Ideological Spectrum redux

[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)



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.

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.