Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, that's exactly what Exile said. You guys believe in the power of government, and he believes in the power of the people. The way I see it, "society" means the people, not government.

I believe in the people controlling the government and using it for their ends rather than for the ends of the ruling class.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You're an Xer; Brian is, what, a Boomer? I see where you're coming from and it's a good quality and attitude to have as part of yourself. As a whole, as a survival strategy I'd have to add mutual aid, mutual self-help as the other component, for just as we are not ants or bees, we are not great cats either.

But where does the term progressive come in and in what sense are you using it? I'm having a little trouble with the definition of the terms.

I'm using it in the literal sense instead of the political sense. Politically speaking, I'm not a progressive at this time. Literally speaking, I'm progressive. Now, if the Tea Party movement takes hold and secures itself as the dominant political force for change. At that point, politically speaking, I will basically become a progressive. If the dumbies in Washington continue on its current coarse, Washington is going to end up being a society without a nation. We'll have a vested interest in it's historical documents and it's monuments but that's about it. What's is an organism without a heart? It's a useless corpse. We bury our corpses, embrace it's former spirit and move on with our life.

Originally Posted by Odin

I believe in the people controlling the government and using it for their ends rather than for the ends of the ruling class.

Who is the ruling class? The current political/government class who actually rules and makes and enforces the laws or the private sector class who doesn't actually rule anyone and uses it power and influence to control the political class?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Who is the ruling class? The current political/government class who actually rules and makes and enforces the laws or the private sector class who doesn't actually rule anyone and uses it power and influence to control the political class?

He who has economic power has political power, they cannot be separated. Those who control the economy control the government's puppet strings.

Originally Posted by Odin

He who has economic power has political power, they cannot be separated. Those who control the economy control the government's puppet strings.

Well, if you truely believed in what you said, then you would view that as being the way it should be and how it should work.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Brian and I are damn near complete opposites. Brian looks to and relies on others to do things for him. I look within myself and prefer to do things for and by myself.

Juvenile horsecrap and self-delusion. Nobody is completely self-sufficient and very few people are as completely dependent as your stereotype.

Brian believes in the power of government and aligns himself with government power. I believe in the power of the individual and align myself with individual power. In short, I could care less what happens to our government because I'm a capable individual who lives in a world with millions of capable individuals like myself who will rise up, move in, remove and become government. Like Brian, I do consider myself a modern day progressive.

Delusional. But typical.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, that's exactly what Exile said. You guys believe in the power of government, and he believes in the power of the people. The way I see it, "society" means the people, not government.

I don't believe in "the power of government" as if that were something separate from people. Government is a human creation and, if done a certain way, expresses the power of the people.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Juvenile horsecrap and self-delusion. Nobody is completely self-sufficient and very few people are as completely dependent as your stereotype.

I agree that nobody is completely self sufficient or are completely dependant on themselves. Example: I know that I need customers to make a living as much as Obama needed the poor to make his living. Fortunately, I'm very good at doing what I do for a living and my abilities retain customers and opens doors to new customers and new opportunities. You see, this is reason why I can understand why a large portion of the stimulous went towards shoring up government jobs and social programs instead of so-called INFRASTRUCTURE.




Delusional. But typical.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't believe in "the power of government" as if that were something separate from people. Government is a human creation and, if done a certain way, expresses the power of the people.

Curiousity, was the actions of the lawmakers who fled Wisconsin and the public sector who called in sick and filled its capital, a demonstration of the power of government or was it more of a reaction to a demonstration of the power of the people?

This entire discussion presupposes that the idea "We govern ourselves" went out the window long ago, and is no longer believed by anyone. But you realize, that was what we were supposed to be, a self-governing nation. As one person put it, the American Revolution was when we threw out the landlord and set up a co-op.

And on that note -- for all those who have been crying that taxation of any kind is theft of their money -- if you own a condo, you pay into the homeowner's association. In return you get certain services, even if you also get petty tyrants, maybe some petty chiseling, and rules saying what color to paint your front door (if you're unlucky). Do you think the homeowner's associations dues are de facto a theft of Your Money? (Not counting whether or not you agree with the amount!)

You know, the original small town governments were very much like the homeowners associations cited above. And extended upward from there.

P.S. I also pay my club dues without crying "Theft of MY money!"

The only way the "Taxation is theft" meme makes any sense is if you no longer see it as your government, which you belong to, but as an alien regime imposed from the outside. From above, perhaps. In which case you are emotionally living under military occupation, which is a thrilling concept for an adolescent with a head full of rebellion but sand and frightening for an adult.

So -- when did this begin? In the 60s with "Off the pigs"? In the 30s with That Man In The White House? In the 1870s in the South? All of the above?

When did our government cease to become Our Thing and become "Our Hated Masters"?

Paul of Tarsus ---living under an emperor --- was more trusting of his government than that, and proudly claimed citizenship in it, and expected that to be of some use.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

This entire discussion presupposes that the idea "We govern ourselves" went out the window long ago, and is no longer believed by anyone. But you realize, that was what we were supposed to be, a self-governing nation. As one person put it, the American Revolution was when we threw out the landlord and set up a co-op.

And on that note -- for all those who have been crying that taxation of any kind is theft of their money -- if you own a condo, you pay into the homeowner's association. In return you get certain services, even if you also get petty tyrants, maybe some petty chiseling, and rules saying what color to paint your front door (if you're unlucky). Do you think the homeowner's associations dues are de facto a theft of Your Money? (Not counting whether or not you agree with the amount!)

You know, the original small town governments were very much like the homeowners associations cited above. And extended upward from there.

P.S. I also pay my club dues without crying "Theft of MY money!"

Funny you wrote this. I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and used tithe at our church as an example. Most recently we can see our money being used to go back into the community and build the church's infrastructure.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Brian and I are damn near complete opposites. Brian looks to and relies on others to do things for him. I look within myself and prefer to do things for and by myself. Brian believes in the power of government and aligns himself with government power. I believe in the power of the individual and align myself with individual power. In short, I could care less what happens to our government because I'm a capable individual who lives in a world with millions of capable individuals like myself who will rise up, move in, remove and become government. Like Brian, I do consider myself a modern day progressive.

IIRC correctly, Brian Rush has been continuously employed the whole time he's posted on the thread and makes a good salary in the private sector. He isn't dependent on the local, State, or Federal Government for anything other than common services that we all enjoy (roads, infrastructure, food inspections, national defense, and the like.

Brian, you can correct me if you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I agree that nobody is completely self sufficient or are completely dependant on themselves. Example: I know that I need customers to make a living as much as Obama needed the poor to make his living. Fortunately, I'm very good at doing what I do for a living and my abilities retain customers and opens doors to new customers and new opportunities. You see, this is reason why I can understand why a large portion of the stimulous went towards shoring up government jobs and social programs instead of so-called INFRASTRUCTURE.

Delusional. But typical.

IIRC correctly, about $300 billion of the $800 billion from the 2009 stimulate went to tax cuts, which were used to try to get some Republicans aboard and were requred to get the thing passed in the Senate. That was the largest chunk.

A good chunk of the rest was designed to offset cuts in State spending -- keeping teachers employed, for example. The stimulate was designed to take quick economic effect, restoring spending and preventing a free-fall. So long-term intrastructure improvements could not be funded this way; projects had to be "shovel-ready". Some of the social spending, such as the increase in SNAP (food stamps) benefits, was also to get people spending and shore up the economy.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't believe in "the power of government" as if that were something separate from people. Government is a human creation and, if done a certain way, expresses the power of the people.

Therefore we have a double whammy. Government has become separate from the people more so than ever. We now have corporate interests put above any will of the people. Polls have indicated that most citizens were against bailing out the banks, more war, and tax breaks for the rich. Yet, in spite of what the people wanted, the PTB ruled. Then many of us are afraid to speak out about a president who didn't listen to the people but did listen to the financial wolves that he appointed to advise him.

But then of course we have the people who have bought into the rhetoric that all of those actions were a good thing. Now we are paying a high price for our silence and our gullibility.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I agree that nobody is completely self sufficient or are completely dependant on themselves. Example: I know that I need customers to make a living as much as Obama needed the poor to make his living.

Oh, please. Stop making an ass of yourself. Really.

You did not make it to where you are as a businessman only because of your own efforts. You needed public services such as education, roads, health services, and other infrastructure. Public service workers plow your roads, protect the quality of your air and water, and maintain your electrical grid. Yes, like any other worker you pay taxes to support these services but then you need these services in the first place if you're going to have a business at all. It is a mutually beneficial relationship.

Fortunately, I'm very good at doing what I do for a living and my abilities retain customers and opens doors to new customers and new opportunities. You see, this is reason why I can understand why a large portion of the stimulous went towards shoring up government jobs and social programs instead of so-called INFRASTRUCTURE.

You're not making any sense here. In any case, it is futile to pit private employment against public employment. We can't function as a society without both working well.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Curiousity, was the actions of the lawmakers who fled Wisconsin and the public sector who called in sick and filled its capital, a demonstration of the power of government or was it more of a reaction to a demonstration of the power of the people?

It was most definitely people power.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Funny you wrote this. I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and used tithe at our church as an example. Most recently we can see our money being used to go back into the community and build the church's infrastructure.

Indeed. Church budgeting is probably not much prettier than government budgeting, if my experience is any indication.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Therefore we have a double whammy. Government has become separate from the people more so than ever. We now have corporate interests put above any will of the people. Polls have indicated that most citizens were against bailing out the banks, more war, and tax breaks for the rich. Yet, in spite of what the people wanted, the PTB ruled. Then many of us are afraid to speak out about a president who didn't listen to the people but did listen to the financial wolves that he appointed to advise him.

But then of course we have the people who have bought into the rhetoric that all of those actions were a good thing. Now we are paying a high price for our silence and our gullibility.

I am not convinced that bailing out the banks was a bad thing at the time. The consequences of not doing so would have been dire indeed.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

IIRC correctly, Brian Rush has been continuously employed the whole time he's posted on the thread and makes a good salary in the private sector. He isn't dependent on the local, State, or Federal Government for anything other than common services that we all enjoy (roads, infrastructure, food inspections, national defense, and the like.

Brian, you can correct me if you're wrong.

I've actually paid Brian twice for works of art that he's created. Last I knew that was a private business transaction, even though I used the public internet to make the purchases.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I am not convinced that bailing out the banks was a bad thing at the time. The consequences of not doing so would have been dire indeed.

I would think that the thousands of citizens who have since lost their homes while seeing the banks rake in record profits might have a different perspective.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Therefore we have a double whammy. Government has become separate from the people more so than ever. We now have corporate interests put above any will of the people. Polls have indicated that most citizens were against bailing out the banks, more war, and tax breaks for the rich. Yet, in spite of what the people wanted, the PTB ruled. Then many of us are afraid to speak out about a president who didn't listen to the people but did listen to the financial wolves that he appointed to advise him.

But then of course we have the people who have bought into the rhetoric that all of those actions were a good thing. Now we are paying a high price for our silence and our gullibility.

DOn't look at me, Deb. When Obama did that thing, I cried out "No! You idiot! When there are bridges and railroads and sewers and water lines ready to break or broken out there? And fixing them puts people to work?"

Of course, don't get me started on mayors, who hear "shovel-ready" and think "Hoo boy! I'm getting my vanity projects funded! New municipal stadium, here we come!"

Though said mayor was roundly defeated by a decent, gentle cost-cutting Republican in the last election, and even as a Democrat, I'd be lying if I said anything but "Best thing that's happened to this city in the past 30 years."

Originally Posted by Deb C

I would think that the thousands of citizens who have since lost their homes while seeing the banks rake in record profits might have a different perspective.

I am not saying that there doesn't need to be banking reform. Clearly there does. I was speaking *specifically* of that particular moment when there was a real danger of complete collapse. I do not believe that collapse would have been a good thing.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Indeed. Church budgeting is probably not much prettier than government budgeting, if my experience is any indication.

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to serve a year on so on the vestry of their local church. Hah! Saith the Preacher's Kid from way back.

Looks like some people have lost their rights and access to the courts. Step by step, inch by inch, the safteynet ropes are unraveling, and some of us are playing the Obama waltz on the violin while their ship sinks.

“I find it appalling that the solicitor general in a Democratic administration would assert in a Supreme Court brief that businesses can challenge state regulation under the supremacy clause, but that poor recipients of Medicaid cannot challenge state violations of federal law,” said Prof. Timothy S. Jost, an expert on health law at Washington and Lee University, who is usually sympathetic to the administration.



Administration Opposes Challenges to Medicaid Cuts

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: May 28, 2011

WASHINGTON — Medicaid recipients and health care providers cannot sue state officials to challenge cuts in Medicaid payments, even if such cuts compromise access to health care for poor people, the Obama administration has told the Supreme Court.

Neal K. Katyal, the acting solicitor general, filed a brief with the Supreme Court.


States around the country, faced with severe budget problems, have been reducing Medicaid rates for doctors, dentists, hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes and other providers.

Federal law says Medicaid rates must be “sufficient to enlist enough providers” so that Medicaid recipients have access to care to the same extent as the general population in an area.

In a friend-of-the court brief filed Thursday in the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said that no federal law allowed private individuals to sue states to enforce this standard.

Such lawsuits “would not be compatible” with the means of enforcement envisioned by Congress, which relies on the secretary of health and human services to make sure states comply, the administration said in the brief, by the acting solicitor general, Neal K. Katyal.

In many parts of the country, payment rates are so low that Medicaid recipients have difficulty finding doctors to take them.

But, the Justice Department said, the Medicaid law’s promise of equal access to care is “broad and nonspecific,” and federal health officials are better equipped than judges to balance that goal with other policy objectives, like holding down costs.

The administration expressed its views in a set of cases consolidated under the name Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, No. 09-958.

In 2008 and 2009, the California Legislature passed several laws reducing Medicaid payment rates. Recipients and providers challenged the cuts in court, arguing that the California plan violated — and was pre-empted by — the federal Medicaid statute.

The law does not explicitly allow such lawsuits. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said beneficiaries and providers could sue under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which makes federal law “the supreme law of the land.” In reducing payment rates, the appeals court said, California violated the requirements of federal Medicaid law and threatened access to “much-needed medical care.”

California appealed to the Supreme Court, which is likely to hear oral arguments in the fall, with a decision by next spring.

Consumer advocates were dismayed by the administration’s position, which they said undermined Medicaid recipients’ rights and access to the courts.

“I find it appalling that the solicitor general in a Democratic administration would assert in a Supreme Court brief that businesses can challenge state regulation under the supremacy clause, but that poor recipients of Medicaid cannot challenge state violations of federal law,” said Prof. Timothy S. Jost, an expert on health law at Washington and Lee University, who is usually sympathetic to the administration.

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the senior Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee and an architect of Medicaid, said the administration’s brief was “wrong on the law and bad policy.”

“I am bitterly disappointed that President Obama would accept the position of the acting solicitor general to file a brief that is contrary to the decades-long practice of giving Medicaid beneficiaries and providers the ability to turn to the courts to enforce their rights under federal law,” Mr. Waxman said. He said that he and other Democratic lawmakers planned to file a brief opposing the administration’s view.

By contrast, many state officials agree with California and the Obama administration.

The National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures filed a friend-of-the-court brief endorsing California’s position that Medicaid recipients and providers could not sue.

In a separate friend-of-the-court brief, Michigan and 30 other states went further. “Allowing ‘supremacy clause lawsuits’ to enforce federal Medicaid laws will be a financial catastrophe for states,” they said.

Medicaid is financed jointly by the federal government and the states. The number of recipients and the costs increased sharply in the recent recession and will increase further with the expected addition of 16 million people to the rolls under the new federal health care law.

A version of this article appeared in print on May 29, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Administration Opposes Challenges to Medicaid Cuts.
.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

DOn't look at me, Deb. When Obama did that thing, I cried out "No! You idiot! When there are bridges and railroads and sewers and water lines ready to break or broken out there? And fixing them puts people to work?"

Of course, don't get me started on mayors, who hear "shovel-ready" and think "Hoo boy! I'm getting my vanity projects funded! New municipal stadium, here we come!"

Though said mayor was roundly defeated by a decent, gentle cost-cutting Republican in the last election, and even as a Democrat, I'd be lying if I said anything but "Best thing that's happened to this city in the past 30 years."

No fingers pointing at you. I've always known that your a woman of wisdom.