Health Reform: A Prisoner’s Dilemma

Do the right thing. How hard is that? If it means your political career is kaput, then it wasn’t worth much, anyway, was it?

…in purely political terms, the easiest choice for endangered Democrats in swing districts…

…and the honorable and right thing to do is pass the bill and to h3ll with the political consequences.

Um, those are rhetorical questions, right?

I don’t trust this Government in my hospital. I’m gonna refuse to pay for this societies problems. This government needs to go away to a island where they can set up their police state utopia.

What part of continuing your own insurance as is but, most likely, at lower rates is a police state utopia?
This is what is being proposed.

KT – you need to revise your description of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. If they both remain silent, they get convicted on a lesser charge and get light sentences. In the way you described it, they would have no motivation to talk at all.

If I say yes, I’m part of the problem – just as conniving and calculating as the rest. if I say no, then I’m naive.

However, in all honesty, can’t I expect more from our elected officials? Why am I naive to think that people _should_ do the right thing as a matter of course, rather than as some great aberration?

Ms. Tumulty-

It’s obvious that you don’t really understand what the prisoners’ dilemma is. First, the payoffs are wrong: if both stay silent, they will both get some punishment, but lighter than if they both confess. This is the only way to motivate the second point, which you also don’t understand.

The paradox behind the prisoners’ dilemma is that A should confess, period. If B confesses, then it was better for A to have confessed; and if B stays silent, then it was better for A to have confessed also. Confessing is the dominant strategy.

So this bears absolutely NO RELATION to the choice facing endangered Democrats

Your headline caught my eye. I think I’ll steer well clear of your “musings” from here on, if this is any indication of your grasp of what you choose to pronounce upon.

Thanks. Perhaps I was shorthanding this one a little too far. Will fix.

It’s your loss. KT’s easily the most insightful contributor – well, _paid_ contributor – on this site. And I don’t say that simply because I got a rare personal reply to a comment of mine. Exercise your free will and visit some other forum, instead.

I am familiar with this, Jonathan.

We robbed a bank.
We got arrested but there is not enough evidence to convict us.

You are in a room being interrogated far away from me. You can not hear or see me. You do not know what I am doing.

If I blame you and you stay quiet, then I go home free and you get the full penalty of the law.
Blame me while I am quiet, I get the full penalty and you go home.
If we both shut up, then we both go home.
If we both talk, we get a middle punishment.

So, if you blame me, you could be splitting the punishment or selling me short.

If you keep quiet, you could be walking out getting badly punished.

If Democrats in hard race seats vote for health care, they either get a sure win or a sure loss.

If Democrats in hard races vote against health care, they remain 50/50.

So, just like bank robbers in cells, each congressperson up for reelection in a tough race has to make a bet on this bill.

Did I help, Jonathan?

And BTW, don’t tell anybody about that bank we held up!

“Vote against the bill, but only if it passes…” this is exactly the calculation that the Clinton era congressional rep you wrote about earlier this week tried to make. When she found out it wouldn’t pass without her support she voted for it, despite her previous anti-bill rhetoric. Her constituents saw through her cyncism and rightly voted her out of office for it.

Great analysis, BTW. Maybe this will turn out like R v. Dudley and Stephens for a couple unlucky Dem. reps.

What patricksartor said.
.
(Hope my tweak fixed the problem there.)

I’m getting tired of hearing about how tough the problem is for these legislators. They’re in Washington to do the people’s business — not just to protect their own political careers. Many of the people that are agonizing over this vote are the same people that were willing to vote to send other people off to war.

@patrick, thanks, but if we both keep quiet and go free, then it seems that there would be little motivation to talk at all. If we just shut up, we go free anyways!

And I guess to explain myself… heck, I agreed with that congressional rep’s final vote but it didn’t make sense in light of her earlier public opposition.

Congressional reps should never be looking for the cover of voting against a bill that somebody else passes for them. Or talking against a bill that they actually think is a good idea.

They need to be honest with people. Sometimes, when you’re honest, people will vtoe you out of office because they disagree with you. But that’s a feature, not a bug. The dishonesty is an attempt to thwart democracy — it’s an attempt by a federal representative to hide their beliefs so as to protect them from the judgment of the people they represent. It’s not right, no matter who does it.

Could we have a report on exactly how endangered the wavering congress people are? I know the press has been ginning this meme and many have bought into it. How accurate is it? Avoid using congress and other pundits as a source. Research district by district.
Not you Karen, but somebody who is assigned to congressional reelections. I get so tired of anonymously sourced conventional wisdom.

I know. And I know Karen doesn’t mean it to sound this way but all of these stories make it seem like voters are some sort of problem to be surmounted rather than a constituency to serve.

Is seems odd that no one can draw a line from Bill Halter’s phenomenal support and fundraising over the last few days and a fired up base. All we hear all day is how incredibly energized the Right is and the Dems incredibly not. The polling never seems to reveal much about why HCR is unpopular – are independents looking forward to their 39% rate hikes? Do they hate the bill because it goes too far or not far enough? AND if this really is electoral suicide for Democrats, you’d think Republicans would be cheering them on.

But we’re not old friends. We barely know each other.
I don’t know how long you can handle interrogation.

I believe the original example involved either political prisoners or prisoners of war and we might be getting smacked around during interrogation for a few hours.

It gets very weak when, in real life, we can shut up and wait for a lawyer.

Congressional Democrats have, for a long time now, been very risk averse.
My bet is that most of them will jump ship and leave us without health care unless – unless – they really, really like this bill.
I don’t know, but, it is interesting.

@patrick, that’s true, once you add the smacking around, all bets are off!

So you’re ratting me out, huh!
See if this gang ever gets you onto a bank job again!

What’s more, Mr. NG, as I was saying on that earlier thread… Marjorie Margolies is still extremely successful, still able to impact public debate and policy, still socially respectable enough to have her offspring marry into royalty.
-
(Also, while the “Democratic bill supported by Obama” polls poorly after nearly a year of GOP lies and demagoguery, the individual aspects of the bill poll quite well. This isn’t Sen. Ross voting to acquit Pres. Johnson, in any respect).

Mark me down as one who wishes that these folks would for once care about something more than their careers. If you oppose the bill, that is one thing. But if you believe in the bill, but will oppose it on a guess, a mere guess that you may not be re-elected, you might as well retire anyways.
.
If you believe that millions of people will get access to coverage, people with pre-existing conditions will not be medically bankrupted, and you push that aside in your head thinking about the campaign strategy for November, I don’t want you in congress anyways.

As long as your company keeps that insurance instead of axing it and forcing you into the “government pool”. You can keep it but your premiums won’t be subsidized and a Government Committee will decide what services and offering s the insurance company can do.

But there is no government intereference

KT:

Answer me this. If, as the left here has been droning on about, the American people want this, and it is deficit neutral and premiums go down, why are Democrats afraid to vote for it?

I will save you the stock answer that the right and its media cohorts are lying about it. Obama, the WH, Demo Congress, left wing special interest groups all promoted by the MSM (Here included) are out in full force about how this legislation is mom and apple pie.

The true answer may be that the 3 assumptions in my first paragraph are wrong and the left has been found out.

How would term-limits impact this kind of thing? Imagine, for a second, that you could serve, at most, two terms in either chamber. During your first term, sure, you might be put in a cynical position like this. But during your second term, when you know you’re done, anyway, could one expect that a large number of elected officials would vote for what’s right, rather than what’s politically expedient?
‘
Of course, you still have the cushy lobbyist job afterward to consider, but not all congresspeople go on to such jobs.

freeper, your assertion that the MSM is “left-leaning” is wrong. Witness the lack of serious questioning of Bush’s WMD claims – at least until some years after the fact. The MSM were considered “message force multipliers” by the WH up until about 2006. It’s hard to imagine that you could consider that “left-leaning”. Last year’s “tire swinging” at McCain’s retreat – remember that? Yeah, those left-leaning MSM members just hated that little shin-dig.

Freeper, a counter-question for you – Why are you and the repugs in general afraid that the HCR bill will pass and become law, when you keep crowing about how the repugs are going to win in November and have super duper majority to repeal the said HCR bill?
.
I mean it is a contradiction – You cannot resist the dems passing the bill and then go on to claim that the same bill is gonna be dem’s waterloo in November.

freeinpa,
If you were from one of the Southern States and voted for civil rights legislation until the late 1960s, you were signing your political death warrant.
Your logic has been that if voting for something would cause you to loose, it must be bad legislation.
I would guess that you are not a neanderthal who would oppose modern civil rights and, therefore, can see why your logic fails.

What is being said is that, if a Democrat votes for health care, then they will win the general election because health care is good.

Voting for an important bill but failing bill would tell voters that you and your party can’t get s@t done.

Americans are sick of getting promises and, if it their congressperson’s fault or not, they kick out people who vote for losing bills.

Since Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) first brought up national healthcare to mimic successful German national healthcare academics have researched this and found again and again evidence from abroad that it works.

(Another random thing academics worked on which is, arguably,a conservative measure is the “congestion charge” for traffic which Democrats in New York fought against and won. Academics do not always support liberal ideas.)

freeinpa,
You are a fountain of misinformation.

If the public option is included and is MORE EFFICIENT than the other insurers by offering BETTER services for the same money or offering the same services for LESS money your company may use the public option and the FREE MARKET may motivate companies to pick that public option.

If not, you have CORPORATE GIANTS with CEOs making SIXTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR sitting in a room DECIDING THINGS FOR YOU.

Of course if the government option does things you do not like you can call your congressman or senator to complain and try to get it changed.
If you have CORPORATE GIANTS with CEOs making SIXTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR sitting in a room DECIDING THINGS FOR YOU and you do not like what they do to you, as Republican Dick Cheney says, you can go f@k yourself.

ooooh scary government. Please give me a CEO telling me to go F myself.

So this bears absolutely NO RELATION to the choice facing endangered Democrats.

Please elaborate for us non-Games Theoreticians…

Our local Rep, Mike Rogers, R-MI(8), has made a name for himself this past year, taking credit for Stimulus Projects and *earmarks* that he voted against.
.
The local rag routinely gives props to him for “bringing home the bacon” (that he voted against…).
.
::facepalm::

I can’t believe how gullible some of you are.. you believe everything that comes out of the mouth of the chosen one don’t you? Which I find even funnier since he’s out and out lies.. YOU will NOT be keeping your own insurance.. YOUR premums will NOT be going down fact is they for everyone including the government will be going up as IT’S the hospitals who are causing the lions share of the increases in insurance cause their investors want MORE money.. their CEO’S make a HUGE salary..and even funnier is you can complain to your senator if you don’t like government health care? ROTFLMAO.. they are being told by well over 1/2 the LEGAL populace they don’t want the bill and as many senators are saying “shut up and sit down you don’t know what’s good for you”.. get real.. and you haven’t even mentioned the TAX INCREASES that the WORKING class will have put on them to pay for those who are going to get tax credits to go with their earned income tax credit..Time for all citizens who already pay taxes to keep only one check income and start a cash business as their other income..lets see how long it will be before the people who gets credits get cut off..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

This is my source of information.
I looked it up after seeing the film A Beautiful Mind about it’s creator.

Strangely enough, as it is presented, it is not mathematical. It is strategic.

I do feel that, regardless of your political leanings, everyone loses in a system where getting re-elected becomes a greater concern than solving a national crisis. And this is a crisis – doing nothing at all is not an option, not even for the “start over” Republicans.
.
I cannot quite understand if this is democracy gone awry, or a mortal flaw of democracy itself.

Nearly all hospitals, like Universities and churches, are non-profit organizations, so, I don’t know who these “investors” are.
Unless you can tell me where your source of this information is, I am going to take a guess that it is from an anti-healthcare website or publication paid for by Insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies, the John Birch Society or recently released from your own colon.

Please clarify.

You sounded like a very reasonable man to start with and had experiences I could identify with.

“the chosen one” is usually a reference to Jesus Christ if I am not mistaken.

I didn’t hear about Jesus Christ getting involved in the 2010 healthcare debate.

I know that he was credited with saying “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers is what you do unto me”.
So, this guy sounds like a left wing liberal Democrat – far more liberal than I am. You want to give EVERYTHING to God, right?
That means you give away everything.
Democrats are only talking about a top tax bracket of 40% not 100%.
Jesus might have been too left wing to be Democrat.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
Winston Churchill
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it_has_been_said_that_democracy_is_the_worst_form/15815.html

It is an inevitable by-product of a Republic, of watered-down (representative) democracy, where the lofty ideal of giving voice to the people, albeit through proxy, is inextricably tied to an essential characteristic of human nature, self-preservation, in this case, careerist/status self-preservation.

Reading lcky9 reminds me that, soon, we should include universal mental health care, too, just in case somebody low on cash is dangerously insane.

Rahm sure thinks we are. His main constitiuency appears to be Lindsay Graham.

Kbang –
Your local Rep is Mike Rogers? Bummer. That guy is a complete tool. A friend of mine knows him somewhat (and likes him) while I keep hoping that he’ll be voted out. It’s not exactly a progressive district though.

Do the right thing. How hard is that? If it means your political career is kaput, then it wasn’t worth much, anyway, was it?

Mr. Nice Guy
March 4, 2010
at 5:21 pm

Um, those are rhetorical questions, right?

Karen Tumulty
March 4, 2010
at 5:26 pm

KT, isn’ t your profession’s cynical reaction to voters’ plaintive concerns a part of the problem?

As for the flaws of our failing democracy, being inherent or evolved–I lean towards the latter. Corporate money is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it is the root problem as well. Term limits and talk of 3rd parties (both of which I strongly advocate, as well as Australia’s compulsory voting) are roundabout ways to compensate for this central rot. But if you don’t take the money out of politics I’m afraid there is no cure for our republic.

And expecting the parasites profiting from predation to police their own playground–now you’re making me laugh!

Livingston County? Progressive? Not so much…
.

Excerpt from my state senator’s blog. Boy I wish he were in Washington.
.

So Democrats need to STOP LETTING the GOP FRAME EVERY ISSUE! Fight back! Often that involves saying stuff, although sometimes even employing what we used to call the “hairy eyeball” would be an improvement. There is nothing dishonest, or unusual about using reconciliation to slightly tweak an already extant law. Nobody is ramming anything down anybody’s throat (good God).

Finally, on a related but side note, I do want to thank Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell. He keeps telling us if the Democrats use reconciliation, they will really get killed at the polls this November. Hey, you’ve got to admit, Mitch has our back. And he doesn’t have to do that. He could say desperate and misleading things to scare wavering Democrats into not accomplishing anything this year. But he’s a better man than that, and I just wanted to give him his props.

.
http://www.daylinsights.com/2010/03/truth-about-reconciliation.html

I’m not gonna wade too deep into this one. I before and got nothing but insults for my trouble.

An interesting note on the topic of taxes and tax increases though. The IRS released a report on taxes just today and they say that 10% of Americans pay 70% of all the money taken in by the federal income tax, while 50% of Americans pay nothing or virtually nothing.

Can anyone say “top heavy”? How fair is that? Not to mention that’s a pretty small basket to be putting 70% of your eggs in.

patrick s said “I would guess that you are not a neanderthal who would oppose modern civil rights…” No and about that you would be wrong!

Term limits are the cover story for lazy citizens. Two terms in the house are barely enough time to find the restrooms. Seniority and institutional memory are actually an asset, unless the member has lost sight of the mission. When that happens, every two years, the voters can limit the terms. But will they care enough to do the research and demand the very best?

I’d like to see that in comparison to the distribution of income.

Half of all Americans make less than $38,000 per year including people with children. How unfair is that. Is it a bad thing that we do not try to get blood out of that stone?

In the 2004 campaign Kerry was bringing up the idea of dropping social security taxes on the bottom 20% or so of working Americans because paying only social security tax had them below the poverty line.

You are totally off topic.

Good night all!

towandavt,
I don’t know why I am awake and going through this, but, if you do not rephrase that, it would appear as if you are saying that you believe that it would be okay if President Obama were denied the right to sit at the counter in a restaurant.

I said that IF casting a particular vote might cost a candidate their reelection was EVIDENCE that it was the wrong way to cast your vote, then it would follow that the person who made that statement would have had to deduce the same thing about civil rights legislation since casting a vote for civil rights would have cost a Southern member of congress their jobs prior to the late 1960s.

The source I have of that information was reading about Lyndon Johnson. He voted again and again AGAINST civil rights until he became presidents and then started proposing more and more FOR civil rights.
Asked why, he apparently said “As your man said, Free at last! Fee at last…”
He was free to vote his heart since he was no longer campaigning exclusively in Texas.

Please, both of you provide links and quotes to support your claims, otherwise your assertions are worthless to news users.

patricksartor:

I fail to see how it’s not relevant. Taxes will go up on pretty much everyone due to increased spending. You can’t spend money and not pay for it eventually. Hidden taxes affect everyone, including the middle and lower classes. I don’t trust the stats from either party, by it’s generally agreed that the uninsured add somewhere around $1100 to the average insured American’s premiums and taxes every year, but placing those people on the government dole doesn’t remove that cost it simply shifts it.

According to The Washington Post (Oct. 22, 2009) the number percentage of Americans who attended college was 36% of enrolled high school students with only 57% of those earning a degree. Meanwhile according to CNN; in 2007, 16% of people 16-24 years old dropped out of high school. This is unacceptable, and it if people don’t bother to finish high school, the cost of paying for them should not fall to those that took the time and effort to graduate or graduate and go to college.

Why should those that decided to fork out money, take loans and then pay them off in full, with interest to get a better, higher education be forced to pay for people that were too lazy, inept or foolish to do the same? There is no excuse for not graduating from High School. Some people may have a valid reason for not attending college, but when almost 1/7th of people don’t graduate high school and choose to throw away their life, that’s their decision and they should have to live with it, not expect people who did the right thing, and wracked up debt to do it, to pay the price for the foolhardiness of others.

The argument that college can’t be afforded is an untruth. There are government loan programs that cover just about anyone who has a high school diploma for a four year state program, not to mention the state loans available, community colleges that cost next to nothing etc. Similarly, high school is free, yet 16% of people drop out.

I have no problem with helping out people who are down on their luck in the short term. However, massive entitlement programs breed laziness and when they inevitably run out of money people who never learned to take care of themselves are screwed.

I for one save as much money as I can. Why? Because when I look at the long term projections for Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security unless something drastic is done (which neither party has the cojones to actually do) they will all be broke by the time I am ready to retire. Do I complain I still have to pay the taxes on them? No. But I don’t expect them to help me out with even a dime when I am ready to retire. Plan your own life, be shrewd and save what you can, because the government won’t be there to help you out in 30 or 40 years, and I would argue it’s not their job to do so in the first place.

The time has come for politicians to admit to certain people (i.e. most of us) that some of the taxes they pay which they are supposed to get back later won’t be there when they’re supposed to be. They were robbed by a system of incompetents, and further expanding that system is, in my opinion, one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

“…when I look at the long term projections for Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security unless something drastic is done (which neither party has the cojones to actually do) they will all be broke by the time I am ready to retire.”
.
Yeah well, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are all completely different animals so you just shoot your own credibility to hell when you make blanket assertions about all three. For instance, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program which we have been front-loading for some time and which would, under present tax and benefit structures fail to pay out full, promised benefits at some time in the future. It can never “be broke”. And if you really care about the survival of Medicare and Medicaid (and the country), you should be fighting tooth-and-nail for the social-democracy government-run model employed by the rest of the industrialized world that enjoys better health at half the cost.

On the other hand, who benefits from a “career” as a politician? We the People? Hardly.
‘
Ok, maybe four years isn’t long enough, but at some point, you must agree, they’ve gone past their “expiration date”?

So have we become an apologists for those who are weak?
.
There comes a time and place where Politics must be out aside. I understand it but,. not in this case.
.
Look at what is happening to Blanche Lincoln.

@stuartzechman

What the Poverty Line is in America: (Census Bureau)

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

Number of people who are below the poverty line: (Census Bureau)

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

Federal Income Tax Brackets (The Tax Foundation)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Summary of latest income tax (The Tax Foundation)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

I wasn’t able to understand how Federal taxes interrelate to State Taxes (apologies) so I left them out.

Hope that helps with your comment relating to sasquatch08 & shepherdwong’s discussions!

sasquatch08
“The argument that college can’t be afforded is an untruth. There are government loan programs that cover just about anyone who has a high school diploma for a four year state program…”

Don’t even go there with me.
I am one of those who has spent his entire adult life trying to finance and/or attend college including sixty hour workweeks, signing up for scholarship fund weekly emails… I could write a long novel of my experiences and even started out with family funding.
I was, incorrectly medically disqualified to join the Army where there was a significant chance I would have been in a war in Iraq I am firmly morally opposed to and that was the very last chance I had where any Federal government agency could have paid for my education. Getting rejected on the grounds of having been out of college without graduating kept me out of joining a police department (which shocked me, too) and that was the last job I had ever seen which offered to pay part of the tuition money.
I do not want to hear about it since the job I am in now is very likely to pay my tuition through my commission.

High school dropouts are another story and one I can not identify with.
I can tell you that in 1910 only 2.7% of Americans finished college. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/92404.html
So, whatever is going on regarding people deciding to attempt to go on to college is going the right direction. European countries, even the poorest such as Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Turkey all have education which has only nominal fees in addition to student loans or is totally free. In those countries I can accept your argument, but not in the United States having been through this for many years myself.

However, conservatives like you have been blocking even health care, a much easier argument than having the government pay or create large enough student loans for college students.

Next, you are being a total theoretician about this. If there is a, say, forty eight year old man who dropped out of high school when college was much cheaper, but, now has a wife, three children in high school and needs health care but can not afford it, unless conservatives invent a time machine, your argument is useless.
Other, totally unrelated things like 100% student loans and subsidies for four year college degrees could prevent this from happening to future generations, but, I doubt that this will make it through in such a fiscally conservative country.

Now that, in many cases due to lack of education, we have people unable to earn enough for their own healthcare why should we pay?

Totally uninsured people go into emergency rooms where they can not be refused care if they are obviously ill. So, even though they do not have an emergency situation, they will be taken care of. However, this happens deep into the illness costing more in money to treat than if they had regular health care, more lost work time to themselves and their employers, more suffering for the ill person (not totally quantifiable) and, during that gap between feeling mildly ill and showing up in the emergency room they are incubating that virus or bacteria untreated and contaminating YOU and other insured people. So, in a very inefficient way, you can say that we already do have universal healthcare, but far more costly.

So, with medicare and medicaid it is a zero sum game for universal healthcare. For hospitals not having waiting rooms filled with uninsured people in their emergency room, there will be terrific gains.
Also there will be terrific gains in workplace productivity among the ill working poor.

So, overall, when your hospital only bills your insurance for the services you have used, it will cost much less.

Unless you have that time machine and tens of millions of dollars of loans and grants I have not found in my many, many, many years seeking them, your argument about blaming the poor for being poor is useless.

Of course, do not forget, being a humanitarian (some prefer the term Christian values as if all kindness and sense of community was invented by a particular group of religions) society, one does not want to see the ill remain ill if it is pragmatically possible to see otherwise.

sasquatch08
If your proposal was to pay for every uninsured person who has not finished college to, instead, attend college with tuition up to $50,000 per year and, for those who have started families, also, provide lost wages of about another $25,000 to them instead of paying for healthcare, then you argument would be legitimate.
However, it would be extremely remarkably expensive.

Let me frame the argument you are ignoring in a better light: we need to change the universal healthcare we have from forty six million Americans getting expensive care through hospital emergency rooms getting treatments for illnesses which could have been much milder and less contagious with standard healthcare overall spending on healthcare plus the hidden costs of sick workers under producing and insured people getting ill from the uninsured would be cheaper than what we have dramatically.

Also, while saving money overall, there would be far more dignity for a person for themselves or for their children to simply walk into a doctor’s office than to wait until they themselves or their child are so debilitatingly ill that they are in an emergency room filling out forms for free care.

So, more dignity for less money.

Within this, some systems will be cheaper than others, but nothing proposed should be more expensive than what we have: no central organization.

The only analogy this makes sense with is; “there are crooks and liars in both senarios”. Meaning, those who get caught robbing banks, and our Representatives in Congress are under similar situations. The names may change, but the players remain the same.
.
Big deals, special considerations, and corrupt bribes make up the basis of securing enough votes to pass this bill.
.
Amusing Ms Tumulty, but far from reality. More lke a simple jab at justifying the case for more corruption in an already corrupt Democratic controlled government.
.
Because the deal making, bribes and corruption was exposed on the nightly news, the people who are the judge have decided. The polls have not turned around. The polls have become more negative on this bill despite the multitude of tries Barack has attempted to use his bully-pulpit to persuade otherwise.
.
Despite the lame stream medias attempt at making out the people as stupid and ill-informed, the people at least on this one are very much involved. I predict the people no matter what the outcome will vote out most all Democrats in November. Incumbent beside your name this year will not mean an easy ride to victory.
.
The people are angy. And, when the people are angy heads will roll.
.
See the truth at: http://www.newfreedomblog.com

Here in New York State our governor is being investigated and may possibly be removed by fellow Democrats for accepting Yankee tickets and Bronx Congressman Charlie Rangel is on the verge of stepping down due to tax evasion being pursued by fellow Democrats.
So, Newfreedombra, if you know something about bribery and corruption, I have a relative who works for the Departments of Justice and, if you can find no other way, please pass on to me your inside knowledge of bribery and I will gladly pass it on to her to bring to her superiors for prosecution.
If you don’t know anything about bribery of our public officials and just invented it, please find someplace else to spew out right wing propaganda.

Forget me, some dude working from his living room, if you want to find out higher education becoming inacessable to most people, read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/education/05protests.html

sasquatch08,
Keep in mind that I do believe that you do believe in what you say, but, I believe you are misinformed about a few things.

tkoa, thanx for that.
Easy access to some info is priceless, although some are still confused by the ability to find facts.
Of course, your offering here was a double edged sword for me.
Last year I netted $385 for the year.
So, I guess I’m what? Below the poverty line?
Just a bit?
Dang!
I’m poor.
Well then how come I’m smiling?
Cause my girlfriend in Florida loves me.
I’m still drawing air.
Paint a new picture everyday.
And look to find the positive side of life and announce it to the whole danged world, no matter how grumpy they get!

This is not the Prisoner’s Dilemma (because I should also tell the police in a one shot game, but play tit-for-tat in an infinite repeated game (see Axelrod’s tournament) ), but rather it is best explained by the Lighthouse story. Imagine a fishing community by a rocky shore. They all want to build a lighthouse to keep the boats safe. The lighthouse will cost $15, and there are 25 fishermen. So if each pays $1 they get the lighthouse. Now, if I pay the money and the lighthouse is not built I lose a dollar (imagine a nasty builder). If I pay the dollar and get the lighthouse I benefit from the lighthouse but I still have lost a dollar. If I don’t pay the dollar, but 15 others do, I also get to benefit from the lighthouse. Should I pay the dollar? Well only if 14, and only 14 others, pay a dollar. Otherwise I waste a dollar, either by paying and not getting the lighthouse, or by paying and the community collect more that $15. The real problem is that if I don’t know what the others are doing should I gamble and pay the money. I have played this game in about 10 classes, and the lighthouse has NEVER been built.

KT,
I think MFBattle has it right!

Karen,

Love you trying on economics for size, but a more apt analogy is actually Volunteer’s Dilemma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer's_dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer's_dilemma

When strategists compete in the prisoner’s dilemma (at least in the competitions I have heard of), it is scored. Generally this way:
Both Talk: 1
Both Silent: 3
Split: 5 points to the one who talks, 0 to the one who doesn’t.

Which is more like Karen’s new phrasing than the old one.

The winning strategy moves around a bit, depending on the other strategies, but last time I checked tended towards two tits for tat. You always start silent, and don’t start talking until someone has betrayed you twice in a row.

This is surprising, since on a one game level, talking is always the better choice for an individual. One of the reasons for the exercise is to explain why despite this, in the real world people often (usually?) stay silent. One theory is that it is more advantageous for both people in total to stay silent, and evolution has led to a tendency towards this.

This situation doesn’t fit the dilemma perfectly, but it could somewhat in the case where there are two possible 218th votes. In which case voting for it is like staying silent. If that’s really the parallel then it is interesting to note that accused criminals might behave more morally than elected representatives.

When I recheck after having written this, I see that mfbattle has a game which fits the situation much better, and which I now very much want to ponder since I hadn’t seen that one before.

Grrr, and I managed to delete the part explaining the tournament when I rephrased.
.
Each participant defines their strategy. Each strategy then is simulated against each of the others hundreds or thousands of times. You don’t win by beating your opponents, you win by having the highest total score. This is why “tit for tat” loses to “always rat” slightly head to head, but creams it overall. E.G. “tit for tat” scores well against itself, and “always rat” does poorly against itself.

You don’t need to tell me about the rising cost of higher education, I watched my college tuition go from ~$39,000 per year to ~$48,000 is the four years I attended. I agree that there is something wrong with that, the cost is skyrocketing much faster than is reasonable even when inflation is factored in. I have been looking for the past seven years for information on why this is happening and have never found any sort of reasonable explanation for it which leads me to believe that my private university was gouging me, even though I can’t prove that allegation.

However there are alternatives. Perhaps like many of my friends; two years of community college perhaps for like $2000 a year? Then transfer to a private or large pubic college using the good grades they got at a community college to get loans that cover 95-100% of their tuition and room and board? There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s using the tools available to make the best of bad situation. However, patrick, you certainly do have a valid point that university enrollment has increased dramatically in the last 100 years, and that is a very, very good thing, but the numbers still need to go up. States have screwed people with their public education. States like Michigan which for years assumed that all you needed was a high school diploma and you would get a job building cars. That model eventually fell apart and the State is scrambling to retrofit their educational system. They are way behind and I have no reason to believe that the federal government wouldn’t be further behind simply because it is much larger and therefore has more paper pushers to satisfy before anything substantive can be done.

I will never fight for a social-democratic system, a universal health care program or any other massive entitlement program for two reasons.

1) I don’t want government telling me what I can and can’t do in yet another facet of my life. I don’t trust either party and every time the government tells me something I think of Pink Floyd “Mother, should I trust the government?”. Generally the answer I come to is “HELL NO! They’re all liars and cheats”. Every time the government finds some money through saving or taxes they spend it on pet projects and other BS like it’s burning a hole in their pocket. A perfect example is the CBO’s report today, since everyone wants that to be the referee, that Obama’s 2011 budget underestimates the budget deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars. That means that the real budget deficit next fiscal year is closer to $2.7 trillion, that’s government at work for you. It’s also unaffordable.

2) I don’t believe that it’s the governments job to take care of people. Health care is not a “right”, nor is an education. They are both privileges, and privileges are things you have to EARN. What ever happened to the idea of hard work and getting things “by the sweat of your brow” in this country? Why do people feel that it’s the governments responsibility to provide them with everything? Government in this country exists to make sure that everyone has the ability to do what they want with as little interference as possible not to coddle people. I would point you to a non-partisan paper on this topic called “Why doesn’t the U.S. have a European-style welfare state?” by Alesina, Glaeser and Sacerdote. They point out that in European countries the discrepancy between upper class and poor is not as large as in the U.S., but that the middle class in Europe has much less chance of moving up (even up to “upper-middle class”) and a larger chance of moving down to being poor. You can find the paper in “Essential Readings in Comparative Politics” by Patrick O’Neil and Ronald Rogowski. In the same book I would also note another section worth reading in the same book, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith. In particular the first section under “Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of such Goods as can be Produced at Home”.

Whatever happened to “personal responsibility”? The government isn’t supposed to be granting us rights, rights are things that they aren’t allowed to control, like your freedom to say what you want when and where you want provided it’s not seditious or yelling “Fire!” in a public building when it’s not true. If the government grants you rights in can just as easily take them away and historically speaking eventually they probably will. The whole idea of the way our government is set up is to avoid both the “tyranny of the majority” (hence the requirement of 60 votes in the Senate, which actually used to be 67) and the “tyranny of the minority”.

This whole idea of government giving things away is expensive, prone to mismanagement and historically shown to generally not work well, get worse over time and become massively expensive over time as well. This whole thing is a slippery slope to being like Venezuela. If you think that system works so well and that the Constitution is a bunch of bunk, then move to Venezuela.

I don’t trust any of this “Progressive” stuff (nor to I trust the Conservatives either both sides want to tell you how to live your life). Hillary Clinton made the scariest statement I have ever heard when she was running against Obama and said she was a classic early 1900′s Progressive. Does she know what those people stood for?

Screaming that George Bernard Shaw was a hero is truly terrifying because you either don’t know what those people stood for yet still follow them or you do and you still run with it. Shaw and his contemporaries publicly asked scientists to come up with a quick and humane poison gas for the purpose of “liquidating” people who didn’t agree or stood in the way of Progressive political views. That’s right, they wanted to go along the road that Hitler (as a Fascist mind you, not a Progressive) took a few years later: round up and execute political rivals and anyone else who has the cojones to question your politics or programs.

They also supported the ideas of basically concentration camps they called “reeducation camps”, to brainwash people to their way of thinking and kill them if that couldn’t be accomplished.

That’s the REAL root of American Progressive ideology which actually is an offshoot of Marxism, just no one wants to talk about it. If politicians really believe in communist or socialist ideals then they should say so, not hide behind a snow job of words and terms. Just as on the other side, facists and religious totalitarian supporters should just admit what they are rather than hiding behind code words like “Ultra-Right” or “Christian Conservative”.

I made no reference to George Bernard Shaw. I know that his play later became the musical My Fair Lady.

Singling and dancing English people I do not object to.

I was very familiar with the theories espoused by George Bernard Shaw. They were vehemently anti-Fascist.

My favorite English Social Democrat was Eric Blair, better known by taking the English patron saint’s name and the name of a river calling himself George Orwell. He might have been the best anti-totalitarian fiction writer of all time.

So, unless you are a part of the distorted school of thinking of Ayn Rand, I do not know where you get that information from about social democrats being anything other than the ULTIMATE enemies of the Nazis.
Hitler sent Social Democrats into concentration camps before he sent Jews.
CONSERVATIVES were the group Hitler left behind.

You, apparently, subscribe to the general concepts of a man who began wealthy, became president and had squandered his money over the years with his mismanagement: Thomas Jefferson.
Surely Jefferson was right about many things, but, he was terrible with money.
His arch rival, Alexander Hamilton began as a pauper and moved his way up to great wealth.

If we have a “slippery slope” we will NEVER be like Venezuela since they have had military dictatorships, poverty and corruption for as many generations as we have had peaceful debates and conflicts not worse than debates.
We might become more like England, Ireland, Norway, France, Germany… other developed countries where the government provides more.

“Health care is a privilege”
“We hold these truths to be self evident… LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

Health care is about postponing DEATH.

Pizza is privilege.

“Personal Responsibility” is a reasonable term used unreasonably by conservatives.
If one were not attending classes, not paying attention, getting drunk at night and fails college, that is about personal responsibility.

If one can not get hired for a job which will pay enough for college and has no assistance from family, that is not about personal responsibility at all more than walking on the sidewalk and being run over by a truck is the pedestrian;s personal responsibilty.

Economists have a concept called Externalities. If your dog poops on my sidewalk, I have to step over or, accidentally in it. If your factory belches out smoke, I get stuck breathing it – as is the case with global warming. If you become an engineer and I own an engineering firm, your education benefits me.

Subsidizing medicine for the poor is a moral necessity. The benefits bounce back to the rest of society, so, it is, also, good macro ecomics.
Taxing or prohibiting of pollution is economically sound and ecologically necessary.
With the demand for highly skilled labor growing at a breakneck pace and the barrier to entry being DOUBLE the average wage for a non-college graduate, subsidizing higher education itself is good economics since only about 40% of the societal benefits of higher education go to the graduate while an additional 60% goes into gross national product.

Personally, I have an idea of my own.

I believe that there should be a futures market, like they have for pork bellies on the Chicago exchange for a set percentage of the wages of anybody who makes the agreement to of their wages after college and, to break even on the externality a 60% tax credit for any investor who buys in.

This way, by college, major and the percentage of future earnings the student is willing to offer (which must be a sound and reasonable number) the market will determine how much each college would get.

Bye bye high tuition for theater majors,art majors, theology and other low payback majors and bye bye mediocre colleges who have low academic standards unless they, also, have very, very low tuition.

If you want to be reasonable, acknowledge that nearly all of the the anti-fascist resistance during World War II was SOCIAL DEMOCRATS and that it was even the official party platform of the AMERICAN REPUBLICAN PARTY to stay neutral during World War II prior to Pearl Harbor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

Because of human rights issues, socialists and totalitarian communists were arch enemies in the Wiemar Republic.
This division helped an alliance between CONSERVATIVES and the Nazi party in it’s 1932 government.

Regarding the American Democratic Presidents, they have all been very ANTI-communist.

Korean War – Democrat Harry Truman.
ended by Republican Dwight Eisenhower as a stalemate.

Vietnam started by Democrat JFK.
Ended by Republican Richard Nixon as a loss.

Opening of China – Republican Richard Nixon.

Clearly Vietnam was a mistake and we could not have gone further than we did in Korea as the opening of China had boxed in the Soviet Union diplomatically, but, those were not Democrats.

So, if you want to debate, remember that, for both the Nazis and the communists, Republicans presidents have had a softer stand than Democrats.

I have never heard of GB Shaw proposing death camps.

I once read a book written by the John Birch Society somebody gave me which claimed that, but, it, also, claimed that the Soviet Union had invented a machine to control weather and was playing tricks on us.

I do not trust that source.

sorry patrick, that was a bad attempt at sarcasm, that understandably could be subject to misinterpretation and clearly missed the mark.

Social Democrats are against anything that isn’t social democracy, so that isn’t much of an argument.

During the 30′s the Nazi’s, Communists and Socialists all had camps to indoctrinate U.S. children. Each reached out to the parties. The Nazi’s found some support in the Republican and Democratic parties while Communists and Socialists found it almost exclusively in the Democratic parties. Claims that Communists were treated more softly by Republicans than Democrats are incorrect, that’s revisionist history. Look at the pamphlets from the 30′s through the 60′s that say “Vote Communist! Vote Democrat!” in the north like Rhode Island while targeting Republicans out west. This varied widely from state to state and was based on who lived there at the time. Also keep in mind that they cloaked this in “Americanism” just like the Nazi party did during its massive demonstrations at places like Madison Square Garden.

Also keep in mind that Democrats and Republicans virtually switched positions on every issue during the civil rights movement. It was the Southern Democrats that hated blacks and wanted to keep segregation. The Communists and the Socialists targeted their message to the party based on the geographic region they were in and whom they thought it would resonate.

Both parties wanted to stay out of WWII until the attack on Pearl Harbor, so also not much of an argument. If you want the whole history on it (which will bore you until your eyes bleed btw) try The American Heritage History of World War II, or The American Heritage Pictorial History of World War II. (Both books are excessively large so I don’t recommend trying to carry them around with you!) The whole country held feelings that we should stay out of another European war after our losses in WWI.

If you want to know where Progressives stood on death/reeducation camps and gas chambers I suggest “Back to Methuselah” by George Bernard Shaw.

Give me a minute to restart, my keyboard is acting up once again, and I will give you a few links to videos of Mr. Shaw actually talking about this.

Sorry about that, this computer spends a few days of uptime and it goes off somewhere, it’s very strange but that’s Windoze for you.

Defending Mussolini:

Attacks the Constitution and suggests we abolish it (the rest is pretty pointless pandering to people who like his plays etc).

Advocating the killing of people who disagree with him (British documentary, subtitled in what I think is German, but I am not sure, it’s not one of the languages I speak or in this case read): the voice over is a bit over done but it actually correct and what it says is documented (like it or not!):

Still think he’s a great guy who modern politicians should model themselves on?

Oh, and again, patricksartor thanks for keeping it civil thanks be that we can disagree without name calling like children.

“there should be a special font for sarcasm”
(anonymous person in hilarious email spread through an office I recently worked).

Social Democrats:
Gerhard Fritz Kurt Schröder, Germany
27 October 1998 – 22 November 2005

Willy Brandt PM Germany
21 October 1969 – 7 May 1974
Also part of the German resistance against Hitler during World WarII

José María Aznar PM Spain
4 May 1996 – 17 April 2004

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown PMs of England.

“Labourist” and “social democrat” are interchangeable in England.

These are social democrats.
When did they advocate killing people?

The German-American Bund, an American Nazi group prior to World War II had support of a small, small number of people. In the North and West, many were Republicans. In the South they were Democrats who, also, belonged to the KKK.
The KKK has always called itself anti-liberal, even if between reconstruction and the end of the civil rights movement it was within the Democratic Party.

Every US president who had a war against communism was a Democrat.
Hence, Democrats do not like communism or Marxism and never had.
Republicans were the ones who made peace with them three times as president.

If a Republican calls a Democrat a communist, that is not the same thing as being a communist.
I could, as you pointed out, call you names, but that would not mean that it is true.

If George Bernard Shaw wore shoes and you wear shoes, does that mean you are exactly like George Bernard Shaw?

The American Communist Party, The Roman Catholic Church, Black Baptists and Albert Einstein all supported civil rights, does that mean that they have anything in common outside of that fact?

They don’t.

Shaw, I did not know, had become an admirer of Stalin who was NOT a social Democrat as, Gordon Brown is.

So, if he started out as a Social Democrat/Labourist and gained some horrible ideas, it does not follow that Gordon Brown is going to open up gas chambers.

I never said that ALL Social Democrats advocate killing people. Also the Labour movement is Britain has significant differences with Social Democrats in other European countries. They may be similar but they are not interchangeable. Labour is just the closest mainstream party that Britain has to Social Democrats. When I lived “in the Empire” there were massive and very mean spirited political debates between Labour and Social Democrats in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Britain. There is a Social Democratic Party in Britain, but no one pays attention to them, just like the Green Party here in the U.S..

I merely mean that there is a nasty tendency historically within political movements such as Socialism or Communism to kill people who disagree with the political ends and means. Nor am I suggesting in anyway that Obama wants to commit or supports these sort of acts (although Pelosi might). I am just pointing out that people who claim to be “early 1900′s Progressives” either have no idea what that group of people stood for or they don’t care. Claiming that you are “that type” of Progressive is advocating mass murder for political means whether the person claiming it knows it or not. Failure to know it is reprehensible, but knowing it and still saying that is completely insane.

Just because you can name three Social Democrats who were reasonable (in countries other than Great Britain) means nothing. There is still an inextricable link between the Ultra-Left/Ultra-Right and mass murder, and there’s well over 100 million people from the 20th century who would love to talk to you about it, but they can’t because they were murdered by their government in the name of “progress”. Most of whom who were murdered in the 20th century by the Ultra-Left.

I am not aware that this idea has ever been alive and well with Constitutionalists. If I am wrong please point me to the mass murder of American citizens that occurred on behalf of people who believed in the Constitution.

Personally I think Obama has found himself totally hijacked by Ultra-Leftists like Reed and Pelosi who saw fit to use his general statements during the campaign as a way to throw him over a barrel after he was elected.

Are you really going to tell me that people who believe that they have the “ultimate truth” on either side of the political spectrum are NOT dangerous?

“So, if he started out as a Social Democrat/Labourist and gained some horrible ideas, it does not follow that Gordon Brown is going to open up gas chambers.”

You are warping my words. I never suggested that Gordon Brown or anyone else was going to open up gas chambers only that those who identify as certain TYPES of Progressive are dangerous based on their beliefs or lack of knowledge of what they really support.

Shaw was never a Social Democrat, though he did attempt to co-opt them. The point is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these political groups grew out of Marxism, which advocated mass murder for political advantage and hence many (not all but many) of the outgrowths did too. Shaw was a self identified PROGRESSIVE. I am not scared of modern Progressives, only those that say they worship Shaw and identify themselves as “early 1900′s” Progressives, ALL, read this clearly: ALL of whom advocated mass murder of political dissenters.

There are varieties of Progressive, none of whom believe in the Constitution (because they are mutually exclusive by definition). Those that identify with the early 1900′s and late 1800′s Progressives advocate mass murder whether they know it or not. If they don’t they need an education, if they do know it they are soulless idiots who don’t deserve to be listened to.

Also, Stalin didn’t come to power until 1924 and Shaw was a fan of mass murder 10 years before that.

I suggest reading American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America
by Chris Hedges.

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar were all very tied to Christianity and perverted forms of it.

All of them were vehemently anti-communist.

Ties and similarity between the extreme left and extreme right aren’t there.

They have similar tactics, but, when one Russian-American civil libertarian told me (when admitting the comparison had unintended exaggerated implications) that the FBI reminded him of the KGB, that when the Soviets independently invented their own radar evading plane (which, I don’t believe worked very well) it looked very similar to the stealth bomber.

The Gestapo was similar to KGB in far, far, far more ways (since the FBI, basically always, sticks within it’s mandate to be apolitical). The Iranian secret police are, also, very, very similar to the two.

However, there is no evidence that Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Harry Reid or even the Republicans have any intention on limiting or preventing political opposition.
Mass murders are about silencing a perceived political opponent or an ethnicity presumed to be inferior.
Reid, Pelosi and Obama are not from the same ethnic group, either.
So, we can rule out anything vaguely resembling totalitarianism of any kind thus making the term “far left” a slur rather than a reasonable remark since the “far left” are long gone Marxist Socialist Revolutionaries.

So, the issue is that a majority of Americans elected people who wish to use the government to make health care more affordable and accessible to many different people.
Our country, often rightfully so, has drafted people into military service against their will.
Why would this be any imposition at all if the one imposition is on the self employed to either find an insurer or to pay a fine?
Mitt Romney did this in Massachusetts.
Why is this like being put in a gas chamber?

Nobody, as our government has, is drafting you to give up years of your life or your life itself for this country based upon a majority of elected officials determining for us when elected by us that such a draft is reasonable.
Nobody is contemplating any measure to cut your freedom of speach.
How is this an imposition considering that we can not live in a bubble where we do not need one another for at least economic if not social reasons?

Well I am glad to see that we can have a late night and still civil conversation on a Friday night. I feel like many people have this same sort of conversation in a bar and it probably leads to a barfight. (Actually one of the reasons I hate working Fridays, the money is good but putting up with the yelling and fighting gets old really really fast.)

I haven’t read the book but now I will. I don’t deny that Fascism is an Ultra-Right form of government, and it is terrible.

Your read of the mentioned leaders to religion is pretty much correct. Franco and Hitler were complete nuts, Franco being an avowed Fascist and Hitler starting out claiming to be a Socialist and then switching to outright Fascism without and reason given. This leads me to believe that he was always a Fascist and used Socialism as a stepping stone to power and then showed his true stripes once he had it. Though there is argument on this because even as Fascist he supported numerous Socialist inspired social programs.

With Salazar I assume you mean the former leader of Portugal, in which case you are totally correct. Mussolini was also a Fascist who as far as I can tell fancied himself a new “Roman Emperor”.

You are also correct that Fascists were against Communists.

All of these people were Ultra-Right, but that still doesn’t explain the support they got in the Western World (France, Britain, the United States etc.) from the left. As the video I gave you shows that Shaw (while you may not like him, many people on the modern left worship him) loved Mussolini. Why? He never really said. Personally I don’t get it, but it’s still a fact. Why did Communists and Socialists get behind Fascists? I can’t explain it, but it’s an historical fact that they did.

Hence the ties are there, as they are also evident in the tactics. Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler and Franco all murdered their political “enemies”. As did Mao, Stalin, Che etc. And the leftists killed more people! Mao: 70 million, Stalin 20-30 million Russians and 7 million Ukrainians, and Che killed an unknown number of people by starting revolutions throughout Central and South America.

I have never suggested, nor would I ever suggest that the FBI in any way resembles the KGB, Stasi, Gestapo or the SS.

I don’t have evidence of any kinds that Pelosi would like to silence or kill people, that was a gallows humor joke that apparently didn’t go over so well.

I would however give you some serious debate on your last point that the “far left” is a slur because they no longer exist. There are still communists, even self avowed communists. That’s why Van Jones was ousted, for being a self avowed Communist. There are also self avowed Socialists:

Jed Brant said just last year and I quote “…We have to help bring this government down, we have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working class and oppressed people feel. The way that change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we know as the United States of America… When Obama says that there will not be health care for illegal immigrants, and I might add abortion, what he’s saying very clearly is that America always has 10% of it’s population enslaved… I am a Socialist! I demand that we have health care for people and it’s not a demand that’s negotiable with insurance companies! We will take your insurance companies, we will take the farms in this country, we will shut down the military apparatus of this country. And I’m sick of being told to stuff my anger back in my pants.”

He’s saying that Obama is too far to the right? And the Far-Left is an outdated slur?

The Far-Left and Far-Right are both alive and well on the fringes of America.

Also just for full disclosure: I like a fair number of liberal social policies. I just happen to be a fiscal conservative.

I just happen to believe in maximum freedom with minimum government oversight, though it should exist where needed.

Liberal things I like:

Ending the war on drugs, pro-choice, freedom to join unions (given that the unions are reasonable, which they currently aren’t they’re running wild and bankrupting the country and many companies), getting religion out of public life, especially public policy, certain social safety nets, civil liberties, ending the death penalty, certain, but not overly oppressive limits on business taking advantage of people.

Conservative things I like:

Being fiscally conservative, government out of my and everyone elses’ life. Strong national defense (but not at the expense of civil liberties). Leaving business alone (within reason) and not selling America to the highest bidder.

Independent views I like:

Respecting the Constitution regardless if it’s popular or not. Maximum personal freedom as long as it doesn’t intrude on others rights. Telling both parties they are full of it and to shove it because the vast majority of both parties are crooks, liars, cheats and only looking for more power which they aren’t supposed to have.

Sasquatch: I have been reading your comments. If you asked 90% of the progressives about George Bernard Shaw they would have no idea who he was.
Who cares what his political beliefs were? He has no influence today.
Henry Ford was an anti-semite conservative? Does he have political influence today?
As far as unions go, they have limited power today. They only represent 14% of the working population.
The disparity between the rich and middle class has grown expedentially. This is not due to unions. The kleptocracy is destroying our country.
Somewhere in your ongoing statements you made one of your blanket claims that progressive’s don’t respect the Constitution? How so?

Surprisingly I am still up, but having a dog sometimes does that, because it occasionally get sick.

apr2563:

“Somewhere in your ongoing statements you made one of your blanket claims that progressive’s don’t respect the Constitution? How so?”

Because they want to tell you what to do, just like Christian Conservatives. Ultimately there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the government telling you which god to worship and to buy insurance, or submit to government regulation on what procedures you can have and when.

When government starts to tell you what you HAVE to do it’s a slippery slope to telling you when to jump and how high.

In the United States that I was born and grew up in you have the right not to listen to the government. They say don’t smoke, but you can. They say to wear a bicycle helmet when you ride a bicycle but you don’t have to. Not that either one is a bad idea, I can tell you from personal experience that smoking is bad for you. But I wasn’t FORCED to do follow what they said. This is forcing people to do what the government tells them, that goes against the principles of the Constitution, which Obama himself points out is a set of “negative liberties” as in a set of things the government can’t do.

Apparently in Progressive America the right to mind your own business and do your own thing doesn’t exist. In the words of one of the fathers of American Progressives:

“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

Also this is setting up a BS idea that a bunch of things that are not rights are rights. Education, health care etc. Neither of these things is a “right” they are privileges which our society affords us. Venezuela says education is a right and what they mean is “the right to be brainwashed with propaganda the government says you should hear”. Chavez also says that health care is a right, by which he means the right to get the same crappy health care as everyone else except him and his cronies. Do you really believe that the average guy in Venezuela who needs serious heart surgery is going to get it? No, only those that have high ranking government positions are going to get it and the rest will die just like the U.S.S.R..

I hear constantly that there are studies that show we are 37th or 39th in health care and its simply not true. Look at those “studies” they unfairly weight “equality”, and hence we come in behind Columbia. Who is the last person you ever heard of (not to mention met) that went to Columbia for health care from the United States?

We have an expensive medical system partly because it is so good. Could it be cheaper, hell yes it could and there are dozens of ways to make it cheaper which I support wholeheartedly. But if you get shot in the leg or arm here in the U.S. we have surgeons, vascular surgeons, neurosurgeons and a host of other doctors that in many cases can give you back use of that limb to a great degree if not fully. While in many of the countries that supposedly rank higher than us they have a simple solution: amputation. People from those countries that rank higher routinely come here to get medical treatment if they can afford it because it is, in a word, better.

Look at heart attacks. According to JAMA in 1971 a heart attack patient who was rushed to the ER spent (adjusted for inflation) $40,000 less than they do today. The trade off according to JAMA? In 1971 that patient had a 5% chance of survival, today a 94% chance.

Further, government does not give rights, rights are things the government must not impinge upon . When the government starts to give out rights they can just as easily take them away. That’s what this is about, pure and simple.

Terms like “social justice” and “economic justice” are stupid for one and only one reason: they sound great and make you look like an %$^hole for arguing against but they are code words for taking money from hardworking people who deserve what they have and giving it to others. (Just like nutcase safety advocate always say that if you don’t agree you hate children or don’t care about them.) That is not what the United States is about, we are about the idea that everyone starts at the same starting line (which we do have to fix to some extent because some people are born into crappy situations which seriously disadvantage them) and are protected by the government to make sure the race is fair.

Would you really argue that in a 100 meter dash the kid who came in second deserves to be tied for first because he was slower? That’s what this is. “Equitable redistribution” is exactly what the communists in Russia wanted in the Red Revolution.

I for one am not willing to trade equally crappy life for everyone for 69 (USSR) years of bankrupting oppression. If some people are, I would suggest the move to Venezuela or another similar county… shall I suggest maybe the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea so that they might find out how well these programs work when employed on a large scale and how prone to abuse they are?

My ultimate problem with this is I want the least government interference in my life as possible. I don’t trust Democrats or Republicans, or bureaucrats of any stripe. I am smart enough to make it or break it on my own, and that should be no one’s business by mine. After government run health care, banks and the auto industry what comes next? Are they going to be like 1800′s Texas and pass laws saying I can’t wear shoes to bed? Or many states in the 1800′s or 1900′s telling me what positions and techniques are proper in bed with my wife? Where does it end? The truth is it doesn’t, this isn’t about health care this is about extending federal power, power which history shows they NEVER give back when the are done with it, the only add it to their arsenal of things to use against us.

Get the government out of my life. Trust me, once they’re in yours to the degree that some on here would like you will not appreciate it but by then it will be too late. “Entitlements” are a bad idea. Hasn’t anyone heard of the idea of an “inflated sense of self entitlement”? Isn’t that bad? Note that the words are the same. Entitlement means: “I deserve this” why do you? What did you do to earn it? Being born doesn’t entitle you to anything other than the rights of being human, and health care isn’t one of them. Being human entitles you to the right to think freely, say what you think and not be stepped on by others. Heath care doesn’t fit any of those.

In my state, where we can meet legislators in the grocery store and the dump on a fairly regular basis, we tend to have well-informed voters. We send people to represent us that we like and keep them there if we think they are doing a good job. If not, we send them back home. We don’t need term limits; we know how to use our the vote.

1) You asked why social democrats, cited by an unclear source went from the left (the far left usually a term used – especially for that time – communists while American Democrats and Republicans, on that scale would have been both called “centrists”) to support the ultra-right fascists. The same reason Democrats and Republicans switch over. People change their mind. It seems as if a man famous for writing a few great plays (his politics did not stay in public memory) changed his mind every hour or two. He might have been totally nuts.
2) Unions are tiny compared to where they were in the 1950s. Many conservatives who point back to the 1950s with their church going family often delete the fact that daddy supported that family without Mom working since he was a union member. The largest number of union strikes in history in the US was in the 1950s. During the wild 1970s union membership was dropping at a quicker pace than before and, by the 1980s and 1990s were not a significant part of most people’s lives. So, this is about as tame as unions will get and, when they weren’t tame, the result was not chaos, but the Leave It to Beaver style wholesome lifestyles as they wished to see themselves in the 1950s.
3) My issue is not with religion itself. My issue is when it interferes with reasoning. This is only the most conservative Christians. I do not preach atheism. I used to like being a Catholic, but just don’t see the world that way anymore.
4)How can one be so “free” if they are lying on the ground having a heart attack? Health care is completely unlike other goods and services. The cheaper gas and parking are, the more often I will drive. No matter what the cost of health care, I would not show up for more than one checkup a year plus on the rare occasion (about once every two years – until I get older, I am sure) I feel ill.
4) Other entitlement programs (I hate that term since it is begging for a conservative attack with that term) are to prevent starvation, homelessness and going without. One is not very ‘free’ if they need to spend all day seeking food and/or shelter.
5) Venezuela is similar to Mexico in economics and history and very dissimilar to the US.
6) The US, as Western Europe does, has a long history of Democracy and being economically very strong. So, if we take one policy of Western Europe, we are not prone to becoming like Nigeria, Somalia or Saudi Arabia (just picking out random places I do not want to live in) but like Western Europe. An honest debate would be if one said “we are going to turn into BELGIUM and do you know what terrible things are going on Belgium?” Name them and you will have an argument.
7) You brought up an apolitical matter of “self esteem” motivated awards which have been popular the last fifteen to twenty years. It is dumb as far as I am concerned, but not having health care will not impact this.

I’ve got to get something done.

You are a libertarian (and, if I am not mistaken, this is your own definition and not a slur) and believe that every rule is a persecution of some kind.
I am going to get into my car and drive on the right side. Why? Because I am a member of society in which chose the right side of the road. I am not free to choose the left side of the road since it will result in a ticket or a car accident.
Being a member of society has these limitations, but, I will survive the persecution of having the right side of the road chosen for me.

One flaw with Libertarians and the very, very most (very, very rare) extreme fiscal Republicans, is a real life example of the lighthouse dilemma: my uncle’s driveway.

Far from here one of my uncles, who is a conservative, lives in a place with a shared driveway.

The driveway is in terrible shape and nobody in any of the six (I believe six) residences on the driveway want to do anything about it.
When the streets are in very good condition when the town demands taxes and fixes it as the elected representatives see fit, why is this driveway in terrible shape?
Because nobody there has the authority to demand that any of the others participate in fixing the driveway.
So, when EVERYBODY wants SOMEBODY to do something but EVERYBODY thinks somebody should be SOMEBODY ELSE and NOBODY has the authority to demand that EVERYBODY pays in then NOBODY does ANYTHING.

Now, for goods with private beneficiaries such as Pizza, computers, telephones and so on exist, there is no doubt that the one beneficiary pays.

Health care has externalities. If we did not provide any care in the emergency rooms (as we do at hugely inefficient costs) to the very ill, somebody with TB will be breathing on you and me.
If our own vaccination did not work, we will get ill from that stranger with TB.

Also, as I said, freedom is not a valid concept for those too ill to do anything, the homeless or people undernourished (“undernourished” rather than “malnourished” which could, technically mean that you are eating too much pizza and not having any salad).

When people with different and opposing motivations interact, there must be a way of negotiating this and, in some cases, that means is government.

As for my uncle’s driveway, since NOBODY wants to donate the driveway to the town and there is no reason to believe that the town would accept such a responsibility, for a long time now and for a long time to come it will not be repaired.

1984 election
Gus Hall (NY) /
Angela Y. Davis (CA)
Presidential election (last communist candidate)
36,215 votes

Mel Mason (CA) /
Andrea Gonzalez (NJ) (Communist affiliated)
Socialist Workers 24,672 votes

Larry Holmes (NY) or
Gavrielle Holmes /
Gloria Estela La Riva (CA) (I believe was Communist affiliated)
Workers World 17,968

Ed Wynn (NY) /
Helen Betty Halyard (I believe was Communist affiliated) Workers League 14,363

Other write-ins (as an example of random)
17,438 votes.

So, technically one can say as of 1984 there are members of the Communist party in the United States.

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 Libertarian Party
523,686 votes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr_presidential_campaign,_2008

Libertarians are much larger now than Communists have been for more than twenty five years.

So, I would consider it safe to say that we are at 0 risk of having any type of totalitarian government.

Keep the “slippery slope” arguments to Western Europe, not Communist, fascist or third world governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr_presidential_campaign,_2008

Patricksartor:
As usual you provide some interesting arguments and interpretations, which I greatly appreciate, you are one of the few people here willing to really wade into substance without resorting to name calling or party talking points and for that I salute you. While you and I may never agree on some things I must give respect to your ability to hold a decent and civil conversation on these topics while not reducing yourself to insults. For that and other reasons you are worthy or respect and defense against people here who speak from right-wing talking points and BS (as I know there are a few on here who only speak insults and from right-wing talking points and I have seen you be attacked by them in ways that are unreasonable).

I would certainly agree with you that by all appearances Bernard Shaw was insane. My only point with him is that there are people today (including apparently Hillary Clinton) who subscribe to this philosophy. I submit to you that there are people who subscribe to this philosophy, some of whom are in our government. As I said, I am not suggesting that these people actually subscribe to mass murder, but that the people they claim to be guiding them do, and that’s pretty scary.

Unions are a pretty small portion of America, I agree. However the wield more power than their size suggests, especially with Progressives who love them. I don’t want to sound conspiratorial, but they do seem linked. Even if they are not linked, unions recently have tended to ask so much of companies and government as to bankrupt them. It makes no sense for a baggage handlers union for an airline to ask more than the airline can possibly provide. If the airline goes belly up, then benefits packages mean nothing the union workers lose out. Same goes for government. Yet Both sets of unions ask much more than their employer can possibly provide.

On the religion issue, I will openly admit to being an atheist. I don’t believe religion should be tax free. But that’s not the point. Religious groups have done an enormous amount of good in terms of charity. However they have also damaged the country in other ways. I do not wish to get into this argument as it is not to our point and it tends to enrage people by pushing “emotional” buttons and eliciting reactions that are not conducive to the constructive discussion you and I are having. All of that said, as someone who believes in the Constitution I say that anyone has the right in this country to subscribe to whatever religion they prefer, without the interference of others (hence my distaste for the Christian Conservatives who seek to force people to join their religion).

On the cost of health care you are absolutely correct that it is different from many other issues. You and I simply have a difference of opinion on how to reduce cost. I have no problem with your ideas being used after core costs are addressed. I don’t happen to think the current bills attack the underlying or “core” costs.

On the “entitlement” issue, I agree the term is in many cases used unwisely. There certainly is a difference between social “safety net” programs and entitlements. I have absolutely no problem with “safety nets”, because they avoid larger costs on society. That said I have serious problems with “entitlements” because they grow the costs to society. My view on the current HCR proposals is that they do nothing to attack underlying costs and as such amount to “entitlements” which I have a problem with because “safety nets” help those who are temporarily down on their luck while “entitlements” are forever, give people the feeling that government will always take care of them and lead to laziness and abuse. They are also prone to fraud and mismanagement.

I never suggested that just taking on one proposal would make us like Somalia. The problem is that we have a lot of them which we are not properly funding. Democratic groups say that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are funded until eternity while Republicans say they will all be bankrupt in the next ten years. As I’ve said, I don’t trust either party. The “middle of the road” studies on the issue say that Social Security will be bankrupt in 30 years, Medicaid in 17 and Medicare in 14. Do I totally trust them? No. The CBO has been shown to be drastically off over ten and twenty year periods , and they being the most unbiased is sort of scary. So no, I don’t consider these numbers accurate. However I do know something very basic, when you spend more money than you take in (as we have for years, and apparently are determined to continue) you will eventually run out of money. Not to mention in the short term what losing our AAA bond rating would do to us.

I am not sure what you mean with your comment on “self esteem” please explain so that I may respond properly. I have an idea of what you mean, but I do not wish to demean our conversations with supposition of what you intend.

Finally, I don’t know what the “drive way” thing is about. That is a peculiarity of state and local law, and being I don’t know the state or locality (State and Local being one of my main focuses) I can offer no ideas other than to consult a lawyer skilled in both state law and local covenants .
Further, I dispute your mention of TB. I have traveled the world, including extensive travels in Africa where TB is actually a problem and I have been up close and personal with TB patients and my vaccine worked just fine. On the topic of those that are “too ill to do anything” or homeless, these people may make good emotional arguments but they are a very rare statistical anomaly. If we’re really paying so much (which I agree we actually are) for the uninsured to go to the ER, how are there still people “too ill to do anything” why aren’t they in the ER?
The homeless are another matter, statistics show that most are mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. Do they deserve to be homeless? No. But universal health care can’t help them. This problem was created by the dissolution of mental asylums a decade and a half ago because they were “unfair” to the people that then ended up on the street.

As for your uncles drive way. I suggest Home Depot, because no one else is gonna do it if he or you or someone outside government does it.

Sorry, I didn’t realize how long this reply would actually be.

1) My Uncle will wait until somebody works with him to fix the driveway. Getting there will take a long time. It is more an example of how things are without government.
2)The “self esteem” matter was about people getting prizes for coming in on all different places on a race. It is common now that if you come in last at a track meet, you will still get a “thanks for participating” trophy. That is apolitical.
3)There are a massive number of factors which make a country as it is. With our extremely long traditions of democracy dating back to the earliest settlers as well as the British Isles prior to coming here, comparing us to a non-Democracy or Venezuela is absurd. Comparing us to third world economies with our massive physical and human infrastructure is, also, absurd. So, comparing what “slipper slope” we might be on considering nothing tied to health care has anything to do with limiting free speech, elections, educated people forgetting their skills, shutting down a dramatic share of our industry or anything like that, you would have to compare it becoming like Canada or Western European Democracies. (Randomly, I said “Belgium”).
4) There are communicable diseases – plenty of them. A very small percent of vaccines do not work. Should both exist, the insured person gets the disease. Also, there are other diseases which there are no vaccines which are communicable. Hence, having an uninsured ill person around you could never be to your benefit nor totally neutral.
5) I view paying tax and “being told what to do”, as you put it, as being a part of a society where, for things to work out, we need to create compromises run by the government such as the national mandate (not controversial nor even questioned) that all cars must drive on the right side of any two way road. What if I want to drive on the left side of the road? What about the middle of the road? Since I am a member of this society, I do as I am told on that issue do the obvious consequences of doing otherwise.
6) Entitlements such as SSDI, commonly called “welfare” (along with state programs given this nickname) require very rigorous exams for physical or mental health. Government doctors have been known to be so stingy with the standard that it would take several private doctors to win an appeal. There are an industry of attorneys who help people get these benefits if they are turned down incorrectly.
7)Nearly 100% of the long term homeless are qualified for these benefits, but are such extreme cases that they can not go through the process themselves and, since the mental illness often involved inappropriate behavior, they have often alienated friends and relatives who might otherwise (and still should) be helping them.
8) Among many other sources, Management theoretician Arthur Deming- arguably the grandfather of modern business theory – states that people like not only to work, but do do their jobs well with extremely few (statistically insignificant) exceptions. If one is not working, it is nearly always because they can not find work or they lack the health or skills to work. (Also if they have young children as single parents). Laziness is not an epidemic. Some jobs (nicknamed McJobs such as McDonalds) pay so low that one who is qualified for disability but may have the ability to work at such jobs would do so at a huge loss, possibly costing themselves their space in their housing project. (Hence, this is one reason for unions).
9) Unions loose when the employer goes under. The two goals of any union is to have as many members as possible and to have as high of a wage as possible. This is within the framework of the business existing. Management errors may be the actual cause of many (probably not all) of these businesses failing but, since people hate to be wrong, managers of failing businesses like to blame the union. A union in a closing business is a failed union. Both unions and managers make mistakes and manages have more options than unions do since unions can only choose to take pay cuts, layoffs or not to take either.
10) Let me restate, if it were not for the ER’s providing very inefficient healthcare we would have people too ill to do anything. I can take you about half a mile from my home where the ER has two areas: actual emergencies and people without healthcare. The section for people without healthcare has five hour waits and a waiting room as large as a high school cafeteria which is nearly full 24/7/365.

For the people in this area alone, tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved by bringing these people to regular doctors instead of the ER.

11) I am an atheist as well. Outside of having an hour more every Sunday, my life and point of view have not changed. But I was Catholic, not “born again” Christian. I was never asked to doubt evolution or the sciences, so the transition was easy and due to a difference in world view, not animosity.

Regarding George Bernard Shaw, I vaguely remember a political science class when he was advocating elected social democrats or labourists to handle problems of the poor much as Tony Blair has without even the slightest reference to killing people.
It is imaginable that those clips of Shaw were him doing satrie. If not, this would have been a change from his earlier stances.
I can not imagine Hillary Clinton believing in the later beliefs of Shaw if they were totalitarian.
Hillary Clinton’s first campaign was before she was twenty one (when that was the voting age) as “Goldwater girl” handing out fliers in support of Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater was, arguably, a libertarian.
Hilary Clinton Goldwater near the end of his life since she still had admiration for him many years later.
Goldwater was the primary inspiration of Ronald Reagan except that Reagan took on the religious right as constituents, which Goldwater refused to do.
So, it sounds like you have been shown Republican slander.
I preferred Edwards and Obama both over Hilary Clinton for the 2008 nomination, but, I could never imagine that she is in favor of mass killings but, instead, dabbling in the ideas of strong unions, health cars (obviously) and some other social democratic concepts.

Enough of this nonsense about government oppression and how enjoying health security is a threat to liberty. The government is US. We have governments so that the we can live in civil society. Sound public health is no different than providing for other infrastructure such as roads, bridges, education, clean water, etc. Public health and education are not privileges unless you think you are still living in the 16th century and serfs had neither rights nor privileges.
I abhor insurance companies – they’re thieves that gamble with our money, but having the government require we have insurance is not unprecedented…auto insurance.
Personally, I think we should look to Europe for some ideas about health security and have either highly regulated non-profit insurance companies like Japan, Switzerland, Germany and France, or just go straight to a Medicare for all system. The government already provides coverage for 60% of the market…put the remaining 40% gradually in the plan. If sasquatch doesn’t like living in a civil society, he can jolly well return to the forest primeval from whence he came and stay their until he matures enough to understand what a civil society requires.

Amen! shouted an atheist.

And I’ll take that!