Obama could keep his promise if he wanted to
Here’s a great piece by Ace describing how NBC’s story exposing Obama’s complicity in the re-writing of the Obamacare grandfathering regulations for health insurance proves that he knew he lied to the American people in his oft-repeated promises about keeping their health insurance.
The fact that it was NBC writing the story surprised and puzzled me. So it’s not at all surprising that there was some post-story turmoil and an attempt to censor the most important part, probably as a result of intense White House pressure. What surprises me now is that NBC seems to have decided to reinsert the censored material and stick with substantially the same story as the original.
Ace makes a further point that has nothing to do with NBC and everything to do with Obama (please read the whole thing):
These regulations, being a creature of the Executive branch, can be rewritten by the executive branch at any time. We don’t need a law for this (though one would be useful, to force Obama to do the right thing).
Obama has it within his power to call up the HHS reg-writers and instruct them to honor the promise he made time and again for two years. And he doesn’t want people to know this, because he is determined to break that promise.
That promise was always a lie, and not a meaningless lie at the periphery, but a central lie propping up the political campaign for ObamaCare. Had he told Americans that they would be losing their current health care in order to be dumped into what is effectively a high-risk pool, so that they could subsidize high-risk clients, the public would have rejected the law even more strongly than he did.
So he lied. And lied. And lied. And lied some more.
And even at this late date, he could still choose to honor his promise.
But he won’t, because he can’t — he always intended to take people’s insurance away from them. Always. And he’s not going to undo, short of a veto-proof act of Congress.
Obama would like to tell the American people that he must do this, or that he didn’t do it at all. That the law requires it (it doesn’t), that he can’t instruct his employees to give a more generous reading of the law in their regulations (he can), that his hands are tied (they’re not), that it’s the GOP’s fault (what?) or perhaps a fall-guy’s like Kathleen Sebelius.
But Sebelius, the HHS, and all executive employees answer to Barack Obama. He is in fact their boss.
They are executing his will.
So there is one man, and one man only, responsible for deliberately lying to the American people and intentionally breaking a promise solemnly swore a dozen times: Barack Obama.
And he is the one man who can undo all of this and honor his promise with a mere phone call.
We must push to encourage the GOP to make an issue of this, so that the media will, possibly, bother to ask Barack Obama why he doesn’t just instruct the HHS to honor the promise he made to the American people
[NOTE: By the way, the name of reporter who wrote the NBC story is Lisa Meyers. Cudos to her, and cudos to the editors who decided to publish it and keep it up there.]
he is the one man who can undo all of this
So not Hillary right?
I mean she is totally blameless and none of this should affect her being President in 2016, right?
It is all just the fault of that guy we don’t need any more, right?
If a conservative is elected in 2016 (as opposed to just a RINO), they can undo most of the ACA with executive orders as well. The law can be eviscerated, even if it still exists on the books.
…the question is whether it will be politically possible by that date.
Which is why we need a conservative; someone who will actually take the heat and do the right thing. A RINO will fold the moment the first hard-luck stories are paraded in front of the camera.
momo:
Hillary was Secretary of State. We can blame her for plenty, but not for this—in her official capacity, anyway, she wouldn’t have had much if anything to do with it. And now she’s out of office.
Her only complicity is that shared by almost all Democrats: supporting and defending it. She was not in charge of those who wrote the regs, then or now.
Now I don’t pretend to know what may have happened behind the scenes. But that’s a different story. I actually doubt she had all that much input, although I certainly don’t know.
Matt_SE:
If the private insurance industry has been more or less weakened and/or destroyed by then, it will be very hard to go back, even if a conservative were to be elected. If more and more people are on Obamacare, you can’t just pull the rug out from under them.
I can’t imagine how it could be done by executive order and yet not create pandemonium. And I believe that was always part of the Democrats’ big rush—to get it in place, to weaken competing systems, and make it so it would be very very hard to turn back or to come up with and implement a good alternative fast enough to protect people.
I wrote a long reply to Mitsu last night and then erased it. What’s the point in trying to discuss matters with people determined to ignore reality and believe all the lies at any cost?
These people will still back Obama, even buying into explanations such as the one Valerie Jarret tweeted yesterday:
“FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.”
Mendacious doesn’t even begin to describe such a statement.
So, even if there is one report on NBC that Obama could fix the problems of grandfathered insurance policies, don’t worry, Obama’s minions will sully the water so that most people’s anger is deflected away from the prez and onto those evil insurances companies.
It’s much bigger than this lie. Even bigger than Obama.
There is an American Overthrow happening before our eyes. They calculated the time correctly. They have conditioned the populace for decades. They have calculated that they have enough internal support. Vienna is about to be taken. Next one who hesitates loses.
@neo
Hillary prepped the battle field for Obamacare.
Remember, she was in charge of the first serious effort to bring universal healthcare to the US back in the 90s. I’m sure nobody expected it to pass the first time around, however, going mainstream with the idea of universal healthcare was a good first step.
irene:
Of course she prepped the field. But that is irrelevant to this particular issue.
Look, I’m not defending her in general. But on this particular issue—which is (a) Obama’s promises, and (b) did he know he was lying, and (c) could he have changed the regs then and/or now—she is officially out of the loop, whatever she did years ago re health insurance, and even though she supported Obamacare.
Mike:
I agree—much bigger than Obama.
That was my point in that last paragraph of the post. It really depends on where the American people are at.
As I already wrote in the other thread, I think this is a legitimate issue, something Republicans can and should pressure the White House about, and something which, given enough pressure, I suspect Obama would be willing to give ground on.
I just realized what it is that disturbs me about the polarized rhetoric in this country — it’s the assumption of bad faith on the part of the other side. That is, you guys seem to assume that everything Obama or Democrats want is due to some nefarious scheme divorced from reality which is ultimately intended to further some socialist plot, rather than an actual attempt to get the policy right. I’m trying to tell you that the vast majority of liberals actually care about making good policy, not imposing some ideological scheme on people.
There is a policy reason why the regulations are written this way — to prevent insurance companies from endlessly delaying transition to the new regulations by changing grandfathered plans endlessly. But I think with this as in most things it’s a matter of degree, and having half of the grandfathered plans cancel as of December 31, particularly with healthcare.gov not working, is bad policy as well as bad politics. So I think it’s worth pressuring the White House on this issue.
Of course, if you assume Obama is acting in bad faith, you’ll assume he’s immovable on this point. I don’t think that’s the case. In the upcoming budget negotiations this could well be used as a point of leverage by the Republican Party — MUCH more effective than the other things they’ve focused on in terms of modifying the ACA. And I think there’s a fairly good chance they could win on this, if they wanted to push it.
I agree with Ace that the GOP should try its best to get the MSM to make an issue of (or, heck, simply report) Obama’s big lie. But if the 2014 Congressional elections are the most important thing, and I think they are, then much better than trying to hang it all on Obama’s neck would be to talk directly to those who will be seeing their premiums rise and health plans change.
Many of those people voted for Obama, but I think this monetary reality, along with some sound GOP ideas, will encourage them, in the privacy of the polling booth, to pick a Republican representative for Congress.
Awhile back I wrote the following comment that was disputed by Neo and others to varying degrees:
“IMHO anyone with an ounce of common sense who was paying attention [prior to Obama’s election] should have seen King Barack for the lying, narcissistic, power-hungry demagogue that he is–and should have seen it from a mile away.”
For me, a very big giveaway was Obama’s lying, which was–and is–not the ordinary lying that many politicians routinely do. It’s a special, smooth-as-glass kind of lying, the lying of someone who is so full of himself and his righteous drive for power that even the most absurd, baldfaced lie can be spoken without the slightest ripple of disturbance while looking you straight in the eye with a seeming perfect sincerity and innocence.
” That is, you guys seem to assume that everything Obama or Democrats want is due to some nefarious scheme divorced from reality which is ultimately intended to further some socialist plot, rather than an actual attempt to get the policy right.”
Mitsu: Really?? And were you pulling some Rip Van Winkle in the past 30 years as the radicals from the 60’s took over the Democratic party. Your statement may have had some validity in 1980, but not today.
Do you not know about Obama’s past? Red diaper baby, befriended by a known communist during his teen years. A known Marxist while at Occidental. Horowitz is about the only person I know of that moved from such an environment to a moderate/conservative opinion, and it took the brutal murder of a friend to get him to see the light.
Sigh.
Gary,
It would help if you could provide a link to that comment of yours, or at least say what thread it was in.
Because I don’t think there was a lot of disagreement here with what you say, either from me or others. I wrote about Obama’s narcissism back in 2008 (although I used an even stronger word: megalomania). Another one here. And in 2009 I wrote a long article for PJ about how he’s a con man. There were many more along those lines, early on.
Was our disagreement perhaps on how smooth a con man he was, and how many people should have seen it coming a mile away? I suppose I do try to explain why so many people are fooled by con men, but that’s what con men do, they prey on people’s lack of common sense about cons.
physics guy:
It’s really quite simple—Mitsu prefers to believe (or have us believe) that Obama’s a fool rather than a knave.
The other question is whether Mitsu is a fool or a knave.
Sorry Mitsu, I call em like I see em.
The funny thing, Neo, is that I am very, very good at spotting con men. Friends of mine hired a CEO who I immediately knew was a crook, I told them so, they shrugged off my suspicions — he later attempted to steal their company from them, and eventually fled to Mexico after the FBI came after him. Many other similar stories.
Obama is not a “con man” by any ordinary definition. He’s a politician, with an interest in policy, but also an interest in the politics. Pretty much every politician on the planet says things on the campaign trail that are misleading, spin, sometimes outright falsehoods, sometimes lies. Republicans do this constantly! The WMD ruse used as an excuse for the Iraq War was an obvious con from the beginning — I knew it at the time, I knew that couldn’t be the real reason for the invasion, it was transparently obvious, and later most people, even those on the right, admitted that was the case — that the “real” reason for the invasion was a neoconservative project to spread democracy in order to increase pro-Western sentiment in the region. That was obviously the plan from the outset.
The main point here, however, is that there are legitimate ways we can talk about policy pros and cons. Presuming bad faith at all times means you can’t really have a discussion about policy, or come to any sort of rational compromise, because there’s no basis on which to have the discussion if you assume the other side has a completely secret agenda they’re never going to give up. Obama is not that sort of politician — he’s up for compromising on most things, to the point that many progressives are constantly pissed at him for “pre compromising.”
@Mitsu
I know there are people of good will and intent on the left; Kirsten Powers, for example. I just think these people are naive.
So Obamacare is failing, and you think Obama will be amenable to delay…for the good of the country. As someone closer to the left than I, here’s a question:
If he refuses to delay, what excuse will be acceptable to you and the left? What excuse will be believable?
Will there ever be a point where his excuses are unacceptable, and if not now, when?
I didn’t say he would be amenable for a “delay”. What I think he’d be amenable to would be to change the date, for instance, for grandfathered plans, to, say, 2013, instead of 2010. That would be the simplest and quickest fix, because you wouldn’t have to rewrite all the regulations (which were arrived at probably by a very complicated process of internal review, and it would be irresponsible to usurp that unilaterally at the executive level). Instead, change the date to 2013 and ask HHS to review the regulations to see if there are ways of relaxing them further (note that I read they were already relaxed in 2011 based on objections to the number of plans that might get cancelled — but they could be relaxed further). You need to balance the fact that you don’t want insurers to their grandfathered plans and thus never have to comply with the new regs, with not canceling huge numbers of plans in December while the exchanges are still not working well.
That’s a totally reasonable position which I suspect Obama would be willing to go for if Republicans wanted to push for it.
As I have written before on my blog, many politicians think they can repeal the law of supply and demand. In the case of Obamacare, there are two inevitable outcomes.
1) Shortages of healthcare (not health insurance). Demand increases, supply of doctors stays the same or decreases and prices are inelastic, there will be shortages of care (eg waiting lists or inability to see a doctor before you die)
2) Prices of insurance will increase. There is a concept called adverse selection. This means that when you open up an insurance policy (health or life insurance) and you don’t put any restrictions on it (pre-exiting conditions, health problems, etc) then the first people who will buy the insurance will be the ones with the poorest health and closest to needing the coverage. For the insurance company to pay for the cost of the unhealthy, they need 10 times more healthy people to sign up and/or raise insurance premiums. Compound with the requirements to provide “better” insurance policies by Government mandate, premiums HAVE to increase. As a result, no one should be surprised by the sometimes 10 fold increases in premiums. There is no other way to cover all people, with increased coverage. The problem with this is the tax for non-adoption is too low. So 20 somethings will pay the $95 a year tax and the system will collapse under its own weight.
Number 2 is occurring now. Number 1 will begin Jan 1, 2014. (But is already happening in Medicare as reimbursement rates have dropped below cost)
Mitsu – Many Democrats, including Obama and Harry Reid, have stated repeatedly that Obamacare is just a step toward single payer. Reid stated that the private insurance industry would have to be abandoned. We don’t think they’re acting in bad faith, we know they are because they’ve said so themselves.
What’s wrong with insurance companies grandfathering policies forever, if they have customers who like them and want to keep them? Why should I, as a 50+ single woman, be forced to pay significantly more for a policy that covers substance abuse, birth control, fertility, maternity care, childbirth, and infant care? What liberals are calling “not up to code” and “substandard” we call free choice.
And Mitsu, presuming NO bad faith at all times, regardless of the evidence, is equally destructive to productive discussion, not to mention rational thought. You make both mistakes at once. You presume bad faith as the reason conservatives question Obama’s motives. And you presume good faith when you evaluate Obama himself, because — as you explained last night — you just don’t want to believe bad things about the man, no matter what the facts may suggest, and when pressed to the wall and unable to respond to uncomfortable facts, you just revert to refusing to believe bad things about him and presuming his good faith, period. You may think that’s rational, but that doesn’t make it so.
Witness your insistence today that because you’ve managed to figure out the policy reason why the grandfathering regulations were written as narrowly as they were — that is, to force people off their original policies and into ACA-compliant policies as quickly as possible, exactly as the rest of us tried to tell you — that somehow makes it okay that Obama lied for years about this. You haven’t explained why, if he wasn’t lying, he didn’t tell the subordinates who wrote the regs to make them comply with his promises, or why he isn’t ordering changes now that he knows the Awful Truth about the way his subordinates flouted his noble intent. You don’t need to explain these uncomfortable problems, because all you have to do to stop feeling uncomfortable is to presume Obama’s good faith — no facts needed — and presume his critics’ bad faith — no facts needed to do that, either — and you’re satisfied. Really, this kind of “thinking” may feel good to you as you carry it out, but it doesn’t look nearly as admirable to those of us who’ve watched the contortions of denial and distortion you’ve had to put yourself through to pull it off.
As I keep saying, the general architecture of Obamacare is quite similar to what has already been in place in Massachusetts. There are also other countries that use a similar approach: mandate to purchase health insurance, private insurers, regulated market (Switzerland). To say that these schemes are bound to produce an adverse selection death spiral is clearly contradicted by the facts — similar systems elsewhere do not and have not experienced this. Massachusetts does have high premiums but they didn’t skyrocket after the introduction of Romneycare. The differences between Obamacare and Romneycare do not seem to be to be large enough to make the outcome necessarily all that different (although if healthcare.gov never works, that could change the calculus).
We also know the worst case scenario, New York: premiums roughly doubled.
I agree that $95 is too low, however. This tax is so low that it might case some of the adverse selection problem to occur, more than it really ought to have. Romneycare’s penalties are in the few hundreds of dollars (depending on income). But, we’ll see how it goes (if healthcare.gov ever gets fixed).
Neo,
If you’re interested, here’s a link to my comment (with your response immediately after it):
http://neoneocon.com/2013/06/29/history-and-immunity/#comment-622724
Your point was that people need to know more history–which they do. My point was that common sense should have been enough for people to recognize King Barack for the “lying, narcissistic, power-hungry demagogue that he is.”
IMHO, his smooth-as-glass lying was clearly apparent in the “I didn’t know anything about Reverend Wright’s extremism” baldfaced lie (to give one example), and should have been an ominous signal to anyone who was paying attention.
Mrs Whatsit: I haven’t presumed conservatives are always guilty of bad faith. I do think Ted Cruz is guilty of bad faith — he was grandstanding for political reasons. The fake filibuster is the ultimate example of that. He thinks voters are idiots and will rally around him even though he knew his stunts were pointless.
But I don’t think Neo or most of you don’t believe your own policy views. If I did I wouldn’t bother writing here. I think your policy views are too far to the right, but I think this is a debate worth having: what is the optimal policy? It’s an empirical rather than just a political question.
As for Obama, I don’t really care that much about him personally or any politician for that matter. What I care about is policy. For instance — even if Obama was “lying” as you put it, I still think he’d be open to compromise over the grandfathering regs, because it would look good politically and is arguably a reasonable policy. And I do think he cares about policy, whatever his other faults might be, whether he never lies is not a subject I have strong feelings about. In my estimation he’s probably about average as far as national politicians go in that respect. The real question to me is, what are his incentives? In my view good policy is ONE of the things he actually does care about.
Gary,
Oh, so the disagreement was about what people should know or perceive.
I think my con man piece goes into why I think more people didn’t and don’t perceive it—that’s what cons are good at, convincing them that the con man is trustworthy. I certainly wish that weren’t the case (people’s susceptibility to a con), but I think it is the case.
The great thing about democracy isn’t that your politicians are always saints. It’s that they have to appear to be. And that constrains their incentives quite a bit. That’s why I don’t care that much about determining whether or not Obama “lied” about this or not.
What does matter is — what is the best policy? And how can we get there, politically?
Mitsu:
Pride goeth before a fall.
People who are sure they can spot cons are not necessarily people who can spot cons, and certainly not all cons. Most people think they can spot cons, but the majority of people are susceptible to one con or another.
Obama is an excellent con man. And you have either fallen for his con, or don’t care that you’re being conned—which I think just might be a worse failing.
I’m probably older than you. I’ve seen presidents come and go, and politicians come and go, and I haven’t thought very highly of the vast majority of them. I’ve liked some and disliked some and even hated some, but I have never seen anything even remotely like Obama on either side, in terms of his ability to lie and to con and to get away with it. Never in this country, anyway, not on a national level. That includes Nixon, anyone you could name—even Clinton, whose lies were not as blatant or frequent, and whose most egregious lies concerned the Lewinsky matter, which was not directly involved with public policy.
Obama is the best con man I’ve ever seen in public life, bar none, from either side, except for certain corrupt and relatively local politicians. Which makes him the most dangerous.
I just fail to see where you see all the “danger”. Perhaps it’s because you perceive Obama to be very far left, whereas to me and pretty much all of the liberals and progressives I know, Obama has championed policies far to the right of what most progressives want. Most left-leaning progressives would much prefer single payer, for instance, they thought Obama caved when he gave up on the public option, they think Obamacare is a giveaway to insurance companies who they believe stand to make huge windfalls from the passage of the law (supported by the fact that insurance companies lobbied heavily in FAVOR of the law, this time). Most progressives think he’s been terrible in terms of the war on terror, keeping Guantanamo open, drone strikes, and NSA surveillance. Most progressives think he’s way to prone to compromise, caved during the budget negotiations that got us to the sequester, and so on.
For you, he pretended to be a moderate and is governing from the far left, but that perception of him is so far from what I and most of us on the left side perceive him to be that it’s really hard to understand what concrete things he’s been doing that make you feel he “conned” the nation. If anything, progressives tend to think they conned him into believing he was more to the left than he is.
As for my personal views, the reason I don’t care that much about this is that I just focus on what a given politician actually does, what are their policy positions, what have their actions actually been in office. And, so far, I perceive Obama as being more or less in line with his moderate left rhetoric on domestic issues. However, I’d say he’s been terrible on transparency and way to the right on national security (not that I believe in being soft on terror — but I think he’s not done the right things when it comes to, for instance, people we’ve determined are innocent yet are still imprisoned at Guantanamo.)
Let see if I understand Mitsu’s analysis.
We should believe that while Mr Obama was telling us in good faith that we were guaranteed that we could all keep our plans, his Secretary of HHS was not listening. So, she innocently inserted into the implementing regulations language that nulled his promise. Not only that, she did so without informing the President of the affect the implementing regulations would have on his signature program; that is the program that would be the cornerstone of his legacy. Of course we must also assume that Mr Obama was not curious enough to inquire as to how the regulations would affect his signature program; the program that was to be the cornerstone of his legacy. Now, three years after the promise was made,when the public outrage has gained the President’s attention, he realizes that a problem exists; that actions in the Executive Branch have, in effect, put the lie to his oft repeated promises. But, he needs legislation to repair the damage that the Executive Branch has wrought. Of course he could have the regulations changed by Executive Leadership. There are many things he could do–or could have done.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I noted that the Massachusetts health care plan was trotted out in in this discussion as though it is relevant. I am sure that most folks understand the concept of scale. I do not know if the plan in Massachusetts is effective, or not effective. I do know that the complexity increases enormously when you extrapolate any plan by a factor of 50. Never mind any other complicating factors. An analogy might be the difference between predicting weather and predicting climate changes.
A couple of other thoughts; and I know I am repeating myself.
The Democrats ran roughshod over the Republicans in Congress when they put this debacle together. They were proud of that. It is infantile to now complain that the Republicans are not cooperating. It is ludicrous.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the Opposition Party opposing. The Obamanites have developed a nasty habit of complaining bitterly and hurling charges of racism whenever opposition surfaces. It worked for them for awhile. The other overused tactic is to launch personal attacks, often vicious ones, against anyone who dares stand against them. The vilification of Senators Cruz, and to a lesser extent Lee, is just the latest example. Hopefully, the American people have learned to recognize that tactic as well.
Whoa. As I constructed my last post, Mitsu was posting his. After reading his perceptions of Obama’s place on the political spectrum, I fully understand that there is simply no point in discussion.
The frame of reference is so far out of focus that it provides no starting point from which to proceed.
Neo if I had read that post, I could have saved you some band width.
Okay, I’ll bite. Assuming that, as you say, policy is important to Obama and that’s all that matters about him — then why didn’t he care more about the policy he repeatedly said he wanted, by which health care reform would not force Americans out of health insurance policies that they liked? If he likes policy so much, why didn’t he engage with ACA policy where it was being formed — that is, in the writing of regs — to make sure the regs enacted the right policy? And if he didn’t find out until just now that the regs conflict with the policy he wants, why does he have his underlings out there now denying that the policy Obama previously supported had any importance, and insisting that all that matters now is that Americans will have “better” insurance, whether they want or can afford it or not?
I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing any concern for policy whatsoever in any of this. Maybe you can show me what I’m missing.
And it’s foolish and inconsistent to insist, on the one hand, that you’re really good at spotting cons, and on the other that you don’t care if a politician lies. One or the other may be true, but not both, as those who don’t care when they’re lied to are a con’s ideal marks.
I guess what we see, and Mitsu doesn’t is how much of a thugocracy the Obama administration is. Hey, I was never thrilled with Clinton, and certainly not with Carter, but those two are choir boys compared to the current administration.
The lies go on and on. The intimidation (IRS, EPA, NSA, and for God’s sake even the damn Park Service!) makes anything Nixon did look like playground antics.
I agree with Neo, I don’t think I have ever seen such a level of malfeasance in a presidential administration.
Mitsu:
Three questions if you don’t mind:
1. In what year did you graduate from high school? Nothing personal, and I’ll even show you mine first: I graduated with the class of 1969. [ As I’ve observed before, there are lots of geezers and near-geezers haunting these here comments]
2. Assume you could live to see all of your political objectives and dreams realized. What would your ideal America be like? [I’m assuming that you’re an American citizen, Mitsu] Would there be two parties or just one? Which one(s)? Why? Why not? What would be a good mix of party affiliation (DEM, GOP, GREEN, etc) in the Senate? The House? How about in the IRS, EPA, ATF, DHS, HHS and other federal agencies? How about the judiciary? Academia? Would the federal government be larger and more powerful and intrusive (or ‘helpful’) than it is now, or less so? Would there be more or fewer federal programs and agencies than there are now? Would the largest mainstream media outlets — the “Press”– serve a watchdog function regarding government or serve as cheerleaders and propagandists for the regime in power? Is the “Greek Chorus” role the major media outlets have played since 2008 OK with you? Would all of the Bill of Rights still be on the books or are some of them obsolete?
3. Lastly: What do you hope to accomplish here? Just here for the fellowship? Do you think you’re going to win any converts? You seem like a decent guy, what’s up, really?
Just asking (cue the theme music from Jaws )….
I’m not sure Mitsu you realize the gist of the original post and quotes is that Obama lied and got caught at it and is getting called on it by a member in good standing of the left wing media.
The news flash isn’t that we think he’s acting in bad faith it’s that the numbers of people in the middle and left who think that way are growing.
I am sure you meant that comment as humor about how the Republicans should negotiate and pressure Obama to keep his word and fix something he already has within his power to fix. Right?
I think it obvious that Obama lies and does so because he thinks it’s for our own good. I just don’t agree that he (or the left) has a clue as to what is for our own good.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
Mitsu:
Why should anyone be required by the force of law to pay for someone else’s healthcare?
Oh sure, that would be a very “Christian” thing to do, a very moral thing to do. But government has no business enforcing morality. You can read history to find out what happens when governments do that.
In the past, the (predominately Christian) people of this country were very generous in helping those people whom they knew to be deserving of help. I think we could be yet again. But the decision as to whom to help needs to be made by individuals, not by the government. People have a right to refuse to help someone who’s bad choices have brought their problems upon themselves. The only one the government will ever help is itself, by taking money from those who have it, and redistributing to those who will vote for them.
That’s what is going on now, and it won’t end well.
Otiose:
If I can be so bold as to speak for Mitsu, my guess is that he does not think the MSM is “left wing.”
“I’m trying to tell you that the vast majority of liberals actually care about making good policy, not imposing some ideological scheme on people.”
Good intentions mean nothing when an ideology (and please don’t tell us that ‘progressives’ are not solely agenda driven) is not based upon reality; but rather on the assumption that ‘progressives’ know what is best for everyone, although history and human nature show ‘progressives’ are the running dog lackeys of murderous dictators. Run of the mill ‘progressives’ do not intend to do evil, but they are guilty of harming others through they assumptions.
“But the decision as to whom to help needs to be made by individuals, not by the government. People have a right to refuse to help someone who’s bad choices have brought their problems upon themselves. The only one the government will ever help is itself, by taking money from those who have it, and redistributing to those who will vote for them.”
Well said Capn Rusty. I agree 100%. (Using BHO math I would agree 400% or perhaps 10,000%.)
Neo,
If he’s in N CA he’s probably right. Remember More-unemployment-compensation-will-stimulate-the-economy Pelosi is from up there.
Shorter Parker:
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Shorter Parker:
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
😉 Mitsue does not do shorter so I was being polite by giving him a full paragraph.
Yes, leftist morons prefer full-on socilaist medical care.
But there was no chance–none–of such a thing passing. Even when the Dems had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, the “best” the Senate could pass was Obamacare(which perhaps should be called Reidcare).
After Scott Brown won the MA special election, Pelosi’s House had two options: sign Reidcare or give up. Sending any revised version of Obamacare back to the Senate would have resulted in a filibuster that would have absolutly desroyed Democrats in the 2010 election.
The point is that any claim that Obama is anything but a radical leftist based upon Obamacare’s imagined moderation (it was passed with exactly 0 Republican votes) is nonsense. Democrats had to go with Reidcare as it passed the Senate or go home. They had no other options.
@ Mitsu,
“I just realized what it is that disturbs me about the polarized rhetoric in this country – it’s the assumption of bad faith on the part of the other side…. I’m trying to tell you that the vast majority of liberals actually care about making good policy, not imposing some ideological scheme on people.”
You are in total denial.
The evidence is in over 50 years now, that Liberalism kills people and cultures. it makes people more poor, and less free. People get dumber, and lose both body and soul in dependency to Liberal Overlords who seek nothing less than ownership of pother souls and minds and bodies.
It is not about “policy”. Policy is “means”. It’s about philosophy. The liberal is liberal because it has the wrong philosophy, which is close to having the wrong belief system and religious faith.
You know and everyone knows that it is not always a case of both having good intentions and through compromise society advances. Socrates was killed unjustly, no matter the “intentions” of the Athenian Political Class who killed him. Jews were killed unjustly no matter the “good intentions” if the “good Germans” who policy it was to kill them.
Obamacare and everything Liberalism brings of course – so they say – is well-intentioned and for the “good of the people”.
That’s a lie. The evidence is in about the harm it does. Only the willfully blind ignore the decimation of whole cultures and peoples the “good” liberals leave in their wake.
Liberalus delenda est.
One side is just. The other is not. One side will win. The other will be destroyed. That is where Liberalism has brought us. That is what they have done to our beautiful civilization.
@Mike
I, for one welcome (no…not our insect overlords) the chance to fight.
CRUSADE!
Today Rush played dozens of audio clips from years past of Obam-Bam orating that “$2,500” per average family would be the Lower-Than sum saved by Obamacare. Lies..Lies…Lies…Lips were moving=Boy King was deliberately LYING.
I give this about 2 weeks before the media get tired of it, or the White House scumbags create a phoney crisis or some other trivial distraction to relieve the media of the distasteful and unwanted task of reporting this.
The GOP “leadership” spent weeks trashing their own people who we’re holding them back from unleashing their onslaught of…..yet another dreaded Darryl Issa hearing! Have they no mercy? After Darryl and the boys eviscerated the Dems on Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, Fast and Furious? How will Obama, Reid, and Pelosi ever survive this scandal, with this time tested and proven plan to prop up Republican popularity in play?
Sorry friends, but this is the best it will get. This is the big chance that McCain, Boner, and McConnel were waiting to pounce on, and grousing about being robbed of by the area Party troublemakers.
Given they had 5 years to hatch a plan so they could capitalize on this moment, I’m hardly impressed. And not at all above saying I told you so. They’ve got no plan, no alternative, and no idea what to do. They’re the biggest bunch of dummies I’ve seen in my lifetime, and there’s a good reason they’re sitting on 17% popularity. They’re losers.
southpaw,
This is only going to get worse. They can’t hide it. It is going to effect everyone, mostly in a bad way.
That is, you guys seem to assume that everything Obama or Democrats want is due to some nefarious scheme divorced from (connected to) reality which is ultimately intended to further some (evil) socialist plot
Additions and corrections in ()
It took us a long time to get patriots to that point. It was hard, amazingly hard, to get people to think ill of Democrats. Especially Southerners that one generation past were 90% in the tank for Democrats and their Jim Crow class warfare ways.
It’s a good thing that American patriots have opened their eyes, whether they wanted to or not.
America does not have as much time to play politics as people think. There are other strategic forces in motion.
I just fail to see where you see all the “danger”.
Mitsu truly thinks every American will just allow themselves to be enslaved into a Mass. like nationalized healthcare and it’s “okay”?
He probably never understood what the causes for war were, he just thinks he knew cause he saw Iraq on tv. Didn’t understand a single thing about humanity at work.
To spell it out in clear and frank language, Obama and his Leftist alliance are going to cause the Second American Civil War in the US within the next 10-20 years.
You and your “liberal” buddies are going to be used as cannonfodder on the front lines, and executed either by one side or your side. There is no escape, unless you think you can run out of the country. Many already have.
A bit inflammatory, but I’d say the probability is greater than zero…and growing all the time.
“You seem like a decent guy, what’s up, really?”
Too kind; Mitsu is harboring plague infected fleas that jumped upon his/her running dog lackey hide. He knows he is a lackey and he/she is proud to be a lackey. No slack, tighten the rope.
“Mitsu truly thinks every American will just allow themselves to be enslaved into a Mass. like nationalized healthcare and it’s “okay”?”
It only takes 3-5% willing to place everything upon the line. If/when that happens game over for the 97-95%. Reality is a harsh task master.
Even to this day, the Democrat propaganda ops about Tyrant Lincoln and Sherman burner of Atlanta still echo through the descendants of Democrat slaves and oppressed voters.
They were elites at propaganda even before Obama or the Left came on the world scene.
Just recently in world affairs, in the latter 20th century, Democrat and Leftist ideologically based psychologists were proven to have hypnotized and implanted false memories of child molestation and rape, inciting and causing their patients to accuse a number of parents of being child molestors. Years later, of course, the truth came out, but the damage was done and nobody gave a damn about repairing it.
And people think this technology and mind control techniques have not been weaponized for tv and speechifying?
Obama’s not the end roll of the evolution in con artistry, the LEft has many many more Weapons more fearsome than whatever he thinks he’s got over Valerie Jarret.
The Left’s true power is mind control, not politics or even welfare. It’s more of a mind slavery application.
It’s why when a subject, like Mitsu, is programmed, you cannot unprogram him without the access keys, the verbal/visual triggers, or the backdoor codes used to bypass the external defenses.
It’s why you can’t convince your spouse, if they are Democrat leaning, or why you can’t convince your family, if they are enslaved to Democrats.
This is deep, on a spiritual and mental level, which mere amateurish words and “debate” cannot get through.
What people should be frightened of is when Lefties start “converting” (spies), not that they call themselves “free market supporters” or talk about Obama being opposed to “central planning”. It’s to be expected you can’t convince a Mitsu. If you could, they are either a fake Leftist or someone pretending to convert to setup a deep background for later.
The methodology of shock and trauma has often been used to deprogram subjects of various habits and instincts. Research various case examples such as Stockholm Syndrome and various SDS sexual conditioning efforts in the US. The amount of “shock” is sufficient to kill most normal people. It’s why when properly conditioned and programmed, a patient cannot be turned back to normal except by methods that will almost certainly kill them, mentally or spiritually first if not physically.
I have to say, I wonder if it is possible to start a class action suit on the part of the US Citizenry that this was a clear case of fraud and deliberately misleading advertising.
That could be… interesting, and all it would take is a sympathetic judge to open up the situation.
The funny thing is the money would be coming from taxpayer funding. A sort of redistribution, where the lawyers get 70+% of it.
Don-
It will get worse, but the GOP will not capitalize on it. The planning should have started 4 years ago. They will get their asses handed to them again. They’re more comfortable being critics than taking the lead.
heard Oliver Stone and a partner on “Coast to Coast” this week.
They were talking about spying and surveillance and Oliver said that of course Bush started it. Then it was said by one of them that it seemed still to be growing under this administration at which time Stone actually said something like this: well yes, Obama is keeping up those policies, but Obama seems like a nice guy, you know, a reasonable guy — but we have to think of what will happen if a bad guy gets into the White House and these policies like spying and drones have increased.
Why argue? Love is blind.
I have a liberal friend who works in computers and testing for big corporations. She had not followed one whit of news on this implementation.
Why argue? Love is blind.
Capn Rusty, 6:55 pm — “Why should anyone be required by the force of law to pay for someone else’s healthcare? Oh sure, that would be a very ‘Christian’ thing to do, a very moral thing to do.”
For the record, because I do believe I know pretty well what the Capn means:
An act of kindness or generosity is Christian when it is *voluntary*. When that act is *coerced* it is not Christian.
(I fervently wish mush-headed liberals showed themselves capable of distinguishing between voluntary, genuine generosity (“Christian” if you will) and coerced “generosity”.)
Additional, related grumble: when an otherwise “Christian” act is coerced by the state, would not that coercion qualify as a violation of the principle of separation of Church and state?
I’m not gonna get all down on the LIVs. I did that already; years at the university, wondering why nobody cared. Then it hit me: why should they care?
A lot has already been said about “rational ignorance”…people have more important things to do than care about politics.
Only a tiny minority ever care about being informed. It’s up to us.
(drinking again tonight)
Most LIV receive their lessons the same way that King Lear did.
You can read of their shock here and there on the Web.
Many now are discovering that 0bamacare ENTIRELY deflates their disposable income.
This will cause untolled suffering across the non-cartel elements of our society.
I’d short any recreational stock.
Golf courses are shorts, too. They have high fixed overheads, and 0bamacare is sure to suck, suck, suck revenues right on out of the pro shop.
Boating is going to take a bath.
Even collectibles are going to take a pounding — if they’re middle class objects. Rembrandts will still vault higher.
With the physicians boycotting 0bamacare — due to professional ethics — it’s got bigger issues than healthcare.gov.
We’re going to witness a massive wave of early retirements. This happens every single time medicine is nationalized. There have been no exceptions.
Against that, America has NOT expanded the number of seats available in our medical colleges. Indeed, only 1/3 of our physicians are graduates of American medical colleges. 2/3 are educated ex-territorially. That’s why Grenada had two medical colleges that required military intervention.
And that’s why Kaiser is larded up with immigrant doctors something silly.
Naturally, Pakistan, Iraq, Bangladesh, et. al. are starved for physicians. We’ve stolen them all. This practice is a MAJOR reason why those societies can’t get out of first gear: brain drain.
H1-b visas should magnify this malignant pressure on an epic scale. The loss of all of the brightest people in a society is to destroy its culture.
The talent boost for American interests operates like a narcotic. It’s a cheat.
The Left is divided between tools and puppet masters.
It’s pointless to deal with tools, because they aren’t the ones making decisions. They merely Obey their Orders and Enforce the Obama Regime’s decisions.
The White House is already taking swings at those “greedy” and “evil” private insurers who are dumping people’s coverage; seemingly glossing over the fact that his law’s mandates are the motivating factor behind the actions of the insurers.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2013/10/30/nbc-accidently-discovers-obamacares-asterisk-n1733200/page/2
IF one knows their history, this is a repeat of the race incident that culminated with the communist movement Rosa Park (of Highlander school training), pulled her bus stunt.
ie. we forget that it was the southern democrats that made laws that forced blacks to the back of the bus. NOT the policies of the bus company. this then forced the bus company drivers, to have delegated powers of enforcement (or the bus company would be penalized).
once in this place, the rest was easy to show the evil white capitalist bus drivers were racist bastards… and not the democrats who made the the laws that the bus drivers had no choice but to follow (like tsa doing what the constitution forbids police from doing. ie. searching people for the crime of travel)
About that $95 tax… it is actually the higher of $95 or 1%of income. I assume that income will be defined as “adjusted gross income” or AGI. I think many younger people will be surprised at tax time.
Then, this is open enrollment for health care insurance. If you think you can delay getting insurance until you get sick, you probably won’t be able. You’ll have to wait until the next open period. I don’t hear much discussion about this issue.
I think many people will look at the plan monthly costs and not the total costs of annual premiums, deductibles and max out of pocket costs.
Finally, many people will not check the network. The cheapest plan I found did not include the hospital that is 2 miles from my house, but one that is 40 minutes away. There’s a cost for out of network providers.
There is going to be more unhappy people in the coming years.
liz…
The out of network prohibition is BRUTAL, since this national scheme is actually cobbled up from the COUNTIES.
It’s misleading to think that the kernels are the states.
In my case, I’m adjacent to the county line. ALL of the nearby hospitals/ clinics are in the next county over.
Under 0-care I have to drive up the hill — thirty minutes or more. Period, stop.
0-care, functionally, pigeon holes everyone into their counties. In this it’s imitating the Medicaid system, which is a county by county scheme, too.
Americans are going to be shocked when they find that they can’t expect to cross county lines because their plan does not permit out of network physicians — which is, apparently, all that is on offer.
The physicians boycott is likely to undue 0-care. In most locations, it’s open rebellion. The MSM is burying this little detail.
We’ll end up with insurance that has no physicians to back it up!
Perfect!
Whoa, what a lot of posts. Since I’m just one guy, as I said before, I am not going to address every post, above. Nothing personal, I have finite time.
First: I’m not here to claim anything in particular about what Obama did or didn’t know about this at any given point. I’m going to stay agnostic on that issue and simply say that I believe that he, like most politicians, are amenable to pressure based on his incentive structures. For instance, if Republicans wanted to go to the wall about this issue in the budget negotiations, I believe he’d make a tactical compromise. Whether or not he “lied” about this or not. Because, for instance, changing the grandfathering date from 2010 to 2013 doesn’t materially affect the overall policy, and it would protect consumers from having to change policies now, and it would also be a political win.
In answer to your questions: I graduated from high school in 1983. I am 48 years old. I grew up in California.
What would be my “ideal” politics? I’ve said it many times in the past — Unlike some people, I believe there are multiple architectural forces in any given situation and the best policy is not to take one principle and just max it out to the limit. I.e., in general I think that libertarians take the truth that markets are better than centrally controlled economies and go to the mat with the idea that this means everything should be as market-driven as possible, with close to zero regulation. I think that’s ludicrous, even though of course I agree that command economies are inefficient. Thus, for any given situation I think you have to do a careful analysis of the details to determine the best policy. That’s why I am in favor of some deregulation (like deregulating airlines, that Reagan did, was a good idea in my view, overall), and sometimes I think there should be more regulation (getting rid of Glass-Steagall got rid of something I think was a good firewall in the event the speculative economy melted down, it protected consumer banks — getting rid of that firewall led to more disruption in 2008 in my view).
My “ideal” politics would be a tug of war between moderate left and moderate right, which was the case in this country until maybe the last 10-15 years. Now it’s a tug of war between moderate left and far right, which I think leads to pretty polarized and nasty politics and policy.
As for the MSM — I think they are liberal, for the most part, except for Fox. Not “far left” except for much of MSNBC.
Finally, my perception of Obama as being to the right of where many people expected him to be is not “my” perception, alone, it’s the perception of most progressives. Many folks I know in Massachusetts, for instance, are very anti-Obama because he’s turned out to be far more centrist than they expected. I on the other hand am not that surprised, because Obama campaigned explicitly to be a compromiser. I perceive him as being that, for the most part, on domestic issues. I agree with the left’s criticism of him as having problems in terms of state secrets, NSA spying, drone strikes, and Guantanamo.
QRFs aren’t commanded by Colonels.
When House Subcommittee on National Security Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Senate Armed Services Committee member Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. — two vocal critics of the administration’s Benghazi response — requested Bristol appear, they were told 3 1/2 weeks ago he retired July 1 and could not be ordered to testify.
But Marine Corps Times reported July 17 Bristol had not yet retired and was still on active duty until the end of July.
Marine Corps spokeswoman Maj. Shawn Haney confirmed Bristol would in fact retire Aug. 1.
A Pentagon spokesman said the “initial confusion” over Bristol’s status was due to a “personnel administrative error.”
Meanwhile, they have one guy not testifying that is somehow the Proof Mitsu zombie has been told is Solid.
Internal investigations are not conducted on the word of one officer.
mitsu
I just realized what it is that disturbs me about the polarized rhetoric in this country – it’s the assumption of bad faith on the part of the other side. That is, you guys seem to assume that everything Obama or Democrats want is due to some nefarious scheme divorced from reality which is ultimately intended to further some socialist plot, rather than an actual attempt to get the policy right. I’m trying to tell you that the vast majority of liberals actually care about making good policy, not imposing some ideological scheme on people.
your a total moron…
basically all your saying is that bad people are using good people who like you are too stupid to know they are being used.
now..
about that plot..
how many quotes by people executing the plot do you want? not that it matters! as you are so stupid and idiotic that you will just put thousands in the no bin, not because what they say is the truth, but because its the truth YOU dont want to hear.
how do you think socialism comes to a country mitsu?
riding on a pale horse through the streets proclaiming its wonderfulness and everyone just joins in and sings the happy party songs?
it only comes in two versions..
the small group commune that falls apart where everyone tries and it never works…
the big state version that ALWAYS sneaks in and does what it does as a form of conspiracy or manipulation that quickly violates the order (your trying to talk about) and before being held to it amasses enough power that its irrelevent.
now, given that this is not a small commune and all voluntarily taking up the failed cause…
that leaves treachery, deceit, lies, obfuscations, and more…
in fact, this conspiracy is over 100 years old and they have tried to pawn it off on jews, capitalists, facsists, and other groups… but themselves.
let me repeat something you said:
it’s the assumption of bad faith on the part of the other side. That is, you guys seem to assume that everything Obama or Democrats want is due to some nefarious scheme divorced from reality which is ultimately intended to further some socialist plot, rather than an actual attempt to get the policy right
do you think that if they wanted it to work and not collapse 1/6th the economy and bring about the same end that Obama’s uncle brought about in changing kenya from a republic to a communist state, it would be THIS bad?
and what about the OPEN political associations?
from a communist uncle that helped over throw kenya, to ayers who bombed and murdered people (though claiming that the nails and stuff that killed his friends and was destined for a military dance of 18 and 19 year olds wasnt going to hurt anyone).
then his other partners, teaming up with the BLS and trying to rob a brings truk to start a race war! (the same reason charles manson said he did helter skelter!)
then the fact that his mother and “father” met in a russian language class… after all, if your going to help the soviets win, you would know that the soviets destroy the culture (remove racist slavophiles as trotsky said), and then force everyone to speak russian. (dont refute this, ok tovarish, i am one of those whose family was forced)
then there is the communist party member that he was molested by… you know, with stains on the underwear…
mitsu… the volume of stuff is so large you woudl walk by it thinking it was a wall not a pile of stuff
his whole staff are such people…
Anita dunn loves MAO
Obama put MAo on the christmas tree
he violates separation by favoring islam
what you are doing is waht all the moronic idiots do!!!
ie. unless hitler comes out day one, and says what he wants and decalres it honestly… you wont believe thats the goal…
now…
tell me..
what kind of person would think that a person who wants to be the communist leader of his own society, would be stupid enough to declare it from day one all the way through to the end?
if obama said in college over and over he was desiring to be the communist leader of the USA… would he have ever been voted in or part of anythng? not even the communists would want someone THAT stupid, which is why they told them not to become card carying party member: honesty and transparency
so really mitsu…
are you THAT Stupid and moronic to think that that is how they get to where they are and that they never ever use lies, obfuscations, abuse of the law, conspiracy with others like holder, fast furious, bengazi, a bit more freedom for medvedev after the elecvtion
hey…
what do you think will happen this friday when the peaceful loving black population finds out their EBT cards have been denuded of some welfare money for food?
realize that obama has spent so much, he cant pay for welfare food… and that the arms and weapons and bullets they bought, exceeding that needed for two wars and that neeed to shoot everyone in the country a few times..
is to protect them from the blacks when they riot
as they are now trained to do given any problem
problems ranging from jewish altercations in brooklyn
to compton… to flash mob robberies… and riots that empty stores and businesses…
what do you think will happen?
will obama engage the EO Ands igning stattments that then lead his being dictator?
you know that he has changed them all, and set that uyp, right mitsu? you know that he has also replaced the key heads of the military areas with new people? and you of course know that he has set his civilian army people to be equal adn equivalent to the real army and military so that the real army and military has to follow their orders?
bet you dont!!!
my perception of Obama as being to the right of where many people expected him to be is not “my” perception, alone, it’s the perception of most progressives
and the progressives are the american comnmunist fascists… dummy
just like fabians i england..
and again to your idea of openly taking all the property of the US and owning it being something to do openly not by other means, being idiocy on stilts to reach the moon…
the fabian symbol is a wolf in sheeps clothing…
a symbol of their conspiratorial nature that they are proud of…
then of course, you have no idea of the comnmunist past… do you?
in fact… you can trace the line of communists from the early 1900s, all the way to obama!!!
the lid, the lds, the sds, and FORWARDS..
you do know that forwards is a major communist term… right?
hitler and stalin used it….
and putin resurected the organization Vpered…
by the way, to stalin hitler was to the right
in fact, the whole idea of hitler being on the right, was stalins idea.
and the american progressives and communists have been saying that ever since barbarosa…
if communism is zero, then hitler is to the right
but then farther to the right and less socialism is representative goverment and all that.
basically stalin put you between to totalitarianisms, and cut out the other choice.
what you dont get is that the communists are now fascisfs… either way, they load their own into graves.
how manby people are going to die over this obama care thing?
how many are going to be older white people and boomers who have to be culled for the future?
Obama campaigned explicitly to be a compromiser. I perceive him as being that, for the most part, on domestic issues.
right. he compromised on making a budget
no budget
he compromised on obamacare rollout to be delayed
no delay, screwed himself up the rear
he compromised on sequester
no food this friday
he compromised on his birth records and eligiility and so released everything so there would be ZERO questions
no freaking way, spent millions to keep it under wraps
(so did hillary as her thesis was how stalin and mao were right!!!)
he comprmised on bengazi information
nope
he compromised on not spending more than all prior presidents combined
nope
he compromised on what exactly?
your delusional…
Thanks for the responses. Sounds like you’ve grown up and live in an all-liberal environment in a deep blue state, and (based on your age and prose style) like you haven’t yet suffered enough from life’s “slings and arrows” to have acquired the humility that sooner or later almost everyone acquires. You write like you believe you’re more intelligent and better informed than anyone here.
I can tell that you go to some effort to come across as utterly moderate, dispassionate and reasonable — the very voice of reason! — but can also see some of what lurks just below that veneer ( see, e.g., your reference to the “tug of war between moderate left and far right”, your continued references to “making good policy”, and the heroic poses you strike whilst lecturing Neo and her “far right” group of commenters).
And you still haven’t answered my question number 3. [What do you hope to accomplish here? Just here for the fellowship? Do you think you’re going to win any converts? You seem like a decent guy, what’s up, really?]
If you’re really serious about converting Neo and her commenters (to what most of us consider to clearly be the Dark Side), here’s a suggestion: Start with artfldgr. Locate, read and absorb ALL of his posts from, say, the last 120 days so that you have a good feel for his positions on various issues, then reach out to him here with your most powerful skills of persuasion and work his ass over until he posts a [one line] comment affirming that thanks to your efforts he has become a Democrat and now supports the Obama regime.
With apologies to Frank Sinatra*: “If you can make it with Art you can make it with anyone!”
*And to artfldgr, too (but I know you can take it, Art!).
Remember: Must be a one line comment.
Mitsu the projector…
[note that every point has a new entry that claims it never happened. – a wonderful example of stalinism]
Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialized state.
read about: Norman Thomas – “The American people would never knowingly vote for Socialism, but that under the name of liberalism, they would adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”
From the Socialist Worker…
Johnson’s endorsement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act pushed the Dixiecrats further toward the Republicans. The administration needed a formula to accomplish two tasks simultaneously: replacing racist votes with Black votes and undercutting Black militants. Johnson’s 1964-65 Great Society initiative seemed to offer the appropriate formula.
Undersecretary Wilbur Cohen said 20 years later:
On the day before Medicare went into effect, every hospital in the South, over every drinking fountain, over every bathroom, over every cafeteria, there were signs reading “Whites” and “Colored” for separate and presumably equal facilities. On the day that Medicare went into effect in the South, all those signs and separate facilities began to come down. In one day, Medicare and Medicaid broke the back of the segregated health services.
and years later… Obama reparied its back and we will ration care along race/gender and orientation lines as the Volk are more equal than the others.
after all, blood and soil, is what the germans called this policy… remember mitsu?
even wiki knows more than you
History of the socialist movement in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States
Norman’s quote was not one of open honesty, was it mitsu?
so since that time (at least) we know from writings, methods, being caught, and so on. that your thesis is wrong, as you just ignore all evidence!! then project what you do on us…
from the section on popular FRONT
(a front is a false front. ie. the useful iditos out front dont know what they are being used for!!!)
The Seventh Congress of the Comintern made the change in line official in 1935, when it declared the need for a popular front of all groups opposed to fascism. The CPUSA abandoned its opposition to the New Deal, provided many of the organizers for the Congress of Industrial Organizations and began supporting African-American civil rights. The party also sought unity with forces to its right. Earl Russell Browder offered to run as Norman Thomas’ running mate on a joint Socialist Party-Communist Party ticket in the 1936 presidential election but Thomas rejected this overture. The gesture did not mean that much in practical terms, since the CPUSA was, by 1936, effectively supporting Roosevelt in much of his trade union work. While continuing to run its own candidates for office, the CPUSA pursued a policy of representing the Democratic Party as the lesser evil in elections.
it was later they decided to pretend socialism and communism are different. so that idiots like you could be socialist and never be communist…
like the little girls ryme where she says that she is X but not Y and they are synonyms… 🙂
if they were not communist, why did the communist party order them around and why did the commiterm have control over that? (they know now from the OPEN ARCHIVES that they were following orders of soviet russia)
The Communist International, abbreviated as Comintern and also known as the Third International (1919—1943), was an international communist organization initiated in Moscow during March 1919. The International intended to fight “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”
and of course when they came here, they were open and honest.
shall i list out the murders and assasinations for you?
carl in atlanta
you made my day!!!
he will have to be empirical, and he would have to get ALL his facts right… THEN he can start to convince me once he is on the same factual verifiable erudite empirical basis…
🙂
liz: “I think many people will look at the plan monthly costs and not the total costs of annual premiums, deductibles and max out of pocket costs.”
You’re correct. Other than free annual physicals and flu shots, many people will be looking at $10,000+ out of pocket before the insurance pays anything. Then they will have to pay 20-40% of that. This may be a good deal for the poor who qualify for subsidies. The better off – not so much.
Before I retired, my employer had a $2500 deductible and 20% of any costs after that with a $25,000 cap before they paid it all. My contribution was essentially a secret, but we were always told our salaries would have been $10,000+ a year more if we had no healthcare coverage. I suspect most major companies healthcare coverage is still similar to that. What we don’t know, since the employer mandate has been delayed, is how many employers are going to kick the contributions (If there is a visible one), deductibles, and copays up similar to what is happening with individual policies. Will employers drop coverage and send their employees to the exchanges? Will employees still be covered but have to pay more in contributions, deductibles, and copays? I think it will be a combination of the two, depending on the particular employer’s situation. Which means that the 50% of the population who get coverage through their employment are likely facing sticker shock next year. It is going to be the second Obamacare shoe to drop.
J.J.:
If they lose their insurance through their employment, they are then all eligible for subsidies on the exchanges if their income is under 400% of poverty level. Two-thirds of Americans fill into that category, so 2/3 might be eligible for subsidies. The real question is how many of those people will be paying more than before and how many will be paying less than before,and for what sort of insurance.
No one has been able to estimate that; at least I haven’t seen it. I only saw one attempt, even. And yet in the final analysis that is the statistic that matters most, perhaps. Other things that matter, of course, are quality of care, how upset people are at change itself, whether taxes will have to go up to subsidize that many people, and who will see their taxes raised.
how upset people are at change itself
thats all BS…
thats a false mantra of the left…
you really think people dont like change?
then why is apple stock over 500?
they had to change from telegraph to telephone
they had to change from telephone to smartphone
the cars had to change from horses..
its ALL BS..
thats what the left says when tey want you to swallow a change no one wants…
otherwise, there is no protest and no one notices it!!
from the time of my granfatehr to the time i was a child. we went from no cars, to cars..
we went from no computers, to computers everywhere
we went from games together, to machine games
we went from no moving pictures, to moving pictures to tv
we went from no planes, to ubiquitous flight for the common man
on and on
and the ONLY time you notice is when you dont want the change they are offering. then your just an idiot for not accepting change
but if marxism stays the same and everything else cahnges, then waht?
i forgot to add that its what you tell the public for consumption when you tell each other we have to break some eggs to have an omlette… and this is what we tell the eggs so they nod, think its ok, then visited upon
oh, and there is an article specifically written to you mitsu!!
Bill Maher: Obama Had to Lie to ‘Stupider’ Americans
http://www.truthrevolt.org//news/bill-maher-obama-had-lie-stupider-americans
i guess your one of those stupider americans…
otherwise, you would not vote for what they were offering
note, that there are some such lies dont work on, and thats who you called stupid.
now, your wondering why we have the attitude we have? well, its cause we know when someone is pissing on our leg and telling us its raining!!! you are the one that believes them and wonders why we dont.
then they write articles about how your stupid and duped, and you think its about people like me, who were not ever duped…
from bill maher:
But, yeah, he probably should’ve not been so blatant about saying you … iron clad guarantee. On the other hand, since he got no Republican votes and no Republican help. And since three years after it’s a law, they’re still fighting it, can you imagine what it would be like if he said, “Yeah, some people, your rates are going to go up.” I mean the thing passed by this much. If they had said that, they might’ve lost the whole thing.
win at all costs..
not let the best win!!!
as the best dont lie in a fair fight. do they?
mistu… you shouold be angry at them for thinking this way about YOU… they certainly dont think that people like me can be swayed by crappy lies and fake promises that never happen…
can you imagine what it would be like if he said, “Yeah, some people, your rates are going to go up.”
yeah…
with honesty they would not pick what he was offering!!
just like communistm and sovialism
with honesty, we woudl not pick it
so
right there mitsu
in black and white
no honest debate, but a lie for your consumption
why?
cause THEIR end JUSTIFIES any means
they just said it openly to you
i can show you tens more that say the same thing
you can go back to 1859 and the chatechism of the revolutionary to see that your one of the idiots they really really need… (i can even tell you which category!)
J.J. -I looked at one website for options and ran a bunch of calcs. I looked at the same network, the max deductible and out of pocket costs,etc. The variable was the amount of the premium. I ignored the co-pays since they would be eliminated if I ever hit the max out of pocket, which would happen with one hospital stay.
The bronze plan was the cheapest at a total annual max cost of 10,947. The silver plan was the highest at 12,950 and the gold plan was 12,269. The kicker was that the bronze plan would let me start a HSA, which will let me save pretax dollars for that future hospital stay. I’m kicking myself for not doing that sooner.
Moral of the story – do your homework before signing up for any insurance.
No, Barry wasn’t lying — he had his fingers crossed!
BTW, no point in responding to Mitsu, because “he” isn’t a person at all, but just a spambot with programmed responses. Note how it never responds to hard questions, but always shifts off to the side and responds with pablum — well-executed pablum to be sure.
Notice also the gaps in its programming: obviously, the programmer didn’t realize that this is a list where people would know about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, or the 11 reasons justifying the war set forth in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Now that I think about it, the bot was probably programmed by Dr. Evil. I can just hear him saying, “Obama is the Diet Coke of Socialism. Only one calorie, not socialist enough!”
sorry its 1869
The Relations of the Revolutionary toward his Comrades
The revolutionary can have no friendship or attachment, except for those who have proved by their actions that they, like him, are dedicated to revolution. The degree of friendship, devotion and obligation toward such a comrade is determined solely by the degree of his usefulness to the cause of total revolutionary destruction.
so have you blown up stuff and gone to jail like ayers, and obama’s associates have? have you proven yourself? then are you one of them or someone to be USED?
its their doctrine in print…
here is what they think of you:
All revolutionaries should have under them second- or third-degree revolutionaries — i.e., comrades who are not completely initiated. these should be regarded as part of the common revolutionary capital placed at his disposal.
ah… people below you that believe enough to be used but not enoughu to be trusted… if they are trsuted, they turn sides and reveal… but then you have mitsu’s to run interference… and you dont even ahve to train mitsu, he will do it on his own, and for no reward!!!
The revolutionary enters the world of the State, of the privileged classes, of the so-called civilization, and he lives in this world only for the purpose of bringing about its speedy and total destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place, or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with an equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships.
its in print mitsu…
its over 100 years old mitsu
it dovetails with all the other stuff that confurms it mitsu
and the archives converm it even more…
Aiming at implacable revolution, the revolutionary may and frequently must live within society will pretending to be completely different from what he really is, for he must penetrate everywhere, into all the higher and middle-classes, into the houses of commerce, the churches, and the palaces of the aristocracy, and into the worlds of the bureaucracy and literature and the military, and also into the Third Division and the Winter Palace of the Czar.
this practice was later refined by the fabians
and refined evben more and given an official term by the progressives…
ever read about Paul Harvey?
(i am one year older than you!)
This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on April 3, 1965
If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .
If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine yound intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an athiest to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.
If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.
now. if you knew them would you let htem be the ones who put the craop you have in your head?
if you knew that moses harmons paper was lucifer bringer of light… and that alinsky dedicated his books to satan as well…
they may not actually beleive in a mystib evil being
but they sure do worship its ways and methods..
after all
who is the king of lies?
those like neo who like their stuff on you tube can hear the speech!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJc8Mzg0C-c
funny… but then this is what they did!!!
he was right..
Paul Harvey, was a conservative American radio broadcaster for the ABC Radio Networks.[2] He broadcast News and Comment on weekday mornings and mid-days, and at noon on Saturdays, as well as his famous The Rest of the Story segments. From the 1950s through the 1990s, Harvey’s programs reached as many as 24 million people a week. Paul Harvey News was carried on 1,200 radio stations, 400 Armed Forces Network stations and 300 newspapers. His success with sponsors stemmed from the seamlessness with which he segued from his monologue into reading commercial messages. He explained his relationship with them, saying “I am fiercely loyal to those willing to put their money where my mouth is.”
neo,
please read paul harvey before you delete and censor the end for length
I don’t come here to “convert” Neo or anyone else to becoming a liberal Democrat. That’s almost certainly impossible. I suppose I come because I hope that there might be some possibility of at least engaging in a discussion of policy pros and cons with people “on the other side”.
If you think that Obama is secretly trying to impose Stalinism in the US, well then, fine, I would be opposed to that, too, and so would 99.9% of Democrats. I’m not sure how you imagine he or any other Democratic politician would actually pull something like that off, given the fact that pretty much every American on either the left or the right would not only not vote for that, but would likely take up arms to stop it from happening. In short: it isn’t going to happen. Ever. In the United States.
Not only isn’t it going to happen in the United States, it’s not going to happen anywhere else, either. That idea is dead, politically, everywhere. I understand these are the old bugaboos of the old right, but the USSR as a model has been pretty much completely discredited everywhere.
I *do* support some social programs, some regulation. As for Obamacare I tend to think it has erred too far in the direction of regulation, it should have been a simpler program of a tax incentive, subsidies, an insurance exchange, with fewer mandates in terms of what the insurance policies themselves “must” cover.
Mitsu:
I do believe you understood approximately 0% of what artfldgr was saying. I also think you understand 0% about how tyrannies generally take over a country.
Hint, hint: they do it by misrepresenting themselves. And afterwards, it’s too late.
Have you ever studied history?
Richard Saunders:
Perhaps one of the reasons I am patient (up to a point) with Mitsu is that he reminds me of some people I know.
>They misrepresent themselves.
This is the thesis, as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong: creeping Soviet-style totalitarianism will take over the United States in drips, via the gradual enactment of small steps disgusted as “reasonable” policy which ultimately place is on the slippery slope to the end of democracy and free enterprise.
And it is precisely history I point to as to why this cannot possibly ever occur. As I’ve noted in the past, pretty much every other industrialized democracy is ALREADY to the left of us in terms of social programs and government regulation of the private sector, and yet none of them are anywhere close to becoming a totalitarian state that has eliminated free enterprise. Norway and Sweden are probably the farthest to the left of all wealthy democracies: but they have freedom of speech. High standards of living. Tons of private corporations that employ millions of people. Do I want the US to become Sweden? No. But we’re not even remotely close to that and even if we were, we’d still be a yawning chasm away from becoming the USSR.
In actuality the real danger is not that we’re becoming Sweden, it’s that we’re becoming a third world nation, with a wealthy oligarchy and an increasingly impoverished populace.
Mitsu:
No, that’s not the thesis.
Venezuela is close to the theses, although there are quite a few other ways it can happen.
Also, most of the posters here believe that the European countries you mention are not places in which they would want to live in terms of liberty.
You obviously have very different ideas, if those places look good to you. They don’t look good to me at all, but I have different priorities than you. And by the way, I’m talking about liberty, not freedom or license (different definitions).
By the way, Europe does not have freedom of speech as we know it. I have written at length on this subject. For example, even England (the country closest to us in its legal traditions) does not have a guarantee of freedom of speech anything like ours, its libel laws are dramatically different than ours, and do a search on this blog to learn about how dreadful France is in that respect.
Venezuela is a third world nation, without a history of mature democratic and civil institutions. (Although perhaps if the Third World-ization of our economy continues at the pace it has been, perhaps our social fabric will fray to the point that some sort of Third World devolutionary spiral might occur, but I hope that we don’t head in that direction.) What I’m saying is there’s simply no historical example of a mature industrialized democracy becoming anything like a USSR-like state (or even a Venezuelan-like state). And, even if there were, we’ve never, in our entire history, come even close to, say, Canada, much less a country like Sweden. We’re just nowhere near that.
>are not places in which they would want to live
That’s fair enough. But whether they’re places posters here would like to live, they’re not Soviet-style hellholes. Artfldgr accuses Democrats of wanting to turn the United States into a “communist state” and “overthrow the republic.” THAT is what I am saying is never going to happen. It also, of course, isn’t what Democrats (either rank and file, nor Democratic politicians) actually want to happen. And even if somehow I’m wrong and Obama actually DOES want that to happen, we, the voters, would never allow it, whether you’re talking about a Venezuelan model or the USSR. Voters in the US wouldn’t even let us become Canada much less Venezuela.
And, yes, I’m deeply and unutterably opposed to the idiocy that was an is “Chavismo” — as are, I daresay, pretty much ever mainstream Democrat out there.
It’s perfectly reasonable to say that you prefer a more free market system to a system like they have in Sweden. I prefer it too. And yes, I know the UK doesn’t have free speech protections that we have — but Sweden’s free speech protections are actually pretty solid (though they have anti-hate-speech laws that are more restrictive than we can have under the First Amendment.)
Mitsu:
Of course. It Can’t Happen Here.
You do not understand history or tyranny in particular, in all its different varieties and ways of sneaking in.
Watch this, by the way. The mindset has not gone away:
Okay, come on, seriously? Do you really believe the Weather Underground, even at its apex, ever had a chance in hell of actually taking over the United States?
(I knew someone who was in the Weather Underground, by the way. He eventually became a jazz musician. But he was a complete a total asshole. Also a bit of a joke, like the Weather Underground, which never had a chance in hell of taking over a pizza parlor, much less the entire country.)
Mitsu:
Your stupidity and/or naivete takes up too much time, so I probably will leave off responding to you.
But you seem to have understood nothing that’s been said to you.
Do you think these people are not (like Bill Ayers) active in our education system and our politics? If you think they are not, you are sadly mistaken. They have merely learned how to disguise themselves and fool foolish people such as yourself. They are counting on you, and you will not fail them.
Read David Horowitz, an expert on the subject (whom you no doubt will dismiss):
It is clear to me that you, for one, will welcome our new insect overlords.
Or — are you saying that the ideas of the Weather Underground went underground, so to speak, and is resurfacing in some sort of long-term hidden program via Manchurian Candidates like Obama and his allies who, through the introduction of mildly liberal social programs, really has the intention of eventually overthrowing the Republic or changing us into Venezuela, Chavismo and all?
All I can say to that is the same thing I already said — even if it were true, such a program both could never succeed and I really don’t see how we could even get to the level of social programs they have in Canada much less anything farther to the left. If we stop about 1/4th of the way to Canada, what’s the plan to get us all the way to Venezuela or the Soviet Union?
Look, Neo, we aren’t that far apart in age — you’re a little older than me. But I knew/know these people. Some of my classmates were hard core leftists of the old school. We had spirited debates in college. Pretty much all of them have moderated their old ideas. They haven’t turned into secret agents for a Soviet-style revolution — because it’s obvious that it DOESN’T WORK. It’s not popular — among intellectuals or anyone else. Even hard-core leftists today espouse something more akin to anarchy than to Soviet-style government.
The reason these fears are overblown is not only because it could never actually get through our electoral system, but because for the most part even the far left has abandoned statist ideas. It’s dead as a political movement, pretty much everywhere. And even if it weren’t (and it is), it couldn’t succeed. It couldn’t take over, because nobody wants it. Not voters, not intellectuals, not even progressive activists.
Mitsu:
Right. Tyrannies only take over when the people want them. Why didn’t I think of that?
That’s sarcasm, by the way.
Mitsu wrote: “and even if somehow I’m wrong and Obama actually DOES want that to happen, we, the voters, would never allow it,…”
It’s already happening. It’s been happening for decades, and the voters in America have allowed it to happen. And they’ve made yet another dreadful mistake electing this president.
Get someone to explain the Gramscian Tide and the Frankfurt School. When I first came to these comments I knew about the Frankfurt School but not about Gramsci; learned about him from Neo and the others here. But if you’re as educated and cosmopolitan as you want us to believe, you already know all about both subjects, right?
Hey,artfldgr: maybe you might have a little more to say about this?
>when the people want them
Nobody wants it = nobody is going to execute the secret plan. For a conspiracy to work you actually have to have some conspirators. What you are worried about died out decades ago in this country. It’s not even alive in the progressive camps. I went to an Occupy encampment for instance. They’re obsessed with consensus government (to the point of paralysis, actually), not with top-down dictatorship. That’s what’s happening in these groups today.
You’re fighting an old battle but there’s nobody on the other side of that war. They’ve all gone on to better things.
But as I said before, even if there were still a few guys like that somewhere, like those old Japanese soldiers still fighting World War II, how would they pull it off? In our electoral system, somehow we’re going to lurch past Obamacare to Canada and then the UK and then France and then Sweden, and from there… the huge leap to a totalitarian state? I just don’t see the road map there for this imagined revolutionary takeover of the Republic.
“Nobody wants it = nobody is going to execute the secret plan.”
There are too many examples to list of the desire on the part of the left to usher in a totalitarian regime. These examples are easily found by an enquiring mind. Use a flashlight & a mirror and discover the place where the sun does not shine and then crawl up it head first.
You deserve no politeness or quarter. Not that it matters to you, but I will never again read anything you post as it is a waste of time.
” I went to an Occupy encampment for instance. They’re obsessed with consensus government (to the point of paralysis, actually”
Eventually, they get tired of the paralysis. Since the other side won’t surrender, they are marginalized.
For examples, see: California (last 20 years), Detroit (last 50 years)…hell, pretty much any blue state.
Neo-neocon “If they lose their insurance thru their employment, they are … eligible for subsidies on the exchanges if their income is under 400% of poverty level. Two-thirds of Americans fill into that category, so 2/3 might be eligible for subsidies.”
Well then let’s follow the money:
* the pledge: insurance will be “better” & more expensive
* but … 2/3 will get subsidy to help pay higher fees
* so … taxes will go up to cover the subsidies
* and voila! insurance companies thus make more money – from taxes to cover the new higher costs.
The initials “deals” WH made on the road to pass ACA were with “Big Pharma” & insurance co’s.
Sum: insurance companies are winners??
Those whose taxes are raised are losers??
If you’re really poor, you’re really happy…
If you’re medium, you’re perplexed but covered and you just move on ….
If you’re really rich, it doesn’t matter that much to you personally – though it might have a deleterious impact on the economy.
Mission accomplished? Why would the WH want to boost the profits of insurance companies with one hand while cobbling them with the other?
Mitsu himself is probably the best example of brain zombie and Leftist mind control, and is in himself the reason why his arguments are false and why our position is right and just.
With the Left in control of that many people, there’s no reason for them to use democracy beyond a certain convenient point. As they will Command those like Mitsu to put up the barriers, and the Mitsus will Obey, thinking they still have free will and are living in a liberal freedom paradise.
Such is the nature of totalitarian human slavery. The slaves think they are free.
Barriers=BarryCade from the park service Obeying Orders session: a reference.