There Will be Blood

[lilyannerose]

"Unemployed? Fuck em. No health care coverage? Die quickly, then."

In reality, deregulation ...

They do not want deregulation. They want less regulation, specifically from the federal government which, again, is constrained by specific powers enumerated by the Constitution. All other regulation is to be left to the several states. So much power being centralized to the federal government contradicts the national framework of a constitutional republic, where the states govern in themselves whatever is not delegated to the federal government (e.g., entitlement programs, insurance regulations, public education, etc.).

Our Constitution was never written in stone, why do you think it can be Amended? What worked a few hundred years ago does not address the needs of our times. You can't go back in time and stand on a document that does not address the changes within the overall of our society. Unfortunately as greedy corporations and individuals will not serve humanity with good intent. Perfect example is the oil volcano unleashed by BP and not only their cover ups but the disclosure of their terrible business practices and the impact on the health of those who live on the Gulf Coast and the Gulf itself.

... deregulation has been a disaster for the American economy and it caused the most recent meltdown.


It was not deregulation so much as the federal government manipulating the banking and housing industries with ideological legislation that has "been a disaster" and "caused the most recent meltdown." For example, creating new regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that stiffened enforcement of fair housing and fair lending laws

You want to blame those less economically fortunate for the financial meltdown when we all know about the bundling of mortgages, assignment of grades and sell off and then the bets against those bundled packages.

It is almost incomprehensible that you could actually believe that. After strict government regulation caused the savings and loan crisis from the 60s through the 80s,

You have to be kidding.

The hostile attitude towards social entitlements.
What "hostile attitude" toward entitlements? It is not a partisan issue: entitlement programs are broke. Whether Republican or Democrat or independent, everyone recognizes this fact and must contend with it.

Do you want to start with the newest Orwellian program of blaming the unemployed for being unemployed and presenting this whole new Welfare Queen narrative revised to fit the unemployed? Or how about this push to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy, that's going to be very helpful. So far that whole trickle down thing just doesn't seem to be working. You want to protect the status quo, when the status quo has failed. For how long do you think the myth that this time the trickle down will work can be upheld? Are you one of these people who want to do so because you believe that one day you CAN BE rich? I've said it for years, capitalism is the biggest shell/con game ever pulled on a mark, any system wherein so much winds up in the hands of so few is nothing but a con. Hopefully we'll see the death of capitalism within the next decade as more and more people become aware of the limitations to the system and the very concept of anyone being RICH will be met by social taboo.

[downbeatplumb]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Michael Moore?

Why.

The guy makes simple minded polemics,preaching to the converted. He also seems personally obnoxious.

[DeistPaladin]

America isn't a capitalist nation and arguably hasn't been one since the "Reagan Revolution". The economic system we currently use is corporate welfare, featuring privatized profit and socialized risk.

Libertarians will claim that government is evil and businesses should be trusted with all the wealth and power. Socialists will claim that business is evil and government should be trusted with all the wealth and power. I believe both are what they are and have their roles to play. Business generates wealth while government regulation keeps them honest.

What's needed is to return to what we had prior to Reagan, where the rich paid a much greater share of the taxes. The rich benefit the most from society and should therefore pay more in taxes to support it.

[Ryft]

[DeistPaladin]

Because the unemployed do not want unemployment benefits in the first place. They want jobs. Politicians are elected to Capitol Hill to do what they can to encourage employment, not unemployment (which is part of the reason the electorate painted the political map red in the last election cycle).

They do want unemployment benefits when they can't find jobs, which is the whole point of the program. In terms of "bang for the buck", extending unemployment benefits is the best stimulus program. Tax cuts for the wealthy is the worst.

And the jobs programs cooked up by the Democrats made as much sense as taking water from one part of the lake and pouring it into another and pretending to have accomplished something meaningful.

We have an infrastructure that's crumbling apart, so it does make sense to spend resources fixing it, never mind the economic benefits of the jobs program. Given that the economy was in a free fall after 8 years of Republican mismanagement, the shaky recovery of today does seem like an accomplishment.

And the Bush tax cuts were for nearly all taxpayers, not this ad hoc category of "the rich."

Just most of the tax cuts went to the rich.

(P.S. If Pelosi is right, that unemployment benefits "create jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name," then why does the lame duck Congress not simply extend unemployment benefits with unused stimulus money, rather than legislating further deficit increases?)

I've been asking "why don't the Democrats...?" for several years now.

The law in the employment-based health insurance market prior to [health care reform] already specified that

But she couldn't get health insurance on her own. And she would have died.

Moreover, the fact that you do not already know the answer reveals an unwillingness to conceive seriously the alternative to your favoured position; a responsible electorate is informed by the strongest arguments of both sides on political issues, not indoctrinated by the talking points of one side and rhetorical straw men of its opposition.

Have you got any links? You'll have to pardon me for not knowing about these plans because the only conservative suggestions I've heard are "tort reform" and "interstate competition", neither of which actually address the root problem that the foxes are in charge of the chicken coup (for profit health insurance companies running health insurance). If such plans exist, its not for lack of listening that I don't know about them.

No, the Tea Party movement is opposed to that, too. It wants the federal government to be as uninvolved in the private lives of "we the people" as possible, limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution—none of which regard anything about the bedrooms of Americans.

Perhaps you and I are speaking of two different Tea Parties. The one I'm talking about has fielded some of the most brazenly anti-choice candidates yet seen on the political landscape, one of which is now my senator.

Yeah, the Republicans of the 1990s and 2000s who were Democrat Lite in their spending orgy—which Democrats supported and the Clinton administration signed off on—the sort of Republicans that gave rise to the very Tea Party we are talking about, a movement that reached a boiling point during the Bush administration and voted many of those incumbents out.

The Republican "spending orgy" was defense spending (which the Tea Party has taken off the table for cuts), the wars (which conservatives supported) and the tax cuts (which the Tea Party supports). Pray tell, where are your hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts going to come from?

Last time I checked, the Clinton administration was among the most fiscally responsible in the last 30 years.

In 2006 and 2008, it was Bush's incompetence that helped progressives elect Democrat majorities in Congress. If these elections were about a groundswell of conservative outrage against Bush's spending, I never heard about it. It's only today that some Tea Partiers disavow Bush and even now I'm not hearing anything of substance regarding where exactly his frivolous spending was.

[Jaysyn]

They do not want deregulation. They want less regulation, specifically from the federal government which, again, is constrained by specific powers enumerated by the Constitution. All other regulation is to be left to the several states.

I agree with you on this point, but time after time the "Interstate Commerce Clause" makes "State's Rights" it's bitch. What do you propose to do about this Federal loophole?

[Ryft]

I agree with you on this point, but time after time the interstate Commerce clause makes states rights its bitch. What do you propose to do about this federal loophole?

The clause does not grant Congress exclusive power to regulate all commerce; it grants Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, such that states regulatory powers do not extend to interstate commerce (thus preventing states from erecting protectionist regulations; e.g., Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, wherein New York had tried using alleged health concerns as a pretext for keeping out products from other states in order to protect their own industries).

[Mishka]

I agree with you on this point, but time after time the interstate Commerce clause makes states rights its bitch. What do you propose to do about this federal loophole?

The clause does not grant Congress exclusive power to regulate all commerce; it grants Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, such that states regulatory powers do not extend to interstate commerce (thus preventing states from erecting protectionist regulations; e.g., Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, wherein New York had tried using alleged health concerns as a pretext for keeping out products from other states in order to protect their own industries).

Biut the courts are granting expanded powers to the Feds through the Commerce Clause. A judge in Va. affirmed the health care mandate due to his belief that a person will need health care at some point in his or her life. Talk about stretching the Commerce Clause.

[Ryft]

But the courts are granting expanded powers to the federal government through the Commerce clause. A judge in Virgina affirmed the health care mandate due to his belief that a person will need health care at some point in his or her life. Talk about stretching the Commerce clause.

No doubt. That is an argument so retarded it is practically embarrassing; the fact that someone might engage in commerce in the future constitutes his engaging in commerce now.