Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

NOG,
that's my problem with you: You assert that D and R behaviour is identical. You're wrong. It is not. You choose to completely ignore the divergent motivations in play.

I am sorry, but right now and in the recent past (i.e. past decade) I do not see corporate funded democrats rabble rousing to defeat legislation to protect their corporate funding interests. I also don't see Democratic activists right now setting up and directing travelling protest troupes that are going to Republican town hall events to rattle the congressmen, and bring some guns, for good measure, to rattle (i.e. scare) them and all bystanders some more.

Of course it is about intimidation politics. The current campaign is not comparable with anything the D's have done over the last eight years. As far as intimidation is concerned, I don't remember the D's ever in my lifetime trying something like what GOPers pulled off on the Dixie Chicks (then already sporting prominently Glenn Beck). Or think of the propensity of right wingers to utter death threats against godless liberals (and following up on that).

Tell me what you want about Code Pink and the like, but they lack a clearly defined goal and they lack the professional organisation that the tea bagging protests have. Oh, and they lack corporate funding, direction and the inevitable corporate monetary interest. They're a bunch of peacenicks, for heaven's sake. Code Pink does it for their cause, peace. Last I looked pacifism was a decision of conscience. You don't earn money with protesting for peace. Now, setting up an astroturfing group to give your corporate profit interest a more digestible cover ('freedom') is simply another investment, just like PR and lobbying. It should be understood as that, and not be romanticised.

Now a real conservative will say that corporate interest is always just as legitimate, if not more - after all the industrialist is, in the spirit of Ayn Rand, the wealth generator in America's society and a hero - the salt of the earth so to say. His interest certainly is at least as legitimate as union interest they will add, as if that closes an argument.

Now there always is the question of reasonableness. Higher wages aside (and there is little doubt that unions have in the past at times acted like rackets), unions have also forced unwilling employers to implement safety in the workplace, pay decent wages, and other things that were not in the corporate profit interest because they all cost money.

Same with environmentalism. Let's assume that the interest to be able to eat the fish you fish (as opposed to having to treat it like toxic waste), like it was back in the days of your granpa, is reasonable. Then legislation that is trying to implement environmental standards to make fish edible again is reasonable as well. Obstruction of such legislation because it would force a company to invest precious profits into non-profit generating technologies like filters or sewage treatment facilities, to the detriment of the shareholders, only so that a few treehuggers can eat fish is then ... totally benign? That's to a great deal where US industry resistance to environmental legislation comes from. What has become of 'being a good neighbour'? Well, it appears it's living large, and cheap, at someone else's expense.

The interest of having affordable healthcare that can't push people out of coverage because of 'known conditions' and other 'business risks', leaving them uninsured, is also reasonable. Is opposing health care, and leaving the uninsured uninsured, just to secure a profit generating monopoly, benign? Now the people who cry bloody socialism and that America has the best health care system in the world do not address the problem of the uninsured, because, well, it's their fault or something of the sort. The fact, the simple fact, that there are business interests driving and guiding the protests against health care to secure their profit interests, under the pretext of 'liberty', is what makes this not benign.

In that sense there is little difference between a racketeering union extorting higher wages and an industry playing dirty through astroturf surrogates to secure their profits. It's both harmful, and it's both undesirable and worthy of criticism.

Now, of course, when you persuade yourself, as you apparently do, that all things in R and D conduct are equal, falsely, you miss all those things that make the big difference because you don't even need to go there - you know "Case closed ..." Because you're not stupid it's - all the worse - wilful.

 

Ragusa, are you really so blind? Yes, the Reps have been more extreme lately (past decade as you say), and they've gone too far (death threats), but the motivations of the Dems in Congress are no purer than those of the Reps. The Rep politicians aren't the only ones with ties to big businesses and organizations that would profit from their proposed legislations. And if you don't think Green is a booming industry, take a second look at Al Gore and kin. If you think this is new, though, take a second look at the 60s, the 30s, the 20s. Take a second look at the history of American politics. I think we just go through cycles of sense and mayhem, and we're just seeing more of each now that we have near-instant nation-wide communication.

 

See, my blind goggles

See, I disagree with you there. So the D's are just as selfish and self-interested as the R's. Anticipation: All politicians are like that!

You remind me of that sociologist who suggested to me that Mother Theresa was selfish and vain, after all she only helped those poor people to exalt herself I found that so silly that I made a joke out of that: A sociologist goes to the supermarket, gets his stuff, pays, and the clerk wishes him a nice afternoon. Angrily he accuses her of lying, after all she only said that to make him come back IMO you're falling prey to the same fallacy my sociologist fell prey to - mono causal thinking - that man is only driven by egoism, and that there are no such things as kindness, compassion, idealism or altruism. If you look at things that way you'll miss most of the picture. It is highly amusing to me in this context that such a materialistic analytical approach is actually a hallmark of Marxism

The D's proposing health care legislation would create a state agency that would provide health care. They would not profit from it. Unlike an insurance company a state agency for instance would not pay into the various PACs that finance politicians as they would be prohibited by law to do that. Indeed, of all examples of a pursuit of a common good that appears to be one of the clearer ones. That doesn't mean the D's are pure as snow, but overall they compare quite favourably to people like Dick Armey.

Just to save time, the predictable counterargument: Oh yes, but the D's only do that to gain the vote of those slackers who don't bother insuring themselves!

Well, never mind that judgement about the uninsured, that's about as silly as suggesting, as you do not, mind you, that because blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, the only conceivable reason why the Democrats championed the civil rights cause in the 1960s clearly must have been to gain the black vote (just as if there was nothing wrong about segregation or non-admittance of Jews to Ivy League universities).

 

No, Ragusa, that's not what I think. There are good politicians out there who genuinely what to help people and lead government properly. They exist for both Republicans and Democrats. They are also, IMO, in the minority in both groups. At the same time, it is true that being connected to big businesses of any kind does not automatically make you a selfish, back-stabbing hypocrite (what you are apparently arguing). Just like politicians in general, those backed by big business can still have good intentions and good aims. Again, though, it's rare. Politics lends itself toward certain types of people. All of them think they know better than others (and some of them do), most of them want power (how much is arguable), and many of them are willing to do anything (or near anything) to get it. That is true regardless of political affiliations.

Oh, and as for civil rights, I would remind you that it was really more of a North/South issue than a Dem/Rep one for many decades. Southern Republicans and Democrats alike praised segregation and condemned integration, while northern Republicans and Democrats alike condemned segregation and praised integration.

 

Yes, Ragusa. You must be blind. How could you miss that mountain of evidence that NOG presented to prove his point? See here, dude:

That dirty capitalist. That crook, Al Gore, benefiting from all the work he has done as a private citizen. What does he think, that America rewards the successful? BTW, Shell Oil has given notice to some of its employees that they will be downsizing in the next 12 to 24 months, "barring any unforeseen events," because the demand for oil is expected to decrease dramatically. Seems all that "Green Power" stuff is working and consumers are choosing it over conventional fuels (and choosing to use much less of it). I'm sure Al Gore played a major role in this "dastardly" event.

NOG - We are specifically dealing with health care reform in this instance. And while I know that Al Gore is a favorite target of the right wing for almost anything that happens in the world, I would like to know what evidence you have for the dems being dishonest in proposing health care reform. To be sure, they are self-serving because they are doing what their base would mostly like them to do, and to continue to receive their votes, but that's just politics, and good politics at that (see Sarah Palin). Taking care of your supporters is not really dishonest, but what people expect when they take the time to vote for a particular party.

Nevetheless, the Dems get the "blame" for it in South (Dems started their road to extinction in the South with Civil Rights), and they get the "Credit" for it in the North (they get more black votes than Republicans). Probably because it was Democratic adminstrations that pushed it so hard (JFK & LBJ).

 

I'm not claiming the dems are being dishonest in proposing healthcare reform, I'm claiming the dems are being dishonest (or at least not telling the whole truth) in advertising healthcare reform. I've read the bills, and I've looked at things the Dems have said (mostly Obama, who only seems to be talking about his ideal system and eventual goals, not what's actually happening, but also Congressmen) in trying to rally support, and the two simply don't match in many cases.

For example, one of their biggest selling points is that you'll be able to keep your insurance if you want to, that you won't have to change to anything, and that's been said about both the House and Senate bills. Now, I'm not sure about some of the legalistics in the House bill, but it's absolutely false in the Senate bill. Only about 1/3 of employees who get their insurance from their employers will be allowed to keep their insurance initially, and even they will be forced out within 5 years, and no privately insured individuals will be able to. Instead, you'll have to buy your insurance through a state-run 'exchange', selecting from gov't approved and regulated plans (still private plans, but now heavily regulated).

That's just one example of the kind of thing being thrown around. I don't know if it's careless or intentional, but it's not honest.

 

My point was mono causality - the progressives among the D's wanted the black vote, and they wanted to implement the civil rights legislation to right wrongs. For that D activists risked, and some even lost, their lives. That's (at least) two motives for one deed. But never mind - it's nice to see that you're seeing it in a more differentiated way than I originally thought.

I have nothing but scorn for the notion that 'all politicians are crooks'. Well, some are, some aren't - so inevitably that verdict does the latter injustice. What's worse is that this finding leads exactly nowhere. So we know that, and? Do we learn something from that? Can we draw conclusions from that? What shall we do? Don't vote? Vote for some nut out of protest? Get drunk?

I usually get to hear it from people who don't vote. Well, if they don't vote I'd appreciate them to shut up as well. I say that because I went voting today, and only yesterday I said that to one of those 'all politicians are crooks' idiots. I guess he doesn't like me any more, nah, never liked me in the first place.

 

Ragusa, you cannot be implying that all civil rights activists were democrats or that only democrats supported civil rights.

 

Least we forget that George Wallace was a Democrat. The only reason I brought Civil Rights into this at all was because, as is Medicare, they were programs that were very controversial when they were proposed, and today they are not only considered invaluable by many Americans, but almost taken for granted. These programs also received bi-partisan support in the end, which proves that the two parties used to be able to work together. Fat chance of seeing that again anytime soon.

 

No, I am not.

Yes, a "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by a Democrat launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. It merely says, as NOG pointed out, that the D's were not homogenic on this. That filibuster lasted 57 days, and was eventually defeated with a bipartisan majority. For what its worth, it appears that this step cost the D's their overwhelming support in the South, and they pretty much knew it would.

My point here is simply that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced by Democrats under Kennedy and passed under Democrat leadership, after his assassination, under LBJ, and that the popular support for it came from the dreaded progressive and liberal movements (so vilified by Bill O'Reilly today).

 

...and Nixon signed Title IX into law which significantly changed how women were treated in academics (and specifically the funding for women in athletics). Title IX was a landmark law which has greatly affected the scope of womens rights. But not every woman rushes out to be a republican.

There must be some other reason than signing of specific laws which determines party affiliation....

 

Oh, I didn't mean to present it as an absolute (did I?). I see it as most politicians are (or will become) crooks to some degree or another. There are good ones out there, and we should strive to reward them and encourage others like them, but we also shouldn't be shocked when some turn out bad, nor should we vilify an entire political idea because it's leaders are crooks.

 

As Jon Stewart is fond of saying: "Your moment of Zen."

This one is brought to you by "Republicans for Medicare." Yeah!

Michael Steele: Just a "liberal" kinda guy.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/01/2049074.aspx

 

Something is way crazy out there!

Michelle Bachmann is at it again. She has called for her followers to engage in hazardous practices, to swap bodily fluids to defeat health care reform. Rhetorical device or not - your physician wouldn't approve.

According to Bachmann, many Americans pay half their income to taxes, which to Bachmann amounts to slavery. Now of course, Americans, much less many of them, don't pay half their income to taxes, in fact American taxes are comparably low, and personal taxes amount to about 30% of income, corporate taxes to 40%, but never mind that. What counts is perceived taxation I guess. Obviously that's taking a toll on her.

Read the whole article here.

 

I'm not buying that. I think your linked chart only comments on "income taxes" and not "taxes". Considering that chart is not including, real estate taxes, auto excise taxes, other personal property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, liquor taxes, cigarrette taxes, nevermind all the things that governments classify as "fees" as opposed to taxes, it could very easily be over 50% for people who aren't even close to the highest brackets.

 

Snook,
shopping in the US is 'dirt cheap' when compared to Germany. The sales taxes are far lower than here, and the same would probably apply to gas taxes, liquor taxes, cigarette taxes and about everything else - and apparently the profit margins are smaller, too.

There's a reason, aside of the particular model being unavailable in Germany, why I bought my watch in the US. It only cost me half as much, even with me paying sales tax twice, in the US, and here, when I picked it up at customs.

Take fuel tax: In the US fuel tax is 12.0 ¢/L for petrol, and 13,4 ¢/L for diesel. In Germany it is €1.22 for petrol and €1.03 per litre for ultra-low sulphur Diesel, i.e. when I calculate correctly 173 ¢/L for petrol, and 145 ¢/L.

VAT in Germany is 19% and for some goods like food reduced to 7%. California, at 8.25%, has the highest state sales tax, which can total up to 10.25% with local sales tax included.

Just to give you an idea.

 

I can't reach the treasury website, but they had a table with the income (iirc) tax rate in the US since the 1900's. In general, after the Great Depression the top income taxes have been much higher than now, with the Reagan years being an exception. IIRC the 50's and 60's saw the top income taxes at 70+% . It would be interesting to see how things work when all taxes and fees apply - though in general non-progressive taxation tends to hit the lower and middle classes much harder than the upper class.

 

Ragusa -

DISCLAIMER: I think Michelle Bachmann is a loon, and I rarely listen to anything she says but... I agree with Sn- Sn- I can't quite say it. Let me try one more time... I agree with Snook.

While I agree that taxes in the US are lower than they are in Europe, if you add up the total taxes you pay, you may get to close to 50% of your salary. Your federal income tax for most people is probably around 20%-25% of their income (even if you are in the higher tax brackets, if you itemize your deductions you'll end up paying less than the listed percentage). However, most states have income tax (I live in Maryland and it's 4.75%), and many people pay a local or county tax (I live in Baltimore County and that's another 3%). That's just income tax. So this is off the top, taken directly out of your paycheck.

You also pay 6.7% into Social Security, and 1.45% into Medicare.

Most states, in addition to income tax charge a sales tax - Maryland is about average with a 6% sales tax.

Then there's property taxes, which is extremely variable, not just by where you live but the actual value of your home. I live in a very modest home, and I have to fork over $1,800 per year in property taxes.

And your fuel tax link doesn't tell the whole story. It's true that there is a federal gas tax of 18.5 cents per gallon. However, every state also imposes a state fuel tax on top of that, and the amount is variable from state to state. This link shows that it ranges from a low of 26.4 cents per gallon in Alaska up to 63.9 cents per gallon in California. Maryland is again about average with 41.9 cents per gallon. Given the amount Americans drive, that adds up to several hundred dollars per year.

Then there's the ticky tack ones - you pay tax on your electrical bill, tax on your water bill, tax on your cell phone bill, tax on your cable bill. None of those are more than a few dollars per month, but over the course of the year it adds up.

I haven't even added in things like alcohol or cigarettes as they are optional purchases. 50% doesn't seem like too much of an exageration.

 

...not to mention the average consumer pays for 100% of the the corporate taxes. Taxes go into the equation for the cost of a product. Prices are simply raised so the corporation can make a profit.