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]

Someone needs to watch this film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhydyxRjujU

[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]

What is "no unemployment extensions for those unable to find jobs in this recession and no spending on jobs programs but let's not worry about where we're going to find 700 billion for tax cuts for the rich" anything but "fuck em".

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

My wife would be dead now but for the fact that she's covered by my plan. She's uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions.

The law in the employment-based health insurance market prior to Obamacare already specified that your spouse cannot be subjected to pre-existing condition exclusions (q.v. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [P.L.104-191]). As it stood, that exclusion could "only be applied to those without prior coverage, or to those who wait until they need medical care to enroll in their employer’s plan. ... A modest and sensible reform would be to simply apply the same set of rules to the individual health insurance market" (Haislmaier, E. & Blase, B., 2010).

What is the conservative plan to fix our broken health care system? Or are they living in denial that a problem exists?

See for example Cannon (2009), Haislmaier & Blase (2010), O'Brien (2009), Owcharenko (2010), Ryan (2010), and Tanner (2010) as just the beginning of a political discourse on entitlement reform. 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.

Just put in its proper role of regulating my bedroom instead of the financial markets.

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. It is becoming difficult to take your criticisms seriously.

Letting states regulate health insurance and removing interstate purchase of health care insurance will result in all health insurance companies relocating to the state with the fewest regulations so they can screw us all more.

First, as Owcharenko points out, "[eliminating] barriers to individuals purchasing health care coverage that best suits their personal needs across state lines" is one of the things that many conservatives champion. Second, if onerous state regulation drives health insurance providers to other states, then that state will suffer the consequences of its own actions. And private sector business is not the only thing that can "vote with its feet"; so can the people. When a state loses businesses and people, it might rethink its legislations and policies. But when it is elevated illegally to the level of federal government, where can businesses and people go? Businesses begin reducing their costs by outsourcing or cutting overhead, the American people suffer economic and job losses, and the government loses tax revenues. The entire nation suffers as a whole, instead of this or that particular state. If the federal government could be reduced to its constitutional scope and authority, leaving all else to the states or the people, the amount of federal tax revenue it needs to conduct itself would be astronomically reduced, enriching the American public tremendously.

Like it or not, we don't use goose quill pens and horse and buggies anymore. Federal regulation is both necessary and appropriate in the modern age.

No, we use computers and minivans now. Regulation is necessary and appropriate, yes, but the vast majority of it should be reserved to the states. The Constitution, the contract by which the people grant powers and rights to the federal government, places limits on what it is called upon to regulate (e.g., currency, postal services, interstate commerce, etc.).

[As a Reagan conservative], I don't remember being so detached from reality. I never spent so much time arguing what the facts were.

Obviously you did not spend much time arguing with liberals, then, who seem to constantly forget what the facts are. Their arguments also seem incapable of avoiding fallacies—like the one you committed here, when you said, "When Reagan deregulated the financial industry, that's when we started having meltdowns." This is the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, where two things are said to have a cause-and-effect relationship by virtue of occuring together. The historical point I am not sure you have questioned is 'why' Congress thought it necessary to deregulate the savings and loan industry. Hint? Because it was already in collapse: "By 1980, the savings and loan industry was technically insolvent because the market value of its mortgage loan portfolio was less than the value of the deposits financing it. Congress belatedly responded by reducing the regulatory burden on the industry. Yet it was too late" (Utt, 2008).

Republicans stripped away the regulations that prevented the mergers that allowed so many eggs to be put in so few baskets.

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.

REFERENCES:

• Cannon, M. F. (2009). "Yes, Mr. President: A free market can fix health care." Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 650. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org (PDF).
  
• Haislmaier, E. & Blase, B. (2010). "Obamacare: Impact on states." Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2433. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org
  
• O'Brien, P. (2009). "Representative Paul Ryan gets it right on entitlement reform." Heritage Foundation Foundry. Retrieved from http://blog.heritage.org.
  
• Owcharenko, N. (2010). "Repealing Obamacare and getting health care right." Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3053. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org.
  
• Ryan, P. D. (2010). "A Roadmap for America's Future 2.0." Tax Policy Center Tax Reform 2.0 forum. Retrieved from http://www.americanroadmap.org.
  
• Tanner, M. D. (2010). "The coming entitlement tsunami." The Daily Caller. Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com.
  
• Utt, R. D. (2008). "The Subprime Mortgage Market Collapse: A primer on the causes and possible solutions." Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2127. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org
  

---

---

Our Constitution was never written in stone. Why do you think it can be amended?

Who the heck suggested that the Constitution couldn't be changed via the amendment process?

You want to blame those less economically fortunate for the financial meltdown ...

Uh, no. I want to blame "the federal government manipulating the banking and housing industries with ideological legislation" for the financial meltdown—which I said.

Do you want to start with the newest Orwellian program of blaming the unemployed for being unemployed ... [snip rest]

The unemployed are not being blamed for their unemployment. And your entire screed, couched in terms promoting class warfare, never answered my point about entitlement programs plummetting toward insolvency. Thank you.

[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.