Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 16:28:31 GMT -5
You may not have noticed the screeds about how dumb redneck Tea Partiers vote against their interests, they're easy to miss being everywhere for several years. Replace "Democrat" with "Republican," "black" with "Tea Partier," and I could have been quoting Rachel Maddow.
I don't think the Democratic Party created the underclass. I think the realignment of the black vote away from Republicans coincided with the creation under FDR of a dependent class, under which heading the doling out of subsistence to the poor became for the black community a cipher for reparations. And I think Democrats from FDR's time onwards have been to varying extents quite explicit about that equivalence, and certainly black community leaders have acknowledged it.
As you pointed out, not all blacks view it the same way. Of course they don't. Not all Democrats do, either. But Democratic Party orthodoxy implicitly asserts that black people cannot succeed on a level playing field, and that the only reason they fare so badly by comparison with white people on a host of socioeconomic measures is the government hasn't redistributed enough to them. I don't think it's stupid of black people who buy into that to accept free stuff; I don't think it's stupid of Democrats to offer free stuff. I think it's cynical to take advantage of a human propensity for laziness, and short-sighted to encourage it as an identifying value of a community, and I think that is an adequate description of the Democratic approach to a number of its voting blocs - black voters are a strikingly monolithic voting group, and have been so consistently for decades, which makes the relationship between Black America and the Democratic Party interesting particularly in the light of how much worse the average black has it on almost any measure than the average race-immaterial American. I do think it's a very poor bargain, and I do think there is a considerable amount of work done both by black community leaders and Democratic organs to disguise what a lousy deal Black America has been getting since it traded chattel slavery for wage slavery, and especially since it traded wage slavery for welfare dependency (not one of those trades being a fair one in which the black man had a meaningful say).
I'm aware I'm being controversial. I'm not taking offense. I apologize for drawing your response, if that's what I did, but I appreciated it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 16:29:12 GMT -5
Did Adam Smith, and by extension you, have a problem feeding himself? Did he subsist entirely on synthetic substances? He didn't? Then it's garbage to assert that "things that were divinely created no one man should own." that would depend on what he considered "divinely created", would it not? ie- can you own sunshine, phoenix? can you own the air we breathe? can you own the snowmass? your small point arguing is getting very tiresome.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 16:35:51 GMT -5
But things are the way they are because Congress says so - except that they are the way they are because the President says so, even if the President is lying, as long as Congress cannot complete the intentionally lengthy and elaborate process of impeaching him. things are the way they are because of the people we send to congress. a fair amount of what the president does is ALSO due to congress. the fact that Congress is exceedingly permissive is certainly an issue.And we own the Congress, so whatever it allows the President to do by tacit consent, we also allow by the same tacit consent. What solution do you propose? i propose that we elect people that respect the rule of law.How do you square it with your support for e.g. universal healthcare as part of a social contract? i don't support universal heathcare as part of the social contract. it clearly isn't. but then again, neither are standing armies.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 16:59:52 GMT -5
Land, though, and the products of that land: biomass, minerals, and all the rest of it. That you can own. You can stake a claim to it, defend that claim, and having done so you can use, exclude, monetize, and relinquish the resulting property.
If you are prepared to slaughter a hog and eat it, you are explicitly rejecting the impossibility of owning the natural world.
Land, and you know this, is one of the three factors of production. All of them can be owned; that's the appeal of historical dialecticism, which is simply the class struggle for control of the means of production (I'd argue means of distribution, but I'm cuter about it than Karl Marx).
Land and water are potentially excludable and rivalrous: they can therefore be private goods. Insofar as air becomes excludable and rivalrous, it too becomes a private good. I guarantee I can sell you a canister of air if I first seal you in an airtight box: I just have to wait for marginal utility to alter your perspective.
Were it possible to block out the sun, sunlight too would be a private good:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 17:22:03 GMT -5
Land, though, and the products of that land: biomass, minerals, and all the rest of it. That you can own. You can stake a claim to it, defend that claim, and having done so you can use, exclude, monetize, and relinquish the resulting property. Smith argued that land and mineral rights are public. that which is made ON the land (agribusiness) is not. it is sort of a joint venture. i think water is an interesting issue, since without it, we would all die within a week. the idea that someone could become a water baron, controlling the fates of us all, is not very appealing- so i am inclined to view it as a public asset, as well.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 18, 2013 23:19:18 GMT -5
Yes, ObamaCare Repeal Is Still In The Cardswww.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/11/18/yes-obamacare-repeal-is-still-in-the-cards/More and more Democrats are turning on the law, and more pundits on both sides of the aisle are talking about the feasibility of repeal- even full repeal while Obama is still in office.And there's precedent for repealing disastrous healthcare laws. Here's an article from September 14, 1989 advocating the repeal of another Democrat Congressional catastrophe, "The Medicare Catastrophic Care Act"- like ObamaCare, Democrats claim they didn't understand all the ramifications of the bill ahead of time, and while not as massive as the ObamaCare train wreck- it was another attempt by Democrats to kill the existing system and replace it with their vaunted universal healthcare- which they were unable to do under Clinton and which caused the first Republican Revolution in 1994: articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-09-14/news/8901130010_1_surtax-medicare-catastrophic-coverage-act-income-taxThe law was repealed. ObamaCare will be repealed. It simply has to be. Democrats should just bite the bullet, rip the band-aid off and soon. The law is going to collapse under its own weight, and unless something is done to provide legal finality to its inevitable doom, the markets, people's healthcare, businesses, and employment is going to be in complete chaos. Just like every other health care debacle, or near debacle- it's got to go, and when it does, hopefully this time the American people will learn that big government, and especially big government's best friend- the Democratic Party- simply cannot be trusted to govern.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 19, 2013 0:11:09 GMT -5
Yes, ObamaCare Repeal Is Still In The Cardswww.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/11/18/yes-obamacare-repeal-is-still-in-the-cards/More and more Democrats are turning on the law, and more pundits on both sides of the aisle are talking about the feasibility of repeal- even full repeal while Obama is still in office.And there's precedent for repealing disastrous healthcare laws. Here's an article from September 14, 1989 advocating the repeal of another Democrat Congressional catastrophe, "The Medicare Catastrophic Care Act"- like ObamaCare, Democrats claim they didn't understand all the ramifications of the bill ahead of time, and while not as massive as the ObamaCare train wreck- it was another attempt by Democrats to kill the existing system and replace it with their vaunted universal healthcare- which they were unable to do under Clinton and which caused the first Republican Revolution in 1994: articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-09-14/news/8901130010_1_surtax-medicare-catastrophic-coverage-act-income-taxThe law was repealed. ObamaCare will be repealed. It simply has to be. Democrats should just bite the bullet, rip the band-aid off and soon. The law is going to collapse under its own weight, and unless something is done to provide legal finality to its inevitable doom, the markets, people's healthcare, businesses, and employment is going to be in complete chaos. Just like every other health care debacle, or near debacle- it's got to go, and when it does, hopefully this time the American people will learn that big government, and especially big government's best friend- the Democratic Party- simply cannot be trusted to govern. wtf are they talking about? a repeal would have to pass by Obama, right? so, there is no way this gets repealed before 2017, and only THEN if it survives filibuster. i think it is an absolute pipe dream, Paul. but you are entitled to it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 19, 2013 1:27:21 GMT -5
You may not have noticed the screeds about how dumb redneck Tea Partiers vote against their interests, they're easy to miss being everywhere for several years. Replace "Democrat" with "Republican," "black" with "Tea Partier," and I could have been quoting Rachel Maddow. I don't think the Democratic Party created the underclass. I think the realignment of the black vote away from Republicans coincided with the creation under FDR of a dependent class, under which heading the doling out of subsistence to the poor became for the black community a cipher for reparations. And I think Democrats from FDR's time onwards have been to varying extents quite explicit about that equivalence, and certainly black community leaders have acknowledged it. As you pointed out, not all blacks view it the same way. Of course they don't. Not all Democrats do, either. But Democratic Party orthodoxy implicitly asserts that black people cannot succeed on a level playing field, and that the only reason they fare so badly by comparison with white people on a host of socioeconomic measures is the government hasn't redistributed enough to them. I don't think it's stupid of black people who buy into that to accept free stuff; I don't think it's stupid of Democrats to offer free stuff. I think it's cynical to take advantage of a human propensity for laziness, and short-sighted to encourage it as an identifying value of a community, and I think that is an adequate description of the Democratic approach to a number of its voting blocs - black voters are a strikingly monolithic voting group, and have been so consistently for decades, which makes the relationship between Black America and the Democratic Party interesting particularly in the light of how much worse the average black has it on almost any measure than the average race-immaterial American. I do think it's a very poor bargain, and I do think there is a considerable amount of work done both by black community leaders and Democratic organs to disguise what a lousy deal Black America has been getting since it traded chattel slavery for wage slavery, and especially since it traded wage slavery for welfare dependency (not one of those trades being a fair one in which the black man had a meaningful say). I'm aware I'm being controversial. I'm not taking offense. I apologize for drawing your response, if that's what I did, but I appreciated it. I think you are full of shit on this- while I enjoy your philosophical tangents democrats do not and have not ever made a claim that black people or other minorities cannot succeed on a level field- in fact that is the core of what they want- a level playing field- a meritocracy if you will. They are not pursuing equal outcomes, only equal chances. The reason the black vote left the GOP is black and white history In all of your elegant prose your are still repeating the same tired old arguments- democrats are giving free stuff, welfare actually hurts, etc. Dress that turd up all you want but that is not the case. Now- where you do have some traction is the belief of many- including me- that black people have never had a level playing field- and meanwhile the Scotus whistles merrily along that racism is dead. That is reality challenged. For every right wing, self-righteous, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, rugged individual there exists an alternate version of themselves without the advantages they were born with- where they are just as likely to have strapped on a suicide vest at 13, dealt drugs in the hood, ended up in jail for murder. If you want the philosophical angle I like Rawls on this particular part. I doubt I can keep up with you on the subject since you keep throwing shit in from all over the map- and great for you if you can keep all that dancing around in your head- but I like to keep it simple-so maybe one issue at a time and we can figure out the grand political unification theory at a later date So- I postulate that the majority of black people do not yet have a level playing field, and give it at least 50 years before they come close. The more likely end IMO is that the races are going to mix and merge until we are all weird yellow people that speak while inhaling (nevermind- that was a South Park episode) What I really mean is that this will end one day- and it is going to take a lot of dying off and a lot of change.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 19, 2013 1:39:21 GMT -5
Yes, ObamaCare Repeal Is Still In The Cardswww.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/11/18/yes-obamacare-repeal-is-still-in-the-cards/More and more Democrats are turning on the law, and more pundits on both sides of the aisle are talking about the feasibility of repeal- even full repeal while Obama is still in office.And there's precedent for repealing disastrous healthcare laws. Here's an article from September 14, 1989 advocating the repeal of another Democrat Congressional catastrophe, "The Medicare Catastrophic Care Act"- like ObamaCare, Democrats claim they didn't understand all the ramifications of the bill ahead of time, and while not as massive as the ObamaCare train wreck- it was another attempt by Democrats to kill the existing system and replace it with their vaunted universal healthcare- which they were unable to do under Clinton and which caused the first Republican Revolution in 1994: articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-09-14/news/8901130010_1_surtax-medicare-catastrophic-coverage-act-income-taxThe law was repealed. ObamaCare will be repealed. It simply has to be. Democrats should just bite the bullet, rip the band-aid off and soon. The law is going to collapse under its own weight, and unless something is done to provide legal finality to its inevitable doom, the markets, people's healthcare, businesses, and employment is going to be in complete chaos. Just like every other health care debacle, or near debacle- it's got to go, and when it does, hopefully this time the American people will learn that big government, and especially big government's best friend- the Democratic Party- simply cannot be trusted to govern. wtf are they talking about? a repeal would have to pass by Obama, right? so, there is no way this gets repealed before 2017, and only THEN if it survives filibuster. i think it is an absolute pipe dream, Paul. but you are entitled to it. Can't believe you went for that one This will be old news in a few months, they will fix the dumbass website, let the complaining people know it is what it is, and hopefully costs will only rise a little until people figure out insurance companies are the problem and asks Obama WTF he was thinking when he dropped the public option and invited AHIP to dinner and gave them a pen.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 19, 2013 1:49:15 GMT -5
Read an op ed- 56yo woman complaining about paying for maternity care coverage....... Know what- shut up lady. The whole idea is a common risk pool- maybe some 21yo doesn't want to pay for your shingles or diabetes. Maybe some 21yo doesn't want to be covered for any geriatric conditions. Well, that's the way it has to work. Everyone in the pool. Or we can go back to medical underwriting where grandma is uninsurable and maybe you too because of your genes. How would you like that- fuck Paul 'wiki' Ryan. I am talking real DNA discrimination. Evidently that's what you goofs want- so let them take a look in your mama's sack and price your ass from day one- and if you are too expensive- monetary abortion- the only kind the right supports.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 19, 2013 8:14:32 GMT -5
Read an op ed- 56yo woman complaining about paying for maternity care coverage....... Know what- shut up lady. The whole idea is a common risk pool- maybe some 21yo doesn't want to pay for your shingles or diabetes. Maybe some 21yo doesn't want to be covered for any geriatric conditions. Well, that's the way it has to work. Everyone in the pool. Or we can go back to medical underwriting where grandma is uninsurable and maybe you too because of your genes. How would you like that- fuck Paul 'wiki' Ryan. I am talking real DNA discrimination. Evidently that's what you goofs want- so let them take a look in your mama's sack and price your ass from day one- and if you are too expensive- monetary abortion- the only kind the right supports. The talk I had with the 19-34 Y/O suggest they can not afford ACA..We need Job that pay well!!!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 19, 2013 8:39:00 GMT -5
I think there's a stark difference in how liberals and conservatives define a "level playing field" and "equal opportunity". For example, instead of eliminating discrimination and pursuing Rev. Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society, the left favors reverse discrimination and racial quotas. The Democrats don't believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity, they believe everyone should have an equal outcomes. The goal of equalizing outcomes is not only impractical, but it is destructive of liberty as the Declaration of Indpendence, our philosophical founding document, and the Constitution, the codification of our founding philosophy into law. This is not theory, Democrats are quite open about their feelings, and nothing gets Democrats standing and cheering like a class warfare diatribe. www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/politics/elizabeth-warren-at-the-2012-democratic-national-convention/2012/09/05/c76953a0-f7a0-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_video.html
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 19, 2013 9:49:16 GMT -5
Ignoring of course the fact that under Obama and the Democrats, Medicare careens towards bankruptcy and collapse- speed up by massive ObamaCare cuts. And of course, ignoring the fraud and deceit behind Medicare- which was sold to Americans as nothing short of their religious duty to care for the elderly AND the notion that taxes were really "contributions" or "premiums" connected to a promised benefit- which of course was never true. However, to sell the socialist disaster, liberals have always appealed to distinctly conservative values- and this explains why there's more mainstream support for Medicare and Social Security than welfare programs- in spite of the fact that they're functionally a kind of welfare. Certainly there's no actual relationship between what has been contributed to the "plans" and what the expected benefit is.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 10:20:45 GMT -5
*nods vigorously*
I figured you'd be a fan of Rawls. That whole frame of the "veil of ignorance" in the "original position," rational minimax social contract theory - it all makes sense if you assume that you, the individual, have no control over your own destiny. If you assume that, born into poverty, you cannot by your own effort transcend poverty, then heck yeah you want a social contract that protects a minimum living standard: minimum is your horizon, and you bless the State that draws that line and keeps you behind it.
Without saying the frame is wrong, I disagree with Rawls' notion of social justice, because its logical force derives in my view from a compositional fallacy: that the snapshot of the "original position" is definitive, absent State interference, of the citizen's life.
I'm by no means a social Darwinist, but I think Rawls disregards responsibility - rationally, in the "original position," no member of society will elect to take on responsibilities upon which their rights will be conditional, and this is in my view an immense failing in a theory of social justice.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 19, 2013 10:38:38 GMT -5
Sounds very much like 1990's Thinking in France or Germany!!! or Finland or Netherlands. Tax and spend..Make huge social programs that will be paid for in 50 years!! Like our SS processed fund that was fine with the forging of America into the number one industrial nation and WWII demand for labor. Who Is going to pay for this with lower saleries for the 19-24 group not making enough money for family formation. We are seeing lower birth rates then 1960's!! Now for Savings rate to get the saving rate back back to 10 to 12.5% vs 4-5% today!!! the BB Generation will need that to retire... Just a thought, BiMetalAuPt
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 19, 2013 11:02:10 GMT -5
wtf are they talking about? a repeal would have to pass by Obama, right? so, there is no way this gets repealed before 2017, and only THEN if it survives filibuster. i think it is an absolute pipe dream, Paul. but you are entitled to it. Can't believe you went for that one low hanging fruit, doncha know. nobody with any sense is making this argument. why the media is treating it as if it were even plausible is beyond me. despite the presumed hairpulling on the part of Democrats, i will repeat: i have not seen this kind of solidarity in their ranks in over a decade.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 12:02:20 GMT -5
www.policymic.com/articles/12137/how-the-gop-lost-the-african-american-vote-and-their-civil-rights-reputationSome history here. Note that FDR carried 71% of the "black vote" in 1936, twelve years after blacks were allowed to attend Democratic conventions. It was under FDR that "liberal" came to denote those blocs favorable to the Democratic party - the Big Labor machine, the minorities over-represented among the poor, the intellectual elite who believed they could centrally plan and manage the economy and society better with more regulatory control - while "conservative" attached to everybody else by default. To be "conservative" in the 1930s was to be a defender of the Dustbowl, a proponent of that miserable status quo ante. It was a powerful outgrouping device, as it continues to be to this day. As the article states, Goldwater's vote against the CRA in 1964 was hugely significant in terms of the perception of the GOP among black Americans, and LBJ's signing of the 1964 CRA - despite his misgivings over what it would mean for Democratic strength in Dixie - masked his opposition to the 1957 version (as Senate Majority Leader, Johnson orchestrated the neutering of the bill on the Judiciary Committee, while trying to claim credit for the passage of the watered-down result despite being one of 18 Senate votes against it, all of them Democratic). That's President Johnson, quoted in Inside the White House by Ronald Kessler. To repeat: the Civil Rights era began in 1957 under Republican President Eisenhower, who ordered troops in to Little Rock, Arkansas, to defend nine black children integrating Central High School (future President Bill Clinton had just turned eleven) and proposed the 1957 CRA to enshrine voting rights for black citizens; Democrats marshalled by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson opposed and gutted the measure. In fact, the real watershed in the history of the civil rights movement was the overturning of Plessy v Ferguson and the doctrine of "separate but equal" by the unanimous decision authored in the 1954 case of Brown v Board of Education by the Warren Court (Warren had been the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 1948). The realignment of the "black vote" at the Presidential level was under FDR in 1936, although the process had begun in the 1920s, when the "Roaring" economy had been notably quieter for African Americans and the Republican hierarchy, as insouciant about the black vote in the wake of having passed the Fifteenth Amendment as their modern Democratic counterparts are in the wake of the 1964 CRA, did nothing to help them. The Democratic 'realignment' in the 1960s was a renewed embrace of the New Deal coalition: an underclass dependent on getting "a little something, just enough to quiet them down," an organized union hierarchy to marshal the blue-collar working poor, and an intellectual elite who considered themselves fit to dictate the redistribution of resources. Have you ever heard of Father Divine? He was an opponent of FDR during the 1930s precisely because he understood that the "handouts" of the New Deal were divisive and limiting. He was also a target of Hearst's "Yellow journalism;" then, as now, media organs were an important part of sustaining the focus on outgroups so members of the coalition avoided becoming aware of the incoherence of an 'ingroup' made up of the most helpless and the most able in society. Interestingly, to me, Father Divine held that blacks who accepted the class identity of blackness thereby inherited negative and damaging traits imposed upon that class identity - to be black was to be oppressed, for example, but despite Divine's strong condemnation of appalling injustices such as the case of the Scottsboro Boys he argued that the oppression of blacks arose partly out of a class identification with the state of being oppressed. There's a very human thought process at work there: anybody who is having to struggle to survive doesn't like to think that they could by their own efforts be doing better - the implication, inaccurate but persuasive, is that they are too stupid and/or lazy. The frame that blames that struggle on forces beyond the individual's control, especially in the context of some external arbiter who might restore the balance and relieve the struggle, is more appealing: but Divine argued that it was disabling, and indeed FDR's New Deal reforms harmed many by prolonging and normatizing their condition of welfare dependence, even as the act of offering welfare was viewed by the recipients as a boon. FDR's canny establishment of a "black cabinet," and the induction of hundreds of thousands of black workers into the CIO, helped popularize him among the black community even as his reforms stifled their opportunities and his regressive tax increases disproportionately weighed on black Americans. The model established under FDR for courting the black vote while maintaining the dependence of black voters on government welfare, made odiously explicit in that LBJ quote, remains active in Democratic politics today.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 12:44:04 GMT -5
I agree neither are in the Constitution. Nor is education, for a similarly good reason.
But the moral case that a government should safeguard the health of the poor is a strong one. And you had seemed to be a supporter of PPACA, and presumably not on the grounds that it transfers wealth from taxpayers to giant insurance corporations.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 19, 2013 13:58:22 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 14:02:35 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 14:03:46 GMT -5
Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington...
The Republican opposition to the President's bold solution to his self-made woes is clearly formidable..
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 19, 2013 15:15:41 GMT -5
NY is a bluest of the blue states baby coumo is beholden to all of the "progressive" gangs. looks like he's in the clinton camp now.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 16:00:23 GMT -5
Bluer than Vermont? To be fair, I think almost every red state Governor rejected the Federal Government's kind offer to build an exchange and get suckered into paying for the tens of thousands of extra Medicaid recipients that are the only way Obamacare expands coverage to the uninsured. I'll be interested to see how Kentucky does. It was ahead of the curve with experiments to regulate its healthcare market in the 1990s, enacting guaranteed issue and community rating reforms in 1995 (these are the provisions that theoretically allow Obamacare to expand the risk pool without initiating a death spiral through adverse selection). rsc.scalise.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pb_043008_guaranteed%20issue.pdfAs this document explains, the result was a moral hazard borne by insurers operating in the Kentucky market. Rational Kentuckians didn't feel like taking insurance they didn't immediately need, but did jump at the chance to get needed insurance they hadn't been able to access because of pre-existing condition exclusions. Consequently the risk pool was sicker than the general population, and, because of community rating, premiums had to be raised across the board, encouraging lower-risk insureds to drop out and disincentivizing uninsured Kentuckians from joining the risk pool: death spiral. Insurers responded, also rationally, by dropping out of the market. Kentucky responded, in 2000, by repealing the reforms. Obamacare offers two streams of federal tax money to offset these problems: the subsidies for insureds earning from 139% to 400% of FPL, and the "risk corridors" to offset insurers' losses in the event that the risk pool turns out riskier than anticipated. That the flow of both of these streams is open to legal challenge complicates matters, of course. And even if they survive those challenges, there's no firm estimate available for how much they could end up costing, and no incentive for high-risk insureds to exercise restraint on claimed medical expenses, and of course no risk for insurers backstopped by the taxpayer to worry either (this is the same moral hazard that made Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac repositories of so many subprime mortgages).
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 19, 2013 16:43:31 GMT -5
ah vermont home of maple syrup, small colleges for rich kids and super good weed. very open and liberal. also very exclusionary. you have to live there for 25 years before the natives will even consider you a junior vermonter.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 19, 2013 17:02:20 GMT -5
Not Fox.
Not Heritage.
ABC Poll: ACA Rollout Hammers Obama; Job Disapproval Reaches Career High 70% Say Country Is On The Wrong Track
Other ratings of the president’s performance have tumbled as well. He’s at career lows for being a strong leader, understanding the problems of average Americans and being honest and trustworthy – numerically under water on each of these (a first for the latter two). His rating for strong leadership is down by 15 points this year and a vast 31 points below its peak shortly after he took office. In a new gauge, just 41 percent rate him as a good manager; 56 percent think not.
This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that the president’s personal image has suffered alongside his professional ratings. Fewer than half, 46 percent, see him favorably overall, down 14 points this year to the fewest of his presidency. Fifty-two percent now view him unfavorably, a new high and a majority for the first time since he took office.
ACA – Skepticism about the Affordable Care Act looks to be the driving force in Obama’s troubles. Americans by nearly 2-1, 63-33 percent, disapprove of his handling of implementation of the new health care law. And the public by 57-40 percent now opposes the law overall, its most negative rating to date, with opposition up by 8 points in the past month alone.
Intensity of sentiment is running against the law and the president alike. At 46 percent, “strong” opposition to the ACA – a new high – outpaces strong support by a record 19 points. In terms of Obama’s job performance overall, strong critics outnumber strong approvers by 2-1, 44-22 percent, with strong disapproval at another career high. He’d run evenly on strong sentiment as recently as last May.
Fifty-six percent describe the cancellation of health insurance policies that are deemed substandard under the law as “mismanagement” rather than a normal startup problem. Given the breakdown of the healthcare.gov website, a broad 71 percent favor postponing the individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to have coverage.
And the mandate’s still widely unpopular in any case; 65 percent of Americans oppose it – a majority of them, strongly. Notably, even among those who support the individual mandate. 55 percent favor delaying it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 19, 2013 19:39:09 GMT -5
I agree neither are in the Constitution. Nor is education, for a similarly good reason. But the moral case that a government should safeguard the health of the poor is a strong one. And you had seemed to be a supporter of PPACA, and presumably not on the grounds that it transfers wealth from taxpayers to giant insurance corporations. i am not for anything so weak and subservient to private insurance interests as the ACA.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 20, 2013 0:26:28 GMT -5
Which is what real liberals have a problem with and why they hate Obamacare. I do not think there is a real 'left wing' person in the US that thought leaving private insurance in charge of everything was a solution. That's why I refer to it as the GOP plan- because it is.
What you can bank 100% on is that any GOP health reform will be private insurance based- so maybe we quit pretending that this is some socialist, government takeover of health care and see it for what it is- a gift wrapped package to insurance companies in exchange for not fucking over people as much as they used to. It will save some lives- good enough for now. What else could we have done with that dysfunctional bag of assholes in congress? Sadly, that's' the best we could come up with.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 20, 2013 8:45:57 GMT -5
Dem - I do a lousy job of indicating this during a debate, but my opinion on anything is just that: my opinion. I consider it a moral imperative to have it be an informed one, because I am acutely aware of the Baconian idols that distort our perceptions of the world.
I would hope that you wouldn't concede your points. What I offer to a forum is just information to substantiate my own. I can't think of any assertion of which I am entirely comfortable to say "this is so obviously true that there can be no possible contradiction." This is part of what makes me such an ornery cuss: even when I'm agreeing with somebody, which is more often than a casual reader would believe, I seem disagreeable.
EVT - PPACA really was astonishingly, extraordinarily, bad government. I mean, nobody is happy with this thing. Conservatives are up in arms because it expands Medicaid without properly funding the expansion; liberals hate the fact that single payer was right there and got thrown away, arguably because the President never threw his weight behind it; everybody hates how complex it is; nobody is happy that it was such a party-line vote (it leaves the Dems horribly exposed, and the GOP aggrieved at being carved out of the legislative process); anybody who understands the industry and the incentives in the bill can see it won't work; and on top of that, implementation has been almost unbelievably fouled up, and yet the administration continues on the same path with the same personnel. I truly believe - and yes, I'm a partisan, but one who rejects the notion that free-market principles can deliver healthcare as a civic right - that PPACA represents bad policy, in that its strategic aims are misguided; bad politics, in that the optics of its debate, passage, and implementation have been horrible; and bad governance, in that it has been a showcase for overpromising, underdelivery, incompetence, arbitrariness, bureaucracy, officiousness, complexity, incoherence, perverse incentives, and negative outcomes. I really cannot believe that this represented the best Democrats could do with control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, sorry.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 20, 2013 9:07:12 GMT -5
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/19/woman-cited-by-president-as-obamacare-success-story-frustrated-by-sign-up-process/?hpt=hp_t1Narrative momentum is a problem for Obamacare. Katrina created a focal point for an already-developing narrative about the Bush presidency - one that had, in partisan quarters, been currency for years - to go nationwide and become the filter through which all subsequent events were seen. Pundits on the left understandably decry the comparison, but the really incredible mess that Obamacare has wrought does the same for the Obama presidency. Lots of us have from day one said Obama was too standoffish, felt himself above implementation issues, relied too heavily on an echo chamber, was overconfident in his own wisdom, deliberated too long over decisions, delegated too much authority to poorly-chosen surrogates, exhibited a lack of loyalty except to those sycophants to whom he showed too much loyalty, framed everything unnecessarily as a partisan issue to facilitate points-scoring and create barriers to problem-solving, focused more on his own perpetual campaign for President than the business of being President, magnified the failings of Bush, reversed the policy successes of the past three decades, fundamentally misunderstood America and its system of government... And for a long time this litany of wingnuttery could be mocked and derided, dismissed as closeted bigotry or sour grapes, written off. Fast and Furious? Bush started it (no he didn't, but never mind). Benghazi? What about all the other embassy attacks before Obama took office? The IRS? But they were investigating other 501(c) groups as well, not just the oversensitive Tea Partiers. And wasn't all this desperate witch-hunting of a Democratic President reminiscent of how the 1990s GOP hounded Clinton? And how did that work out? This narrative prevailed for years. There was an element of racism to some critiques of the President. There were some sour grapes in there. There is, certainly, a partisan-political edge to Darrell Issa's crusade for soundbites with which to assail the President. But sometimes, just because you're a bitter partisan bigot doesn't mean you're not also right. The perverse genius of Obama has been to serve up an example of his vision of government made manifest, unsullied by Republican hands; and it has fallen upon the American people like so much jettisoned frozen waste from a passing jetliner. Since October the narrative has changed, and the President's ability to shift it - which in truth has never been very apparent, unlike the media's willingness to let it shift - is diminished. The link above illustrates the problem Obama has now: he's in a sort of credibility death spiral, where pretty much everything he says can get slapped in the face by an anecdote. He's right to say that only a small minority of Americans shop for healthcare insurance in the individual market; unfortunately, that is millions of news stories for media organs that have soured on his presidency and see legs in the story of Obamacare's ongoing and hydra-headed failures. Jessica Sanford's story is a sad one. It illustrates the central problem that has always been at the heart of the reform Democrats built in 2010: no matter how good its product quality is, the price tag for it is too high. This is why it was crucial from both a policy and a politic perspective to implement reforms to aggressively drive down costs, encourage voluntary buy-in to the market, and then implement sustainable regulatory quality improvements. Boil the frog. Get the fundamental trends right; then build the framework of expansion on those righted fundamentals. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid lacked either the patience, the vision, or the courage to do reform the right way. Pelosi paid her price in 2010; Reid may well in 2014; Obama is likely to suffer the most of the three, because three years is a long time to be an object of scorn, derision, and resentment for a hundred million people, and I can believe dj's opinion that he is too stubborn and too invested in his vision for reform to back away from it or allow it to be gutted.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 20, 2013 9:56:02 GMT -5
Pauline Kael only knew one person who voted for Nixon in 1972. What's your source for the 50% figure? A 50% increase in Oregon's October total, for example, would remain zero.
|
|