(Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

[Mn_Mark]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

When my hard-earned dollars are taken from me by force in the form of taxes and used to bail out Wall Street, and when banksters then reward themselves with million dollar bonuses, their wealth absolutely comes out of my pocket, and yours, too!

You are conflating "wealth inequality" with "banksters getting rich".

Yes, some banksters get rich. That is bad. The government needs to be stripped back in its powers so that those who run it can't use it to hand taxpayer money to their cronies or give them unfair advantages. But banksters getting rich is not what I am talking about.

My point is that growing wealth inequality is the sign of a healthy modern economy and that there is nothing immoral about people who create great amounts of value having a great deal more wealth than those who don't. As technology advances, disciplined smart people can use it to create more and more value. They create great new inventions, new management techniques, etc. That creates value that they then sell to willing customers, and they get rich and the customers are better off. This is a good thing.

There is a logic error here that I am objecting to. It goes something like this:

• Banksters and other like them acquire very large amounts of wealth in immoral but "legal" ways by using their government connections.
• That leads to a large and growing wealth inequality between them and the shrinking middle class.
• It is bad that the banksters got wealthy like that.
• Therefore wealth inequalities are bad.

The mistake I am objecting to is the demonization of "wealth inequalities" per se. That's what you hear all the time in the media: "we've got to do something about this growing wealth inequality!" as if it was self-evident that wealth inequalities were a bad thing or arise from some kind of injustice.

Then those who, for whatever reason, are hostile to the idea that some people are very rich come up with some examples where someone got rich dishonestly or immorally. Because SOME people got rich dishonestly or immorally, that is supposed to prove that wealth inequality is bad. Wrong.

Growing wealth inequality is a good thing when it is the result of honest people leveraging technological improvements to create more and more value.

We have a huge economy. The great majority of it is honest people creating and selling products to willing customers. Some portion of it is banksters and the like, and they should have gone bankrupt in 2008. There is no defending them and I don't. But the fact that SOME people get rich because they are dishonest or immoral does not mean that "wealth inequality" is a problem.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Complex human societies, including our own, are fragile. They are held together by an invisible web of mutual trust and social cooperation. This web can fray easily, resulting in a wave of political instability, internal conflict and, sometimes, outright social collapse.

Analysis of past societies shows that these destabilizing historical trends develop slowly, last many decades, and are slow to subside. The Roman Empire, Imperial China and medieval and early-modern England and France suffered such cycles, to cite a few examples. In the U.S., the last long period of instability began in the 1850s and lasted through the Gilded Age and the “violent 1910s.”

We now see the same forces in the contemporary U.S. Of about 30 detailed indicators I developed for tracing these historical cycles (reflecting popular well-being, inequality, social cooperation and its inverse, polarization and conflict), almost all have been moving in the wrong direction in the last three decades.

The roots of the current American predicament go back to the 1970s, when wages of workers stopped keeping pace with their productivity. The two curves diverged: Productivity continued to rise, as wages stagnated. The “great divergence” between the fortunes of the top 1 percent and the other 99 percent is much discussed, yet its implications for long-term political disorder are underappreciated. Battles such as the recent government shutdown are only one manifestation of what is likely to be a decade-long period.
Wealth Disrupts

How does growing economic inequality lead to political instability? Partly this correlation reflects a direct, causal connection. High inequality is corrosive of social cooperation and willingness to compromise, and waning cooperation means more discord and political infighting. Perhaps more important, economic inequality is also a symptom of deeper social changes, which have gone largely unnoticed.

the rest

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...ety-frays.html

[don]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

As is often the case with your posts, interesting piece.

From the cited article:

Always a pleasure, Thai.

(In contradistinction to)

straw man

noun : a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

What is wrong with wealth inequality?

As long as the person with more wealth earned it or was given it as a gift, what difference does it make?

Imagine two kids just let out of school for their summer vacations. They have three months to do as they wish. One of the kids spends the summer working - mowing lawns, babysitting, washing windows, doing chores, etc. The other one prefers to play with his friends and take it easy.

At the end of the summer, the kid who spent his days working has, let's say, $2,000 in the bank. The other kid has nothing. Relatively speaking, this is a huge wealth inequality.

Is there an injustice here? Is it wrong that one kid has $2,000 and the other kid has nothing?

Of course not. It is not only not unjust, it is perfectly just.

Those who complain about wealth inequality never seem to ask whether the wealth was earned. All they look at is how much wealth people have, and if it isn't "equal" in their estimation, then somehow a wrong has been committed and we need some "redistribution" to make it right.

Would it be right to take, say, 10% of that kid's money and give it to the kid who loafed all summer in the name of "reducing wealth inequality"? Of course not.

Here's another consideration: the more technologically advanced civilization becomes, the more wealth smart, disciplined people can create. In prehistoric times, the richest man in a tribe could not be very much richer than the poorest man because the only wealth there was was animal caracasses, spears, axes, etc. No matter how clever and hard-working a man was, he could not amass very much more wealth than the dullest and laziest man.

In our time, a man can organize a company that develops an operating system that people (voluntarily!) standarize on, and make himself $100 billion dollars, every dollar of which was earned, was voluntarily paid by people who bought his operating system because it was more valuable to them than the money he was asking for it. If he has $100 billion dollars of wealth, it means he generated more than $100 billion dollars of value for society, and he was rewarded by getting to keep $100 billion of that wealth. And he created that value out of his intelligence, his organizing skills, his superior ability to estimate what people would want and provide it to them at a price they find acceptable.

It bothers me not one bit that Bill Gates has $100 billion dollars while other people have almost nothing. The wealth you have is actually quite an accurate measure of how much economic value you have brought into this world - concrete, real economic value that other people are willing to pay for.

Instead of thinking some injustice has occurred because some people have vast amounts of money and others have little, I celebrate that we have advanced in our science and technology to the point where a smart and disciplined man can create that much value, and that I can purchase for $300 an operating system that took a million man-hours to create, or watch for $7 a movie that cost $200 million dollars to make.

The only question to ask with regard to "wealth inequality" is whether the rich obtained their wealth through legal transactions. If so, their wealth is none of your business. It did not come out of your pocket or the pockets of the "poor" - it was obtained by providing value that people voluntarily paid for. Figure out how to create some wealth yourself or how to help the poor create more wealth instead of looking for rationalizations for why you have a right to rob the rich of money they earned legally.

That's quite a comforting bedtime story you've come up with, Mn. But such an eloquent defense of inequality is hardly surprising coming from the right. Nothing could be more important to the success of conservative ideology than expanding social and economic inequality. See, the right wing doesn't see extreme inequality as a problem. Conservatives love inequality and so the more of it the better.

For right wing conservatives, inequality is not a bug, it's a feature. Why? Because their destructive and deceptive ideology simply could not exist without it. How else you gonna maintain "natural aristocracies" with out inequality? Unless there is extreme social and economic inequality, how else will the mass of people who conservatives seek to rule internalize the proper psychological attitude of deference and inferiority? Without extreme inequality, how are the common people to know that the "natural" aristocrats are better people than they are? This is why it is so hard for the right wing to take a convincing stand against the bankers. It's also why they so easily piss on the backs of the ever growing number of people they identify as "the other."

Me, I find the mental acrobatics necessary for them to square the circle hilarious. So please, do tell us more.

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

This report from the Heritage Foundation is clearly and concisely written, eminently logical and reasonable, and offers a path to a patient centered health care system. It is detailed but not any longer than necessary. It has 54 references numbered in the text for those who desire more information and a starting point for more study. It was a pleasure to read an objective and rational study free of emotional bias.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...adline2_131114

The only thing I would add is a plea for incentivizing "mutual" health care organizations; those which are owned by their employees and users. I believe incentivizing wide spread ownership is the key to reducing wealth inequality, and should be employed in all economic areas, not just health care.

The Heritage Foundation? What the heck? The Heritage Foundation is the intellectual progenitor of Obamacare. Why seek a solution to Obamacare at the same think thank that brought us the individual mandate and made Obamacare possible? I don't get it.

[don]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

The Heritage Foundation? What the heck? The Heritage Foundation is the intellectual progenitor of Obamacare. Why seek a solution to Obamacare at the same think thank that brought us the individual mandate and made Obamacare possible? I don't get it.

I think you do.

ide·ol·o·gy

noun \ˌī-dē-ˈä-lə-jē, ˌi-\ : the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party

which leads to . . .



par·ti·san

¹ [pahr-tuh-zuhn, -suhn; British pahr-tuh-zan] Show IPA
noun 1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

which often employs a . . .



straw man

noun : a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

leading intelligent people to become intellectually eviscerated, to their own detriment . . .

[Mn_Mark]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

That's quite a comforting bedtime story you've come up with, Mn. But such an eloquent defense of inequality is hardly surprising coming from the right. Nothing could be more important to the success of conservative ideology than expanding social and economic inequality. See, the right wing doesn't see extreme inequality as a problem. Conservatives love inequality and so the more of it the better.

For right wing conservatives, inequality is not a bug, it's a feature. Why? Because their destructive and deceptive ideology simply could not exist without it. How else you gonna maintain "natural aristocracies" with out inequality? Unless there is extreme social and economic inequality, how else will the mass of people who conservatives seek to rule internalize the proper psychological attitude of deference and inferiority? Without extreme inequality, how are the common people to know that the "natural" aristocrats are better people than they are? This is why it is so hard for the right wing to take a convincing stand against the bankers. It's also why they so easily piss on the backs of the ever growing number of people they identify as "the other."

Me, I find the mental acrobatics necessary for them to square the circle hilarious. So please, do tell us more.

That's quite a steaming pile of hyperbole, Woodsman. I guess I really pushed a button there with my talk about how people who create value and engage in voluntary trades with others who are happy to buy it are entitled to keep the profits they make, whether they create an "unequal" amount or not.

I guess that kid who works all summer and saves up his money so that he has created an "extreme wealth disparity" with his lazy brother is a closet fascist looking to enslave the masses and hate on the minorities?

And when he works hard in his physics and math classes while others party, and builds a better computer in his garage which he ends up selling to millions of eager buyers, creating billions of dollars of value that did not exist before and keeping a few billion for himself as his reward, he is actually committing a terrible act of "aristocracy" and quasi-banksterism, and seeking to foster dangerous extreme inequality and oppress the masses, the racist bastard!

Let me try to spell it out in simple terms. I accept that wide wealth disparities will be the natural (and morally-neutral) outcome of the facts that people have different levels of talent and motivation and that advancing technology allows the productive to leverage their productivity to ever-greater heights. The more-productive people create more and more value and offer to sell it to the rest of us and we happily buy it, and god bless them for it. And when they get rich because of it, I don't see that as a problem. I see it as their just rewards.

All the evil stuff you rant about is not because someone creative made a pile of wealth. It's because government hands taxpayer money to cronies or tilts the playing field in their favor. It doesn't hurt anyone when Steve Jobs piles up a massive pile of personal wealth by selling people iPads that they happily and voluntarily paid him for. It DOES hurt people when Bush, Pelosi, Reid, and Bernanke hand massive piles of taxpayer money to banksters to shield them from the natural results of their careless investments. That is a failure of government, not a problem of "inequality".

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

That's quite a steaming pile of hyperbole, Woodsman. I guess I really pushed a button there with my talk about how people who create value and engage in voluntary trades with others who are happy to buy it are entitled to keep the profits they make, whether they create an "unequal" amount or not.

I guess that kid who works all summer and saves up his money so that he has created an "extreme wealth disparity" with his lazy brother is a closet fascist looking to enslave the masses and hate on the minorities?

And when he works hard in his physics and math classes while others party, and builds a better computer in his garage which he ends up selling to millions of eager buyers, creating billions of dollars of value that did not exist before and keeping a few billion for himself as his reward, he is actually committing a terrible act of "aristocracy" and quasi-banksterism, and seeking to foster dangerous extreme inequality and oppress the masses, the racist bastard!

Let me try to spell it out in simple terms. I accept that wide wealth disparities will be the natural (and morally-neutral) outcome of the facts that people have different levels of talent and motivation and that advancing technology allows the productive to leverage their productivity to ever-greater heights. The more-productive people create more and more value and offer to sell it to the rest of us and we happily buy it, and god bless them for it. And when they get rich because of it, I don't see that as a problem. I see it as their just rewards.

All the evil stuff you rant about is not because someone creative made a pile of wealth. It's because government hands taxpayer money to cronies or tilts the playing field in their favor. It doesn't hurt anyone when Steve Jobs piles up a massive pile of personal wealth by selling people iPads that they happily and voluntarily paid him for. It DOES hurt people when Bush, Pelosi, Reid, and Bernanke hand massive piles of taxpayer money to banksters to shield them from the natural results of their careless investments. That is a failure of government, not a problem of "inequality".

I like how you keep it so simple, Mn. Black and white hides a multitude of sins, as the fashionistas are fond of saying. Looks good on you, anyway.

[vt]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

[QUOTE=Woodsman;270985]That's quite a comforting bedtime story you've come up with, Mn. But such an eloquent defense of inequality is hardly surprising coming from the right. Nothing could be more important to the success of conservative ideology than expanding social and economic inequality. See, the right wing doesn't see extreme inequality as a problem. Conservatives love inequality and so the more of it the better.

For right wing conservatives, inequality is not a bug, it's a feature. Why? Because their destructive and deceptive ideology simply could not exist without it. How else you gonna maintain "natural aristocracies" with out inequality? Unless there is extreme social and economic inequality, how else will the mass of people who conservatives seek to rule internalize the proper psychological attitude of deference and inferiority? Without extreme inequality, how are the common people to know that the "natural" aristocrats are better people than they are? This is why it is so hard for the right wing to take a convincing stand against the bankers. It's also why they so easily piss on the backs of the ever growing number of people they identify as "the other."

Woody,

It's not just the right wing that is supporting inequality. The bankers you feature are also in bed with the current administration. I see none of them in jail 5 years into the President's term.

While the bailout vote was bipartisan, it was titled towards the Democrats. Of course Bush was still President but Obama did nothing to change the picture when he came in. Look at the large contributions Wall Street and the banks send to the Democrats. They are buying votes and pay to the left or right depending on who has the power.

"On Monday 29 September 2008, the House rejected a bill (H R 3997) colloquially known as the Wall Street bailout. The final vote was 205-228. This was not a party-line vote; both parties were divided. Democrats voted 140-65; Republicans, 95-133."

Or take the pharmaceutical companies that fill the coffers of the Democrat party, and will benefit enormously if Obamacare succeeds. Seniors on medicare already pay more for drugs than Medicaid pays.

Fannie and Freddie were in bed with the Democrats before and during the housing meltdown. They were favored with 60 to 1 leverage, much higher than the 30 to 1 the banks got. In fact McCain and Bush tried to stop the subprime lending bonanza and Pelosi, Frank, and Dodd prevented them from doing so.

This is all documented. The left is just as corrupt as the right; the left just wants total control. the right wants less government as long as
they get enough political favors to get rich. The left gets rich too just in different, nefarious ways.

It's laughable when the left or right try to take the moral high ground

This is why we have to get rid of both with the New Majority Party. No lobbyists, no under the table special deals. Let's grow the middle class and help everyone raise living standards. TECI supplants FIRE.

[Woodsman]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

[QUOTE=vt;271000]

That's quite a comforting bedtime story you've come up with, Mn. But such an eloquent defense of inequality is hardly surprising coming from the right. Nothing could be more important to the success of conservative ideology than expanding social and economic inequality. See, the right wing doesn't see extreme inequality as a problem. Conservatives love inequality and so the more of it the better.

For right wing conservatives, inequality is not a bug, it's a feature. Why? Because their destructive and deceptive ideology simply could not exist without it. How else you gonna maintain "natural aristocracies" with out inequality? Unless there is extreme social and economic inequality, how else will the mass of people who conservatives seek to rule internalize the proper psychological attitude of deference and inferiority? Without extreme inequality, how are the common people to know that the "natural" aristocrats are better people than they are? This is why it is so hard for the right wing to take a convincing stand against the bankers. It's also why they so easily piss on the backs of the ever growing number of people they identify as "the other."

Woody,

It's not just the right wing that is supporting inequality. The bankers you feature are also in bed with the current administration. I see none of them in jail 5 years into the President's term.

While the bailout vote was bipartisan, it was titled towards the Democrats. Of course Bush was still President but Obama did nothing to change the picture when he came in. Look at the large contributions Wall Street and the banks send to the Democrats. They are buying votes and pay to the left or right depending on who has the power.

"On Monday 29 September 2008, the House rejected a bill (H R 3997) colloquially known as the Wall Street bailout. The final vote was 205-228. This was not a party-line vote; both parties were divided. Democrats voted 140-65; Republicans, 95-133."

Or take the pharmaceutical companies that fill the coffers of the Democrat party, and will benefit enormously if Obamacare succeeds. Seniors on medicare already pay more for drugs than Medicaid pays.

Fannie and Freddie were in bed with the Democrats before and during the housing meltdown. They were favored with 60 to 1 leverage, much higher than the 30 to 1 the banks got. In fact McCain and Bush tried to stop the subprime lending bonanza and Pelosi, Frank, and Dodd prevented them from doing so.

This is all documented. The left is just as corrupt as the right; the left just wants total control. the right wants less government as long as
they get enough political favors to get rich. The left gets rich too just in different, nefarious ways.

It's laughable when the left or right try to take the moral high ground

This is why we have to get rid of both with the New Majority Party. No lobbyists, no under the table special deals. Let's grow the middle class and help everyone raise living standards. TECI supplants FIRE.

New Majority, yes. Eyes on the prize.

But let it be known that I reject the idea that the modern Democratic party is in any meaningful way representative of the left or liberal consciousness. It just ain't so and hasn't been in a month of forevers, the anniversary of which is being observed as we speak.

Bird With Two Right Wings

And now our government
a bird with two right wings
flies on from zone to zone
while we go on having our little fun & games
at each election
as if it really mattered who the pilot is
of Air Force One
(They're interchangeable, stupid!)
While this bird with two right wings
flies right on with its corporate flight crew
And this year its the Great Movie Cowboy in the cockpit
And next year its the great Bush pilot
And now its the Chameleon Kid
and he keeps changing the logo on his captains cap
and now its a donkey and now an elephant
and now some kind of donkephant
And now we recognize two of the crew
who took out a contract on America
and one is a certain gringo wretch
who's busy monkeywrenching
crucial parts of the engine
and its life-support systems
and they got a big fat hose
to siphon off the fuel to privatized tanks
And all the while we just sit there
in the passenger seats
without parachutes
listening to all the news that's fit to air
over the one-way PA system
about how the contract on America
is really good for us etcetera
As all the while the plane lumbers on
into its postmodern
manifest destiny


Lawrence Ferlinghetti

[Mn_Mark]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

I like how you keep it so simple, Mn. Black and white hides a multitude of sins, as the fashionistas are fond of saying. Looks good on you, anyway.

Hmm. I think you're the one speaking in black and white terms, aren't you? I agree that the government giving banksters bailouts is wrong, while also arguing that those who earn their wealth honestly are morally entitled to it, regardless of how "unequally" large the amount of wealth they create is compared to other less talented or motivated people. You, on the other hand, don't respond to these points at all and instead go off on a standard left-wing tirade about how conservatives love inequality and want to enslave the proletariat.

[vinoveri]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

We all want a fair and just society I would hope. Problem is we can't even agree on the terms. Judeo-Christian ethics, Natural Law, Utilitiarian, social darwinisms, etc, first principle problem again - one man's fairness is another's oppression; o'boy here we go again.

If you don't believe in something, you will fall for everything; as GK Chesterton said "turnips are singularly broad minded".

If you decide to believe in something, can you back it up ... and I mean all the way to your first principles ... most people can't, but it is there, the axiomatic truths (the dogma if you will), the fundamental beliefs on which all conclusions and moral judgments can then be derived from via reason and self-consistency that one must begin and be willing to defend and be open to re-evaluating if need be - every supposition and conclusion after that is subject to logical critique and refutation (consistent with first principles). Fact is though, the human being, rationale as he may be is run by emotion, social instinct, etc and arguments today are so simplistically formulated with reference to emotives, sophistry and casusistry, and the reason is because POWER and ESTEEM is valued more than TRUTH and JUSTICE. One must choose which to serve and a great tragedy of our time if the folks don't even understand this so they never choose. In my view, Catholicism and Natural Law provide the most substantive and self-consistent and correct approach to showing us how we ought to live both as individual and as a society. I must say I find more in common in discussing these issues with a confirmed atheist b/c although we may disagree, we know why we disagree - first principles.

To my friends on the right: every great fortune has either been made, grown or retained with assistance and or special privilege from the ruling government ( tax law, patent law, regulation, protectionism, the list goes on) - policies which allow economic rent extraction are generally harmful and unfair particularly to the extent they encourage wealth redistribution upward

To my friends on the left: envy is no basis of social policy, equality of opportunity and equal justice under the law is what we should be striving for. the state doesn't want what's best for people, freedom the ability to use their god given talents to product their unique fruit; its wants conformance and control and is willing to dole out scraps and tolerate moral depravity as long as it maintains control

[lektrode]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

....
It's not just the right wing that is supporting inequality. The bankers you feature are also in bed with the current administration. I see none of them in jail 5 years into the President's term.

While the bailout vote was bipartisan, it was titled towards the Democrats. Of course Bush was still President

and piling on here: GEEDUBYA WAS A LAMEDUCK SINCE 2006 (and one of the lamest in memory) having been officially 'gelded' at the point queen nancy took over in the house!!

(O&BTW - my use of RED highlighting doesnt mean i disagree, it means THAT IT MAKES ME SEE RED (read: gits me irish up... ;)

but Obama did nothing to change the picture when he came in. Look at the large contributions Wall Street and the banks send to the Democrats. They are buying votes and pay to the left or right depending on who has the power.

i'll see that and raise ya with my obs that the dems are THE party of the banksters - ever since 1913

and that the banksters are 'headquartered' in one of the bluest of the blue states, with ground zero on 11sep2001 being NOT HOUSTON OR DALLAS, also suggests that even osama bin laden thot that its BIG FINANCE that is the problem and NOT 'big oil'

and here's further evidence:

"On Monday 29 September 2008, the House rejected a bill (H R 3997) colloquially known as the Wall Street bailout. The final vote was 205-228. This was not a party-line vote; both parties were divided. Democrats voted 140-65; Republicans, 95-133."

Or take the pharmaceutical companies that fill the coffers of the Democrat party, and will benefit enormously if Obamacare succeeds. Seniors on medicare already pay more for drugs than Medicaid pays.

Fannie and Freddie were in bed with the Democrats before and during the housing meltdown. They were favored with 60 to 1 leverage, much higher than the 30 to 1 the banks got.

In fact McCain and Bush tried to stop the subprime lending bonanza and Pelosi, Frank, and Dodd prevented them from doing so.

exactly right, vt - the denials on this one alone are HILARIOUS - and heres some of 'the best' -

with this one Exhibit A:

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

and further evidence of the banksters in bed with the dems and why the DNC owns the great 'recession'

Lock, Stock & Barrel, aka The Smoking GUN

and just merely another reason why i'm of the opinion that NOTHING that OSAMA BIN LADEN could've ever done has so thouroughly f___d this country like the DNC and their policies/politix have done, since 1993 in particular

and they cant blame a GD thing on geedubya bonehead anymore!!!!

This is all documented. The left is just as corrupt as the right; the left just wants total control. the right wants less government as long as
they get enough political favors to get rich. The left gets rich too just in different, nefarious ways.

It's laughable when the left or right try to take the moral high ground

This is why we have to get rid of both with the New Majority Party. No lobbyists, no under the table special deals. Let's grow the middle class and help everyone raise living standards. TECI supplants FIRE.

HEAR here!!!!
+1

[Mn_Mark]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

[QUOTE=Woodsman;271002]

New Majority, yes. Eyes on the prize.

But let it be known that I reject the idea that the modern Democratic party is in any meaningful way representative of the left or liberal consciousness. It just ain't so and hasn't been in a month of forevers, the anniversary of which is being observed as we speak.

Bird With Two Right Wings

And now our government
a bird with two right wings

You really have to be far Left to think that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are right-wing. Holy crap.

This is like the media that always talks about how Dallas was a hotbed of right-wing hate and that that is what created the environment that got Kennedy assassinated - when the fact is that Kennedy, a center-left politician, was killed by a far-left, capital-C Communist, extremist who'd tried to assassinate a right-wing politician a few months before. Oswald was a Marxist who killed Kennedy because he felt Kennedy wasn't left-wing enough. The political right wing had absolutely nothing to do with Kennedy's assassination - it was a disagreement on the left end of the political spectrum. Meanwhile, 150,000 of those conservative "haters" in Dallas lined up along the motorcade route to cheer and smile at the visiting president.

Oswald was the type who would have called Kennedy "right wing".

[vt]

Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

[QUOTE=Woodsman;271002]

But let it be known that I reject the idea that the modern Democratic party is in any meaningful way representative of the left or liberal consciousness. It just ain't so and hasn't been in a month of forevers, the anniversary of which is being observed as we speak.

At the very least the current administration is liberal and leaning left. you are in a very small minority to think otherwise.

Also the left wants almost total control of production, using a fantasy that it is being done for the "people". In fact it is for the ruling elect and their hired henchmen. There are, of course, elites on the right too that are just as unjust.

While not perfect, the NMP will be a huge improvement on the current morass.