Why Democrats are weak (hint, it has nothing to do with being liberal)

[RGacky3]

Progressive Americans are amung the most frustrated demographic in the US. The Democrats are seen as week, unable to get things done, and heres why.

Both the democrats and republicans are corporatists, because big buisiness cuts their checks, however, to get elected, both appeal to a sort of populism. The Democrats run on progressive populism, standing up for the little guy, working class values, taking on big buisiness, leveling the playing field for the poor, whereas the republicans run on religious populism, anti-government populism, zenophobia and fear.

For the Democrats you have a problem though, how can you sell out to the corporations without ruining your progressive populist image? Easy, just be weak enough when it comes to progressive issues so that none if it gets done, but it at least seams like you tried.

I believe this is EXACTLY why we don't have public healthcare, why there was never even a vote for the public option, no senator (the senate is more corporate than the house which is slightly more populist), wants to be on the record, so they claim to support it while not fighting for it at all and acting as if their arm is being twisted, even Obama, gave in everything while not getting one republican vote, he knew he was'nt getting any, he just needed to have an excuse for not standing up for progressive values and giving the corporations what they want.

The Democrats CAN be tough though, when it comes to bailouts, tax cuts, and cutting things for poor people (obama did an exective order to cap discressionary spending). But when it comes to anything progressive, they have to appear to try, and fail, that way their progressive image stands, but their corporate lords are happy.

[godlessmutha]

That is absolutely the truth. The Democrats have controlled Congress (house and senate), and thus the purse strings, every year from 1932 - 1994, with the exception of 53-55, and 83-87 not having the control of the senate.

If they were truly progressive, they could have carried out any reform they wanted. More particularly, since 2006 the Democrats have shown how truly supine and spineless a bunch they really are.

[GPDP]

Progressive Americans are amung the most frustrated demographic in the US. The Democrats are seen as week, unable to get things done, and heres why.

Both the democrats and republicans are corporatists, because big buisiness cuts their checks, however, to get elected, both appeal to a sort of populism. The Democrats run on progressive populism, standing up for the little guy, working class values, taking on big buisiness, leveling the playing field for the poor, whereas the republicans run on religious populism, anti-government populism, zenophobia and fear.

For the Democrats you have a problem though, how can you sell out to the corporations without ruining your progressive populist image? Easy, just be weak enough when it comes to progressive issues so that none if it gets done, but it at least seams like you tried.

I believe this is EXACTLY why we don't have public healthcare, why there was never even a vote for the public option, no senator (the senate is more corporate than the house which is slightly more populist), wants to be on the record, so they claim to support it while not fighting for it at all and acting as if their arm is being twisted, even Obama, gave in everything while not getting one republican vote, he knew he was'nt getting any, he just needed to have an excuse for not standing up for progressive values and giving the corporations what they want.

The Democrats CAN be tough though, when it comes to bailouts, tax cuts, and cutting things for poor people (obama did an exective order to cap discressionary spending). But when it comes to anything progressive, they have to appear to try, and fail, that way their progressive image stands, but their corporate lords are happy.

Problem is, even the progressive populist rhetoric has been effectively all but eliminated since the Clinton years. It actually helps explain why the Democrats haven't been doing so hot in the years since, and why they can't seem to hold on to any of the branches for very long. With a few exceptions, they are pretty much open neo-liberal corporate whores these days, and make little, half-assed effort to disguise themselves otherwise like they used to. They "came out of the closet" so to speak, and revealed themselves for what they truly are. Hence why they are now seen by many in the working class and progressive segments of society as weak and spineless.

[RGacky3]

Problem is, even the progressive populist rhetoric has been effectively all but eliminated since the Clinton years. It actually helps explain why the Democrats haven't been doing so hot in the years since, and why they can't seem to hold on to any of the branches for very long. With a few exceptions, they are pretty much open neo-liberal corporate whores these days, and make little, half-assed effort to disguise themselves otherwise like they used to. They "came out of the closet" so to speak, and revealed themselves for what they truly are. Hence why they are now seen by many in the working class and progressive segments of society as weak and spineless.

Yeah, and then some of them Believed Obamas progressive campain crap, unfortulately its the same politics.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, and then some of them Believed Obamas progressive campain crap, unfortulately its the same politics.

Agreed. But most people in the US of A are to the right of Obama. That's why healthcare is close to dead, that's why Obama is close to dead. For most people--and that's most NOT ALL people: things are good the way they are.

Nobody wants the Hopey Changey thing, let alone some Revolution.

Now Brother, if you want to work with the system to change it--you have a chance. Outside, you are dead as Stalin.

[#FF0000]

Agreed. But most people in the US of A are to the right of Obama.

I really, strongly disagree with that. Can't really point to any studies, but in my experience, that isn't the case at all.


Now Brother, if you want to work with the system to change it--you have a chance.

When has that ever, ever worked?

[Bud Struggle]

I really, strongly disagree with that. Can't really point to any studies, but in my experience, that isn't the case at all. They are killing Obama politically--and from the right. His polls are low, the right wing is making a comback, tea baggers, etc. The right is defeating his even most lukewarm plans.


When has that ever, ever worked? Well, you have me there.

[RGacky3]

Agreed. But most people in the US of A are to the right of Obama. That's why healthcare is close to dead, that's why Obama is close to dead. For most people--and that's most NOT ALL people: things are good the way they are.


No they arn't, the facts don't agree with you, the MEDIA is to the right of Obama. Healthcare is close to dead because the health insurance industries have bought congress, follow the money, its a fact.

Universal healthcare is still over 60% according to pretty much all polls and thats AFTER all the bad press and media campain against it.

So .... your wrong, 100%, I hate to say it Bud but your out of touch.

For most people, things are NOT good the way they are, and I know this because I pay attention to polls, and facts, not glenn beck.


Nobody wants the Hopey Changey thing, let alone some Revolution.

Are you fucking retarded???

Obamas numbers went down because he DID'NT deliver ANY hopey changey thing. His numbers were HUGE when people thought he was going to change, and they plummited when it was evident he was'nt going to change.

And the fact that your using Palins words just shows how out of touch you are.


Now Brother, if you want to work with the system to change it--
you have a chance. Outside, you are dead as Stalin.

Again, I have to question your intelligence.

EVERY POSITIVE CHANGE IN AMERICA, every singe one, has been people working outside and AGAINST the system.

You wanna know when we'll get public healthcare? When the Congressmen fear a revolution, thats when we got every workers and civil right in America.

Bud you gotta start paying attention to the facts and using logic.


They are killing Obama politically--and from the right. His polls are low, the right wing is making a comback, tea baggers, etc. The right is defeating his even most lukewarm plans.

I just explained why they are killing Obama from the righd dumbass, that was the whole point of this thread, they are defeating it because the Democrats ARE CORPORATISTS and have to pretend they are being twisted by the right wing.

The Tea Baggers are much much smaller than people think, if they covored left wing protests that are many times more than double the tea baggers size the way they cover the tea baggers you'd think a revolution was comming, but they don't, and theres a reason for that.

Look at the numbers Bud, your compleatly wrong.


Well, you have me there.

Maybe you should think before you post rediculous Palin talking points.

[Red Saxon]

Smell the coffee shitheads...people want job reform and not health reform. :|

[Bud Struggle]

No they arn't, the facts don't agree with you, the MEDIA is to the right of Obama. Healthcare is close to dead because the health insurance industries have bought congress, follow the money, its a fact. Yea. People are cattle hearded by the media--if only they KNEW the TRUTH! :rolleyes:


Universal healthcare is still over 60% according to pretty much all polls and thats AFTER all the bad press and media campain against it. I would quote something for you but after googling it--I can't get a straight answer from any of the polls.


So .... your wrong, 100%, I hate to say it Bud but your out of touch. No--I think I'm on the money on where america thinks--Europe and elsewhere I admit I haven't a clue. But as far as America is concerned I know what I'm talking about.


For most people, things are NOT good the way they are, and I know this because I pay attention to polls, and facts, not glenn beck. Glenn Beck as more people believeing in him in Topika than Communist have believing in Marx in the entire world.

Are you fucking retarded??? You and my wife have a lot in common. :D


Obamas numbers went down because he DID'NT deliver ANY hopey changey thing. His numbers were HUGE when people thought he was going to change, and they plummited when it was evident he was'nt going to change. Nobody wants change..really. Everythings pretty good as it is.


And the fact that your using Palins words just shows how out of touch you are. Now she's a hit with the American public.

Politics is funny.


Again, I have to question your intelligence. Again--you sound like my wife. :D


EVERY POSITIVE CHANGE IN AMERICA, every singe one, has been people working outside and AGAINST the system. No. every change came from WITHIN the system. even though it didn't look like it.


You wanna know when we'll get public healthcare? When the Congressmen fear a revolution, thats when we got every workers and civil right in America. They are fearing the Tea Baggers at this point, Gack.


Bud you gotta start paying attention to the facts and using logic. I only know what I see on TV News. ;)



I just explained why they are killing Obama from the righd dumbass, that was the whole point of this thread, they are defeating it because the Democrats ARE CORPORATISTS and have to pretend they are being twisted by the right wing.

The Tea Baggers are much much smaller than people think, if they covored left wing protests that are many times more than double the tea baggers size the way they cover the tea baggers you'd think a revolution was comming, but they don't, and theres a reason for that.

Look at the numbers Bud, your compleatly wrong.



Maybe you should think before you post rediculous Palin talking points.[/QUOTE]

[RGacky3]

Yea. People are cattle hearded by the media--if only they KNEW the TRUTH! :rolleyes:


No, most people are not, most people are to the left of the Media ...


I would quote something for you but after googling it--I can't get a straight answer from any of the polls.

Well its still in the 60%s, according to most of them


No--I think I'm on the money on where america thinks--Europe and elsewhere I admit I haven't a clue. But as far as America is concerned I know what I'm talking about.


Based on what Bud?

The only real way you'd have a clue is surveys and polls and statistics (not your psudo-folksey palin bullshit), and all of those show that the US is to the Left of the US government and the media.


Glenn Beck as more people believeing in him in Topika than Communist have believing in Marx in the entire world.

Really? Such as in Latin America? Africa? Europe? East Asia?

The vast majority of even Topika think Glenn Beck is a tool.


Nobody wants change..really. Everythings pretty good as it is.


You compleatly ignored my points about Obamas popularity.


Now she's a hit with the American public.

Politics is funny.


She's actually not, the majority of the US, and even a big section of republicans think she's unfit to even run for president.


No. every change came from WITHIN the system. even though it didn't look like it.

LIke what? What change? Rights for women, rights for black,s workers rights, all came from attacking the system.

Bud, if you don't use any facts or reasoning your posts are pointless.


They are fearing the Tea Baggers at this point, Gack.

Who is? When have they said that?


I only know what I see on TV News. ;)

I can see that.

[Crusade]

You have it right for the most part. It's not really that the democrats are weak, it's that they don't actually want to do the things they say they do.

[khad]

Glenn Beck as more people believeing in him in Topika than Communist have believing in Marx in the entire world.
Next time, bud, when you're trying to crap out some dumbassed populofascist point, learn to spell Topeka.

And in case you can't count either, there are about 120,000 assholes in Topeka; FYI, more than 3 million voted for the CPN-M in the last election. That's more than an order of magnitude.

[Jimmie Higgins]

They are killing Obama politically--and from the right. His polls are low, the right wing is making a comback, tea baggers, etc. The right is defeating his even most lukewarm plans. Yes, but this is not because the country is to the right-wing on the whole. The country is highly polarized due to the crisis and the inability of traditional ruling class institutions (namely: Dems and Republicans) to get a handle on it and provide a clear path out. Obama's bi-partisan bullshit is the reason he's failing in the polls among both liberals and conservatives.

The tea-party people are small but more organized than much of the left and this (and support form think tanks and other non-grassroots sources) has given them the political initiative. Liberals at my work don't even what to talk about politics anymore (as shallow as their discussions were anyway: "Palin is stupid" "bush is stupid") and this tells me that more than the country turning towards the right, people polarized but the liberals (and left in general) are totally demoralized because the "hope" they expected to be delivered turned into more of the same old same old: war, troop increases, bailouts for the rich, bootstrap pulling for the rest of us.


Nobody wants change..really. Everythings pretty good as it is.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:. That's why people are forming the tea-parties, that's why there've been 2 riots in my city in the last year, that's why students are occupying buildings, that's why there were big pro-gay marriage protests after prop 8 passed, that's why crazies are flying planes into IRS buildings.

I think the election of Obama, kicking out the Republican bums and now apparently kicking out the Democratic bums (or at least refusing to elect a Democrat to fill Kennedy's seat) is plenty of proof that people are angry right now. (additionally, most of the voters in that Mass election were in support of healthcare reform - but they still elected a Republican and this tells me that they were angry at the staus quo, not driven by pure ideological reasons).

I tell ya, I don't know if the right or left will come out of this time period with the upper hand, but the one thing I'm certain of is that everything is pretty fucked up and it feels like the early 60s now with the huge amount of political polarization right now. What will make the difference is who can rally their side, who can tap into the popular anger - in other words who is the most organized.

[Bud Struggle]

I tell ya, I don't know if the right or left will come out of this time period with the upper hand, but the one thing I'm certain of is that everything is pretty fucked up and it feels like the early 60s now with the huge amount of political polarization right now. What will make the difference is who can rally their side, who can tap into the popular anger - in other words who is the most organized.

And right now it's the right.



And in case you can't count either, there are about 120,000 assholes in Topeka; FYI, more than 3 million voted for the CPN-M in the last election. That's more than an order of magnitude.I should have said the United States. That should be about right. Maybe 10% of the people for Beck, maybe 15,000 Communists in the USA. :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

What will make the difference is who can rally their side, who can tap into the popular anger - in other words who is the most organized.And right now it's the right.

Then we agree that the population is not right-wing as much as it is polarized... as I said in the first line:
The tea-party people are small but more organized than much of the left and this (and support form think tanks and other non-grassroots sources) has given them the political initiative.

So yes, right now the right has the initiative, the left has the numbers though and if the student protests in California are any indication left-wing populist anger may not be left unexpressed for too much longer now. Until about a month ago the Democrats still took their "popular mandate" for granted, so it's important not to be impressionistic in a volatile political times like this.


I should have said the United States. That should be about right. Maybe 10% of the people for Beck, maybe 15,000 Communists in the USA.This is a bit overstated. On the very high-end, Beck get's about 3 million viewers which is impressive for cable news (Daily Show averages about 2 million), but is low even for a show like Guiding Light (2.5 million) or Star Trek: Enterprise (about 4 million and was canceled). 3 million viewers is about 2% of total viewership so I don't think Beck has the ear of 10% of the US population which would be, what, 30 million. Limbaugh's radio program has approached 10% with 20 million listeners though.

At any rate, comparing the amount of people who listen to someone who's backed by the establishment and on TV with advertisements and money to attract viewers to grassroots activists who have no money and are actively red-baited by both establishment liberals and conservatives is a little silly.

[Green Dragon]

Universal healthcare is still over 60% according to pretty much all polls and thats AFTER all the bad press and media campain against it.

Who is against people having health insurance? The insurance industry?:lol:

Nobody is, which is why you see that 60% number. But start dealing with actual details of universal coverage... and the collapse in support begins.
Most people are happy with their present health insurance. They don't want to lose it. And even President Obama now admits, as much as he denied it during the campaign and early this year, that policy will be lost.

[Bud Struggle]

Then we agree that the population is not right-wing as much as it is polarized... as I said in the first line: [QUOTE=Me]The tea-party people are small but more organized than much of the left and this (and support form think tanks and other non-grassroots sources) has given them the political initiative. I see that there is definitely polarization--and I see that the right wing has the initiative, but I think there is a deap seated basic Conservatism, highly influenced by Conservative Christianity in America.



This is a bit overstated. On the very high-end, Beck get's about 3 million viewers which is impressive for cable news (Daily Show averages about 2 million), but is low even for a show like Guiding Light (2.5 million) or Star Trek: Enterprise (about 4 million and was canceled). 3 million viewers is about 2% of total viewership so I don't think Beck has the ear of 10% of the US population which would be, what, 30 million. Limbaugh's radio program has approached 10% with 20 million listeners though. I believe Beck also gets 8 or so million listeners to his radio show. Also, I've listened to beck's show--he is as close to a functioning psycho as you can get without being institutionalized. Limbaugh on the other hand--love him or hate him--is VERY good at what he does.


At any rate, comparing the amount of people who listen to someone who's backed by the establishment and on TV with advertisements and money to attract viewers to grassroots activists who have no money and are actively red-baited by both establishment liberals and conservatives is a little silly. I actually never meant it to be taken seriously. :cool:

[IcarusAngel]

Agreed. But most people in the US of A are to the right of Obama. That's why healthcare is close to dead, that's why Obama is close to dead. For most people--and that's most NOT ALL people: things are good the way they are.

Nobody wants the Hopey Changey thing, let alone some Revolution.


Your attempt to push all leftists into despair is pathetic. I've explained to you several times how leftists have "changed" society with their beliefs and advocacy of workers rights, and anti-imperialism.

Even if a revolution doesn't come about, there still be meaningful change.

[IcarusAngel]

Your attempt to push all leftists into despair is pathetic. I've explained to you several times how leftists have "changed" society with their beliefs and advocacy of workers rights, and anti-imperialism.

Even if a revolution doesn't come about, there still be meaningful change.


Marxists = rebels. This piece from truthout can apply to marxists:




Calling All Rebels

by Chris Hedges
There are no constraints left to halt America's slide into a totalitarian capitalism. Electoral politics are a sham. The media have been debased and defanged by corporate owners. The working class has been impoverished and is now being plunged into profound despair. The legal system has been corrupted to serve corporate interests. Popular institutions, from labor unions to political parties, have been destroyed or emasculated by corporate power. And any form of protest, no matter how tepid, is blocked by an internal security apparatus that is starting to rival that of the East German secret police. The mounting anger and hatred, coursing through the bloodstream of the body politic, make violence and counter-violence inevitable. Brace yourself. The American empire is over. And the descent is going to be horrifying.

Those singled out as internal enemies will include people of color, immigrants, gays, intellectuals, feminists, Jews, Muslims, union leaders and those defined as "liberals." They will be condemned as anti-American and blamed for our decline. The economic collapse, which remains mysterious and enigmatic to most Americans, will be pinned by demagogues and hatemongers on these hapless scapegoats. And the random acts of violence, which are already leaping up around the fringes of American society, will justify harsh measures of internal control that will snuff out the final vestiges of our democracy. The corporate forces that destroyed the country will use the information systems they control to mask their culpability. The old game of blaming the weak and the marginal, a staple of despotic regimes, will empower the dark undercurrents of sadism and violence within American society and deflect attention from the corporate vampires that have drained the blood of the country.

"We are going to be poorer," David Cay Johnston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cay_Johnston)told me. Johnston was the tax reporter of The New York Times for 13 years and has written on how the corporate state rigged the system against us. He is the author of "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With the Bill (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1591841917?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1591841917&adid=13S8KVDKN3KD3V9Y6G5X&)," a book about hidden subsidies, rigged markets and corporate socialism. "Health care is going to eat up more and more of our income. We are going to have less and less for other things. We are going to have some huge disasters sooner or later caused by our failure to invest. Dams and bridges will break. Buildings will collapse. There are water mains that are 25 to 50 feet wide. There will be huge infrastructure disasters. Our intellectual resources are in decline. We are failing to educate young people and instill in them rigor. We are going to continue to pour money into the military. I think it is possible, I do not say it is probable, that we will have a revolution, a civil war that will see the end of the United States of America."

"If we see the end of this country it will come from the right and our failure to provide people with the basic necessities of life," said Johnston. "Revolutions occur when young men see the present as worse than the unknown future. We are not there. But it will not take a lot to get there. The politicians running for office who are denigrating the government, who are saying there are traitors in Congress, who say we do not need the IRS, this when no government in the history of the world has existed without a tax enforcement agency, are sowing the seeds for the destruction of the country. A lot of the people on the right hate the United States of America. They would say they hate the people they are arrayed against. But the whole idea of the United States is that we criticize the government. We remake it to serve our interests. They do not want that kind of society. They reject, as Aristotle said, the idea that democracy is to rule and to be ruled in turns. They see a world where they are right and that is it. If we do not want to do it their way we should be vanquished. This is not the idea on which the United States was founded."

It is hard to see how this can be prevented. The engines of social reform are dead. Liberal apologists, who long ago should have abandoned the Democratic Party, continue to make pathetic appeals to a tone-deaf corporate state and Barack Obama while the working and middle class are ruthlessly stripped of rights, income and jobs. Liberals self-righteously condemn imperial wars and the looting of the U.S. Treasury by Wall Street but not the Democrats who are responsible. And the longer the liberal class dithers and speaks in the bloodless language of policies and programs, the more hated and irrelevant it becomes. No one has discredited American liberalism more than liberals themselves. And I do not hold out any hope for their reform. We have entered an age in which, as William Butler Yeats wrote, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."

"If we end up with violence in the streets on a large scale, not random riots, but insurrection and things break down, there will be a coup d'état from the right," Johnston said. "We have already had an economic coup d'état. It will not take much to go further."

How do we resist? How, if this descent is inevitable, as I believe it is, do we fight back? Why should we resist at all? Why not give in to cynicism and despair? Why not carve out as comfortable a niche as possible within the embrace of the corporate state and spend our lives attempting to satiate our private needs? The power elite, including most of those who graduate from our top universities and our liberal and intellectual classes, have sold out for personal comfort. Why not us?

The French moral philosopher Albert Camus (http://www.biography.com/articles/Albert-Camus-9236690)argued that we are separated from each other. Our lives are meaningless. We cannot influence fate. We will all die and our individual being will be obliterated. And yet Camus wrote that "one of the only coherent philosophical positions is revolt. It is a constant confrontation between man and his obscurity. It is not aspiration, for it is devoid of hope. That revolt is the certainty of a crushing fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it."
"A living man can be enslaved and reduced to the historic condition of an object," Camus warned. "But if he dies in refusing to be enslaved, he reaffirms the existence of another kind of human nature which refuses to be classified as an object."

The rebel, for Camus, stands with the oppressed-the unemployed workers being thrust into impoverishment and misery by the corporate state, the Palestinians in Gaza, the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disappeared who are held in our global black sites, the poor in our inner cities and depressed rural communities, immigrants and those locked away in our prison system. And to stand with them does not mean to collaborate with parties, such as the Democrats, who can mouth the words of justice while carrying out acts of oppression. It means open and direct defiance.
The power structure and its liberal apologists dismiss the rebel as impractical and see the rebel's outsider stance as counterproductive. They condemn the rebel for expressing anger at injustice. The elites and their apologists call for calm and patience. They use the hypocritical language of spirituality, compromise, generosity and compassion to argue that the only alternative is to accept and work with the systems of power. The rebel, however, is beholden to a moral commitment that makes it impossible to stand with the power elite. The rebel refuses to be bought off with foundation grants, invitations to the White House, television appearances, book contracts, academic appointments or empty rhetoric. The rebel is not concerned with self-promotion or public opinion. The rebel knows that, as Augustine wrote, hope has two beautiful daughters, anger and courage-anger at the way things are and the courage to see that they do not remain the way they are. The rebel is aware that virtue is not rewarded. The act of rebellion defines itself.

"You do not become a ‘dissident' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career," Vaclav Havel (http://www.answers.com/topic/v-clav-havel)said when he battled the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. "You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society. ... The dissident does not operate in the realm of genuine power at all. He is not seeking power. He has no desire for office and does not gather votes. He does not attempt to charm the public. He offers nothing and promises nothing. He can offer, if anything, only his own skin-and he offers it solely because he has no other way of affirming the truth he stands for. His actions simply articulate his dignity as a citizen, regardless of the cost."

Those in power have disarmed the liberal class. They do not argue that the current system is just or good, because they cannot, but they have convinced liberals that there is no alternative. But we are not slaves. We have a choice. We can refuse to be either a victim or an executioner. We have the moral capacity to say no, to refuse to cooperate. Any boycott or demonstration, any occupation or sit-in, any strike, any act of obstruction or sabotage, any refusal to pay taxes, any fast, any popular movement and any act of civil disobedience ignites the soul of the rebel and exposes the dead hand of authority. "There is beauty and there are the humiliated," Camus wrote. "Whatever difficulties the enterprise may present, I should like never to be unfaithful either to the second or the first."

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop," Mario Savio (http://www.savio.org/who_was_mario.html)said in 1964. "And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

The capacity to exercise moral autonomy, the capacity to refuse to cooperate, offers us the only route left to personal freedom and a life with meaning. Rebellion is its own justification. Those of us who come out of the religious left have no quarrel with Camus. Camus is right about the absurdity of existence, right about finding worth in the act of rebellion rather than some bizarre dream of an afterlife or Sunday School fantasy that God rewards the just and the good. "Oh my soul," the ancient Greek poet Pindar wrote, "do not aspire to immortal life, but exhaust the limits of the possible." We differ with Camus only in that we have faith that rebellion is not ultimately meaningless. Rebellion allows us to be free and independent human beings, but rebellion also chips away, however imperceptibly, at the edifice of the oppressor and sustains the dim flames of hope and love. And in moments of profound human despair these flames are never insignificant. They keep alive the capacity to be human. We must become, as Camus said, so absolutely free that "existence is an act of rebellion." Those who do not rebel in our age of totalitarian capitalism and who convince themselves that there is no alternative to collaboration are complicit in their own enslavement. They commit spiritual and moral suicide.

© 2010 TruthDig.com
Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com (http://www.truthdig.com/). Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400034639?ie=UTF8&tag=commondreams-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1400034639), What Every Person Should Know About War (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743255127?ie=UTF8&tag=commondreams-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0743255127), and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743284437?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim) His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568584377?ie=UTF8&tag=commondreams-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1568584377).

[Robert]

Even if a revolution doesn't come about, there still be meaningful change.

Sounds like reformism. You'd better be careful.

[RGacky3]

Who is against people having health insurance? The insurance industry?:lol:

Nobody is, which is why you see that 60% number. But start dealing with actual details of universal coverage... and the collapse in support begins.
Most people are happy with their present health insurance. They don't want to lose it. And even President Obama now admits, as much as he denied it during the campaign and early this year, that policy will be lost.

The number 60% was from polls that used the public option language. To be honest, I believe that if they said single payer, and used the language of just expanding medicare (which IS single payer) it would be higher.

but your full of it, most people are NOT happy with their coverage which is why healthcare is such a huge issue amung the American public.


I see that there is definitely polarization--and I see that the right wing has the initiative, but I think there is a deap seated basic Conservatism, highly influenced by Conservative Christianity in America.

THast not true at all, first of all a LOT of Americans are agnostics, and a lot more are becoming agnostics, second of all the deep seated basic conservatism has never been proven or shown. The large protion of even christians are still far left than the media.

THe right wing has the initiative because they have HUGE CORPORATE BACKING, and with that comes media attention.


I believe Beck also gets 8 or so million listeners to his radio show. Also, I've listened to beck's show--he is as close to a functioning psycho as you can get without being institutionalized. Limbaugh on the other hand--love him or hate him--is VERY good at what he does.

And what?

[Bud Struggle]

but your full of it, most people are NOT happy with their coverage which is why healthcare is such a huge issue amung the American public. Well I do agree it is a bad system. The best would be to let the insurance companies compete for your dollars--and everyone could buy the coverage they wanted from the company that best suited their needs. No need for the government getting involved or any sort of "revenue sharing."


THast not true at all, first of all a LOT of Americans are agnostics, and a lot more are becoming agnostics, second of all the deep seated basic conservatism has never been proven or shown. The large protion of even christians are still far left than the media.

A couple of % are athiest or agnostic.

http://old.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

America has voted for Bush twice and Reagan twice--I think Obama (as non-leftist as he is) may be only a one shot President because he is too liberal.


THe right wing has the initiative because they have HUGE CORPORATE BACKING, and with that comes media attention. You know there's about as much credibility in your ideas of a "Corporate plot" as there is in Glen Back's theories of a "Communist plot" to take over America. Americans aren't sheep.



And what? There are just as many Communists in the USA as Glen Beck has listeners in Topeka, Kansas.

[Dimentio]

And people who don't afford any coverage whatsoever?

Why would the corporations need to plot? They are already in control...

[Bud Struggle]

And people who don't afford any coverage whatsoever? The service is provided by the government for free. That's the way it already is here in America. You can walk into any emergency room and get treated regardless of your ability to pay.


Why would the corporations need to plot? They are already in control... There are no plots--all the information is out there and easily available. Now you may have to sift through some bullshit, but that's the price you pay for universal access to information.

[9]

Most people are happy with their present health insurance.

Man, what sort of a boulder are you living under? I have to pay $1,000 deductibles out of pocket at the start of every year before my abysmal little crumb of coverage even kicks in; the difference between this sort of shit insurance policy I have and simply not having a policy at all and paying for all expenses out of pocket is negligible at best, and this is the norm. Seriously I can only imagine what sort of sheltered existence you must lead to actually genuinely think that most people in the US are happy with their present health insurance; it's honestly really a bizarre assertion.

[RGacky3]

Well I do agree it is a bad system. The best would be to let the insurance companies compete for your dollars--and everyone could buy the coverage they wanted from the company that best suited their needs. No need for the government getting involved or any sort of "revenue sharing."


Yeah, because thats what works NOW, right? Also what do you mean be revenue sharing? Single payer healthcare has nothing to do with revenue sharing, its has to do with medicare for everyone. The public option is even less socialist, ist just the government competing with the corporate world, giving Americans an option, what does that have to do wi ht revenue sharing?

I thought you were a social-democrat, single payer healthcare is the most basic of social-democratic principles, infact, in the rest of the world single payer healthcare is'nt even a social-democratic principle, its a centrist one.


America has voted for Bush twice and Reagan twice--I think Obama (as non-leftist as he is) may be only a one shot President because he is too liberal.

I just proved that its not because he's too liberal and you juts compleatly ignored it. He was elected on a progressive line, overwhelmingly supported by the people BECAUSE he was progressive, the farther right he moved, the less support he had. Sorry Bud but the facts are the facts. He has'nt done ONE progressive initiative, he has'nt done ANY change, THATS why he's might be a one shot president.


You know there's about as much credibility in your ideas of a "Corporate plot" as there is in Glen Back's theories of a "Communist plot" to take over America. Americans aren't sheep.

Look at Corporate campain contributions, look at how many politicians work for the major corporations after serving, look at the funding of the tea parties, follow the actual money, then come back. Americans ARE NOT sheep, I never said that, the media is.

There is not Corporate plot, its out in the open, funding is on public record, the jobs of politicians after serving, their saleries their families jobs are all public record, the amount of the American economy the Corporations control is also on public record.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you just pull stuff out of your ass and ignore the facts.


There are just as many Communists in the USA as Glen Beck has listeners in Topeka, Kansas.

But there are many many many many more people who are progressives and support single payer and other progressive concepts than people who have ever listened to Glenn Beck.


The service is provided by the government for free. That's the way it already is here in America. You can walk into any emergency room and get treated regardless of your ability to pay.

Emergency room care is not free healthcare, and if your in support of that, a HUGE drain on the taxpayer, you'd definately be in support for single payer which would save a lot of more money.


There are no plots--all the information is out there and easily available. Now you may have to sift through some bullshit, but that's the price you pay for universal access to information.

Yeah, not shit, its all out there, which is why we say with absolute confidence.

"THe right wing has the initiative because they have HUGE CORPORATE BACKING, and with that comes media attention. "

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, because thats what works NOW, right? Also what do you mean be revenue sharing? Single payer healthcare has nothing to do with revenue sharing, its has to do with medicare for everyone. The public option is even less socialist, ist just the government competing with the corporate world, giving Americans an option, what does that have to do wi ht revenue sharing? Revenue sharing is ME footing the bill for YOUR healthcare costs. My revenue is being shared with you. Now understand--I'm a nice guy and I don't mind helping out the less fortunate, but it is my money and I am sharing it.


I thought you were a social-democrat, single payer healthcare is the most basic of social-democratic principles, infact, in the rest of the world single payer healthcare is'nt even a social-democratic principle, its a centrist one. The best system is everyone pay their own and that's that, but as I said, I don't mind helping out the less fortunate.


I just proved that its not because he's too liberal and you juts compleatly ignored it. He was elected on a progressive line, overwhelmingly supported by the people BECAUSE he was progressive, the farther right he moved, the less support he had. Sorry Bud but the facts are the facts. He has'nt done ONE progressive initiative, he has'nt done ANY change, THATS why he's might be a one shot president. So let me get this straight: Carter was too conservatie so the country voted for Reagan TWICE? Clinton was to conservativeso the country voted for Bush TWICE?

I think Obama would be more liberal if the Congress let him.




Look at Corporate campain contributions, look at how many politicians work for the major corporations after serving, look at the funding of the tea parties, follow the actual money, then come back. Americans ARE NOT sheep, I never said that, the media is. Who cares what the media does--all they want to do is sell airtime.


You can't expect to be taken seriously when you just pull stuff out of your ass and ignore the facts. Or maybe the real reason things don't go your way is that you are in the minority--you know that's the simple explaination.


But there are many many many many more people who are progressives and support single payer and other progressive concepts than people who have ever listened to Glenn Beck. People like healthcare not because they are Progressive--but it's because it is a freebee.


Emergency room care is not free healthcare, and if your in support of that, a HUGE drain on the taxpayer, you'd definately be in support for single payer which would save a lot of more money. I agree--but it's the principal of the thing--if people are getting charity they should know they are getting charity. It shouldn't be a right.


Yeah, not shit, its all out there, which is why we say with absolute confidence.

"THe right wing has the initiative because they have HUGE CORPORATE BACKING, and with that comes media attention. "We'll always have RevLeft. :)

[RGacky3]

Revenue sharing is ME footing the bill for YOUR healthcare costs. My revenue is being shared with you. Now understand--I'm a nice guy and I don't mind helping out the less fortunate, but it is my money and I am sharing it.


If thats the way your looking at it then your probably not a social democrat.

Actually in the public option your not footing the bill for anyone, becaus I BUY MY OWN PUBLIC COVERAGE, with single payer, chances are your paying out less money anyway, because right now your paying for some CEOs bonus, talk about revenue sharing.


The best system is everyone pay their own and that's that, but as I said, I don't mind helping out the less fortunate.

Well empirical evidence shows thats not that, because we pay over 2.5 times more than ANY OTHER INDUSTRIAL COUNTRY on healthcare and yet we have terrible quality and low life expectancy. So its not the best system.

Second, your not a social democrat, your just a self righteous philanthropist. Social democracy, is about ... democracy.


So let me get this straight: Carter was too conservatie so the country voted for Reagan TWICE? Clinton was to conservativeso the country voted for Bush TWICE?

I think Obama would be more liberal if the Congress let him.

wait ... are you suggesting that because republicans sometimes win that means that America is mainly conservative???

Did you know Bud that the Democrats have a huge majority in both houses of congress? When was the last time you heard Obama push for the public option? During the campain he supported single payer, that was a huge reason he got elected, when has he supperted it since? Oh but he's only president of the US with a huge majority in congress.

Obama has not done ONE progressive initiative, not ONE, thats not because he cant, he could have passed a public option and probably single payer months ago, no problem, but he did'nt, that was'nt because of lack of pubic support, not was it because congress twisted his arm. Its because the insurance companies gave him millions apon millions of dollers, and he's pretending to be a weak progressive i.e. "I wanna help you guys but look the republicans are scary, arn't I a good progressive, psst, insurance companies you got what you wanted." Look at who finances the democrats AND the republicans.


Who cares what the media does--all they want to do is sell airtime.

Who do they sell airtime too? Major Corporations, oh yeah, and guess what happens when they don't play ball, no more access.


Or maybe the real reason things don't go your way is that you are in the minority--you know that's the simple explaination.

Ok, maybe, or maybe you can pay attention to the facts, such as who funds both parties, and the actual public opinion polls. Which show we are not in the minority. Bud your rediculous, talking to you is like talking to a child that believes in santa claus, even if I pull of the beard and show that he's your uncle and I show that the house doe'snt even have a chimanny and that I gave you the presants you still say "but maybe it was santa".


People like healthcare not because they are Progressive--but it's because it is a freebee.

The public option is not a freebee, and Medicare also is'nt a freebe, its paid for, the difference is one is run by the Coporations the other is democratically run. People like healthcare because they are tired of being screwed by the Corporate elite, Thats progressivism dumbass.

You keep changin your stance, first the American people DON't support it, which is rediuclous for you to say considering all the polls refute it, second the American people are just Bums, I thought Americans were conservatives that don't want "freebees"? And would much rather get robbed by corporations than have democratic healthcare.


I agree--but it's the principal of the thing--if people are getting charity they should know they are getting charity. It shouldn't be a right.

BUt its not Charity dumbass. Its democratically funded rather than corporate funded (for a profit), is the fire department "charity"?

Whats forced charity is us paying the CEOs bonuses for them doing a terrible job.

Bud you are so out of touch with reality its amazing, everytime I think your getting somewhere you go and say the most rediculous crap, and if your a social-democrat, then so is Bill Oreilly.

[Green Dragon]

but your full of it, most people are NOT happy with their coverage which is why healthcare is such a huge issue amung the American public.


Its NEVER been as big an issue as the Left has claimed. Which is why it is floundering today, and why Obama has had the wind sucked out from him.

Spending a trillion dollars to insure 30 to 40 million people, most of whom are either illegal immigrants (and thus not subject to such reform) or choose, for whatever reason NOT to have health insurance, does not strike Americans as entirely a rational undertaking.

[Robert]

wait ... are you suggesting that because republicans sometimes win that means that America is mainly conservative???

Sometimes? You make it sound like an aberration.

1900 - McKinley (R)
1904 - Teddy Roosevelt (R)
1908 - Taft (R)
1912 - Wilson (D)
1916 - Wilson (D)
1920 - Harding (R)
1924 - Coolidge (R)
1928 - Hoover (R)
1932 - Roosevelt (D)
1936 - Roosevelt (D)
1940 - Roosevelt (D)
1944 - Roosevelt (D)
1948 - Truman (D)
1952 - Eisenhower (R)
1956 - Eisenhower (R)
1960 - Kennedy (D)
1964 - Johnson (D)
1968 - Nixon (R)
1972 - Nixon (R)
1976 - Carter (D)
1980 - Reagan (R)
1984 - Reagan (R)
1988 - GHW Bush (R)
1992 - Clinton (D)
1996 - Clinton (D)
2000 - GW Bush (R)
2004 - GW Bush (R)
2008 - Obama (D)

What does that work out to?

[cb9's_unity]

The reason why the Democrats are weak is because Republicans have them by the balls when it comes to 'socialism' and now 'radical progressive-ism'.

Democrats believe, with the Republicans, that the word socialism means nothing more than 'public ownership and intervention in the economy'. This means the Republicans can complain about 'socialist democrats' when the democrats want to intervene in the economy or 'grow' government. Because socialism has such radical connotation in the states the Republicans can consistently scare the American public by calling Democrats socialists and thus radicals.

If the Democrats were better organized and could mount a real coordinated propaganda campaign, like the GOP does, then they might be able to fight the Republicans. However the Republicans constantly have democrats on their heels for being 'too radical'.

[Robert]

Gacky, what is your source for thinking "most people are NOT happy with their coverage which is why healthcare is such a huge issue amung the American public."

You don't mean this poll from 2009 do you?

According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and 82% of people on Medicare or Medicaid say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good. Similarly, 75% of those with private plans and 74% on government-run plans rate their insurance plan as excellent or good. It's hard to convince people that change is necessary when they are pretty content with how things are, which is part of the reason Obama's job is so hard.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/01/poll-finds-large-majority-of-americans-happy-with-their-health-insurance.aspx

[RGacky3]

Gacky, what is your source for thinking "most people are NOT happy with their coverage which is why healthcare is such a huge issue amung the American public."

You don't mean this poll from 2009 do you?

According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and 82% of people on Medicare or Medicaid say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good. Similarly, 75% of those with private plans and 74% on government-run plans rate their insurance plan as excellent or good. It's hard to convince people that change is necessary when they are pretty content with how things are, which is part of the reason Obama's job is so hard.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thega...insurance.aspx (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/01/poll-finds-large-majority-of-americans-happy-with-their-health-insurance.aspx)

I misspoke, I ment to say they are not satisfied with the healthcare system.
"TIME MAGAZINE/ABT SRBI – July 27–28, 2009 Survey" (http://www.srbi.com/TimePoll4794_Final_%20Report.pdf)


Poll after poll shows support for a public option
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option#cite_ref-useit_41-0) "U.S. Voters Back Public Insurance 2-1, But Won't Use It" (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1344)
"News Poll #15699 "Health Care Data Gathered Using NBC News Wall (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693)
Street Journal Questions" on 8/19/09
"The New York Times/CBS News Poll, Feb. 23-27, 2007" (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf)
"Findings from a Recent Survey Show Widespread Support for a Public Health Care Option" (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf)
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf

and even single payer

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/new_polls_on_univers.php (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/new_polls_on_univers.php)
http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/elections/2008/yahoo2topline.pdf (http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/elections/2008/yahoo2topline.pdf)
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/where_are_we_on_refo.php (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/where_are_we_on_refo.php)
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164 (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164)
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/march/public_opinion_on_he.php (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/march/public_opinion_on_he.php)
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf)
http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/935a3HealthCare.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/935a3HealthCare.pdf)
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7943.pdf (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7943.pdf)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6366/is_6_16/ai_n29141381/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6366/is_6_16/ai_n29141381/)

Infact one reason single payers been so popular is because we have it and it works, so its harder for the right wingto lie about it than it is for them to lie about other programs like the public option (thats one reason democrats won't dare to push for single payer, because it might pass, and how pissed would the ruling class be then).


Sometimes? You make it sound like an aberration.

1900 - McKinley (R)
1904 - Teddy Roosevelt (R)
1908 - Taft (R)
1912 - Wilson (D)
1916 - Wilson (D)
1920 - Harding (R)
1924 - Coolidge (R)
1928 - Hoover (R)
1932 - Roosevelt (D)
1936 - Roosevelt (D)
1940 - Roosevelt (D)
1944 - Roosevelt (D)
1948 - Truman (D)
1952 - Eisenhower (R)
1956 - Eisenhower (R)
1960 - Kennedy (D)
1964 - Johnson (D)
1968 - Nixon (R)
1972 - Nixon (R)
1976 - Carter (D)
1980 - Reagan (R)
1984 - Reagan (R)
1988 - GHW Bush (R)
1992 - Clinton (D)
1996 - Clinton (D)
2000 - GW Bush (R)
2004 - GW Bush (R)
2008 - Obama (D)

What does that work out to?

What I'msaying is that does'nt proove anything, there are many many factors on who gets elected, but when it comes to actual issues, most Americans are more progressive and much less Corpratist than the government and the media.


Its NEVER been as big an issue as the Left has claimed. Which is why it is floundering today, and why Obama has had the wind sucked out from him.

Spending a trillion dollars to insure 30 to 40 million people, most of whom are either illegal immigrants (and thus not subject to such reform) or choose, for whatever reason NOT to have health insurance, does not strike Americans as entirely a rational undertaking.

Obama has'nt pushed for the public option one bit, after he got elected he almost fought against it, why? Because he never wanted it. One of the Biggest reasons for his getting elected was healthcare, thats why it was such a big campain issue, and thats why Obama has had teh wind sucked out from him, because he betrayed the people that voted for him.

You can say whatever you want, but the fact remains, MOST americans want some sort of public health insurance, and Obama has'nt done it, and he has'nt done it ON PURPOSE (No one was twisting his arm).


Democrats believe, with the Republicans, that the word socialism means nothing more than 'public ownership and intervention in the economy'. This means the Republicans can complain about 'socialist democrats' when the democrats want to intervene in the economy or 'grow' government. Because socialism has such radical connotation in the states the Republicans can consistently scare the American public by calling Democrats socialists and thus radicals.

If the Democrats were better organized and could mount a real coordinated propaganda campaign, like the GOP does, then they might be able to fight the Republicans. However the Republicans constantly have democrats on their heels for being 'too radical'.

The Democrats don't fight teh republicans, because guess what, the democrats are corporatists, they don't intend to do anything that hurts corporate America, they might run a populist campain, but the republicans being "tough" is a great excuse for them to sell out and cash their checks.

[Robert]

Gack, this is from a prominent Democratic pollster:

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.
However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform), while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html


So when the Democrats' plan either goes down in flames, or passes and then the Republican sweep the Fall elections, you will know why. And I will happily admit that most Americans, including me, see need for improving the system.


Improvements IMO will come incrementally if at all, not via an overhaul, and certainly not via revolution (unless it's from the right, which is much more serious and organized and resolved than the left).

[RGacky3]

Gack, this is from a prominent Democratic pollster:

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.
However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform), while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.

The reason people don't support the Democrats current healthcare proposal is because there is no public healthcare in it, no public option, nothing, they don't like it because its NOT healthcare reform, its a giveaway to the health insurance companies. Notice how the polls I listed were for the public option or single payer, very specific issues. THe current healthcare reform package is'nt progressive at all, I don't support it, and most real progressives don't support it either.


So when the Democrats' plan either goes down in flames, or passes and then the Republican sweep the Fall elections, you will know why. And I will happily admit that most Americans, including me, see need for improving the system.


Improvements IMO will come incrementally if at all, not via an overhaul, and certainly not via revolution (unless it's from the right, which is much more serious and organized and resolved than the left).

I agree with you, if the democrats plan as it is NOW goes through chances are they won't last, and don't deserve to, because the plan now as it is, is nothing more than a corporatist giveaway. Now, if a stronger plan came in, with a strong public option, medicare buyin for everyone, or single payer THEN things might be different, and its certainly in the democrats capacity to do it, but they won't.

This bill is not an improvement, a mandate without a public option is worse than before. Also a public option is FAR FAR FAR from an overhaul, its just putting a public compeditor on the market, one that does'nt even cost the tax payer. So you give me something thats actually an improvement and I'll bite, but until them, its clear, the Democrats ... for the most part (People like Bernie Sanders are the exception) ... are just as corpratist as the Republicans, they just get votes differently.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1691831]I misspoke, I ment to say they are not satisfied with the healthcare system.
"TIME MAGAZINE/ABT SRBI – July 27–28, 2009 Survey" (http://www.srbi.com/TimePoll4794_Final_%20Report.pdf)


Poll after poll shows support for a public option


Yes. because most Americans believe that other Americans have lousy insurance and/or are unhappy with it. But start mucking around with your own policy...

Its not due to conspiracy, or lack of fight by Dems, or anything other than that Americans are not in favor of a massive insurance overhaul because we don't think that is what is needed.

[RGacky3]

Yes. because most Americans believe that other Americans have lousy insurance and/or are unhappy with it. But start mucking around with your own policy...


And because a we pay over 2-1/2 times more for health than ANY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY, while having terrible healthcare (comparatively).


Its not due to conspiracy, or lack of fight by Dems, or anything other than that Americans are not in favor of a massive insurance overhaul because we don't think that is what is needed.

Well, considering I gave actual facts, rational explinations, statistics, historical context, and your just speaking out of your ass, I'm gonna wait for you to actually respond to my points or make some real arguments first before I just repeat what I said, which already dubunked what your saying.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Bud, that clown avatar of yours is going to make me throw up or have a panic attack or both. Well done.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, that clown avatar of yours is going to make me throw up or have a panic attack or both. Well done.

Thanks Jimmie. :D

And Gack, before the US tries some Socialist system for insurance--it might be wise for us to try a Capitalist system (just for laughs) for a while.

The government should deregulate the insurance companies so that they could compete in every state without govnernment interference .

[RGacky3]

d Gack, before the US tries some Socialist system for insurance--it might be wise for us to try a Capitalist system (just for laughs) for a while.

The government should deregulate the insurance companies so that they could compete in every state without govnernment interference .

First of all, a public option is'nt a socialist one, single payer is.

Second we KNOW the socialist one works, way better.

Third the insurance companies are pretty deregulated, they have an anti-trust exepmtion which means LESS regulation, so what your suggesting is more of what the problem is, and that some how, more of the problem, is gonna make the problem go away. Its been been proven pretty well that the free-market does'nt work when it comes to health insurance, and its been proven that socialism does work.

Fourth, how the hell are you a social-democrat????

But the main point is, we are talking about why the democrats talk progressive but don't act that way.

Also, they've never taken a vote in the senate about the public option? You know why? No democratic senator wants to go on the record against the public option (they'll loose their seat), so what they say is that They support it, but theres not enough votes, but they don't wnat to take the vote, because ... They DO have the votes if they are put on the spot, but they want to claim to be for the public option while still giving the insurance companies what they want.

THe proof is in the pudding.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

What's even sadder is the CPUSA always backs the spineless Democrats. I read Sam Webb's "analysis" about the left being split between thinking Obama can push through some reforms and criticizing how corporatist Obama really is. It's sad because he thinks Obama is on our side :blink:.