Blogs and Stories
Divider in Chief
Alex Brandon / AP Photo
After getting elected on the promise of uniting red and blue America, Barack Obama has polarized the country faster than the last guys—but that’s not his fault, says Lee Siegel.
Time for an unreality check. Maybe all of us who think that making universal health care the law of the land is the most important issue of our lifetimes would not be feeling so angry and bitter if we took a step back and looked at the true cause of our rage: the liberals who raised such impossible expectations of Obama in the first place.
Needless to say, the opposition—both rational and irrational—to Obama’s proposed plans would still be here. But if it weren’t for months of giddy rhetoric about the post-racial society, and the triumph of cosmopolitan values, and the dawn of a new golden consensus on everything that is socially just and decent—if it weren’t for all that good, old-fashioned American optimism that has such an egotistical, deluded underside, then we would have known what to expect when Obama started his health-care push and how to deal with it politically, intellectually, and emotionally.
Obama’s own near-obsessive, Lincoln-like harping on the nation’s divisiveness throughout his campaign was both a warning of the coming storm and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You remember how it went. Obama was Lincoln, and then he was FDR, and then he was Jesus. Conservatism as a political movement was finished (as moderate and pragmatic conservatism: yes, for the foreseeable future; as an emotional force: never). The red-state trolls who cling to their guns, and their religion, and their—help me, I’ve forgotten: Was it plastic sofa covers? Air fresheners?—had been vanquished. The deceptive distraction of the culture wars was over. People had finally woken up to their true economic interest.
The liberals who proclaimed these fantasies were of various stripes. They were former conservatives scrambling to stay in the game who had thought Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve worthy of serious consideration, supported Bush’s war in Iraq with a vengeance, and in the days after the 9/11 attacks referred to the American left as a fifth column. They were former theater critics who disparaged culture as a political force because they needed to cover up the fact that culture, not politics, was all they really knew how to write about.
Or they were people who hyped the Other because the Other made them so agitated that they had to rocket themselves out of their unease into outer space—one college English teacher, appraising Obama’s autobiographies, actually compared him to Henry James. (Just what the country needed.)
And it almost goes without saying that many of the rapturous optimists, if not most, were people honestly, and in good conscience, wrung out by the badness and deceit of the previous eight years. They poured their despair into this one remarkably iconoclastic-seeming figure. Obama himself, in one of his books, acknowledged that he had long felt he was a screen onto which people projected their own aspirations. He certainly did his share to raise expectations. He had a million accomplices, though, who went even further than he did.
But November elections don’t usher in new epochs. Obama was elected by a freakish perfect storm of crises, not a sudden transformation of attitudes. The economic meltdown that made him now threatens to unmake him.
Obama’s own near-obsessive, Lincoln-like harping on the nation’s divisiveness throughout his campaign was both a warning of the coming storm and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He has been, from the beginning, the most divisive president since Lincoln. As well he should be. In personal origin, public demeanor, and social agenda, Obama is the most original president the country has ever had. Guns and violent rhetoric (not to mention, God forbid, real violence) are how a certain type of American pays homage to an authentic disruption.
Yet this irrational opposition to Obama now is a small thing roaring. Blinded by their apocalyptic optimism—which turns like a tropism to the opposition’s apocalyptic pessimism—liberals haven’t been able to see beyond it to the more manageable rational resistance. They won’t let Obama do what he does with genius: play politics. Having come to associate politics with its perversion, they considered Obama’s victory a triumph over politics itself. In their eyes, we are not just living in a post-racial society. We are living in a post-political one. No compromise!
Liberals might be more tolerant of Obama’s patient maneuverings and brilliant gamesmanship if they tried to look beyond their surreal expectations. For what Obama is up against is not just stubborn political and cultural realities that do not obligingly turn with the election season. He is contending with something both more prosaic and more overwhelming: tax rates.
At the time of the New Deal, America’s upper tax bracket was 79 percent. When Johnson passed the Great Society legislation, it was roughly the same. Every country in the world that has socialized or nationalized health care either does so by means of high taxes, whether income taxes, a special health-care tax, or some other type of tax. Our upper tax bracket is now 35 percent, period. This at a time when Obama’s health-care legislation would be—along with the New Deal and the Great Society—the third great social transformation in the country’s last hundred years.
Tax “reform” has been the conservative counterattack on FDR’s and LBJ’s social revolutions. People on the right might have criticized Reagan and the two Bushes for expanding government and leaving Medicare and Medicaid intact—despite Reagan’s desire to abolish them. But Reagan’s deep tax cuts for the wealthy have finally brought us close to the fulfillment of his original intention: the near dissolution of Medicare.
Burning buildings and rioting in the streets do not have the power of one change to the tax code. It is one of history’s sharper ironies that taxes have been the instrument of both American revolution and reaction.
In the face of that reality, Obama’s attempt to universalize health care is like trying to carve out a sliver of democratic “socialism”—for want of a better term—in the most capitalist society on earth. It is almost like trying to create a pool of fresh water in the saltwater sea.
But it is hardly impossible. In the speeches he plans to make to the country in the coming weeks, Obama should speak to our unique materialism and link our excesses both to the economic crisis and its consequences, and connect those events to the absence of affordable, universal health care.
And he should recall to people his original intention to tax those making more than $250,000 a year. He should remind the elderly rich, as he speaks to the entire nation, that the overtaxed middle class is footing the bill for their Medicare, even as the rich fail to pay their fair share. Behind closed doors, he should remind the bankers and businessmen he has rescued that the economic crisis is far from over, and that if they want any more goodies, they should publicly back him on health care.
Let him assure people that pre-modern tax rates for the wealthy—i.e., Republican reactionary tactics—won’t stand in the way of government funding, that just as anyone with a household budget knows how to take from here to give to there, health care will find its funding as a sound bill, once made law, finds its footing in society. Let him say whatever he has to say, so long as he keeps reminding people what is truly at stake. And let liberals stop punishing him for disappointing the moral vanity they once felt in declaring a black president the First Man of a New Age.
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
The Pure Greed of Obama's Phony Health-Care Reform
Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike’s Election Guide 2008.
Edwards Sex Tape Details
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
Look Who's Irish!
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Washington's Only Grown-Up
Lee Siegel is The Daily Beast's senior columnist. He publishes widely on culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: How the Web Is Reshaping Culture And Commerce—And Why It Matters. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
Daddy's Girl
Lee Siegel is The Daily Beast's senior columnist. He publishes widely on culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: How the Web Is Reshaping Culture And Commerce—And Why It Matters. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
Palin's Reality TV Makeover
Lee Siegel is The Daily Beast's senior columnist. He publishes widely on culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: How the Web Is Reshaping Culture And Commerce—And Why It Matters. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
allonfla
"They won't let Obama do what he does with genius: play politics. Having come to associate politics with its perversion, they considered Obama's victory a triumph over politics itself. In their eyes, we are not just living in a post-racial society. We are living in a post-political one. No compromise!"
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!! You hit it right on the head with that my man. I made a similar, though not as eloquent point over at DKos - my internet pals have lost their mind over there.
North49
Jeeze, that would imply that the Daily Kos actually had a mind to lose. Can you offer some proof of that?
nickatdabeach
not as polarizing as this preacher
http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr09-03-08.html
Humor-In-Uniform
Here we go with the "fair share" thing again. I've often considered retiring in a couple of years and starting a business. But, when I think of all the hard work I'll have to do to get it started, potential financial ruin etc...then I think if I actually succeed after years of scraping by, I'll just be shoveling over the fruits of MY labor and MY risk over to many who don't deserve it? Because it's fair? That's CRAP!
Is that the change I need to believe in? This line of thinking will crush the American dream....and the dreamers who support it.
Chuckv
Crush the American dream? When the highest tax rate was 70% during the Eisenhower administration was the American dream crushed then? But now a 1% raise on incomes over $350,000 will. Why is it impossible for conservatives to discuss facts?
Further, there is the concept "enlightened self-interest." A healthy work force is good for employers. And it helps if people can afford to buy stuff. And even if people were left to starve and die taxes would not fall to zero. A modern society needs many things that only government can provide: the common defense, infrastructure, and--yes--even something called volcano monitoring.
But I cannot argue with your main point. If a 36% tax rate on your income in excess of $350,000 keeps you from wanting to start a business, then that is your decision and your value judgment. (But history is clear that it does not discourage entrepreneurs generally.)
Or if you would rather not work than have a relatively small portion of your taxes provide for the sick or unemployed then that is your choice.
This user is no longer registered.
hammer
The top 1 percent of taxpayers (
WestVillager
It's hard to discuss facts b/c people get them confused with opinions and our memory for history is short. Carter had 70% top rate I thought. You may be generous with, republican, Eisenhower. I thought the top tax was much higher.
I'm not at all concerned with Obama's proposed income tax rates on their own, and no one should be.
dcbooknurse
Most of the uninsured are working hard and paying taxes. Either their employer doesn't offer health care coverage, they can't afford the premiums, or they are excluded because of pre-existing conditions. Please explain to me why, exactly, these people don't deserve health care?
dalelama
No, actually the majority of People without health care in the nation are those who don't want it because they would rather spend their money on something else or are criminals who are here illegally.
bgeasyas123
really dalelama, you sure about that? How about some numbers? Because although there is a significant number that fall into your categories, they are far from being considered the majority.
Funny how you call yourself dalelama, yet label all illegals as criminals. Very dalelama-esque of you..
tehixe
@dalelama: You know what? All you people are acting like babies, so I'm gonna start throwing it right back atcha.
Liar liar pants on fire, hanging from a telephone wire!
AlanD2
dalelama: You've obviously forgotten the Cadillac-driving welfare queens.
pacifistgunslinger
Marginal tax rates have historically been pretty meaningless inasmuch as the wealthy don't pay them anyway. Eaxample: In 1976, when I worked for Ford, Henry Ford II paid no taxes whatsover while I, with my $10,000 income paid something in the neighborhood of 27 percent. And trust me when I say that Hank the Deuce made one hell of a lot more money than I did.
xlntcat
Warren Buffett reported that he paid 17% and was sure that he could afford to pay more. Cindy McCain resisted until the bitter end and finally submitted her 2007 tax return which indicate per NYT's report that she paid approximately $200,000 on 4.2 million which is under 5%, however, the article wasn't clear and did indicate that $500,000 overpayment from the prior year had been applied which would bring taxes paid to about 12%.
I believe that the corporate tax is 39%, however, find a corporation in the U S that actually pays a fraction of that percentage due to dodges and deferments and loopholes. It doesn't happen.
Anyone making $1.000,000 per year who can't afford a 1% tax increase is not fiscally responsible enoungh to hold a job with that pay scale.
Downriver
That's some amazing convoluted thinking.
tehixe
Interesting fact that people on the Wrong don't realize: in the 1950's, the Leave it to Beaver dreamtime that they all wish we could return to, the highest marginal rate hovered around 90%. If the 50's were the golden age of the American Dream, then we can draw one of two conclusions: high taxes either cannot crush it, or they actually facilitate it.
And this selfish drivel about taking your tax dollars and giving them to someone else? This is the same Tea Party nonsense about protesting taxation WITH representation. You get a lot of government services for your taxes.
Seriously, do you want to see America without taxes? A place where everyone looks out for themselves only? They have that golden paradise, it's called Somalia. Without a government to protect everyone's investment from fraud and violence, investment is pointless, and society collapses to the subsistence level.
The American Dream as you put it, is a myth at best, and a lie at worst. Our country was founded on freedom, true. But it was also founded on cooperation. The very idea was for the states to pool their sovereignty and create a federal government that could stand the test of time. And when the states pool their sovereignty, so do the people. We are strong because we are the United States, not because we are the "my neighbors can go to hell" States. Unity makes us great, and unity means pitching in. If you need further lessons about sharing, you might want to enroll in preschool.
arsenio
Hey, don't get so excited, it's bad for your heart! Who told you that crap, anyway? Why do you wrongly presume that you would be "shoveling over the fruits of [YOUR] labor" over to anybody? You don't live in England, where you have to shovel it to the apparently deserving royalty, you live in America, you can't be THAT dumb! If throwing an extra apple or two from the "fruits of [YOUR] labor", to poor people who, for whatever reason, are not as fortunate as you, then don't presume to be deserving to live in a CHRISTIAN country. You may learn more about Christian values in India (and their benevolent Hinduism), than you have here. Can I offer to buy you a plane ticket?
daveinboise
Please! If you making decisions solely based on taxes, you are doomed to failure anyways. Don't go into business.
baptox
Hmmmm... You are so uninformed and such a complete idiot that it's hard to know where to begin.
First of all, it's not social programs that are bankrupting this country, it's war and all of the defense related accoutrements.
Secondly, you fail to point out that there are tremendous savings to be had in preventive healthcare and the restructuring of payments to drug companies and hospitals. But without true restructuring of our current healthcare system, none of those savings will be realized.
Thirdly, without a viable public option, insurance companies, who are raking in record profits, will have no incentive to be competitive.
And lastly, der Speigel, not all of us thought or think Obama was Lincoln, FDR or Jesus Christ. Most of us who support him recognize him for the political animal that he is, but we also believe that he's a political animal who works for our interests and has basic integrity.
That support doesn't mean we support everything that he does or will fail to speak out and have our voices on healthcare heard. That's the beauty of democracy and my guess is that President Obama is mature enough to recognize that.
leftygoleft
excellent, I concur, I concur
Obama was never my first choice, but I supported him and still support him because even though I don't agree with him completely I still believe he has a legit moral compass. The rediculous attacks the right are spouting only appeal to the uneducated and to those with alterior motives. There are almost no mainstream arguments against Obama's plans that are remotely close to reality.
dalelama
Are you kidding me ? There are plenty of mainstream reasons to oppose this monstrosity...1) it reduces our personal liberty, 2) it is a function for the federal government that is not authorized by the Constitution, 3) the Federal govt has never run a major program whose costs didn't far exceed what we were promised, and 4) price controls whenever imposed in the history of mankind have always lead to shortages, reduced quality and rationing. I could go on and on and on but as that wonderful representative of the People Barney Frank said, that would be like arguing with a table.
AlanD2
dalelama: And why didn't you oppose the Bush administration?
Bush's Patriot Act and warrantless domestic wiretapping program threatened your personal liberty far more than anything Obama has done.
Bush's torture program and warrantless domestic wiretapping program were clearly not authorized by the Constitution.
The Federal government has quite successfully run major programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and VA health care. Costs have gone up over time, but have you looked at the cost of private health care lately?
Price Controls? I haven't heard anything about this in years. Did you get it from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News?
I do agree with Barney Frank about one thing: arguing with you is like arguing with a table.
blbtampa
Have you read the bill? Your medical and financial records will have to be uploaded to a federal database. I served eight years in the Navy and distinctly remember the moment when I realized that after volunteering I had signed away my civil rights. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud to have served and have often ended a spirited debate with "I defend your right to say your opinion." I now wonder when the Americans I defended will realize what rights they are allowing this bill to hinder. Shout out to other vets, do you remember the moment you realized that you had signed away your rights. My nephew (Iraq vet) said when he had to get the anthrax shot. P.S. Thank you for your service!
tehixe
Your medical records are already in all kinds of databases. The federal one will be more secure, and less people will have access to it. What you're signing away is your right to be extremely vulnerable to identity theft. Nothing more, nothing less.
Resolute
@ dalelama: 1. First of all, how? Second of all, show me where in the bill it does this.
2. Not explicitly authorized, no, but why should the founding document of our nation be an impediment to its well-being? The Constitution was only 3 pages long and very elastic so that it could allow a government to grow and evolve with the needs of a society that is always doing the same.
3. That's a largely irrelevant point that may or may not be true. I don't necessarily care that a program exceeds its budget; instead, I care about whether it's doing the job it said it would and doing it reasonably well and I care WHY the program is over-budget and the circumstances surrounding it. I also care about where the additional money is/will be coming from.
4. Rent controlling in NYC has not led to a shortage of available living spaces, though the elimination single-room occupancies and the processes of gentrification have to some extent. I could also point you to several instances in copyright where price controls have led to massive INCREASES in supply and quality (ex. Statutory licenses for cable companies showing material from broadcast networks).
TommyD1of11
Au Contraire Mon Frere
1st - even before Obama's out of control Socialist agenda, our future unfunded entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public employee pension funds) were going to bankrupt the USA - only now its much, much worse due to Obama. Obamacare would guarantee national bankruptcy. As far as defense spending is concerned, we're only spending about 3.5% of GDP. Throughout most of the Cold War we were spending 8% to 12% of GDP. Of, course those pesky radical Muslims who dream of getting Allah's bomb are of no threat to us ... the resurgent and bellicose Russian bear is just a misunderstood friend ... the rapid growth of the Chinese military's strategic force projection capabilities is just a butterfly spreading its wings, besides, why should we care about the Taiwanese. Yup, the need for a strong military is so yesterday, man.
2nd - studies consistently show that there are NO tremendous savings to be had in preventive healthcare (not that preventive healthcare is wrong, just that there are no savings, in fact, costs have been shown to actually increase); restructuring payments to drug companies will whip out their profits and the necessary incentive to pursue high risk R&D ... translation, forget about any miracle cures for diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.
3rd - the Public Option is a bridge to nationalized, single-payer healthcare. Obama and leading Dem's have clearly and repetitively said so. The incomes of insurance companies vary form year to year and when averaged out are well within reason (3.5% to 5%). Yet, studies also show that government administrative costs average 18% higher than in the private sector. So, once again, the massive savings you speak of are pure Liberal fantasy.
FINALLY, if you don't believe Obamacare will lead to Death Panels, take a look at what is currently going on over at the VA. Go to page 21. Read those questions. Now imagine asking your elderly parents those questions or an emotionally depressed friend who has suffered a traumatic injury. Yep, Helen Keller would never have lived past 18 under Obamacare. Don't believe me, check it out. This document was created during the Clinton years. Bush rightfully got rid of it. But, Obama has now reinstated it.
www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf
pacifistgunslinger
Most sane people believe absolutely none of what you say. Studies by whom? Think tanks set up by the health care industry? Think tanks set up by Defense contractors? Latter-day Birchers and UN haters? And you believe the "death panel" nonsense only if you have an incomplete ability to read the English language. This nonsense is brought to you by the same people who gave you incontrovertible facts regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, not wrong so much as outright lies.
commomsensemustrule
Thank you for sending the link to this PDF. I looked at it and was thrilled to finally see the discussions my elderly mother was trying to wade through put in a logical and orderly fashion. I just lost my elderly father who was bedridden with Parkinson's for 2 years before he was finally relaesed. I can only assume a person that feels threatened to have this discussion when people are calm and rational does not have elderly parents or has not seen people with terminal metastized cancer suffer months of chemo in a hopeless situation. I am filling out a copy of this for my daughter and I hope she and her husband will do the same. Perhaps you want feeding tubes and respirators to keep your loved ones alive as long as possible. This certainly gives you the option to say so. But you need to respect the fact many people do not want mechanical means to keep them alive. We need to stop overstating what the proposed plan does and what it does not do. Stick with facts of what has come out of committee. Not scare tactics about assumed motives of liberals taking over all personal decisions in health care because of their love for government. You would further the debate if you had an opinion on what is in the bill.
tehixe
Awesome. If you list them in a concise, bulleted, 1st, 2nd, and 3d kind of format, baldfaced lies sound true!
Here's another guy who needs to re-enroll in preschool. You forgot the lesson about how lying is wrong.
frontman9000
TommyD1of11......
Socialist agenda? Amazing how you right-wingers throw around terms you do not know the true meaning of. No European countries are socialist. What they do have is social programs that work so well for their citizens that they are never up for debate. There are discussions for improvements but never any debate on elimination of single-payer heathcare or the elimination of public funding of education (which I'm sure you are also against) because these programs have brought a great deal of security and opportunity for these citizens. Those on the right choose to condemn the success of so many single-payer systems throughout the world as inferior to our broken and expensive for-profit system that is only employed in the U.S. and no where else.
Now, I would like to address your "thump-my-chest, big military spending" arguement. Yes, we need a strong defense but do we really need to spend billions on obsolete planes and warfare equipment that is useless in today's warfare. Perhaps you think we should just be deploying our blood and treasure all over the world against nations that disagree with us so that we can be in several open-ended wars with questionable motives instead of just the two we're currently mired in. The "let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is a great mentality. I guess it has worked since the Coast Guard hasn't reported seeing any boatloads of jihadists making their way across the Atlantic. If anything, Russia, North Korea and Iran have increased their military spending with respect to imperialistic expansion of American power and influence. Since Obama's been President, at least now we are having civil conversations with our adversaries instead more saber-rattling and threats. Anti-American rhetoric has certainly cooled across the world since Obama took office. I am employed in international trade and I travel often and I've seen a dramatic shift in the way that our global neighbors see us. American resentment and anger has considerably waned.
Now onto healthcare. You say that drug companies will no longer dump enormous amount sof cash into "cures" for cancer, heart disease, etc. since when have drug companies researched cures for anything? Like the saying goes; "there's no money in cures, only in treatment." When was the last time you seen a drug company realease a drug that cured anything? Sorry, I 'm not buying that arguement. They will have no problem pumping $$$ into R&D. It's the lifeblood of their business.
Secondly, where do you get your statistics that show the government's administrative costs are higher than the private sector? I would like to see facts that back that up!
Now let's talk about your irrational fear of the make-believe "death panels." This is another example of the word association game that GOP operatives like Frank Luntz, love to employ. Take two things that have no association to each other and repeat them together over and over again so that subconsciously, they begin to appear linked. This has been the GOP formula for defeating the opposition that Atwater and Rove worked to perfection on a lazy thinking and gullible public.
I would also like to mention that short-sightedness of the GOP and their gullible followers. They would rather spend thousands more down the line than give up a dollar today. They never promote any legislation that projects into the future if it requires investing money now. Why? Because the GOP leadership believes that God and the second coming of Jesus is coming very soon so what's the point in planning for the future? Sounds crazy? Believe me, it isn't. Go to south and talk to some of these Evangelicals with political ties to the GOP. It's no myth!
So get your head out of the sand and expand your narrow-minded, me first type of thinking. This country and its citizens will destroy itself unless we learn to realize that we live in a world where we are all interconnected and interdependent on each other and start seeing the world through the eyes of many. Not just our own!
Downriver
Wow.
DocHumboldt
I just read the VA document(s) (both pages 21 and 22) that you suggested and don't see how they're any different than a set of questions that would be asked by any responsible person seeking to get a handle on a terminally ill patient's wishes in case of "x".
Your mere utterance of the words: "Death Panel" suggests that you have been seduced by Palin, Grassley, et. al..
Downriver
Measuring defense spending as a percentage to GDP is invalid. Defense spending exceeds 20% of the budget, and is almost as much as the rest of the world combined.
There is a good article on this from the Center for Defense Information
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3858&from_page=../ind ex.cfm
Timbo52
TommyD1of11
I pretty much agree with everything you have said and have seen the data you speak of.
Pacifistgunslinger
Any reply that starts out with "Most sane people believe" is always bull s***. Statistically speaking you nor I could never know most sane people unless the definition of sane people is your circle of friends of course.
tehixe
Physician heal thy self. You said: "Here's another guy who needs to re-enroll in preschool. You forgot the lesson about how lying is wrong." So because you believe what you believe its true. Wow, its crystal clear to me now.
Frontman9000
As I recently explained to another contributer here, I find it funny how someone can respond to a post, question the facts, ask where they got their information, straighten them out since they are obviously so stupid and then rant for half a page and provide no documentation of their information as proof. There are a couple of thing I would like to respond to in your post though, and of course I'll supply the same amount of documentation as you have so if you have questions try google.
Socialized Medicine is bad for people. You are right when you says these programs are never up for debate. The reason for that is they become such a monster you can't get rid of them. No one is going to vote to loose there healthcare created job. Did you know that in Europe their health care system is the 3rd largest employer in the "world". What politician would dare propose changing it without knowing he/she would be voted out of office next cycle. There are plenty of articles about the pro's and Con's of their and Canada's system.
I wouldn't call them death panels but its not far from the truth, the language is way to loose and it is in plain English. Add cost cutting and then take a look at one of Obama's top Healthcare advisors Dr Ezekiel Emmanuel and its not hard to picture it that way.
And then you finish up with this.
"So get your head out of the sand and expand your narrow-minded, me first type of thinking." You need to read that part again and again while looking in a mirror.
Its real easy to just start attacking, and I have been guilty myself but this stuff is serious business and affects us all and will for a long time to come. It would be nice if we could all start supplying facts to go with our rambles.
tehixe
@Timbo52: You're a big fat liar, or you're a big fat ignoramus. Either way, shame on you.
Timbo52
tehixe
You continue to prove my point. You do have it part right though, I am fat.
Chuckv
Lets look at the facts: the publication at www.rihip.org is a publication of the Rhode Island Health Literacy Project. I saw nothing that linked to it the VA, but, of course, I might have missed something.
The booklet is about advance planning for end of life heath care decisions. The whole point is to allow people to understand the issues and make choices in line with their beliefs and desires while they are reasonably healthy and fully mentally competent. The idea of giving this booklet to an "emotionally depressed friend" is ridiculous. You might as well argue that there should be no peanuts produced become they are not appropriate for some people with nut allergies.
Hellen Keller lived a good life because of the love and care of her parents and others, particularly Anne Sullivan. How would Obamacare keep this from happening? Further, she was born in 1880. I doubt that medical care had anything to do with her living to 18. Not much medicine could do in those days.
tehixe
@Timbo52:
"You continue to prove my point. You do have it part right though, I am fat."
You made a point? What you made, sir, is a straw man.
"So because you believe what you believe its true. Wow, its crystal clear to me now."
You see, I never used my belief as proof that I was correct, i.e. I never made the argument you claim I did, therefore you attacked a straw man and didn't make an actual point that can be proven. I premised my statement on a fact, the fact that you are telling lies. A liar is one who lies. QED. Your arguments are demonstrably false by reference to many neutral fact-checking agencies like politifact.com and factcheck.org. The facts contained therein expose you for the liar and/or ignoramus that you are. As such, you can clearly see that my epithet against you was premised on facts, and not on belief, and though my criticism was without a doubt strident and unruly, it is the absolute truth.
Lilli917
Baloney!
xlntcat
Where are these studies? Do they represent the body of the evidence? Why are you the only one who has access to information that is printed in the medical literature. Preventive measures per valid and reliable documentation have decreased smoking which has resulted in decreased illness related to smoking. The savings have been measurable. Surely you are deliberately trying to deceive and manipulate your fellow bloggers. By the way do work for or are you being paid by United Health?
menckenlite
Obama is a Harvard Law Grad. He is well-read, but lacks common sense. He sounds so good unless you watch what he does after his words which mean nothing. It is all just words with no substance, like Harvard.
xlntcat
Where is the evidence to back your conclusions? I have watched carefully and I disagree. Give a concrete example.
flyoverland
What this guy forgets (or chooses to ignore) is you could take every dollar of income of everyone making over $500k and you wouldn't even come close to being able to pay for all the crap he keeps pushing. He is promising the middle class a free lunch and they will have to get the bill. The only alternative is to keep priniting money which will cause South American style inflation or dare to cross a line which would lead to the death of the Democrat Party and try to enact an asset tax. Even confiscating assets of the wealthy would only work for so long as there is a finate value of those assets. Our country cannot survive when fifty percent pay no income taxes. Liberals like Obama need to sober up and embrace a flat tax that would provide enough to enact many of their pet programs instead of the extortion of the progressive tax loaded with loop-holes which makes them feel good, but will never pay for everything they want.
southernborn
You must be someone in that higher income bracket because as a true middle class family, I can tell you, we haven't had a free ride.
I actually agree with the "fair tax" system but you are not being honest when you accuse President Obama of "printing money" and "all the crap he keeps pushing" unless you were just as opposed to President Bush and congress passing Medicare D with no way to pay for it and not even adding the war costs into the budget. What they did by cutting taxes and then spending without adding it to the budget was the equilivant of taking a lower paying job but buying a more expensive house at the same time. I would think it more honest to pass a bill and provide for funding than to not fund it at all and let it add to the national debt.
And speaking of the national debt. At some point we all have to quit squealing like stuck pigs and pay a higher tax to pay it off. It occurred on our parents watch and our watch and it is going to be put on our children and grandchildren. But I sure don't hear anyone who wants to pay up in order to pay it off. Nor did I hear so many people squealing about this huge debt (or the unfunded programs I just mentioned), just two years ago.......... No it is only when Obama cleans up the mess left to him and then still has the Nerve to try to deliver what he promised he would that the debt is brought up.
And that is a whole other problem. No one really thinks a President will go into office and try to do, just what he said he would do. Who does that? You really are going to try to get health care? Try to get a real energy bill? If you solve these problems what will we have to fight about in the next election?? See Obama must have thought congress really wants the changes they campaign on. He (and most of the rest of us) must not have realized that the reason nothing ever gets done in DC that really matters is that Repub's and Dem's have to always have these issues unsolved so that they can rail against the other party next election.
I'M FOR A NATIONAL DEBT TAX, IMPOSED ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US UNTIL THE DAMN THING IS PAID OFF, AND I'M ALSO FOR A BALANCED BUDGET. NO MORE CREDIT CARD FOR THE GOVERNMENT, NO MORE HIDING THINGS. PAY FOR IT WHEN YOU PASS IT OR PASS ON IT...
flyoverland
Please read more carefully before making such accusations. I said Obama is misrepresenting reality that taxing the rich can pay for this and that the middle class is going to get stuck with the bill. I also did not accuse Obama of printing money (although borrowing it just as bad), I said the only way to pay for all the crap he proposes is to tax the middle class, print money, or confiscate assets.
I did oppose Bush's proflegate spending. I would also support a debt tax as long as it was spent on reducing the debt. the prosperity we would have as a result would come back to all of us in spades. I do not believe the crooks who are in Congress are capable of not spending a debt tax on other things. Until everyone has a responsiblity to fund our government, it will not work. those getting a free ride (not the middle class) will simply pressure Congress to give them more and those footing the bill (the upper 50%) will resist with all their might. A flat tax would fix all of this.
tehixe
Er, a debt tax would sort of annihilate the system. If we wanted it to collapse and then rebuild it brick by brick, we could have just let the banking crisis slide without a recession. You might disagree, but I for one don't like the idea of Great Depression II. If you're a fan of bread lines, 25% unemployment, and other hallmarks for economic collapse, I guess you might feel differently. If you had any understanding of the current economy, you'd understand that the entire thing is built on leverage. Business borrow, they use the borrowed capital to make money, they pay their creditors, and everyone gets filthy stinking rich. The only thing that's been missing is regulation to prevent excessive risk-taking by public companies who are supposed to manage all of this responsibly.
The same applies to the government, however. If the government borrows piles of money to turn the economy around, and it does in fact turn around, the tax revenues will start pouring in, and we can pay of those debts. This is another basic thing that all the sky-is-falling new-born deficit hounds don't understand: investment. We are not taking money and burning it, we are investing it in banks, in businesses and in people. That's right, even healthcare is an investment with an expected return. Making America healthier makes America more productive, and this increases tax revenues.
Now, I'm not saying that government is perfect, or that we shouldn't pay attention to how to manage the deficit, but you have to spend money to make money. Since Bush II put us in such a deep hole, the only way to get out is to dig ourselves out with more spending. If we just sit on our hands, the walls will collapse and this hole he dug for us will be America's grave.
flyoverland
are you kidding? How's that stimulus working for you so far? When government goes into debt it goes into the market and competes for scarce dollars running up interest rates. We are not investing in banks, etc. we are blowing trillions on entitlement programs. I agree Bush put us in a hole, but it is a ditch at the side of the road compared to the Grand Canyon Obama has put us in in just six months. If your theory is so great, why do all states have (or are supposed to have) balanced budgets? Leverage is fine for private enterprise, government should live within its means. I suggest it is you who doesn't understand economics. You can't spend a dollar twice.
tehixe
What are we, 2 years old? It's called delayed gratification, folks. Did you really think we could turn around the 2nd biggest crash in American history in 9 months? The stimulus wasn't even designed to be spent all up front, it's a timed infusion of cash, and slowly but surely, it is working. It's bad-tasting medicine, but we'd all be dead (economically speaking) without it. Toddlers refuse medicine because it tastes bad and they can't appreciate that it will make them feel better. Toddlers throw tantrums because they don't understand when things will come later, they want them NOW! So what are we, babies, or grown-ups?
tehixe
flyoverland, you haven't even made an argument. What you've just fed me is ideology and misinformation. We are not investing in banks? That's exactly what TARP did, we bought preferred stock in the failing banks to prop them up, and already that investment has been paid back by some firms. To quote a witty man, "on what planet do you spend most of your time?"
Also, we're blowing trillions on entitlement programs? So I guess you're in favor of repealing medicare, i.e. actual euthanasia as opposed to the made-up Sarah Palin/Betsy McCoy euthanasia lie? I'd love to see the Republican make that argument. Goodbye regional party, hello ex-party!
And again, you don't understand investment. We can't spend a dollar twice? That's a major non sequitur. Nobody's talking about spending a dollar twice, we're talking about investing a dollar and getting back more than a dollar. It's called a "return on investment." That's how money is made, for the government as well as for industry. Healthcare invests in America's health, it lets us work harder and be more productive, which stimulates the economy and tax revenues.
You understand economics on a 1st grade level, i.e. if you spend 5 cents on a baseball card, you no longer have your nickel. You have to go all the way to the 3rd grade level to understand that now you have a baseball card which may appreciate in value, enabling you to later sell it for 10 cents and realize a 5 cent profit. But no, all you and your ilk can focus on is that the nickel is gone, and we must cry that the sky is falling and run around and wave our arms about deficits while we let the country burn, a la President Hoover. Seriously, the Republicans have duplicated every page from Hoover's "How to Start a Great Depression" playbook, and they're treating it like some kind of path to salvation. It is, in a word, disgusting.
flyoverland
I am not sure how many NASDAQ companies you've run, champ, but I will put my knowledge of finance against your left wing playbook. First, the stimulus hasn't even been deployed and the recovery is underway. It should be repealed. Obama wants it not for stimulus, but for pet projects that will build and reward his politcal base. There is no rational human with an ounce of brains who can say you are better off with a lot of debt than without it. Its like the old accounting rule, you are better off not making the expense than taking the deduction. This country is heading for oblivion. We are depending on growth to bail us out, growth that was predictible when we ruled the world. China now owns our debt. China and India now move the oil markets. Have you watched the market this week? We have been moving as they move, not the reverse which is the way its always been. The trillions of entitlements I refer to is healthcare that cannot be paid using the lame strategy of soak the rich. There aren't enough rich left to soak. The Feds have squandered the Social Security and Medicare trusts which is the same as debt. This country is in for some very tough times when the rest of the world demands we start living within our means. Take your Keynesian addiction and shove it.
tehixe
Oh, I get it now. Investments aren't what makes money, stuffing money into your mattress is what makes money! You ought to be the fed chairmain!
All I know is that doing nothing will never fix Bush's mess. If you want to do nothing, that puts you in the Herbert Hoover camp, i.e. the biggest economic policy loser in American history.
tehixe
They really need an edit function on this thing (or I need to proofread). What I meant to say was "If we wanted it to collapse and then rebuild it brick by brick, we could have just let the banking crisis slide without a bailout." There are more typos, but that are at least halfway comprehensible, unlike the preceding line which made no sense as written.
southernborn
In regard to your post above about the "debt tax". If congress kept spending to a reasonable amount, yes we as a country could be fine carrying a certain amount of debt. The debt we have now has little to do with the stimulus package or tarp. It has accumulated over many years of not funding projects/bills and never wanting to raise a tax to pay it off or to cut certain spending to pay it off. I know we had to fund TARP and the Stimulus. Just like I think now we need to pass health care reform and as a household that makes $60,000. per year, I would gladly pay a tax to help fund it, it is important. I don't want to pass it and let the future generations be stuck with the bill.
I do understand the Great Depression, I may not be an expert on the economy, banking or any of that but I have a general understanding. I balance a budget, might not be a large one but I know what I can afford, what size loans I can afford, how much I can charge and still pay off, etc.
AlanD2
flyoverland: Please stop repeating Fox News lies. I have heard them so much lately that I could probably recite them in my sleep.
mountainreality
Where do your lies come from?
AlanD2
mountainreality: I usually get them from conservative comments. Do you have any new ones for me?
mountainreality
Yeah. How about the one about the AARP supporting it, when last week AARP's President said that's utter nonsense. My favorite is the one about the CBO saying the plan will pay for itself.
Dboy70
With Obama's divisiveness, and his arrogant attitude of its his way or the highway when it comes to healthcare [and most other matters], when the elderly start suffering and dying because of the care rationing which most assuredly would occur, rage and violence from their friends and family members against those who caused this cram-down healthcare socialism should not come as any great surprise. Where Lincoln ended the Civil War, Obama and his cohorts could be the catalyst to start another one.
liviapeacock
Sorry you have no original thoughts of your own; these Fox/Limbaugh talking points have all been debunked. The 500 billion from medicare doesn't go ANYWHERE NEAR the elderly, it goes DIRECTLY TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES in the form of subsidies. It may be a bit complicated for you to understand that so let me make it easier.
Obama is not stupid enough to think he will be elected or an historic president if he kills America's elderly.
Get that through your thick head, would you?
dalelama
You are an idiot the subsidy to the insurance companies are payments for services provided.
AlanD2
dalelama: Do these services include record profits, bonuses, and CEO pay averaging $11 million?
xlntcat
Subsidies to the insurance companies are not payment for services provided. Subsidies never are.
southernborn
Bush wasn't divisive or arrogant and it wasn't his way or the highway. There are already elderly as well as young people dying and suffering. Health Care rationing is done by Insurance Companies. Lincoln began and ended the Civil War, actually I think Lee and Sherman ended the Civil War.
The catalyst to start another one would be idiots who are afraid of the bogey man (aka Boogie Man) under their bed. That is what all of this is, oh my god, this isn't the president I wanted........oh my god, my charity can raise the money to help pay for some unfortunate soul to have surgery, we are the rightous who help the poor and sick, they don't deserve real health care but we will feel sorry for them when they are down and out, but we don't want to help lift them up, they should do that on their own. Oh my god.........the list goes on and on. FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN, FEAR OF CHANGE, FEAR OF THE BOGEYMAN.
Downriver
If anyone starts a civil war it will be Roger Ailes.
tehixe
@Dboy 70: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."
jus1drun
it's all becoming political theatre. the repubs are not interested in increasing govt services hence there is no point in including them in the conversation nor to be upset with them. the left wants massive new govt. programs and are flabbergasted it could possibly be challenged. after all the dems have complete control. the dem pol leaders talk the talk but can't get all the dems in line. polls show a questioning public sentiment moving counter to the public option. but the dems can overcome that by sidestepping traditional senate procedures. the dem pol leaders and the left know that and have threatened to so proceed. some dems are shaky though because they know how that will look to that part of the public that doesn't support the change and that portion of the public on the fence. non of that would matter if the idea could be proven good in practice before the 2010 elections. but there isn't sufficient time. and the economy is not comfortably revived yet which would be the answer to so many problems but is a hair in the ointment of introducing any new big govt. program because there are so many unknowns.
that leaves one question to those dems seeking re-election in 2010. do you feel lucky?
uranus
lee, dude, that was so deep i could hardly follow. genius politician? if that were true, there would be no need for this blubbering nit-wittery. get a grip. if universal health care is a moral imparative, what are you waiting for? i propose a new charity that is funded by the 52% obama voters. feel free to contribute as much as you wish. all proceeds will pay for the uninsured health care. i'm sure acorn would be happy to administer the program.
RodzillaMcCloud
face it, this health care saga should be titled "Nightmare at the Post Office"
ACBaker
While I quite agree that health care has to be funded somehow, the British, complete with their godless NHS, pay 40% tax in the top bracket (i.e. on anything over £40K). When you factor in the main British vs. American taxes - national insurance, income tax and council tax in Britain, state and federal income/property taxes in the US, the average American pays roughly 25-35% of their income in taxes, the average Briton roughly 30-37%. Yet the American chunk doesn't cover health (well, it covers a grossly inefficient medicare that provides lousy care for a minority - good paying for the same service twice, isn't it?). Factoring health insurance in, an American with coverage is probably subsidising several other people's health care while death and taxes robs them of 40-50% of their pay packet. That is quite frankly disgraceful, and it helps explain (a) why Americans have so much personal debt (because in real terms health care is undermining the American standard of living) and (b) why Americans are working harder and harder for less and less take-home pay (because in real terms health care is flat-lining American productivity). If you don't fix that, those mini-mobs outside town hall meetings are going to look like the local glee club.
Actually, a reasonable three-pronged strategy for fixing health care and cutting costs would be a public option, major tort reform (the insistence of the American middle class that a premature birth be like winning the lottery is one reason lots of people can't afford care), and a flat tax across the board (say 20%, combined with a hike in the property tax rate and a major cut to the capital gains rate, which would stimulate savings and investment... we can talk later about slashing the corporate tax rate).
The terrible thing about being a political economist, however, is first, such solutions don't fit neatly into left/right boxes, second, I bored everyone to death about five minutes ago.
leftygoleft
What are you doing? This is not the place or the country to make intelligent statements about important issues. This is about swaying people with one-sided ideals to help you get enough support to sustain or regain political power. Come on now. There is no middle ground, pick your polar opposite or be gone.
aspiecelia
I am definately not bored. Brilliant thinking.
WestVillager
Ideology aside, would you (or someone) explain why it's apples to apples comparing a country with 60 million versus 300 million, is significantly more densely populated, has a VAT, etc. Number crunching can be fun, but I'm curious how this economic comparison turns into actual application -- without accounting for differing personal values.
This might change some minds of those who don't understand comparing European models to the US.
This user is no longer registered.
WestVillager
uhhh
flyoverland
One thing you forget in this argument comparing the US free market with the socialized UK NHS system is 40% of Britons buy private health insurance becaue they are so unhappy with the NHS system. The only reason NHS works even badly is they have this huge percentage opting out of the system (but still being charged for it). The NHS system is also subsidized by Americans who are forced to pay retail prices for drugs and devices we develop here while drug and device companies discount these products to socialized systems all over the world. So, your argument that Americans will be better off financially with Obamacare only applies if they are willing to put up with rationing, long waits and restrictions. In the UK, a huge percentage are not so willing and have to pay extra to obtain a more quality level of care. I ran a company in the UK and we couldn't hire quality people without providing private insurance. This required us to raise our prices. The dirty little secret about the UK is there is a two tiered system where those who can afford it go to private hospitals like the Wellington in St. John's Wood, while the rest are sent to the wards of the NHS system. Perversely, in an attempt to make everyone equal, you will be creating the gas that will fuel a firestorm of class warfare down the road.
alyakovleff
40% I'd like to know where you get your numbers. I've read as low as 8% and as high as 15%, but never anything even close to 40%. I'd love to see something that offers proof, other than your obviously unbiased opinion.
Grimmace
British Healthcare sounds like the public school system in the US. If you want a very basic yet somewhat poor and inefficient system you send your children to the public school. If you want something that actually excels and achieves then you pay a lot extra for a private school while not being able to opt out of the taxes that go to pay for the public schools that you will never use.
Why do we want this model now applied to our healthcare system?
dalelama
FYI, Private health insurance in the UK is supplemental to NHS service, however the shortages caused by their nationalized system sometimes make the fact you have supplemental insurance irrelevant. Also if you factor out death by homicide and auto accidents our system of health care provides much better results...but that is another dirty secret the Socialists are hiding when they keep insisting the outcomes in our system are worse.
AlanD2
Grimmace: Studies of private schools have show that their students do not do any better than those in public schools.
People who send their kids to private school often have other motivations (particularly in the South).
tehixe
liar liar pants on fire, hanging from a telephone wire!
Seriously, you don't get tired of lying do you dalelama? You're like an automatic lie-machine.
southernborn
You are quite right and when you actually look at Great Britian, Canada and France (who by the way is number #1 in health care), we pay more $$ out for health care and get less for it, are not healthier, etc, etc...
We just have to bash their systems to make us look superior.
When you factor in taxes such as federal excise taxes on your monthly bills, state and local taxes on your monthly bills (electric, phone, cable, gas......) and then think this, a marriage license fee is a tax. A fishing or hunting license fee is a tax, tags for your car, a tax..
xlntcat
It is time to get over the arrogance that we lead the world in anything except consuption of goods and services and obesity. We are steadily declining in education, science, medicine, trade, manufacturing and despite pouring the bulk of GDP into the military, have we actually won a conflict other than Grenada since WWII. But the misery we know isn't as scary as the unknown. We have a choice to be led by the most uneducated and those with the least intelligent in our society or be willing to work to improve the sad state we are currently embracing.
dalelama
Oh by the way you forgot the British Vat tax of 17%...Actually I thought your analysis was excellent but I would recommend the Fair Tax before the Flat Tax. Obviously our nation's future is threatened when 43% (on the way to becoming 50% plus 1) of income producers pay no Federal Income Tax whatsoever and thus don't care how much of the Treasury is squandered, hence insuring a permanent state of parasitic thinking.
AlanD2
dalelama: If those 43% had good health care, they would be much more likely to pay taxes. It is hard for sick people to work, you know.
By the way, here's a nugget about taxes on Fortune 500 companies:
"Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.
But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.
In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.
Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003."
Many of these companies paid no taxes at all. Are they victims of parasitic thinking too?
spinozareader
Not at all bored by your post.
It is thought-provoking and well-written.
Thanks.
tumbleweed
Let's face it! The right is never going to accept or even respect Obama. Most of us knew what it was going to be when he started running for President. The right is made up of racists, demagogues and genuinely hate filled people. They hated Clinton almost as much as they hate Obama. As I see that is where Obama is going wrong in this whole issue. He is trying to unite the country again. He needs to forget about ever bringing this bunch back into the country again. They are alienated from the process because that's where they choose to be. I can understand his motives in trying to unite the country. But, that's never going to happen. The only way they will be happy is to have another fascist President like themselves. Then the rest of us are going to be pissed off.
LeighBeast
Sadly, you are right.
liviapeacock
Exactly. Though I am the sole liberal in my conservative family, I have come to the heart-breaking conclusion that I genuinely hate and detest conservatives.
The first step is admitting you have a problem, right?
Well, I'm admitting my unmitigated hatred and unbridled horror at the whole party.
b2brian
Turn that frown upside down cupcake...we love you!
SFGiants
Ah, come on, it's family. After all, as the Christian right says, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." (I think they're talking about gays, but I'm sure it can be applied anywhere.)
tehixe
@SFGiants: The Christian right says that? I thought they said "hate everyone who's different from you." Honestly, the word love and right-wing are like oil and water, they don't mix. They're probably the least faithful to the teachings of Jesus of any group in the whole country -- nobody practices less charity or brotherly love than the Right (or more accurately, the Wrong).
Grimmace
Yes, and the left was always so kind, understanding, and respectful while disagreeing with Bush and Reagan.
AlanD2
Grimmace. Yes, we were. I don't recall any liberals carrying guns outside of Bush town hall meetings. Do you?
This user is no longer registered.
WestVillager
lol
sonofloud
lol
sonofloud
Obama's supporters were fools to think he held some kind of magical powers that would turn republicans into democrats.....you should have have read some of the stuff at "liberal" sites during the primary.
This country is permanently divided.
The logical choice is to separate and form 2 countries.....the republicans get the south and the democrats the north.
Maybe the civil war wasn't such a bad idea after all?
Grimmace
No thanks! Then we'd have to also set up a wall along the northern border to prevent all of the northerners from trying to illegally enter our country as they escape their new ossified statist Socialist Republic.
sonofloud
yes and the Mexicans are coming to get you from the South, what would you do?
AlanD2
sonofloud: Don't forget that the goddless Russian communists would be infiltrating on the east coast.
aackc1
Hope & Change!
milarepa
Oh for God's sake. This piece is so full of over-blown generalizations that it is not only pointless but meaningless as well. The author is entitled to his opinions and certainly entitled to artfully dress up that opinion with hyperbole so as to make it seem like intelligent analysis rather than mere self-indulgence. Just because someone has the ability to string a few coherent words together and the connections to get it posted on Daily Beast, doesn't mean it deserves to be mistaken for a meaningful statement about the real world.
It's actually well-written - given that it's nonesense.
donnal
You write of his "brillant gamesmanship", some would define his gamesmanship as "brillant bull___".
His attempt to stifle voices and our concerns with the direction that he is taking this country is not brillant gamesmanship, its arrogance and guaranteeing himself to being a one term President.
Mr. Obama and his handlers have over-estimated themselves, under-estimated the people and over-played their hand. Brillant gamemanship will not be how this President will be written about in the history books.
He has no consistent message, the dems are divided,
AlanD2
donnal: Now Bush had a consistent message: "Stay the course!" He drove us over several cliffs with it. I doubt you'll like what will be written about him in the history books.
I'll stick with Obama, thank you very much.
I do agree with you on one point. Republicans are united on "Just say 'No'."
southernborn
Obama stifles voices? Really? Wow, I was just reading a column about the people allowed to carry guns outside of some of his events.....which state law allows them to do, how-ever for security reasons the secret service could make them move back away from the event but didn't. By the way, I am a gun owner and hunter but there is a time and place for everything and carrying weapons near a Presidential event, isn't one of them.
Now, people were moved back from Bush's events for wearing anti Bush shirts or having anti Bush signs. A person in Denver was removed and ticketed outside of a McCain event for having a sign that said McCain=Bush. She was a 61 year old librarian. Hum........I think that is stifling voices.
I believe George W Bush stiflied more voices, they (his "handlers") called anyone who disagreed with them unpatriotic and they violated our Constitutional rights, over and over again.
Obama has not been perfect, none are but the people who scream he is or wants to take away our rights are the same people who defended Bush's actions and didn't seem to care one bit when he trampled the Constitution.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.