Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

I think when one cuts through all the hyperbole, I think that is actually what we are witnessing.


The problem is that I don't see the nuts and bolts guys actually coming up with targeted regulation that will actually prevent economic meltdowns like we witnessed last year.

With health care, I think they also should have started with targeted regulation and moved on to do more after implementation.

I'm disappointed in the ability of our legislators to draft good/relevant legislation and I wonder about the actual will of the experts to fight for what they know we need to do.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

/shrug/

Okie-dokie.

Originally Posted by EagleTed

I'd be willing to see any credible theories that contradict that.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

If you're asking me for my take on your statement, I'm not really interested in providing it.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

It sounds more as if you object to Obama's phrasing of what is occurring than the specific paradigm. For instance, your statement that "everyone contributes equally by virtue of being a citizen", used in defense of some government provided service, sounds about as Marxist as you can get. But, I don't think that you actually believe in the virtue of any principles, per se, that would be described as "Marxist". And, generally speaking, I think that you tend to favor free market principles more than most, even on the Republican side of the aisle.

But there is an inherent problem here in trying to pin the 150 year old philosophies of the market at the time to current markets and policy. Everything about our economy is "managed market" wherein all westernized nations have abandoned the feudal or anarcho-capitalist market and adopted managed economies which are manage to varying degrees. And, what we're talking about here is whether or not to slightly increase the amount of management, in this case or in cases like reducing taxes or privatizing a chunk of social security, whether to decrease it. In the eyes of Marx, squabbling over whether or not to toss the proletariat a bone of shitty government healthcare would be irrelevant and probably offensive - his principle sticking point was the idea of "wage slavery" and entrenched class immobility.

These problems do not exist as they did in the days of Marx (or in Czarist Russia), nor do solutions for them, as a matter of course. Instead, in a relatively stable, managed market economy, we've seen only mild vacillations between regulation and de-regulation, and we seem to be (predictably, with the Democrats) heading for a period of mildly increased regulation. And, that's it.

It seems unlikely to me that people's actual concern is the nationalizing of some service - there is plenty of precedence for that already and no great objection. I think it's more the fact that it comes packaged from the Democrats with a (falsely) populist message and that it tends to pander to what a lot on the GOP side of the aisle call "class warfare". But, I suspect that this is an instance of the Democrats not practicing what they preach. In short, I don't think that Obama is offering up a proletariat owned bureaucracy that distributes according to need. I think it far more likely that this will result in shuffling money from some members of the proletariat to other members of the proletariat, while lining the pockets of some bourgeoisie interest and creating the illusion of populism.

Edit: I should also offer that I don't support the nationalization of industry, nor do I think that it's current existence justifies doing it with more things. I'm saying what I'm saying here merely to point out that whatever Obama may be doing is more "business as usual" than "proletarian revolution".

Originally Posted by jviehe

We have to call him something, and his preferred economic model appears to be socialism, not capitalism. I think thats a bad thing, especially when it comes to healthcare. Thats the only point here. Socialism as a economic model, is a failed model, and Obama wants to try it again.

Originally Posted by EagleTed

Fine. Then debate Karl Marx himself:

These measures will of course be different in different
countries.

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will
be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents
of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means
of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive
monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport
in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and
the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a
common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of
industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;
gradual abolition of the distinction between town and
country, by a more equable distribution of the population
over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.
Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

Communist Manifesto ---Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, (1888 English Edition)

If Marx thought communications, transportation, credit and education were worth nationalizing, surely health care is just as important.

Originally Posted by jviehe

We have to call him something, and his preferred economic model appears to be socialism, not capitalism. I think thats a bad thing, especially when it comes to healthcare. Thats the only point here. Socialism as a economic model, is a failed model, and Obama wants to try it again.

Originally Posted by wiggidy

Just wanted to add, don't we have more private company soldiers in Iraq than US military troops now? I thought I heard that stat on the news.

Either way, we can privatize the military, that would be fine with me.

Originally Posted by wiggidy

Yeah, I hear that argument made (Metal Gear Solid 4 kind of ran with this idea for the story of their game).

It would be completely against the rules to fight for another country (and hire soldiers from other countries) but I highly doubt American citizens would wage war against America because of a better offer (or find another country that could actually make a better offer).

Originally Posted by jviehe

It will be federal law for you to pay for health insurance or prove to the govt, by giving them your private financial information, that you cant afford it. Oh, but were going to exempt most people so they vote for me. Basically, here my idea. Im only going to apply it to people I dont like, and exempt everyone else who might not like me if i dont.

Originally Posted by sinebar

Driving a car is a privlege not a right. Existing is a right protected by the constitution and forcing people to buy somthing simply for existing is a violation of that right.

Hot Air Blog Archive Can Congress force me to buy health insurance?

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,



You say its a privilege. I say its a necessity in 99% of America. Try keeping a job in anything other than a big city without a car and you will see just how necessary it is. Without automobiles the economy would grind to a screeching halt.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Originally Posted by jviehe

From those with ability, to those with need. Obama proposes to redistribute wealth, and create a govt run insurance plan. This is the very definition of marxist socialism. He makes it even worse by making it a crime, punishable by taking away your property, to be alive and not have health insurance. Now hes sounding fascist and dictatorial. Hes going to tax you if you pay for valuable health insurance on your own, fine you if you dont have health insurance, and give you a tax credit if you "choose" govt health insurance. How is this anything but dictation and welfare?

Originally Posted by jviehe

From those with ability, to those with need. Obama proposes to redistribute wealth, and create a govt run insurance plan. This is the very definition of marxist socialism. He makes it even worse by making it a crime, punishable by taking away your property, to be alive and not have health insurance. Now hes sounding fascist and dictatorial. Hes going to tax you if you pay for valuable health insurance on your own, fine you if you dont have health insurance, and give you a tax credit if you "choose" govt health insurance. How is this anything but dictation and welfare?