Individual Mandate = TAX.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/he...1&ref=politics

Originally Posted by scotths

So.. She was involved in a compromise that had some negative aspects? The quote doesn't state anything about her specific involvement in the compromise in terms of what positions she championed and why. Perhaps she fought against such provisions but was unable to overcome those in the majority who felt differently.

That's a bit over the top with excuses, don't you think?

And, "So, as you so callously put it, this law affects millions of people who are now required to continue buying corporate big pharma drugs that are so over priced that many have to either forego their needed medicine or split their does. Those "negative affects" involve real flesh and blood people.

Somehow I doubt that you have had to deal with just how expensive some life saving drugs are, and how much less they would have cost if their had been an option of negotiation.

Once again, the corporation wins.

Yeah, I'm not sure what pisses me off more about the healthcare bill. The actual content and the terms of the relationships that it solidifies, or the fact that a bunch of wanna-be leftists think it is actually a people's victory.

The people who seem to be most enthusiastic about it are ones who have their own insurance already paid for by a third party, like an employer.

Originally Posted by independent

Yeah, I'm not sure what pisses me off more about the healthcare bill. The actual content and the terms of the relationships that it solidifies, or the fact that a bunch of wanna-be leftists think it is actually a people's victory.

The people who seem to be most enthusiastic about it are ones who have their own insurance already paid for by a third party, like an employer.

Those people aren't actually leftists, they are Obama Cheerleaders. I'M a Leftist.

Originally Posted by independent

Yeah, I'm not sure what pisses me off more about the healthcare bill. The actual content and the terms of the relationships that it solidifies, or the fact that a bunch of wanna-be leftists think it is actually a people's victory.

It's all relative, Indy. It's more of a people's victory than failure to pass a reform bill would have been. It will improve things over the status quo ante. It's a beginning. It's not a finished work. It's a victory for the insurance industry only in that they managed (for now) to forestall some of the proposals they were really worried about, e.g. the public option. The only real complete victory for the insurance industry would have been failure to pass.

Originally Posted by Deb C

That's a bit over the top with excuses, don't you think?

And, "So, as you so callously put it, this law affects millions of people who are now required to continue buying corporate big pharma drugs that are so over priced that many have to either forego their needed medicine or split their does. Those "negative affects" involve real flesh and blood people.

Somehow I doubt that you have had to deal with just how expensive some life saving drugs are, and how much less they would have cost if their had been an option of negotiation.

Once again, the corporation wins.

But... This isn't the point! This was a discussion of a particular person who was involved in the negotiations of the senior drug bill as well as the the healthcare bill and will not be involved in administering the new plan. Your assumption was that this individual must be biased in favor of industry because they had been a VP of a health insurance company for 2 years in during the time that little progress was being made in congress on healthcare. You cite examples of ways the bills are inadequate and attribute them to this person without showing any evidence of what this person would have preferred if the choice was fully up to her. Further, you don't even consider the effect the needed compromise with senators such as Lieberman and Nelson might have had on the range of possible results from which a compromise could be drawn.

This isn't about a lack of sympathy for those who have to suffer as a result of the compromises. I sincerely wish that didn't have to be the case. Where I disagree is: 1) Attributing these largely to this one individual and 2) Assuming this individual will not administer the laws in a fair and equitable manner as a result of this attribution.

Originally Posted by Odin

Those people aren't actually leftists, they are Obama Cheerleaders. I'M a Leftist.

I think it's entirely possible that some people don't fall into either of these categories. The "leftists," to me, sometimes look like spoiled crybabies. At the same time, I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an Obamabot, or a cheerleader, or whatever.

While I understand that many on the Left are disappointed with Obama, I really do think that we have to be more patient. It took us a long time to get into this mess, and it is unrealistic to think that we will get out quickly.

As hard as it may be for the Left to accept it, Obama may be about as liberal a presidential candidate as can be elected in this country right now.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I think it's entirely possible that some people don't fall into either of these categories. The "leftists," to me, sometimes look like spoiled crybabies. At the same time, I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an Obamabot, or a cheerleader, or whatever.

While I understand that many on the Left are disappointed with Obama, I really do think that we have to be more patient. It took us a long time to get into this mess, and it is unrealistic to think that we will get out quickly.

As hard as it may be for the Left to accept it, Obama may be about as liberal a presidential candidate as can be elected in this country right now.

Thank you, COS. I agree with you.

Originally Posted by annla899

Thank you, COS. I agree with you.

You're very welcome. I will add that I am pleased that the financial reform bill passed this week. It's not EVERYTHING that I wanted, but it is an improvement.

I mean, come on, people, what are you going to do this fall? Vote Republican?

I dunno, is Nader running again?

Considering America's demographics, both generational and ethnic, I still see Obama as this social moment's answer to Nixon. We are now in a period of America tending long term towards an outer world focus and a leftward bent politically. In the early 70's as the new deal coalition slowly drifted into history, we were heading in a more inward focus and political conservatism.
While it is true that Nixon signed into law a number of things that comport with the new deal legacy, he was nevertheless as conservative a president as he could be given the political-idelogical balance of the time. So it is with Obama. I personally feel that he our current president could and should have pushed harder on all of the major bills that he has passed, however despite the tea Party and the corporate media tacit opposition, he did change the trajectory that Reagan had put us on.
And that is the point. We elected Reagan late in the 2T and he set the tone for the 3T.
The liberal answer to Reagan is likely to come late in the 4T. The main danger as I see it is the danger that with the near depression like conditions nationwide we could end up with a backlash government that would wreck serious damage before getting swept out of office.
But then again, long term damage is always a big risk during a 4T. So I guess that we may well be where we're supposed to be.

One thing to remember is that our template for Crisis-era leader is Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he was elected president four times in succession, which it is very unlikely any single leader will be this time around. There were about four and a half presidential terms during that 4T: Hoover, FDR 1-3, Truman 1. We are only in the first presidential term of the current 4T and Obama will be able to serve only through the temporal equivalent of 1933-36 (FDR's first term). We will have someone else take over after that. The most lasting and important reforms of the Crisis occurred during FDR's second and third terms, with the sole exception of Social Security which was passed late in his first term. Keeping with that, we should expect the most significant developments in law this time around to occur after Obama leaves office.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The main danger as I see it is the danger that with the near depression like conditions nationwide we could end up with a backlash government that would wreck serious damage before getting swept out of office.
But then again, long term damage is always a big risk during a 4T. So I guess that we may well be where we're supposed to be.

A political philosopher Sheldon S. Wolin wrote in his book "Democracy Incorporated," that we are in currently in a system of power that he calls inverted totalitarianism. This doesn't revolve around a demogogue or charsmatic leader. It finds expression in the stealthiness of the corporate state. We now have candidates beholding to corporations more than ever becaus eof the tremendous amount of money needed fro their campaigns.

In classic totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. According to Wolin, under "inverted" totalitarianism the reverse is true.

Wolin writes, Economics dominates politics - and with that domination comes different in different forms of ruthlessness."

I illuded to the following in another post, but find it important to reiterate to your query about a backlash. In an interview between Wolin and Chris Hedges, Wolin suggests that it is very possible that if the economics collapses, this would send the working and middle classes into a faith in demagogues, especially from the Christian Right. He says that was the experience in the 1930s. While there was FDR, there was also Huey Long and Father Coughlin. And, let's not forget the more extreme movements of the KKK. These kind of groups indicate a heading into classical totalitarianism.

This is why I am so concerned about an almost passivity in many of those who keep making excuses for the Democrats. It's as if conservativeness has infiltrated the Left, and therefore, are blindly supporting political representatives who no longer work for the good of the people.

I sense that we are in very dangerous times and that we have steadily let the absurb seem normal. Just the example of how speculators of the finance industry in the seventeenth century were hanged. As Chris Hedges writes, "Today they receive billions in taxpayer dollars and huge bonuses."

Originally Posted by Deb C

This is why I am so concerned about an almost passivity in many of those who keep making excuses for the Democrats.

Deb, I'm going to follow a rule for the foreseeable future in responding to your posts. I will ignore the exaggerations, the hyperbole, the pointless oxymorons (such as "inverted totalitarianism" -- if it's "inverted" then it's something else, not totalitarianism), and go to the heart of what you're saying, responding always (except when the question has already been answered) with this question:

Exactly what do you propose to do?

Please be specific.

Originally Posted by Deb C

A political philosopher Sheldon S. Wolin wrote in his book "Democracy Incorporated," that we are in currently in a system of power that he calls inverted totalitarianism. This doesn't revolve around a demogogue or charsmatic leader. It finds expression in the stealthiness of the corporate state. We now have candidates beholding to corporations more than ever becaus eof the tremendous amount of money needed fro their campaigns.

In classic totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. According to Wolin, under "inverted" totalitarianism the reverse is true.

Wolin writes, Economics dominates politics - and with that domination comes different in different forms of ruthlessness."
I illuded to the following in another post, but find it important to reiterate to your query about a backlash. In an interview between Wolin and Chris Hedges, Wolin suggests that it is very possible that if the economics collapses, this would send the working and middle classes into a faith in demagogues, especially from the Christian Right. He says that was the experience in the 1930s. While there was FDR, there was also Huey Long and Father Coughlin. And, let's not forget the more extreme movements of the KKK. These kind of groups indicate a heading into classical totalitarianism.

This is why I am so concerned about an almost passivity in many of those who keep making excuses for the Democrats. It's as if conservativeness has infiltrated the Left, and therefore, are blindly supporting political representatives who no longer work for the good of the people.

I sense that we are in very dangerous times and that we have steadily let the absurb seem normal. Just the example of how speculators of the finance industry in the seventeenth century were hanged. As Chris Hedges writes, "Today they receive billions in taxpayer dollars and huge bonuses."

I'm not familiar with that book, but I will say that IMHO the power elite will always get away with as much as the society allows them to. The amount of wrongdoing does seems to peak late in a 3T when cynicism is at its highest. For example, Nazi state was a form of corporate state on steroids. After all, the junkers and the German industrialists funded Hitler because the alternitive available at the end of the Weimar period was a Socialist-Communist coalition government.

In the case of America currently, I see the tea party as the most likely source of a backlash that would do more harm than good. I guess that it's no surprise that I've written this, but evn though the Tea party per se has eschewed the culture wars, a lot of their preferred candidates such as Sharron Angle in Nevada are more than willing to take such quixotic crusades to DC with them should they win in November. Nevertheless, I believe that the next few years are going to be the most dangerous ones. We are most likely to have another crash sooner rather than later and the demographics fueling potential backlash groups such as the Tea Party are strongest now.

Originally Posted by Deb C

This is why I am so concerned about an almost passivity in many of those who keep making excuses for the Democrats. It's as if conservativeness has infiltrated the Left, and therefore, are blindly supporting political representatives who no longer work for the good of the people.

You haven't convinced a majority that you're working in their interests. Until you stop insulting people who aren't as impatient as you are, you will continue to be disappointed.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Deb, I'm going to follow a rule for the foreseeable future in responding to your posts. I will ignore the exaggerations, the hyperbole, the pointless oxymorons (such as "inverted totalitarianism" -- if it's "inverted" then it's something else, not totalitarianism), and go to the heart of what you're saying, responding always (except when the question has already been answered) with this question:

Exactly what do you propose to do?

Please be specific.

"Inverted totalitarianism," was the writer and philosopher Sheldon S. Wolin's term. Which I do see as valid. Just because you don't understand the term does not make it invalid. For clarification's sake, it is a totalitarianism that is an inside job. It's not always apparent to the naked eye. Hence, you see the politician, but you don't see the corporate carrot that's running the show. What do we get with that dynamics? A corporate state.

I plan to continue building a movement with others who vision a different paradigm for peace and justice. Looking at the root of our dysfunctional political system is key to stepping out of the box to build a better world when this thing, some call democracy, falls apart. I already belong to numerous groups who "see" that no matter who our president is, they cannot break out of the corporate and militaristic owned politics. That's why I work to support campaign finance reform and educate myself about the root of problems.

I believe it was Howard Zinn who said something like this, "It doesn't matter who sits in the White House, it's who sits outside and holds their feet to the fire that matters." He also urged activists to spend two minutes voting and rest of the time working, not arm chair activisim, but actually out there working to build networks of awakened people that will challenge the dirty rotten system.

Our job is to puncture the illusions that we live in a democratic democracy and point to the possibilities to untangle those chains. No magical thinking is going to fix what is broken in our country, only hard work with others to build movements who are not willing to compromise and settle for the crumbs while the elite run away with our money.

It does not serve the American people well for the powers that be, or anyone, to tell us that this is all we can get for now, because at least it's a start. BS! I challenge that passive invoking attitude. And it would serve you to understand that your sending that message to others in this forum is asking them to stay inslaved to a broken system that lets the corporation hold the power of this country.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Obama will be able to serve only through the temporal equivalent of 1933-36 (FDR's first term). We will have someone else take over after that. The most lasting and important reforms of the Crisis occurred during FDR's second and third terms, with the sole exception of Social Security which was passed late in his first term. Keeping with that, we should expect the most significant developments in law this time around to occur after Obama leaves office.

Hmm. Are you predicting that Obama will be a one-term President?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

In the case of America currently, I see the tea party as the most likely source of a backlash that would do more harm than good. I guess that it's no surprise that I've written this, but evn though the Tea party per se has eschewed the culture wars, a lot of their preferred candidates such as Sharron Angle in Nevada are more than willing to take such quixotic crusades to DC with them should they win in November. Nevertheless, I believe that the next few years are going to be the most dangerous ones. We are most likely to have another crash sooner rather than later and the demographics fueling potential backlash groups such as the Tea Party are strongest now.

Another backlash is the growing racism of the hispanic. I was at a shower yesterday where some of the women were voicing their hate for hispanics. It's a form of white supremecy. And, the growing number of very fundamentalist Christian Right churches are popping up like weeds.

It all gives me an errie feeling. What do think of this?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You haven't convinced a majority that you're working in their interests. Until you stop insulting people who aren't as impatient as you are, you will continue to be disappointed.

My intent is not to insult anyone. If you consider my posting information about the broken political system, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. As for patience, I have been in more politicians offices than you could shake a stick at. I have seen and heard first hand how they would like to vote yes on progressive bills but then they wouldn't be re-elected. So, I'm not impatient, I'm a realist. This train is way too far down the pike to turn around now. We The people best take responsibility before it's too late. But then, mabe it is already.

From some inside experience, I can tell you that both parties are not working for us as much as they profess to be doing.

Also, Obama is probably a better person than most but he is in a system that will not really let him govern. He is not responsible for the system but he is responsible for who he actually serves. My main concern, is that he wants it both ways, please the people and his corporate base. The people are looking for someone to stand up to the corporations. Unfortunately, because of the way this political system works, he knows who ultimately he needs to please to fund the political campaigns.

I would be interested in reading some of your experiences of holding the politicians feet to the fire. Possibly we could compare notes.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I would be interested in reading some of your experiences of holding the politicians feet to the fire. Possibly we could compare notes.

I am more interested in building bridges than burning feet.

I am with you on the campaign finance reform situation. I contribute to Common Cause, the ACLU, Project Vote Smart, and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. I have been advocating for public financing of campaigns for a very long time.

I was outraged (but not entirely surprised) by the Citizens United ruling. Until that situation is addressed, the system isn't going to work very well for the people.

So I fight on both fronts. I vote for Democrats and other progressives, and I help out these other outside groups to work to change the system.

When I see something accomplished on either front, I'm pleased. But I always know there's more to do.

Originally Posted by Deb C

"Inverted totalitarianism," was the writer and philosopher Sheldon S. Wolin's term. Which I do see as valid. Just because you don't understand the term does not make it invalid. For clarification's sake, it is a totalitarianism that is an inside job. It's not always apparent to the naked eye. Hence, you see the politician, but you don't see the corporate carrot that's running the show. What do we get with that dynamics? A corporate state.

I plan to continue building a movement with others who vision a different paradigm for peace and justice. Looking at the root of our dysfunctional political system is key to stepping out of the box to build a better world when this thing, some call democracy, falls apart. I already belong to numerous groups who "see" that no matter who our president is, they cannot break out of the corporate and militaristic owned politics. That's why I work to support campaign finance reform and educate myself about the root of problems.

I believe it was Howard Zinn who said something like this, "It doesn't matter who sits in the White House, it's who sits outside and holds their feet to the fire that matters." He also urged activists to spend two minutes voting and rest of the time working, not arm chair activisim, but actually out there working to build networks of awakened people that will challenge the dirty rotten system.

Our job is to puncture the illusions that we live in a democratic democracy and point to the possibilities to untangle those chains. No magical thinking is going to fix what is broken in our country, only hard work with others to build movements who are not willing to compromise and settle for the crumbs while the elite run away with our money.

It does not serve the American people well for the powers that be, or anyone, to tell us that this is all we can get for now, because at least it's a start. BS! I challenge that passive invoking attitude. And it would serve you to understand that your sending that message to others in this forum is asking them to stay inslaved to a broken system that lets the corporation hold the power of this country.

I agree with you completely. Change must happen through on-the-ground local direct action. The Corporatists get away with the crap they are doing because ever since the 2T the dominant political mindset of the average person has reduced politics to whining, bitching, and screaming on soapboxes rather than doing anything productive.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You haven't convinced a majority that you're working in their interests. Until you stop insulting people who aren't as impatient as you are, you will continue to be disappointed.

Again, COS, I second this. I am tired of being yelled at by the impatient left and bullied by the right. I consider myself a liberal, but in this 4T I'm starting to feel like a centrist. I'd prefer single payer health care. I'd prefer more equitable distribution of wealth and to have a government that tries to make that happen. I'd like to see real jobs return to the US, where we actually make things. Yet, I know we must be careful of the planet and its resources and these are difficult problems that take long-term solutions in a democracy.

There is very little in this country that has happened quickly. Reading about the Civil War 4T has been enlightening. Lincoln was excoriated on many sides. He did disappointing things: suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, allowing slavery in Union slave states. McClellan? Great organizer, terrible general in war. Incrementalism. Many of those on the left seem to have rewritten history to believe that FDR solved all problems immediately and that if we do everything that FDR did it will all be solved NOW. My feeling is that this 4T is more like the Civil War 4T than the Great Depression 4T.

Many of the angry left quote this from FDR:

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.

This was a campaign speech in 1936, four years into his presidency. The Social Security Act passed in 1935--three years into FDR's presidency. Most women and minorities were excluded. Incrementalism. Flawed. Not fair. A start.

FDR does not have a great record on race relations. He was, IMO, a great president, and also a person of his time, as was Lincoln who I rank as the greatest US president. I have a soft spot for Lincoln. It's a bias. Mea culpa.

I agree that the push for equity, decency, and curbing the excesses of the 3T are absolutely necessary. But if I never hear the term "hold his feet to the fire" again, it will be too soon. Find another dang expression. How about "pressure" or "advocate for"? Must we roast body parts?

As a US citizen, the condoning and support of torture by President Bush was the most politically shameful experience of my adult lifetime. I'm not naive. I know the US has tortured, committed genocide, slavery--done some awful things. etc. But to have a 21st century president say that torture is justified, when we lived through the 20th century horror--to live through that--is very painful. It made me ashamed. I had not before been ashamed of my country. Of course I've known we'd done stupid things, ignorant, wrong-headed, but I always believed we had a basic, fundamental decency, even if we were dumb often. For a president to say that torture is one of the things we stand for was nearly unbearable. And I don't care how scary the bad guys were. There are things you don't do because it harms your soul to do it. Torture is one of those things. As far as I'm concerned, George Bush's support of torture harmed the American soul. Like slavery, like the genocide of American Indians, that stuff goes deep.

When Bush became president in 2000 I said to my despairing liberal friends that maybe he wouldn't be so bad. I wanted to give him a chance. I was wrong. He was worse than I imagined.

I am a 1957 Boomer. I came of age in the 70s with Watergate, Viet Nam, My Lai, etc. But unlike Xers, I had an early childhood in the High. To me, this country is the great experiment. There is enormous beauty as well as great failure in what we've done. We struggle all the time. We have, more than many nations I've studied, attempted to right our wrongs. We fail a lot we struggle and backtrack. It's a long road. The vast majority of us are immigrants who have managed to cobble together this nation. The ideals of our government have much to offer history and the future world. In my amateur study of history it seems that more often than not our faces turns toward the better--the right. In the long run of human history, what the US constitution is and what we have done for good and the lessons behind what we haven't done can benefit the future

In the long run, I think the whole idea of nation-states is absurd. But this is what we live in now and will live in long after I'm gone.

This, right now,is another time of struggle and contention.

But if the angry left keeps trying to motivate me through anger and negativity and a constant harping about what a failure Obama is and what is always wrong wrong wrong, then I'm going to ignore them. There are legitimate complaints about some of Obama's policies. But if, as COS said, I'm constantly insulted by the fact that I have some patience and some sense of history, then you are going to turn me off.

And to the extreme right: frankly, you're living in a 3T that's over. Done. Toast. Get over it. I will not, as James' sig line (which I love) says, be motivated by fear. It is a mind-killer.

For the thoughtful conservatives and liberals who are not interested in invective and condemnation and snark: I want to listen.

I appreciate the perspective of this board even if I don't always agree with everyone. Your knowledge and thoughtfulness is invaluable.

Originally Posted by Odin

I agree with you completely. Change must happen through on-the-ground local direct action. The Corporatists get away with the crap they are doing because ever since the 2T the dominant political mindset of the average person has reduced politics to whining, bitching, and screaming on soapboxes rather than doing anything productive.

So you do you agree, both the Democrat and GOP parties are owned by the Corporatists?

Yes or No

Originally Posted by wtrg8

So you do you agree, both the Democrat and GOP parties are owned by the Corporatists?

Yes or No

Disappointingly I would have to say yes.

I have been thinking about Deb C's posts. I don't see the conspiracies she does or agree with much of her postings. But one thing I think I do agree with her on is the need to change the culture first. Politics is the tail, culture is the dog.

James50