Now that Specter’s gone, we can turn to the real enemy – Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe! Then the only thing between us and victory will be Graham, Lugar, McCain, Murkowski, Grassley, Hatch, and some of the RINOs in the House. And the Governors, like Crist and Douglas and Lingle and anyone not named Palin or Jindal. And the Supreme Court Justices like the radical Kennedy. But time is on our side. If we get small enough, voters will finally see true conservatism, and then we’ll have to win.
Riiight.
30 responses so far
1 Brutus1776 // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:25 pm
And here I was under the assumption that NewMajority was all about true intellectual discourse and pontification to a degree that we could philosophically compromise Conservative factions! One could mount a rebuttal with paralleling sarcasm:
“Now if we just act more like those Jacobins on the left, we can trick the voters that both of the parties are practically the same and voila! They will have a 50/50 chance of voting for one of our people with an R either by choice or by accident! Because, surely, that is the ends of our political existence! The best way for Republicans to win is to be less Republican!”
I got it now, thank you.
2 AlexK // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Bravo!
Perry-DeMint ‘12! Agenda: (1) Texas should secede, (2) We should reduce our numbers in the Senate to 30.
3 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Ha! Spector sealed his fate with the stimulus bill. How long do you expect voters to put up with the likes of him? Naturally there is going to emerge a challenger and it isn’t as if we (and Spector himself) hasn’t seen this coming for years. And what did he do? He voted against the overwhelming interest of the MAJORITY (moderates too!) of the Republican party on a crucial issue. And apparently that’s just fine with you.
You petulant Republicans who take conservatives for granted need to wise up. Go lick your wounds. This is a two party system, yes, but we don’t always have to go along with you moderates. The Republican party has become so moderate that we don’t care anymore. I used to identify as a Republican. No more. I’ll vote for some of them, and I’ll not likely vote Democrat, but I care nothing for this shell of a party anymore. Either reform or be defeated.
It is amusing to see inside the beltway types coldly calculating political data points while expecting to convince principled ideological conservatives to drop their view and vote for someone who is so close to Democrat he changes his party affiliation just to get re-elected! You want to win at any cost and the cost is carrying venal politicians like Spector, and that is a HUGE cost. This guy is almost 80 years old and he would rather be a Dem than retire, what does that tell ya?.
Anyone who stands up for this wretch is beneath contempt.
4 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Brutus1776
You are catching on to the emptyness of this site. The win-at-any-cost calculation that reduces the whole electorate to a college bowl game of the Elephants Vs. the Donkeys. The fact they are standing up for Spector and acting like us spoiled conservatives caused this is so very funny!
We just traded our worst player to the other team. Spector fumbles, runs bad pass routes and probably tells the other team what the snap-count is.
5 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Hey Bradley, don’t you see that maybe, just maybe, these Senators and Governors will get the message and change their behavior? Either that or switch to Democrat – that is, if they are so inclined. And IF they are so inclined like Spector, then good riddance.
Sooner or later they will get the message. Isn’t it too bad elections are beyond your control? I know it is hard and that if people like you and Frum were running things then we’d (who’s we?) be a “majority. Unfortunately we would be a majority of drones.
6 Brutus1776 // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I heard Sen. Specter fights dogs…
…it’s how Atlanta got rid of their worst player. I thought it would help with the blow from the Senator’s announcement for many people who were friendly toward his ‘pragmatism’! I’m all for helping the team.
*Senator Specter does not fight dogs. The opinions expressed were of a sarcastic nature. Please no libel charges*
7 bloodstar // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Some of the trolls here evidently have no concept of either gray or incrementalism. Keep treating everything as black and white and eventually your contrast will go bad. particularly when you’re telling the governor of Utah to stay home because you think he’s too liberal on Civil Unions.
That’s like setting your monitor to treat #fffffe as #000000 because it’s not conservative enough.
At this rate, The Republican party will fit in a phone booth to reach the purity level you seem to want.
8 Brutus1776 // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:15 pm
bloodstar: Your ad hominem name calling has helped enlighten me in understanding the fallacy of my Conservatism. I thank you.
9 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Spector definitely isn’t black and white. Spector could actually betray grey for gray!
10 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Spector has incremented himself all the way over to the other side of the aisle
11 sw // Apr 29, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Franco,
This IS a college bowl game. After every election, there is a winner and a loser. The winners get to see their policies enacted; the losers just get to grind their teeth. We are in no position — “we” being those who heartily detest the current administration and all its idiotic munchkins — to be finicky about support. We need votes. Votes mean power. No votes mean no power, irrelevancy, permanent banishment to the political wilderness. Perhaps you want to be out there, pumping your fist in the desert air, endlessly evoking the sacred spirit of St. Reagan, discoursing to the cactus and the kangaroo rats on your doctrine of unsullied conservatism — but I’d rather see our side win.
“Barack is AWESOME!” gushed another teacher in the cafeteria today. “I’ll be sure to be home by 5 o’clock to hear him speak!” This is what we’re fighting — this simpleminded, brainwashed goo masquerading as political thought. Not. Each. Other.
12 danbmil99 // Apr 29, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Franco: “Hey Bradley, don’t you see that maybe, just maybe, these Senators and Governors will get the message and change their behavior?”
OK, I don’t like to call names, but this is dense. These Senators and Governors have to get elected IN THEIR HOME STATES. Do you understand that? Can you get it through your brain that many of these states do not have a working majority of voters who agree with your hard-right, litmus-tested positions? If these folks go all Sarah Palin, they will get tossed out of office.
What is it you don’t understand about political compromise? It’s not about giving up your ideals — it’s about forming a coalition with people who share more of your ideals than the other side.
This attitude among the ditto-heads is seriously weird and self-destructive.
13 ktward // Apr 29, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Sad but true, the Republican Party’s worst enemy is itself and its own special brand of internal partisanship.
Good luck with that.
14 Churl // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:01 pm
When someone told Dorothy Parker that Calvin Coolidge was dead, she asked, “How could they tell?” I had the same thought when I heard that Specter had become a Democrat.
15 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:58 pm
sw,
Spector votes with Republicans? Coulda fooled me.
We need his casual votes and we just have to suffer when he votes for the biggest power-grab in the history of the free world?
I was for dumping Spector back in 2002 but Bush intervened and we “needed” his vote. Then he went back to thwarting Republicans and helping Democrats. If past is prolouge look at him now. He’s a Democrat. And somehow conservatives made him do it?
Sometimes medicine doesn’t taste good and you are temporarily uncomfortable, but later you get better. We must stop this endless betrayals, and once again look he finally when and betrayed his own words from six weeks ago.
The American people can’t respect a party that has to beg a man like Spector for votes and constantly re-elects him too. It’s ridiculous.
16 ChristianMiller // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:32 pm
danbmil99,
You seem to think that every position these politicians take is a reaction a calculated, studied position that gets them elected. It is partially true, they do have to consider their own States and various positions, but I’m not talking about those things. It is only when there is an overwhelming breach that they need to be punished, and we need to let them, well, become Democrats if they so desire. Don’t forget, Spector saw this coming for 4 years now and he hasn’t changed his ways. He aggravated conservatives and moderates too by voting for the stimulus. The facade is now gone that that was some kind of principled position now that he changed partied to get re-elected.
For example, how would voting against the stimulus package really hurt Spector in PA? And what of advocacy? They have the power to go on TV and radio write editorials in newspapers all for free. They can LEAD. But no, we are stuck with reactive dolts who are petrified and don’t seem to have any convictions and can’t articulate a principled position.
Two chefs are making soup one wants to put in lima beans the other wants carrots, they agree on a little of both. Not great soup, but no harm done. Then one chef insists on adding mouse tails. No? Come on, just a few. No? How ’bout rat tails? Worse? You like salt, so we’ll put more salt in with the tails I want and we’ll both be happy. Still not? This guy is impossible to work with – he won’t compromise!
Most moderates don’t understand how the left works and why they are so dangerous. They have to be stopped, not appeased. Before we had some room to give, but we gave it all now there is no more room to give or we are dead. Not just Republicans and the GOP but dead as a country.America will no longer exist as a free country, we are already very close to a socialist totalitarian state. We can’t compromise our way into oblivion, which is what Spector and his ilk will do.
And guess what. Toomey can win! Especially against Spector as a Democrat. In 2010 the stimulus vote is going to hurt Spector. He is old and washed up. Democrats don’t like him and working class Democrats in PA won’t take kindly to Spector switching sides. Unlike beltway elitists they have scruples. Moderate Republicans are they going to switch to Democrat to follow Spector? I doubt it. And the Dem registrations in PA? Most of them were from “operation chaos”
17 danbmil99 // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:46 am
Franco –
The only reason I’m going to bother to pick this apart is in case there are others here who might be on the edge and need a bit of reason to see their way through to reality.
“Most moderates don’t understand how the left works and why they are so dangerous. They have to be stopped, not appeased. Before we had some room to give, but we gave it all now there is no more room to give or we are dead. Not just Republicans and the GOP but dead as a country.America will no longer exist as a free country, we are already very close to a socialist totalitarian state.”
Do you actually believe any of this? FDR and the new deal were pretty leftie; did the US fall off a cliff? No, we were left-leaning for a while, then the GOP came in with the McCarthy hearings to get everyone back on track. That was a great moment, heh — led to JFK/Johnson, Great Society. Vietnam not so good, so then we had Nixon and Watergate, which forced the nation back leftward to Carter. Then Reagan. Then Clinton. Then Bush. Now Obama. See a pattern? Did the country disintegrate during any of those liberal times?
“We can’t compromise our way into oblivion, which is what Spector and his ilk will do.”
Spector voted for the Stimulus because A) most economists thought it was a good idea and B) his constituents did too. He disagreed with the GOP, it’s that simple.
“And guess what. Toomey can win! Especially against Spector as a Democrat”
OK, here’s where you really jumped the shark. News flash: Pat Toomey cannot win a general election in PA. He can’t beat a fish, much less Spector. You are just talking nonsense.
“And the Dem registrations in PA? Most of them were from “operation chaos”"
The problem with conspiracy theories is, they blind you to the facts. Did Acorn push a few hundred phony registrations? I’m sure they did — but no more than the GOP did in Ohio in 2004, or FL in ‘00. Did it swing the election 6 points towards Obama? I kinda doubt it.
Look, you can get real and face facts, or you can be the loony-bin party. Your choice.
18 ChristianMiller // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:43 am
danbmil99,
The fact that FDR’s plans didn’t push us off the cliff is because we were very far away from the edge of the cliff back then. And, not already having huge inherited commitments, we could afford Social Security. Actually, everyone benefits from the initial stages of a Ponzi scheme. But now we are facing the end stages of the scheme and we can’t afford it, even without all the new programs. SS is a 53 trillion dollar unfunded mandate. The money isn’t there and it won’t be there. It was a giant rip-off for those who will retire after 2020. Or else it will become a huge political problem. Young people will be overtaxed to pay for old people. Which ultimately will result in a rebellion of sorts, especially if there is Universal Health care in place.
So just because we have survived old lefty policies does not mean we are forever immune. These things have a cumulative effect and there are such things as “tipping points” which I believe we are now passing. Once government controls a certain portion of the economy, it becomes “too big to fail”.
What we are seeing now is the effects of government scrambling for money. Printing it, trying to save its tax revenues from collapsing and creating more economic displacement and distrust and instability. Look at the city-states of Detroit, Philadelphia LA, Chicago and DC (somthing of an anomaly since it is propped up by the Federal government but an example nonetheless). All are in advanced stages of failure that will come to the rest of the country under leftist policies already in place and currently being implemented. They taxed the producers and created make-work jobs. They hired more people to hand out parking tickets and taxed and regulated local businesses. Soon the only way for inner-city kids to make money and use their brains was to deal drugs, which soon overwhelmed police and law enforcement. Crime kills business and depresses revenues, producers move out and cities are left with dwindling revenues while their costs increase. Soon the one-party political machine runs candidates unopposed which fosters corruption.
19 ChristianMiller // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:45 am
(cont.) danbmil99,
This is how every leftist nation starts out and they can never catch up because the model in inherently flawed since it goes against human nature.
Humans act in their self-interest. Trying to structure a society where people work, not for themselves but for others, eventually requires force, since people will not work for others.
Look back to FDR and JFK and despite their being Democrats, the USA was pretty free. Today under Bush for example, despite his being a Republican, America is substantially less free. The rise of lawyers and litigation and the endless regulations stacked on top of each other over the years. All the improvements of health and safety, as well meaning and often beneficial they are, become revenue generators for the State, police are now enforcing more laws than ever and bothering otherwise normal citizens over seat-belts and other peripherals while murders go unsolved and other crime is rampant.
Every new law enacted erodes our liberty in some way and tilts the society toward the elites and rich who can afford lawyers to allow them to operate.
This is why franchises became such a relied upon business model. Economy of scale, yes, but regulations made it more and more difficult for mom and pop to operate the corner store. They have to comply with so many laws and regulations relating to employees the environment, handicapped entrances and toilets, the list is endless. All these things cost money.
20 ChristianMiller // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:47 am
(cont. 3) danbmil99, ( I had to break this up to post here, best to read last post first)
Whether America is right or left isn’t a function of which party is in power, my friend (as John McCain would say). The Republican party has become more statist while the Democrats have moved left. Both tendencies are leftward. Statism is another form of leftism. We are now caught in a pincer movement whereby Democrats are outright socialists and Republicans are playing “prevent defense” but unlike football the clock is forever ticking, so the prevent defense gives up ground for time but time marches on and now we are here. Regardless of what administration was in charge, the USA is creeping leftward.
This is what I mean by you guys not understanding leftism and the threat. I have lived through all those administrations (not FDR) and I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I haven’t always thought as I do now, either. We used to have plenty of room in the budget for various programs even if they were bad. Now we have no room we have reached beyond what we can afford and still we pile on more bad programs more spending what we don’t have. Our country isn’t impervious to threats. All great nations have ultimately failed, and we are headed there fast.
If you think after Obama and this 10 trillion dollar deficit while we have two wars and growing opponents, China Russia, most of South America and Mexico, and committed enemies, Iran and global jihadists who CAN now inflict serious damage despite our huge and powerful military, and a growing police state aided now by computers, cameras, face-recognition technology and DNA analysis that everything is just going to turn out fine, you are dreaming.
21 ChristianMiller // Apr 30, 2009 at 6:07 am
danbmil99, I will concede that I don’t really know PA politics enough to know whether Toomey can win or not. I do think the political ground will change and the conventional wisdom of today will be out of date by November 2010.Much is changing – and radically changing. predictions today are worthless in this environment.
In any case I stand by my major thrust. Spector is no better than a Democrat on the whole. Let me repeat: On the whole.
And regardless, you can’t hector voters into marching in lock step for an empty cause which is what Republicans like Frum want to do. It’s like trying to herd cats. People are individuals and they have a right to rebel against Spector or any politician and there is no force that can stop them. The best person to have stopped them would have been Spector himself, right? He has control over how he votes. He made his choice. Spector miscalculated badly, or he is trying to finesse his way through the 2010 election. I do think it was the former. And he miscalculated because he was lulled into complacency by being continually propped up by the Republican party putting up with his betrayals.
And I’m not sure you know what “operation chaos really is by your response.
22 ktward // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Franco:
You left a lot to wade through, but a couple of thoughts:
“…regulations made it more and more difficult for mom and pop to operate the corner store. They have to comply with so many laws and regulations relating to employees [and] the environment, handicapped entrances and toilets, the list is endless.”
Handicapped entrances/toilets are your best examples of overly regulated small business? I mean, off the top of your strongly-opinionated head you don’t have something meatier than that? Particularly in light of the disastrous de/under-regulation that has contributed to the economic muck we’re currently wading through?
“Once government controls a certain portion of the economy, it becomes ‘too big to fail’.”
Too late. Under-regulated Wall Street/Banking has beaten the government to it.
“SS is a 53 trillion dollar unfunded mandate….Young people will be overtaxed to pay for old people. Which ultimately will result in a rebellion of sorts, especially if there is Universal Health care in place.”
Not really. These ‘Old’ people you’re referring to are our parents. For so many reasons, thank god they have a social safety net. Relax, the rebellion you fear is a non-starter. Universal Health Care? You might want to check up on the latest polls in favor; it has largely ceased to be the bogeyman the Right/Big Business paints it as.
“Humans act in their self-interest. Trying to structure a society where people work, not for themselves but for others, eventually requires force, since people will not work for others.”
You’re one messed-up dude. Your assertion is probably true of Wall Street mentality, for whatever reasons, but could not be further from the truth for the bulk of the rest of us. I, and millions of others of every political ideology, utterly reject your jaded, narcissistic premise. Nevertheless, yours is indeed an effective argument for effective Wall Street regulation.
With all due respect, you’ve yet to present a persuasive argument within the context of this blog thread.
The ‘purification’ and internal partisan and cultural demonization currently underway within the Republican Party leaves it effectively in the cold. Sad but true, the only viable parties at the legislative table are Left Dems and Centrist Dems.
You okay with that?
23 ChristianMiller // May 1, 2009 at 7:38 am
ktward
There are plenty of regulations on Wall St. – bad ones like Sarbanes-Oxley (which excluded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac incidentally) and many more. The real problem is that these regulations, flawed as they are, went unenforced. The SEC was asleep at the wheel. And Congress ignored plenty of warnings from whistleblowers. Bureaucrats making money doing nothing as well as government corruption. So more “regulation” by itself isn’t a panacea.
You cite polls as an example of viability? Ridiculous.
I said:
“Humans act in their self-interest. Trying to structure a society where people work, not for themselves but for others, eventually requires force, since people will not work for others.”
You said:
“You’re one messed-up dude. Your assertion is probably true of Wall Street mentality, for whatever reasons, but could not be further from the truth for the bulk of the rest of us. I, and millions of others of every political ideology, utterly reject your jaded, narcissistic premise. Nevertheless, yours is indeed an effective argument for effective Wall Street regulation.”
Humans don’t act in their own interest? You are living in la-la land. And by the way narcissism is different than selfishness, I think that is what you really mean, and self-interest is different than selfishness too.
Trust me, every minute of your life you are operating out of self interest. It’s not a bad thing, it just is. Even if you are volunteering at a food-bank you are acting on your self-interest. You are able to help others to make yourself feel better. You are making friends of like-mind and you are getting pleasure out of helping others. And you can tell yourself that you are making a better society for everyone (including, ahem, yourself). Nothing wrong with it.
If you really believe you are acting out of pure altruism, and that people are willing to work for others without reward, come here to my place. I have lots of work for you to do for me.
24 ktward // May 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Franco:
You’re correct in that it’s indeed a potpourri of regulatory deficiencies that contributed to our economic meltdown: de-regulation, under-regulation, ineffective regulation, and criminally negligent SEC regulators.
An informative blueprint into the Mess:
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901
Your dismissal of current polls and opinions on the dire necessity for Health Care reform is, indeed, ridiculous. And, I might add, a sand pile you may wish to pull your head out of. A few informative pieces across the spectrum:
http://progressillinois.com/2009/4/24/il-biz-owner-we-need-public-option
http://progressillinois.com/2009/4/7/doctors-nurses-single-payer
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/03/30/daily51.html?jst=b_ln_hl
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g6m4153528pq2712/fulltext.html
http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=57759
Newsflash: we already work for others. We already work for our society: it’s called taxes. Finding reward in nurturing our own self-interest while supporting the integrity and humaneness of our society are not mutually exclusive ideals as you paint them.
You’re absolutely correct, in that there are definitive distinctions between self-interest, selfishness and narcissism. But your, uh, ‘philosophical’ nit-picking in the context of this blog leaves me, still, with the impression that your opinion comes from a very narcissistic place.
The ‘pure altruism’ argument you inject is old and tired, and well, silly.
25 ChristianMiller // May 1, 2009 at 12:43 pm
ktward
“Universal Health Care? You might want to check up on the latest polls in favor; it has largely ceased to be the bogeyman the Right/Big Business paints it as.”
There are facts, and there are perceptions. Citing polls to mean that Universal Health Care will be great mixes the two up. I realize the abstraction that is known as “Universal Health Care” polls very well. Its implementation, I am pretty sure, will be a disaster with many, many unintended consequences. Unlike many on this blog I want to do what is right and convince others (not you necessarily) not just do what seems to be popular.
This is not to say that our health Care system with insurance companies and HMOs is not a big failure in many respects and desperately needs reform. Medical malpractice reforms would make a huge difference. One law that limits claims and/or make the loser pay – or even to make it fairer – loser pays half, would do wonders.
And Big Business WANTS the government to take it over. It is one of their biggest costs! Hello!
“Newsflash: we already work for others. We already work for our society: it’s called taxes.”
Exactly! That is my point. And if you raise taxes to the point where you are in effect working for others more than you are working for yourself, you begin the slippery slope to slavery.
In Communist/Socialist countries people stop working, or they “hoard”, and then the government uses force against them. It is a natural path that each communist country traveled. People become slaves to the State.
“Finding reward in nurturing our own self-interest while supporting the integrity and humaneness of our society are not mutually exclusive ideals as you paint them.”
Never said they were mutually exclusive. I believe I said that it is fine for people to get fulfillment out of helping others, but this is not how they live or how most societies are structured, because people won’t work for nothing. And at some point, need does not trump your freedom. Because I need help does not mean you should be required to drop your pursuits and come to my aid. Right?
You may wish to work to help your family, or work to save for your retirement, or use your time to volunteer at the food-bank. Millions of people in this country volunteer and donate money to charity including a preponderance of conservatives. But once you can’t volunteer but are assigned a cause it becomes something else. (slavery?)
Where should my opinion come from if not philosophy?
26 ktward // May 1, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Franco wrote:
“Where should my opinion come from if not philosophy?”
Uhm … how about Reality?
Case in point: Sweden. Yeah, they’re all rebelling against their ’slavery’ due to government subsidized social systems.
A good illustration of that argument are the following links. Satire for ratings? Sure. Nevertheless, it serves to highlight the absurdities of the ‘Socialist’ bogeyman cries of the right:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=The-Stockholm-Syndrome
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=The-Stockholm-Syndrome-Pt.-2
“Its implementation, I am pretty sure, will be a disaster with many, many unintended consequences.”
Duh. Reform is never painless. Are you suggesting this is new?
“Medical malpractice reforms would make a huge difference. One law that limits claims and/or make the loser pay – or even to make it fairer – loser pays half, would do wonders.”
I would go one step further, like Canada: in terms of all lawsuits, the loser pays the court/attorney fees. In this scenario, we do not need to limit awards.
“And if you raise taxes to the point where you are in effect working for others more than you are working for yourself, you begin the slippery slope to slavery.”
Your use of the term ’slavery’, given our country’s heritage, borders on offensive in present context.
Two points:
1) My taxes have not been raised, they’ve been lowered. Perhaps you make more than $200k and will, in 2010, go back to Clinton-era tax rates of 39%, a whole 3% more than where you are now. Boo-hoo.
2) This does a good job of illustrating why your alarmist rhetoric lacks substance:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/03/should-we-pity-rich
“I want to do what is right and convince others (not you necessarily) not just do what seems to be popular.”
Seems to be popular? How about what is recognized across the ideological spectrum and deemed to be necessary.
Health care reform is not a simple problem, nor will its solution be simple. But I’ve yet to hear any convincing legitimate argument from you, just old and tired conservative bogeyman talking points.
27 ChristianMiller // May 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm
ktward
Ha! Great rhetorical device…reality!
Oh yes. Sweden. I’d go there if they’d let me in. But they won’t. They let very few people in. Here in America, we let everyone in, and have been for years. My point? Sweden’s vaunted health care entitlements would suffer badly if they had the same open borders immigration policy as we do. If they had to contribute to their own defense, even more problems for their socialism. They are a very small stable country that isn’t at all similar to us demographically, so the example is rejected. How about Britain? They have it, they are closer to us than any EU country why not go by their example? Not idyllic enough for ya?
“Duh. Reform is never painless.” I bet you say that to all the conservative reforms proposed too. And I’m sure all the Universal Health Care advocates are making us aware of that fact while promoting their cause too…
“Your use of the term ’slavery’, given our country’s heritage, borders on offensive in present context.”
African-Americans don’t have a monopoly on the word, bud. Slavery was around before Africans were enslaved and it is around today in various forms and may be around even more in the dystopian future if we are not careful. It was abolished 150 years ago here, that’s not “present context” in my view. I know you might like to hang onto that as being vitally important and relevant but it isn’t anymore. Not all, in fact, very few slaves were whipped and beaten, but they had free health care and “free” food and lodgings, they just couldn’t do anything else but work for their masters. But slavery is slavery whether you are beaten or whether you get to stay in the “house”.
And go ahead and be offended. Y’all are professionals at being offended. Slavery, slavery. So there! Be doubly offended, you love to be offended , I’m doing you a favor.
I’m not going to read all your links, but I did read the Mother Jones article. Great Republican mag there!
Partisan drivel.
28 ChristianMiller // May 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm
ktward continued
Funny when leftists argue (others do this too, to be fair, but it is quite predominant with leftists) they cite the whole when convenient and at other times they cite parts.
What heart surgeon is going to give up his practice because his taxes are a bit higher? Well, that looks pretty convincing on the surface – except when you actually see a shortage of ob/gyns in various parts of the country, mostly due to high insurance premiums (and a lawsuit happy demographic of patients perhaps) but taxes are a significant factor too. Bottom line they can’t make money and pay off their loans. So there IS a reaction at some point, and we are, and will be, creeping toward that point relentlessly so it is inevitable. Once Universal Health Care is enacted, pay for all doctors will go down significantly. Pay for nurses, who are vital, will too. So the squeeze will happen on both sides, pay and taxes. Don’t forget, lower pay from the top income receivers results in lower revenues for State and federal Treasuries. Look at NY State. They had to raise taxes on nearly everything they could to make up the shortfall from Wall Streeters. They even are taxing clothing and shoes now, something that was previously immune for obvious reasons. Now a mother in Harlem or the Bronx has to shell out another 8% for her kids shoes, because the rich aren’t so rich anymore.
Which brings me to what happens long-term re the MJ article. The active heart surgeon has already made it, he/she has already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in med school and working years for lower wages than they are making now. So no, not many, or any, are going to stop their practice at its peak based on an incremental (for now) tax increase. But how many students are going to choose medicine under these new rules? Will the same number and quality of doctors be willing to go through all that hard work and high investment working for lower wages for years for only a moderate payoff?
In Britain they are experiencing a shortage of doctors and the quality of doctors is going down.
As to taxes, where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for the stimulus and the massive new federal budget? Are you really that naive?
And taxes are everywhere already. Property taxes, State income taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, taxes on lottery winnings (what a scam; the state gets money from the mathematically challenged and then gets almost half of their winnings back in taxes!) There is an 18 cent Federal tax on every gallon of gasoline you buy, plus whatever State tax which is considerably more. Now the government gets this money and they don’t have to do ANYTHING for it but collect. And what are they doing really? Roads Schools military all that yes, but the SEC? The FAA? the FDA? The CIA? The FBI? The IRS? The ATF? The Border patrol? The prison industrial complex? The DEA??? Great stuff all that eh? You like all that stuff? As a leftist you should Also want the government to be starved.
The oil company making “record profits” makes less per gallon of gas than the state in which it is sold, and they have to invest money to drill, refine, store, distribute and retail it!
Cigarette taxes are far higher than what the tobacco company makes as profit. This means the State has more incentive for you to smoke than the actual tobacco company!
29 ChristianMiller // May 1, 2009 at 4:20 pm
ktward continued
So we are taxed from all sides and it is getting close to 50% the tipping point.
I have traveled and lived in Europe have many Euro friends both here and there and I’m telling you that the ones in Europe say things like, “Well, I could be a manager but it is a lot more work and not really much more money (taxes and other socialist factors) so I’m not really interested.” What this means, and I’m sure you have seen this in your own life on one level or another, that the kind of person who wants this job for not much more money is getting something else out of it. Usually the type of person attracted to this job when the financial incentive is removed is the control-freak the manipulator, the kind of person who likes power and likes to be the boss, or the narcissist who likes to command the attention of his underlings. This happened in spades in the Soviet Union and one big reason why the whole country collapsed.
I have to ask why are you here? I asked Spartacus the same question. Obviously you are a leftist. This is a Republican site. I am not posting at some Dem site, so are you trying to convince us of something? Personally I’m done trying to convince committed leftists anything.
30 DBKP FLASH Headline News » RINO Writers: Biting the Ankles of a Not-So-Big Base // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:28 am
[...] conservative boogeymen to knock about? (You can see one of the most popular on display in Once Rinos Are Extinct…: the pitchfork-wielding crowd of conservatives coming for–well, the reader can see for [...]
You must log in to post a comment.