America's Socialist Programs

[oladub]

[quote=Stosh;180382]Oh right... my bad, you said Republican ties to the tea party before 2007 right?

Sort of. My quote from post 31 was, "The recent Tea Party movement began as Ron Paul fundraisers in 2007." The subject of the sentence was "The recent Tea Party movement". In post 38 I added, "All you have to do is show us some Republican use of the Tea Party theme preceeding 2007. Remember that Bush and the neo-cons were in charge prior to 2007 and that Republicans, for the most part, were supporting Bush's spending, annual debts, and wars like Democrats are today. " You did provide instances of feminists and Republicans citing tea bags and tea parties prior to 2007, which is a good start, but you failed to show any significant tea party movement activity before 2007. As a 'movement', it didn't exist during the Bush years when neocons ruled the Republican party. The tea party movement was, in fact, partly a fiscally conservative rebellion against what Bush and Republicans had been doing.

Jimaz, I enjoyed your article. To just imagine that a businessman would have accepted money for his services from bad people like Stalin! shame! shame! Where was jimmy Carter when we needed him? Some US wheat farmers went bankrupt because of Carter's embargo grain embargo against the Soviet Union for conducting a war in Afghanistan. Lucky for those farmers too. Otherwise they would have had to accept Soviet money for their wheat.

[Papasito]

The tea party movement was, in fact, partly a fiscally conservative rebellion against what Bush and Republicans had been doing.

It was pushed along by McCain being the nominee, another spend spend spend Republican, compounded by a sitting President who sees no end to what the Government can control, borrow, spend or do. Where I see a lot of good points the Tea Party movement is trying to make, they don't really have a strong, unified voice with a clear, concise message given by reputable, electable, and respectable leadership.

[Stosh]

[quote=oladub;180425]

Oh right... my bad, you said Republican ties to the tea party before 2007 right?

Sort of. My quote from post 31 was, "The recent Tea Party movement began as Ron Paul fundraisers in 2007." The subject of the sentence was "The recent Tea Party movement". In post 38 I added, "All you have to do is show us some Republican use of the Tea Party theme preceeding 2007. Remember that Bush and the neo-cons were in charge prior to 2007 and that Republicans, for the most part, were supporting Bush's spending, annual debts, and wars like Democrats are today. " You did provide instances of feminists and Republicans citing tea bags and tea parties prior to 2007, which is a good start, but you failed to show any significant tea party movement activity before 2007. As a 'movement', it didn't exist during the Bush years when neocons ruled the Republican party. The tea party movement was, in fact, partly a fiscally conservative rebellion against what Bush and Republicans had been doing.

Jimaz, I enjoyed your article. To just imagine that a businessman would have accepted money for his services from bad people like Stalin! shame! shame! Where was jimmy Carter when we needed him? Some US wheat farmers went bankrupt because of Carter's embargo grain embargo against the Soviet Union for conducting a war in Afghanistan. Lucky for those farmers too. Otherwise they would have had to accept Soviet money for their wheat.

To credit Ron Paul with the creation of anything original is just asshattish. My posts are to illustrate that the idea of wrapping yourself with the cache of the original tea party has always been tried, yet the results have been severly lacking. What we are witnessing today is not any relation to the original tea party.

What the other tea party bozos were lacking were FUNDING for their message. Which leads us back to Murdoch, and the Koch brothers. You can flail about all you want, and wave your arms and scream about Ron Paul, but the facts are facts. He's a nutjob, and so are the tea party fanatics.

Be careful what you wish for, oladub, you just may get it.

[oladub]

Stosh: "To credit Ron Paul with the creation of anything original is just asshattish. My posts are to illustrate that the idea of wrapping yourself with the cache of the original tea party has always been tried, yet the results have been severly lacking. What we are witnessing today is not any relation to the original tea party.

What the other tea party bozos were lacking were FUNDING for their message. Which leads us back to Murdoch, and the Koch brothers. You can flail about all you want, and wave your arms and scream about Ron Paul, but the facts are facts. He's a nutjob, and so are the tea party fanatics."

Actually, the originality should go to his supporters whose 'moneybombs' commemorated the tea party and Guy Fawkes Day and had a campaign blimp. Other campaigns, including Democrats, have picked up on the moneybomb concept. The Tea Party concept was reformated into something you don't like. Still no takers on the campaign blimp concept though. But you must have had more fun chanting about undefined change. Pity. You wound up with more war, higher unemployment, greater federal debt, and what seems to be a listing ship.

Be careful what you wish for, oladub, you just may get it.

I'll keep wishing. Thanks for the encouragement.

[Stosh]

Yes, the 29000 + supporters that plopped down their hard earned cash to support a failed ideologue whose sole message is What? We can do it cheaper? We can illegally skirt campaign finance laws to buy a blimp?

I think it would be a better thing if I were to go back in time and send Ayn Rand's girlhood crush over to her house so he could kill her before she could write her tripe. Far more proactive and doable than arguing with someone like you.

[gibran]

if the tea party was just a fiscally Conservative movement it would be one thing...but they are the party of choice for little dixie and fearful older people that hang on every word people like Beck/Palin et al launch as fact... They have been co-opt then if all they were concerned w/fiscal responsibility...but now they are birthers, racists and anti-humanists... i would tend to listen if they were just Ron Pualites...some of the concepts he put forth are good...the rest is poppycock ...

you have to ask yourself what programs would these people keep? and how do they address inequalities in health-care, education and wealth? Aynn Rand should be replaced with Rawls...

[maxx]

oladub: I would think that a Canadian like single payer health care program run by a state would be superior to Obama's 'keep the insurance companies and attorneys rolling in money' health care program for instance.

We all should know how well this worked for education in the past when there was no or very little federal involvement with what states did about education, i.e., segregated schools, poor quality education in many southern states.

[oladub]

Yes, the 29000 + supporters that plopped down their hard earned cash to support a failed ideologue whose sole message is What? We can do it cheaper? We can illegally skirt campaign finance laws to buy a blimp?

I think it would be a better thing if I were to go back in time and send Ayn Rand's girlhood crush over to her house so he could kill her before she could write her tripe. Far more proactive and doable than arguing with someone like you.

Now we have a failing President who is managing to bring the country down lower than Bush. Congratulations on the change. If there was a sole message in the Paul campaign it would be to obey the Constitution. No blimp was purchase and a rented blimp did not break any taboo against free speech. Why mention Ayn Rand when it is far more trendy to mention the Koch brothers as the manifestation of all evil.

Gibran wrote, "you have to ask yourself what programs would these people keep? and how do they address inequalities in health-care, education and wealth? Aynn Rand should be replaced with Rawls... "

The federal government is effectively bankrupt. You have to ask yourself which federal programs should be dropped to afford the remainder of programs and which programs could and should be operated at the state and local level to improve their efficiency. Want some equality in wealth? Then create a shortage of US labor by escaping NAFTA and GATT while imposing some import taxes to lower income taxes. Only when labor is in short supply can it start demanding a larger share of the national economic pie. Begging for scraps from Obama isn't going to cut it.

Maxx, "We all should know how well this worked for education in the past when there was no or very little federal involvement with what states did about education, i.e., segregated schools, poor quality education in many southern states. "

That brought Mississippi education to the top of the heap, right? Lucky for Mississippi, California's blue state policies have driven California public education from near the best in the country to being a contender to challenge Mississippi, with all it's federal help, for the #50 spot.

[maxx]

The CA leg. should raise the number of signatures required for an initiative. And the voters should learn about the "people's veto".

[maxx]

http://exiledonline.com/americas-dea...re-bolsheviks/
"...the very same Wall Street bankers who conned $23 trillion out of America’s wealth is now going to use some of that play money to place bets on when we Americans will die—and the sooner we die, the more billions in E-Z profits Wall Street will earn..."

[Stosh]

Now we have a failing President who is managing to bring the country down lower than Bush. Congratulations on the change. If there was a sole message in the Paul campaign it would be to obey the Constitution. No blimp was purchase and a rented blimp did not break any taboo against free speech. Why mention Ayn Rand when it is far more trendy to mention the Koch brothers as the manifestation of all evil.

The reason he is "failing" is the incessant drumbeat of the idealogues such as yourself that have a vested interest in his failure. I'll bet Ayn has just as much culpability in the retarded politics of the Libertarian and Republican party as Koch does. Which is plenty.

The federal government is effectively bankrupt. You have to ask yourself which federal programs should be dropped to afford the remainder of programs and which programs could and should be operated at the state and local level to improve their efficiency. Want some equality in wealth? Then create a shortage of US labor by escaping NAFTA and GATT while imposing some import taxes to lower income taxes. Only when labor is in short supply can it start demanding a larger share of the national economic pie. Begging for scraps from Obama isn't going to cut it.

He can't pass the needed measures and you know it, due to obstructionism in the House and Senate. Quit playing games and acting stupid, please.

That brought Mississippi education to the top of the heap, right? Lucky for Mississippi, California's blue state policies have driven California public education from near the best in the country to being a contender to challenge Mississippi, with all it's federal help, for the #50 spot.

You can't fix stupid, as some have said.

[maxx]

Steve Rattner explains to Colbert how the evil gov. saved the car industry and the consequences of not doing so.The interview starts around 15.
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-ep...steven-rattner

[ghettopalmetto]

That brought Mississippi education to the top of the heap, right? Lucky for Mississippi, California's blue state policies have driven California public education from near the best in the country to being a contender to challenge Mississippi, with all it's federal help, for the #50 spot.

So how do you account for Connecticut perennially having the best educaton system in the nation? Must be the low taxes, eh?

[oladub]

So how do you account for Connecticut perennially having the best educaton system in the nation? Must be the low taxes, eh?

Connecticut and California both have high taxes as is their right under the 10th Amendment. Maybe Connecticut has better educational results because 83% of Connecticut families earn more than the national average income. Still, California has higher average income and taxes than most red states but almost all red states eclipse California's educational outcomes despite having lower taxes.

[mjs]

I agree with Oladub on all he is saying. Most of the stuff on the first list shouldn't be eliminated altogether, but they should be moved to the states to satisfy the Tenth Amendment. Better efficiency and less buying of lawmakers. Sure, some of it like bank welfare can be eliminated altogether. The real question of the list is what are you willing to pay more in taxes to keep. We're spending more than we make. At some point, we need to either spend less or make more and the longer we try to ignore the question, the more it harms us and the harder it is to fix.

It makes me shake my head to see how the Dems are handling this whole mess. What moron came up with the finger pointing cry-baby "they ran the bus into the ditch" bit? Put Carville back in charge you idiots. Put your egos in check and make broad use of Bill Clinton's silver tongue.

Message Dems should be selling to hold their base and pick-up independants including tea-partiers is one of fiscal responsibility with humility and blunt honesty: We all got caught up in the irrational exuberance, but unlike republicans who got the seats in this game of musical chairs, dems are willing to help those that got hurt the most by our joint mistakes. We're keeping the programs Americans need to get through hard times such as this and we're willing to raise taxes to do it. We won't be raising taxes until the economy is in its inevitable recovery, but we must act to ensure the programs America needs today will be there tomorrow by doing the responsible action of funding them fully.

Take on tax and spend as a badge of honor and say it sure beats the conservative's cut and spend model.

[ghettopalmetto]

Connecticut and California both have high taxes as is their right under the 10th Amendment. Maybe Connecticut has better educational results because 83% of Connecticut families earn more than the national average income. Still, California has higher average income and taxes than most red states but almost all red states eclipse California's educational outcomes despite having lower taxes.

You've never lived in the South, have you?

[maxx]

The number of nonEnglish-speaking children in CA schools may have something to do with the ed. outcomes.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=106657563
"..."Three-hundred thousand illegal immigrant children in public schools, and they keep coming. The cost: $1.5 billion a year," the announcer says..."

So what's Detroit's excuse?

[oladub]

You've never lived in the South, have you?

Is someone forcing you ro live in the South? I realize that some people have family and other obligations but to the extent that people can move ftom states that don't work to states that work and businesses refuse to move to backward places [[executives wives' willingness to relocate often makes it impossisble to move businesses to some places). However, those who move open up jobs for those left behind by creating more of a demand for their labor. Also, local and state leaders need only look around to see what works in other places if they too want to profit. Move to NW North Dakota, if your are able, if South Carolina isn't working out. The work ethic and opportunities there, I hear, is tonic.

maxx writes

"..."Three-hundred thousand illegal immigrant children in public schools, and they keep coming. The cost: $1.5 billion a year," the announcer says..."
So what's Detroit's excuse?"

I had left illegal hiring and immigration out of my answer to prevent the thread from going off track. It is part of California's price for having sanctuary cities and otherwise subsidizing illegal aliens. It is how Californians have chosen to manage their resources with predictable results. Private employers, on the other hand, profit from this system. Why would they care about how school resources have to be used as long as the system profits them?

Detroit's excuse? Too long of a topic on a Detroit board but international trade policies, fatherless families, crime, and union overreach given international trade policies are pretty good reasons.

[maxx]

oladub: It is part of California's price for having sanctuary cities and otherwise subsidizing illegal aliens.

And what state doesn't have "sanctuary cities"? CA 's location on the border with Mexico has a lot to do with it as well as its reputation as a rich state, the home of Hollywood stars.

[maxx]

If you want to talk about socialism in the U.S., it certainly hasn't been our healthcare system. We pay more per capita in healthcare than any other developed country.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

And our infant mortality rate is embarrassing, right down there with Croatia and Lithuania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mortality_rate

Our death rate is also appalling. Compare it to S. Arabia's.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2066rank.html

http://www.hziegler.com/locations/mi...di-arabia.html

[Gyro]

Socialism is when the government owns the means of production.

We have a "socialistic" highway system, socialistic fire and police protection, a socialistic library and recreation system, a socialistic park system and a socialistic court and prison system, but our health care system [[other than in the military) is provided by private doctors, clinics and hospitals. Medicare doesn't own a single hospital.

By contrast, Canada, Great Britain, France, Taiwan, Australia and virtually every other advanced democracy has a government-owned "socialistic" health care system which provides superior results for roughly half the price. Much of that savings comes from eliminating the middle-man, the insurance companies, which drive up the administrative cost [[up to 31%!) and provide zero health care. If we want to control medical costs, there are many proven models we could adopt.

[oladub]

By contrast, Canada, Great Britain, France, Taiwan, Australia and virtually every other advanced democracy has a government-owned "socialistic" health care system which provides superior results for roughly half the price. Much of that savings comes from eliminating the middle-man, the insurance companies, which drive up the administrative cost [[up to 31%!) and provide zero health care. If we want to control medical costs, there are many proven models we could adopt.

Gyro, It might be a technicality but Canada does not have a single payer plan. Each of it's provinces, however, do have such a plan. I think the cost is 60% of what we pay. The US, state, and local governments in the US already spend more on the average American's health care than Canadian provinces do on Canadians. It could be said that we are already more socialist than Canada in that our governments already spend more. Don't forget to to include in your list of savings that Canadians cannot sue doctors for nearly as much thereby reducing insurance paid by both medical providers and patients for huge cost savings. Massachusetts does have a State health care plan similar to those of Canadian provinces. However, lawyers are included in the MA plan so costs are much higher than provincial plans.

I, from time to time, suggest allowing more choices into our heath system to make it more affordable but there isn't much enthusiasm here for affordability.