Ideological Spectrum redux

[idesign]

After

looking at this chart, how did we get to where we are

now?


404


http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideologica

l-Group.aspx



With the number of conservatives at double the number of liberals since at least 1992, we

can only assume that A) Conservatives have been sleeping and B) Moderates change their votes along with their

overcoats.

Seeing how Obama won the 08 election with strong Moderate support makes me question the makeup of

Moderate opinion and motivation. Throwing their support to an empty candidate like Obama as they voted against Bush

was an exercise in unthinking irresponsibility, if not stupidity. With a little work, one could easily find out

what kind of President Obama would be, he is no real surprise now that his silent agenda as a candidate is now

coming to pass. Now we see the Moderates running away in droves with acute buyer's remorse.

If Conservative and

Liberal thought is underpinned by ideas and principles, what does a Moderate consistently believe about anything? I

suppose one could say he/she is a "fiscal conservative but social liberal" or some such, but do those two carry

equal weight in one's system of ideas? To what extent do such things as morals, sense of justice, concept of

freedom, role of government, personal responsibility or personal liberty play together in the scheme of one's life?

Each of these would be defined differently, and would place as different priorities, in a Conservative or a

Liberal. With the economic crisis just at the time of election day, did Moderates simply vote their wallets?



Its too complex trying to predict voters, and more so with Moderates I guess, but its very clear that we remain

a center-right country. The trend, as I see it, is two-fold. One, Moderates, whatever they are, are shifting away

from the guy they brought into office. I believe this is in direct response to Obama's extreme positions on

everything from socialization of business to his amateurish foreign policy. As well, there is a common thread

working through his agenda that equates to reduction of personal freedom and the minimalization of America. Second,

Obama/Reid/Pelosi have pulled Conservatives out of the closet. Their strong reaction is in direct proportion to the

cause.

Americans do not like their President bowing to Arab tyrants any more than they like their government

trying to ram through a health care program that is very clearly against their collective will.


This kind of

behavior does not help

matters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO1oJPps1I

http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did

-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/

[belgareth]

Some of what you say is right, in my opinion. Especially about people leaving Obama support in droves

as a result of his agenda and demonstrated incompetence. However, I think you are over-simplifying matters to some

degree. Political views can better be expressed on a grid rather than a simple line. Try this political compass test

yourself and you'll see what I mean. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index)

A big part of why Obama got elected, I think, is the overall disgust with the way things are and have

been. His hope and change mantra was only seen superficially. The tough questions of how he would handle specific

situations were rarely asked and never answered. The few actual promises he made, like transparency in government

and bipartisanship, were quickly forgotten, if he ever really meant them. I personally believe he was working off a

script, saying the things he was told to say based on public opinion polls. In all honesty, can you imagine Obama

without a teleprompter in front of him? Everything he says is carefully scripted for

effect.

The next

presidential election is a ways off. I am concerned about what he is going to do between now and when we vote this

coming November. Its pretty obvious that he is going to lose his super majority at that time and I suspect that many

who do not lose their seats will change positions when the DNC loses power to coerce them. So, he is pushing hard to

get a very flawed health care bill through before he loses the ability to do that and he is doing the same with cap

and trade, he knows that next year he'll have no ability to do anything and will essentially be a lame duck.



My biggest concern

though is the immigration reform bills that are starting to drift in. The estimates vary but let's say its 20

million illegals that he can turn into democratic voters. Do you think it improbable that he will legalize them

simply for the votes? If that happens, with the strong public sentiment against it, what is going to be the public

reaction? Will enough people then turn against him and fire him in 2012 or will he gain enough support through

amnesty to get reelected? My guess is he is betting on the latter.

[Rbt]

Many people I know voted more

against the Republican party than for Obama.

Remember:

"The grass is always greener over there." (So people

look for change.)

The general American voting public also buys one heck of a lot of sponge sharpeners as hawked

on TV infomercials.

I suffer the curse of intelligence, and have had to come to grips with the fact that the

majority of people in this world aren't as observant/smart/thoughtful etc as I, and I suspect that many of the

"pros" here on this forum are in the same observant/smart/thinking class as I am.

Personally I just could not

vote for the Republican agenda. I liked much of what McCain stood for, but I also had some serious issues. I could

only hope that there was enough strength in the checks and balances of the Congress to help act as a control to

whatever policies were going to be pushed. The fact that this so called "health plan" is finding resistance even

from Democrats gives me hope. It's not a done deal, and there is always a chance things will get passed after the

November change to improve things. No law is really permanent. Witness the reversal of the Constitutional amendment

concerning alcohol prohibition.

I can't really "blame" Mr. Obama for the direction we are headed in now. That

course was laid years ago thanks to the likes of Jessie Jackson and his pushing of an "Entitlement" agenda. And that

the "common man/woman" is apparently too dumb to know what they want (which unfortunately may be all too true...) so

he will of course take on the burden of leading us all. To his tune.

The one thing of course that is *really* to

blame in my mind is the fact that so few eligible voters even bother to vote. "A Nation of Sheep."

My quick

thoughts.

[Mtnjim]

The fact that

this so called "health plan" is finding resistance even from Democrats gives me hope.

Perhaps the

"resistance" is due to the lack of a "public option". Critics say "the majority of Americans don't want a

government health care program", but consider

this poll (http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/1008_health_care_opinion_galston.aspx):


To

probe for answers to these and other questions about how Americans view health care, WorldPublicOpinion.org and the

Brookings Institution conducted a poll among 1400 Americans. The size of the sample answering each question

varied, though all had over 800 respondents. The margin of error varied from +/- 2.6 to 3.5 percentage points.


The survey was fielded September 26-October 5, 2009 by Knowledge Networks, a polling, social science, and market

research firm in Menlo Park, California, with a stratified random sample of its large-scale nationwide research

panel. This panel itself has been randomly recruited from the national population of households having telephones;

households without internet access are subsequently provided with free web access and an internet appliance. Thus

the panel is not limited to those who already have home internet access. The distribution of the sample in the

Web-enabled panel closely tracks the distribution of United States Census counts for the US population on age,

race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographical region, employment status, income, education, etc. Upon survey completion,

the data were weighted by gender, age, education, and ethnicity. For more information about the online survey

methodology, please go to:

www.knowledgenetworks.co

m/ganp (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/jseo/Local%20Settings/Local%20Settings/Documents%20and%20Settings/Steven

%20Kull/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLK2E/www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp).
Key findings were:
1. The Role of Government in Health Care
Three in five Americans

believe that the government has the responsibility to ensure that citizens can meet their basic need for health

care; however, this number has declined significantly over the last year, and is no longer bipartisan,

presumably in response to the current debate. Three in five also see health care as a right, not a

privilege. Views are roughly divided as to whether the government should generally provide health care services

directly.
2. Assessments of Current Situation
Two out of three Americans, including clear majorities

of all parties, believe that the US government is doing a poor job of ensuring that people can meet their basic

needs for health care. A majority thinks that the present health care system is not viable because costs are

rising while more people are going onto Medicare. Large majorities are concerned about whether they and Americans

in general will be able to get health insurance at a price they can afford. However, there is less concern about

the quality of health care: views are divided as to whether, on its present trajectory, health care will worsen.


3. Reaction to Health Care Debate
As the partisan debate has grown more intense, far more people have

become less supportive of both parties’ ideas than have become more supportive of the ideas of one party. People

express substantial levels of anxiety about the subject of health care. More express fear that the government

action will make the health care system worse than express confidence that government action will help. People are

divided as to whether the government can afford to reform health care in the current economic environment.
4.

Specific proposals
Nearly all of the specific proposals for health care reform are endorsed by a majority.

Large majorities favor a public option limited to those who are not receiving insurance through their employer,

cross-state purchasing and requiring insurance companies to accept every applicant and to not drop sick people for

making a mistake in their original application form. More modest majorities favor tort reform, a public option

for all who wish it, an employer mandate, and an individual mandate. A modest majority opposes the government

directly providing health care.
4a. Public Option
A majority favors a public option available to all,

while three-quarters favor one limited to those who cannot get insurance through their employers. Interestingly, a

modest majority of Republicans, as well as large majorities of Democrats and Independents, favors a limited public

option.
4b. Cross-State Purchasing
Two-thirds favor the idea of cross-state purchasing, including

large majorities of all parties. A large majority finds the argument in favor of cross-state purchasing

convincing, while a substantial majority finds the argument against it unconvincing.
4c. Insurance Company

Regulation
Overwhelming majorities of all parties favor the government requiring insurance companies to

accept every applicant for coverage and prohibiting insurance companies from dropping a sick person because of a

minor mistake in his or her application form.
4d. Tort Reform
A modest majority favors the idea of tort

reform, including a plurality of Democrats. The argument in favor of tort reform is found convincing by a large

majority, while the argument against it elicits a divided response.
4e. Employer mandate
A large majority

is convinced by the argument against a proposed requirement that all but the smallest businesses either provide

health insurance to all their workers or pay into a public fund to cover the uninsured, but a strong majority also

finds the argument for such a requirement convincing. A modest majority favors such a requirement.
4f.

Individual Mandate
A modest majority favors requiring all people to have health insurance for themselves and

their children, with a subsidy for those who could not afford it and a penalty for those who refuse. Views break

along party lines. Interestingly, majorities of both parties find convincing arguments both for and against an

individual mandate.
5. Cutting Health Care Costs
An overwhelming majority thinks that it is possible to

cut waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system without denying people the treatment they need. Estimates of

the magnitude of waste, fraud, and abuse are substantial and approximately equal for private and public health

care.
6. Impact of Health Care Reform on Taxes and the Deficit
Six in ten believe that health care

reform will lead to at least somewhat higher taxes and that the deficit will increase at least somewhat. Those who

believe that taxes and the deficit will go up are less supportive of reform, but only those who believe that their

taxes and the deficit will become a lot greater depart from majority positions in support of major health care

reforms.
7. Perceptions of US Health Care System
Contrary to frequent assertions in the health care

debate that the American health care system is the best in the world, most Americans have more modest and

realistic assumptions about how the American health care system compares to other highly developed countries.

Most Americans have a good understanding about which health care programs are government sponsored and which are

private.
8. Older Americans
Older Americans are generally less supportive than younger people of the

government taking on new obligations (obligations that could potentially compete with Medicare). However a

majority, albeit a relatively smaller one, does support the idea that the government is responsible for ensuring

access to health care, a slight majority favors a generally available public option, and a large majority supports

a limited public option. Older Americans report that they are following the health care debate more closely than

do persons of other ages; they also express more worry about the issues of health care.

[Mtnjim]

The few actual promises he made, like transparency in government and bipartisanship, were quickly

forgotten, if he ever really meant them.

I can actually remember some attempts at

bipartisanship and the response was basically "FU". As far as transparency in government goes, some things take a

bit of

time (http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/taxonomy/term/obama-administration/):


CQ

Weekly (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003175686)’s Maura Reynolds wrote about the Obama administration’s successes and failures in

achieving its transparency goals six months into the term. Reynolds quoted

Ellen Miller (http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/people/emiller/), Sunlight’s director, about how

many of their transparency initiatives are still in development and how the kinks are being worked out. “A

default position that government data will be accessible to the public in machine-readable format is a huge step

forward,” Ellen said. “Is it moving as fast as I’d like? Of course not. But I can be patient

while this unfolds.”also

consider (http://blog.ostp.gov/2009/12/08/promoting-transparency-in-government/):


As an example

of the steps taken in response, the White House, for the first time ever, now publishes the names of everyone

who visits. We are also publishing online never-before-available data about federal spending and

research. At Data.gov, for instance, what started as 47 data sets from a small group of federal agencies has

grown into more than 118,000 today – with thousands more ready to be released starting this week. And in

March, the Attorney General published updated FOIA guidelines, establishing a presumption in favor of voluntary

disclosure of government information – an important step toward enabling the American people to see how

their government works for them. There have been other advancements, from providing online access to White House

staff financial reports and salaries, adopting a tough new state secrets policy, reversing an executive order that

previously limited access to presidential records, and web-casting White House meetings and

conferences.And Obama was concerned with transparency in government long before he went on the campaign

trail:


The bill was introduced by Senator Tom

Coburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn), for himself and Senators Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama),

Tom Carper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_R._Carper) and

John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) on April 6,

2006.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006#cite_note-s2

590introduced-0) After two "secret holds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold)" placed by

Senators Ted Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens), a

Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party), and

Robert Byrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd), a

Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Democratic_Party) were revealed and

removed[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006#cite_note-cnn0

830-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006#cite_

note-byrdhold-4), it was passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and by the House on

September 13, 2006. The bill was signed into law by

President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States)

George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) on September 26,

2006.[6]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006#cite_note-5)
in a

bipartisan bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006), did someone mention bipartisanship??


On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along

with Senators Carper, Coburn and McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and

Accountability in Federal Spending Act of

2008.[7] ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006#cite_note-6"

)

[idesign]

I think you are over-simplifying matters to some degree.

Political views can better be expressed on a grid rather than a simple line. Try this political compass test

yourself and you'll see what I mean. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index)

The few actual promises he made, like transparency in government and bipartisanship, were quickly

forgotten, if he ever really meant them. I personally believe he was working off a script, saying the things he was

told to say based on public opinion polls. In all honesty, can you imagine Obama without a teleprompter in front of

him? Everything he says is carefully scripted for effect.

...he is

pushing hard to get a very flawed health care bill through before he loses the ability to do that and he is doing

the same with cap and trade, he knows that next year he'll have no ability to do anything and will essentially be a

lame duck.

My biggest concern though is the immigration reform

bills that are starting to drift in. The estimates vary but let's say its 20 million illegals that he can turn into

democratic voters. Do you think it improbable that he will legalize them simply for the votes? If that happens, with

the strong public sentiment against it, what is going to be the public reaction? Will enough people then turn

against him and fire him in 2012 or will he gain enough support through amnesty to get reelected? My guess is he is

betting on the latter.


Yes, I started a thread on the Political Compass

here (http://www.pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19510), and am aware of how complex political

leanings are. I was trying to make a point about Moderates, and questioning their voting behavior and motivations.

I agree that Little Barry's election was mainly a result of dissatisfaction in the status quo, but that does not

excuse the lack of vetting on the part of Moderates before they went to the voting booth and tripped the lever.



One can understand a Liberal or a Conservative. Driven by principle and idea they are at least somewhat

predictable. What is a Moderate? And how do you explain them as a voting bloc? Is it a matter of changing with

the wind?

The defining issue in 08 was the economy. Are moderates primarily driven by money, leaving social

issues in the back seat? They were instrumental in electing a predictably authoritarian social liberal, with all

the economic baggage that comes with that. Did they give up anything meaningful from their bag 'o beliefs to cast

that vote? Or nothing? Was there anything even in that bag, did they even have a bag to begin with? They fell for

slogans and jingoism, now they're running the other way as they see their Hope and Change turning into a nightmare.

I just don't know who these people are. I know there's really no answer, I'm just wondering who the rats are on

this sinking ship.

My own cynical opinion is that O was swept to office by an uneducated and ignorant "Moderate"

swing electorate who just wanted to feel good. I understand his own party voting his way, but that would not be

enough for him to get elected. It was a pitiful showing for a country steeped in vigorous debate and informed

criticism. Its a sign of bad things to come.

The chart above should be expected, and I expect is in part a

result of lazy conservatives finally getting around to reading up on what's going on and getting their bearings. I

also expect that many self-named moderates are really liberals who think the majority of the country actually

believes in such things as global warming and eat-the-rich brand of social-justice-through-bigger-government.

[idesign]

Brookings is and liberal think

tank, not an independent, professional polling group. This "poll" was simply a survey of people they went out and

recruited, provided free internet access to, and asked leading questions of.

From

Gallup:
Majority of

Americans Still Not Backing Healthcare

Bill

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124715/Majority-Americans-Not-Backing-Healthcare-Bill.aspx


Ras

mussen:
Health Care Reform
42% Support Health Care Plan, 52% Oppose





http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_

reform


Quinnipiac: 52% disapprove 36%

approve

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?What=health%20care&strArea=;&strTime=3&ReleaseID=1408#Question01

5


I could go on and on, but you get my point, and this is not a health care thread.

Ideology is

driving this debate, and the dwindling support for gov't health care is following Obama's own falling support. It

could indeed be the bellweather for his ultimate downfall as an effective president for his party. Leaving out the

left and right, since we can assume their positions to be predetermined, the center is seeing both the agenda of

this crop of liberals, AND the manner in which they hope to achieve it. Neither is very palatable to any save

around the third or so of the population who lean in that direction to begin with. Conservatives are becoming

activists, and Moderates are leaning in their direction. Liberals are pushing as hard as they can, while they can,

knowing the window is closing.

[Rbt]

I think I have to consider myself a

"moderate." And I find the way I vote is usually based more on voting the least crappy candidate/party platform. And

frankly it comes down between either the Republican or Democrat because no matter how much one would like it, an

"independent" really has no chance.

I can't recall the last time I actually voted "For" a candidate. What I

have to do year after year is look for the "lesser of the evils." More a matter of voting "against" what I feel is

the least desirable option.

My biggest concern at the moment is the attacks on the US Constitution,

specifically the Bill of Rights. IMO the Republicans want to dismantle the 1st Ammendment (especially freedom from

religion - and I reference #43's push for "faith based" programs, or in other words to me, those that often have an

agenda to seek converts to the religion of those providing the programs, as an example. And I can't help but feel

that the organizations that get the most "opportunities" are conservative Christian. Also notice how big an issue

the feelings of "Evangelical Christians" influenced Bush's path.), and the Democrats want to toss the 2nd

Ammendment. Neither position gets my support.

[belgareth]

The reason I brought up the

compass is because I rated more or less in the middle between conservative and liberal and strongly towards

libertarian. So, in some ways I could be called a moderate but I cannot stand Obama and feel he is the bigger threat

to our society. The Christian agenda is bad too but the huge spending and loss of liberties under the liberal

program has really bothered me. In my view, the liberal agenda is only a step towards socialism and socialism is a

demonstrated failure.

As for voting, I won't vote if I feel no candidate is a good choice. It seems like

accepting failure to vote for somebody just to vote against somebody else. In that I am different from most people.

However, a vote for either major party is a vote for the staus quo, in my eyes, and the status quo is what got us

where we are. Needless to say I didn't vote for McCain or Obama. Had Condoleesa Rice been running she would have

had my vote though.

[Rbt]

What we truely need on the ballot is

a choice of "None of the above."

But that will probably never happen as Mr./Ms. None will probably win by a

landslide every time. Much too much of a shock to the established parties. It would become so overwhelmingly

apparent that neither (or most any) party is worth a shit they would lose whatever "power" they think, or would like

to believe, they have.

I suppose in a way we already have that option as reflected in the vast numbers of

eligible voters who don't vote at all. I know there are times I will leave a position/office unvoted on. However I

ALWAYS go to each and every polling, especially the "unimportant" primaries, as that is where they like to stick the

tax hikes and other sneaky pork-filled propositions.

[belgareth]

I probably said that badly. I

go to the polls every time and agree with you about the pork filled bills. My tactic is to vote no or against or to

stop anything and everything unless a really good case is made to do otherwise, which is rarely. I don't think we

need any new laws and I don't think we need any new taxes. We are being ruled, regulated and taxed to death.

A

radio station, some years ago, promoted a campaign called D.R.I.P.

Don't
Return
Incumbant
Politicians

I

still practice it. Term limits for all.

[idesign]

Bel and Rbt, I can understand

both of your points of view. Given the perceived lack of a discernible choice, you'll simply avoid choosing

between flawed candidates. I agree with your assessment, but not your strategy.

What I'm wondering is what the

voting "middle" is thinking, or not. As I said, there's no way to know, but its disturbing to me that a viable

chunk of the national voting bloc is so easily swayed, especially now that the fruit of their votes is paying off so

poorly. What the Moderates fell for in 08 is now pissing many of them off.

I guess the whole point of my

question is that who are the ones who swung when they should have held? I still believe that it was an ignorant

segment who "believed" in a seductive but false Hope, and did not think.

I'm concerned because the direction

this administration is taking us is so much more than about socialism. National sovereignty and personal freedom

are being compromised at every level, and its not by accident.

[belgareth]

It isn't so much a strategy as

an ethical dilema. Do you cast a vote for a person you believe is a crook just because he is less a crook than the

other guy or do you vote based on your conscience and not vote when there is nobody to vote for? I think that voting

for the lesser crook is a voting for the status quo so refuse to give them my vote.





I'm concerned because the direction this administration is taking us is so much more than about socialism.

National sovereignty and personal freedom are being compromised at every level, and its not by

accident.
Yeah, I mentioned that in a debate a few years ago on this forum. This country is moving towards

socialism at an alarming rate. We are steadily losing our freedoms for things the federal government should have no

hand in, while the federal government does not do the jobs it is supposed to be doing.

I also see a lot of

resentment building against the government and wonder how far that will go. Here in Texas there is a lot of talk of

secession and Texas has that legal right. It was part of the deal when they joined the union. The talk has gotten

louder and comes from places like the governor's office.

Even that only worries me a little. What really has me

concerned is the threat of violence if the goverment continues along the path it is on. I think it is coming and it

will not be pretty when it happens. There are too many angry people the government is ignoring.

[Rbt]

I know I may get some flak for this,

but the fact of the matter is is that Mr. Obama also had backing from a segment of the population that has felt

disenfranchised for a very long time, especially thanks to the efforts of the Jessie Jacksons of the world. It may

not have mattered what his policies are/were, but the fact he wasn't a good ol' southern white boy (Bush, Clinton,

even Carter) I think had an influence. Politics, like the stock market, is less about logic and more about

emotions.

And yes, Texas has the distinction of having joined the "union" by way of a treaty. So They can leave

anytime they want.

[idesign]

And yes,

Texas has the distinction of having joined the "union" by way of a treaty. So They can leave anytime they

want.


Hey Bel, got a spare bedroom at your place???

[belgareth]

Hey Bel,

got a spare bedroom at your place???

My kid seems to think half the military is going to end up in Texas

if that happens. I may be renting space on the lawn.

[belgareth]

Perhaps this will give you some

answers: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

[idesign]

Great post! Worthy of a

quote:

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice,

voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature

will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose

economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature

will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their

character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do."


Socialism is bad enough on its

own, but nationalization of the economy is only the tip of the iceberg of a gov't which seeks to establish

authoritarian rule in all aspects of a society. Health care, energy (new executive EPA jurisdiction over carbon

emissions), thought police (hate crimes), all deriving from an ideology who believes their power is an entitlement,

not a privilege, or a responsibility to the electorate.

Its an ideology which holds our Constitution in utter

disdain, and will circumvent it in any way possible, up to and including judicial activism, executive order and

bending the rules of Congress.

The right to bear arms is the last protection against tyranny, and I'm waiting

and watching for the moment when this right comes under assault by this current gov't. It will only take the

smallest but opportune time or event for it to start.

Violence is abhorrent in any case, but is a necessary evil

to combat greater evil. The freedom we have had for 200+ years was born in violent revolution, steeped in foreign

and domestic war, and maintained with the idea that freedom is worth the cost of sacrifice, be it large or small.



Its a crime against humanity if tyrants from within compromise their country against their will and revert it to

a state of serfdom. It really is that simple right now.

[belgareth]

You are beginning to sound like

me. I am not and do not promote violence. However, I am pretty sure it is coming. An effort by the government to

control weapons would likely trigger it, as would a number of other things. Personally, I think secession without

violence would be the better choice but don't believe it will be allowed.

The most interesting part will come

when the military is ordered to take guns from citizens or, worse yet, fire on citizens. Many soldiers realize their

oath is to the constitution and not the president. If the presidential orders do not defend the constitution, what

then? Mass desertions and failure to follow orders? I expect so.

[idesign]

I don't even own a gun, and

hope that I never have the need for one. However, at the first inkling that that right is being abridged, I'll

know that its time to look ahead.

This is an interesting conversation, do you think we'd be having this exact

conversation a year ago? Did you imagine that we'd have a president attempting this scope of national pillage?

[belgareth]

Maybe I'm paranoid but I've

owned a gun for many years and keep a supply of ammunition close by. It seems to me the more the government wants to

control guns the more we need them. If they fear us armed than we should fear them. What is sad, and I've commented

on it before, is the ever increasing us and them attitude that I see from people regarding the government. It used

to be our government, now it seems to be them and the government. Its like we are working at cross purposes and no

longer are a part of the same team.

A gun, or any weapon, is like insurance, in my eyes. You hope you never need

it but you keep it just in case. The thing I've noticed about gun owners is that most of them keep it locked away,

never take it out, never practice with it and never clean it. In that case, they may as well not have it as they are

more likely to be hurt by it than anything else. They'd be better off throwing it at somebody than trying to use

it.

No, I don't think we'd have had this exact conversation a year ago. Bush push against our rights to some

degree, as did Clinton. But Obama really makes me feel insecure about my rights and even more so about my freedom.

He seems to have no regard whatsoever for honesty or the constitution.

[Rbt]

"A government by the people, for the

people and of the people..."


Oh well...

[Mtnjim]

"A government by

the people, for the people and of the people..."


Oh well...

Sorry, over the past 30 years it's

become a government by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations.:POKE:

Especially Wall

Street and the huge banks.

[belgareth]

Sorry,

over the past 30 years it's become a government by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the

corporations.:POKE:

Especially Wall Street and the huge banks.
That's somewhat true. However, those

corporations also provide jobs. I also believe both parties are responsible for the percieved problems with

corporations. Neither party is guilt free.

[idesign]

And now, the play is hard toward

government. By the Left, of the Left, for the Left.

I think we should make Obamacare supporters give up their

private health care, sign up for Medicare under a special provision, and send in their insurance premiums plus an

extra 20% tax to "reduce costs". This is essentially what they're proposing. Let's call it the

Barack-Kennedy Reid and Pelosi Plan, or B-KRaP.

If that little experiment works, we'll know they were right.

If not, the only ones who suffer had it coming.

Its interesting that Kennedy's "lifelong goal" was universal

healthcare, and now its overwhelming unpopularity may (hopefully) be instrumental in giving his old Senate seat to

the first Republican in 30 years, and eliminate the Dems super-majority in the Senate, and possibly derail

Obamacare. Poetic justice if it happens that way.

[Mtnjim]

...I also

believe both parties are responsible for the percieved problems with corporations. Neither party is guilt

free.

Absolutely!!

[belgareth]

Well, the good news is that

Kennedy's seat went to Brown. That breaks the democratic super majority. I suspect regardless of when they swear

Brown in, the health care bill is DOA.

A very liberal state voting in a republican is a sure message from

voters. The message being that we are fed up and their jobs are at stake.

[idesign]

The handwriting on the wall will

be how the Dems handle their reaction to Brown's win. Push back with dirty tricks and there might be a revolution.

Back off, and they'll lose fewer seats in November.

Interesting Mass. demographic: It stacks up with I think

around 36% Dem, 12% Rep, with the rest being Independent, or whatever that state's word for them. Brown had to

take almost all Independent voters to win, and this is a State which BO took by 26 points.

Obama has not even

made his first state of the union address, and his constituency has fallen apart.

[Rbt]

Just as an aside, I'd like to

express one opinion.

There is a difference between "Health Insurance" and a "Health Plan." Too often these two

items are lumped together.

Health Insurance is for *unexpected catastrophic accident or illness* IMO.

A

Health Plan is day to day wellness care. Prescriptions, doctor visits, etc.

Where I think one problem is, is

that they tried to do it all at once, in one swell foop. Not a good idea. If they'd stuck to one or the other, kept

it simple (and understandable) they may have had better success. And if they had set things up to phase in over

time, slowly, step by step, everyone could see where things were going, where the problems were, what *needed* to be

done next. If anything really needed to be done at all.

The health care in this country does suck. It needs

help. But they're approaching it like the politicians they are. People so out of touch with the *real* "average

American" it's scary. We need a better way to do things, but at this rate, it'll never happen, at least in my

lifetime. Not sure if that is good or bad...

[belgareth]

Your right, they are completely

out of touch. They also think our pockets are bottomless. If they would stop trying to find ways to reach deeper

into them and do things to improve the employment picture, things would be better.

That's very generalized, I

agree. NAFTA, excessive regulation and taxation drove many companies offshore. They need to be attracted back to the

US by providing a climate where they can earn a profit while paying a decent wage. Punishing the large corporations

for being large corporations is self destructive. Entice well paying jobs back to the US and many things will

improve right away, including the ability of millions to afford health care.

Taxation is a problem at the

individual level as well. The government does not create jobs, consumerism creates jobs. Every dollar the government

takes is that much less for the economy and it is strangling our ability to compete on the world stage. Look at even

something as small as my business. A 35% reduction in my tax burden would allow me to hire another person, that

would be a salesperson. Because other companies would also have more money they would also be hiring and buying

technology services from people like me. In the end, it would mean more products bought and sold and more people put

to work. Tax revenue would actually increase!

Not that I think the government needs more money. In reality, our

government has become too large and sucks too much money for entitlement programs both at the individual level and

the corporate level. I do not believe any business should be bailed out. Let them fail. It may hurt on the short

term but the well run companies would be that much stronger in the long term. It also would reduce our tax burden,

putting more money into the economy. People should not believe they have a right to indefinate support. They need to

realize it is a helping hand to get them back on their feet. And it should only come with requirements for job

training and hunting.

All that would lower unemployment and contribute to the ability of more people to pay

their own way. Then we can talk about who really needs help and who doesn't. It takes too long, right? Wrong! The

democrats were going to start taxing us right away, which would have slowed the economy more, but not provide

services for several years. My way would not add taxes, which would reduce jobs, it would increase jobs by cutting

taxes. The time we could start providing medical services would come a lot sooner and be better funded.

I don't

believe the government should be in control of our health care, they have demonstrated their incompetence too many

times already. That's another detail to work out later.

[idesign]

I mostly agree with you Rbt,

with some additions. IMO the whole Health Care Reform thing is more ideological than otherwise. In the same way

that the Left is using AGW to control energy policy/consumption, they're using Health Care as a power grab. The

authoritarian elitism of this administration is not satisfied with simple and effective reform, they're pushing a

far reaching agenda which will ultimately establish gov't control over every aspect of life.

Of course they

don't say this, but follow the policies and over-arching agenda to their logical conclusion and you'll see

coercion to be far more operative than freedom to choose. This is only one of the reasons why the Dems are pushing

this through in secret.

Our health care system does not suck if you look at what it accomplishes. The reform

necessary to correct its inherent flaws could be addressed in two simple ways: 1) Allow us to buy insurance across

state lines and 2) tort reform. There are other things as well, but these two would bring down both insurance and

delivery costs.

Addressing the fraud and waste in current entitlement programs should have been Obama's first

play if he was serious about HC reform. I agree with Bel on this point, what we do NOT need is another huge,

expensive, inefficient bureaucracy controlling 1/6 of our economy.

[idesign]

"Out of touch" to be sure.

I

wonder if this administration even wants to be in touch. Or, if they do, or give lip service to such, they

completely ignore what they hear.

Obama:
"People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of

what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."



[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-scott-brown-massachusetts-victory/story?id=9611222[/U

RL]

So, even as O recognizes citizen anger, he blames Bush in the same breath. In his ideological arrogance he

simply cannot accept the fact that the people of this country do not want, and will not accept, his brand of

"Change".

Under Bush, I don't recall any Tea Party movements, angry town hall protesters or Democrat Scott Brown

type election victories.

And finally, from SEIU Pres Andy Stern:
"The reason Ted Kennedy's seat is no longer

controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington's inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November

2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure." (emphasis

mine)

:rofl:

I almost hope this kind of delusion persists. Keep in mind that Andy Stern is a frequent

visitor to the WH, and SEIU was recently given a pass on paying the "Cadillac Plan" tax on high end insurance

policies.

[Mtnjim]

...Under

Bush, I don't recall any Tea Party movements, angry town hall protesters or Democrat Scott Brown type election

victories....

Of course not, they're creations of the machine that chose "W" and got him elected.

[belgareth]

Of course

not, they're creations of the machine that chose "W" and got him elected.
I don't really believe that.

The claim has been going around but only from opposing parties and only as a means of deriding the participants. Its

pretty standard tactics to attack groups like that when they show any sign of growth. Almost all the attacks I've

seen have been filled with lies.

Towards the end of Bush's term, some tea parties had been held, including at

least one in the Dallas area. The tea party movement is against big government and high taxes of all types, without

regard for political affiliation. Many independents and a few democrats, more at every one, attend those

gatherings.

[idesign]

Of course

not, they're creations of the machine that chose "W" and got him elected.

Well, I was speaking

figuratively for the most part. But since you brought it up, Republicans are not really known for their grass

roots, activist ability to organize.

Looking at the recent tea party and town hall protests, you see a lot of

hand made signs, each one different, and expressing several themes.

Looking at a Saul Alinsky "machine" protest

you'll see professionally made signs with identical messages (Stop Plate Techtonics, NOW!). And a line of buses

around the corner.

[Rbt]

Just as an aside. I got my W-2 from

where I have been working this year.

It was interesting to note that according to Federal figures I am under

"poverty" level.

Fortunately I really don't need the income as much as I need SS credits. My stint in a Federal

Goverment job that was not covered under SS meant no credits... so now I need to catch up. But the main point is

that I suspect a large number of people in the US fall into the same "underemployed" status as I would. In fact I

have heard (granted I don't have figures to back it up) that if one takes into account the "underemployed" the real

"unemployed/underemployment" figures are closer to 20% rather than the 10% you hear quoted. Which of course also

does not include those who have given up.

The other sad thing is, and again this is possibly not fully true, is

that I saw an article about someone who has been living in "Section 8" housing for something like 57 of her 58

years. But I can believe that once someone gets into that "entitlement" rut, there is little or no incentive to get

out of it.

Sad.

[Mtnjim]

...The other sad

thing is, and again this is possibly not fully true, is that I saw an article about someone who has been living in

"Section 8" housing for something like 57 of her 58 years. But I can believe that once someone gets into that

"entitlement" rut, there is little or no incentive to get out of it.

Sad.

You're right not true,

Section 8 hasn't been around that long. (http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/94/bratt.html)


One

can look at the history of the federal government's involvement in housing in three broad phases – the Depression

era through 1949; the 1960s and 1970s; and the Reagan years to the present. The Section 8 programs were created

during the second of these periods, in 1974, but to more fully appreciate the recent changes and current policy

dilemmas involving Section 8, it is useful to understand the overall context – what came before and what has

followed since the enactment of these programs.