger and so until there are mass movements that force him to make concessions, he is only going to be offering us speeches and symbolic reforms.

[Bud Struggle]

But it does back up my thesis that the country in not "an inherently conservative (or liberal for that matter) country". In fact the country is incredibly polarized right now.


Well the lates gallup poll shows that there are more "Conservatives" (and they are growing) than there are Moderates or Liberals.

By the end of 2009, 40 percent of Americans self-identified as conservative, up from 37 percent in 2008. Moderates clocked in at 36 percent, down from 37 a year earlier. And 21 percent of Americans self-identified as liberal, down a point from 2008.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0107/Gallup-America-the-conservative

You are correct about the polarization. There are less and less "moderates" with every poll.

[Green Dragon]

I don't think its that America is turning conservative, its that the democrats have failed the progressive majority, and the progressives in the country (which is a larger block than free market types) have simply become disenfranchised.

If you look at the numbers a lot of democrats just arn't turning up to vote, and I don't blame them, they've been let down majorly

That's been a theory (though I don't see how Brown could have won without some Dems voting GOP) for the past couple of decades. Based upon Obama's comment over the past couple of days, it seems he aims to test it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Does American debt even mean anything? Doesn't the economy essentially revolve around the United States? Regardless of the answers to those questions, health care should be provided to everyone, free of charge, regardless of issues of debt.

American debt and a flawed economic system aren't valid excuses for letting people suffer. The left shouldn't compromise on issues because the right-wing wants to protect its precious market economy.

The United States drags everyone down in debt with them. Essentially, we just have an economy that runs on debt. I think it's time people stopped fooling around with the idea that countries should and can pay back their debt.

Debt is primarily just political maneuvering. They should just stop the charade and give tributes to powerful nations in exchange for benefits like protection and trade.

[Green Dragon]

In fact the country is incredibly polarized right now.

Yep. Broadly speaking, it is polarised over the proposition "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."
There was a reason why Obama was praising Reagan during the Democratic primaries. He understands the current system was fashioned by Reagan, and it constrains and restricts the Democrats. Obama wishes to smash it. It does not seem he will quit (as did Clinton).

[The Red Next Door]

Republican- tough people with shitty ideas, Democratic- cowards with no ideas,
communists- tough people with perfect ideas. which one will you choose?:D

[The Red Next Door]

I don't think its that America is turning conservative, its that the democrats have failed the progressive majority, and the progressives in the country (which is a larger block than free market types) have simply become disenfranchised.

If you look at the numbers a lot of democrats just arn't turning up to vote, and I don't blame them, they've been let down majorly, whats going on with healthcare is and outrage and a slap in the face to anyone that believed in Democracy in America.
What are you talking? America been conservative ever since those mayflower assholes came.

[The Red Next Door]

Screw living in America, why not just cross the border to Canada, providing you have a bit of cash?
With Harperfundie ass in power, Canada is no better than the USA. Fucker trying to get rid of health care.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

With Harperfundie ass in power, Canada is no better than the USA. Fucker trying to get rid of health care.

Um, it's not great, but it's a little better than the United States. Honestly, though, I'd recommend moving to somewhere in Europe. If you can learn a second language, your options are even greater.

[RGacky3]

Well the lates gallup poll shows that there are more "Conservatives" (and they are growing) than there are Moderates or Liberals.

By the end of 2009, 40 percent of Americans self-identified as conservative, up from 37 percent in 2008. Moderates clocked in at 36 percent, down from 37 a year earlier. And 21 percent of Americans self-identified as liberal, down a point from 2008.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...e-conservative (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0107/Gallup-America-the-conservative)

You are correct about the polarization. There are less and less "moderates" with every poll.

First of all polls about describing vague terms don't work, conservative and moderate and liberal are all words who'se meanings have changed throughout, and have nothing to do with many of the things the republicans or democrats ACTUALLY do.

A way to fiure out the actual viewpoint of AMericans is a poll on specific issues (of which Obamacare is not one, you have to ask, if you support a public option or a medicare buying, or single payer).

Some people in Massachusets switched, but I seriously doubt they switched principles, they wanted "change" with obama, they did'nt get it, so lets change again, but many progressives did'nt vote, and thats a fact too.


What are you talking? America been conservative ever since those mayflower assholes came.

Do you read whats being said? America is no more "conservative" when it comes to the actual issues, than any other western country.


Republican- tough people with shitty ideas, Democratic- cowards with no ideas,
communists- tough people with perfect ideas. which one will you choose?

Well Goddamn, you have it figured out, I think you need to be writing a book.


On the other side, all the populist anger from a more left or working class perspective is being demoralized and disoriented by the Democrats. I think Obama recognizes this a little as prooven by his opportunist attempts to be "tough" on the banks. If he had done that last January instead of giving the banks $700 billion, I think things would probably look a bit differnet in terms of political momentum right now. But of course he has no interest in really appealing to mass populist anger and so until there are mass movements that force him to make concessions, he is only going to be offering us speeches and symbolic reforms.

Keep in mind that the Democrats are ALSO the buisiness party (from a different perspective slightly), so I doubt they want to encourage left wing populism (at least most of them).

The fact is the AMerican media is far far right of what the middle of the country is, and so is the government. That being said, its suprising that the majority of Americans are still progressive.

[Robert]

The fact is the American media is far far right of what the middle of the country is, and so is the government.

Not a fact. An opinion. A bad one.

[Nolan]

Not a fact. An opinion. A bad one.


Enlighten us, Robert. What is your opinion and why is it better?

[ComradeMan]

I think Barack Obama is most probably a decent man with some good principles, but I fear he's the rider who's riding a bad horse. These idiots voted for Bush twice, so what does that say? The racism levelled at Obama in his own country was bad enough, now he's a "dangerous commie" because he wants a public healthcare system most "first world" countries consider normal.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yep. Broadly speaking, it is polarised over the proposition "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem." Good, then overthrow the US government; smash the military and police and courts; release all prisoners and blow up the jails; end copyrights and property rights.


There was a reason why Obama was praising Reagan during the Democratic primaries. He understands the current system was fashioned by Reagan, and it constrains and restricts the Democrats. Obama wishes to smash it. It does not seem he will quit (as did Clinton).Obama praised Regan because Obama shares the same worldview as Carter, Regan, Clinton, and the Bushes. Obama has put neo-liberals in his administration such as Larry Summers who in addition to be a sexist said that there was a market for selling polution and waste created in the first world to cash-strapped and US-friendly 3rd world regimes. Yes, governmnet is the problem because this government's sole purpose is the preservation of the capitalist ruling class's social order.

Read up on "New Democrats" which Clinton became the poster-boy for. The Democratic party is just as dedicated to the neo-liberal agenda as Regan or any other influential politician from one of the two parties. Clinton ran his Presidential campaign by supporting NAFTA (which the traditional Democrats saw as as blaspheme). Currently Clinton is the UN special envoy to Haiti where he is using his clout to push for "free-trade zones" in Haiti for US garment companies (i.e. Sweatshops) and economic incentives for the foreign tourism industry and cruise lines. You'd think that if Bill Clinton wanted to smash pro-corporate politcs, working for the "world government crazy socialist UN" would be the perfect place - instead he is using US power to push forward with more neoliberal solutions for Haiti.

The fact that the people who run the war and the economy for the government are the same people through various different administrations (regardless if the party in power changes) should get rid of any doubt that the two parties despite political arguments (both the real ones and the one acted out to appeal to their "base") share the same goals and worldview.

Paulson worked for Clinton's Treasury secretary and later became Bush's secretary of the treasury. Bernanke and Gates are also an obvious examples. Usually this consensus is not as obvious because the appointments to top positions until the last couple of decades more closely followed party lines (but the staff has always been "bi-partisan").

[ComradeMan]

Yet again we get back to the fundamental problem, the state is the problem. The state creates the problem and the state perpetuates the problem and no amount of tweaking and tinkering can change that in the long run.

[Robert]

Yet again we get back to the fundamental problem, the state is the problem.

Yep. It's also the solution. It seems to exist everywhere, in some form, all the time, at every single point in civilized history.

Accept the fact that we want government in some form and move on to art, music, family, fitness, and good, cheap wine!
(http://www.goodwinecheap.com/welcome_latest_reviews)

[ComradeMan]

Yep. It's also the solution. It seems to exist everywhere, in some form, all the time, at every single point in civilized history.

Accept the fact that we want government in some form and move on to art, music, family, fitness, and good, cheap wine! (http://www.goodwinecheap.com/welcome_latest_reviews)


Not really. The state has not existed everywhere in some form all the time. By using the words "some form" it's a sneaky dodge tactic. Most modern nation states only emerged within the last 250 years and the older ones are all of a thousand years old. China is a bit of an exception but is also a different case along with Japan- more due to geographical accident and isolation.

Just because something has always existed does not make it right. That's not much of an argument.

The last comment is a non sequitur re art etc. But when you say we want government in some form, typical reactionary statement, just who is this we to whom you refer? :)