Originally Posted by Deb C

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

And just wait until the corporate Dems. get finished rescuing the GOP from their recent walk off of the Ryan plank. Will someone please remind me of why I'm supposed to run around with a pair of blue pom poms yelling "Go Dems go. " *rolls eyes*

Originally Posted by The Rani

He wouldn't correct you regardless.
From what I've seen, what Brian posts on this forum and what actually happens in his life are two completely different things. You're a thinking woman ... ask yourself why he gets so defensive every time Exile calls him on it.

I don't see defensiveness there as much as frustration with someone who repeatedly doesn't understand the relationship between public services and private enterprise.

KIA posts insults to public workers and public services. At the same time, like anyone else he uses those very same services.

Trying to portray any of the progressives on this forum as "parasites" is a futile exercise. It has been shown time and again to be false. Yet KIA keeps on with the lies and with the insults.

Nobody begrudges KIA his success in business. He is simply wrong in his assertion that he got there through his individual efforts alone. He was supported along the way, both directly and indirectly, by governmental institutions.

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?

The Majority of Wisconsinites support then protestors. Walker's popularity has tanked and Obama's has surged in Wisconsin.

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!"

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.

Great post, Pat!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have not really changed my position at all, Brian. What I am suggesting is that the Tea Partiers are similar to radical Republicans in the Grant Administration, let's say. They are still talking the talk about undoing the welfare state in the same way that their counterparts were talking the talk about black suffrage in the South. But it's quite possible that we will have a compromise of 1876 which will leave things pretty much as they are right now. That is certainly what Obama is working for. That's the best case scenario--the worst case scenario is that they do leave older folks without health care.

It is hard to judge the efficacy of a mass movement in its early stage of rapid growth; it can either become mainstream or become an ephemeral phenomenon. The Tea Party Movement now looks more analogous to the Know-Nothing movement of the 1850s or the America First movement of the 1930s. Both causes drew much media attention by the standard of the time, both adopted a strident message, both drew the sympathy of well-positioned elites and celebrities, and both became irrelevant rather quickly despite garnering early popularity. Both pushed concerns typical of a 3T and became post-seasonal. History would later despise both causes. They may have served the purpose of attracting much of the remaining energy of 3T interests and making them objects of ridicule while the political energy went to the dominant cliques (Civil War) or the political monolith (WW II), thus allowing national (WWII) or at least regional (Civil War) purposes to congeal.

I am not going to say that once the 4T is over that Americans will have very different attitudes toward deficit spending; the will be so averse to deficit spending that they will support new (perhaps a VAT) and higher (income, inheritance, excise) taxes to pay off Crisis Era debts. But this won't be exclusively a concern of the cranky Right. America may yet follow norms more typical of modern Europe with the cradle-to-grave welfare state that American military leaders pushed. (If state governments are spending huge amounts of money on old-age pensions, child welfare, university educations, and physical infrastructure, then maybe they can't spend so much on rearmament that threatens neighbors).

One of the bizarre things about the budget debate, by the way, is that Medicare and Social Security are still paying for themselves at the moment. And cutting them for people 55 and under will do nothing to help the mess we are in. Since discretionary domestic spending can hardly be cut much further, the only way to fix the deficit now is to cut the military or raise taxes, and the Republicans won't do either. The Democrats won't propose to do either.

Which shows the incompetence of the current GOP. America has bigger and more immediate budget matters than Social Security and Medicare, and the GOP pols go first for it while ignoring the corporate subsidies and military expenditures -- and the Republicans have been going after the comparative trivialities. It's as if people with financial problems are compulsive gamblers and alcoholics are swift to take the kids out of the high school band or dispose of the family pet to save some money but won't give up the booze or the casino trips. (I have a more cynical conclusion about the GOP desire to privatize Medicare -- to make it more profitable for private interests to take over, but also far more profitable for those private interests who would have no accountability to captive customers, which is not only inefficient but unconscionable).

However you define the dates of this 4T--whether you think it might have 3 years to run, as I do, or 15--I see no way that either party will liberate itself from corporate money by the time it's over. So there's not a hope of a major set of progressive reforms. Again, the situation in the 1870s and 1880s was identical.

We aren't that far into the Crisis. This country still has severe regional polarization, as shown in the heavy concentration of Democratic politics (which will surely be so in 2012) in the Far West, the Northeast, the Rust Belt, and perhaps Florida and the rest of the Atlantic South, and the areas of heavy Hispanic presence in New Mexico and southern Texas -- and the rest. The Tea Party types looked at first as the sorts who would adopt the mannerisms of an earlier Crisis to meet the 'excesses' of fiscal liberalism, only to prove an ephemeral phenomenon. Governors Walker in Wisconsin, Snyder in Michigan, Kasich in Ohio, Corbett in Pennsylvania, LePage in Maine, and Scott in Florida, all elected with the aid of Tea Party and some clever fronts, have proved wildly unpopular -- fast. That the Senate Minority Leader would say that the first priority of Congress is to ensure that a President that one Party despises is to be a one-term President (even if such depends upon another economic meltdown as bad as that of 1929-1932 -- the meltdown of 2007-2009 was about half the full meltdown, or a military/diplomatic debacle) indicates that the divisive partisanship characteristic of a 3T isn't over.

OK -- those are states that President Obama won in 2008. The GOP might be able to win while losing all but two of them if those two include Florida, but that is asking too much. Significantly, the GOP is in a poor position in which to hold the House, and its chance to win the Senate is becoming shaky.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

KIA posts insults to public workers and public services. At the same time, like anyone else he uses those very same services.

That's a pretty unfair accusation of hypocricy. The people who hold the guns and run the prisons also get to decide who is allowed to provide some gamut of services. A person who uses those services can reasonably oppose the people who hold the guns and run the prisons, without having to engage in double-standards or self-deception.

What you are saying is no different than calling a slave who eats the food his master gives him and lives in the home his master provides him a hypocrite for speaking in favor of abolition.

---
-edit to avoid multiple posts-

And Badger - your condo analogy fails on the very basic element of choice. You buy into a condo or homeowner association. You join a club. You can quit either of those, subject to whatever penalties you agreed to when you bought-in, and join either another one more suitable to you, or elect not to join one altogether.

A government, on the other hand, owns you from your first breath*. Whatever burdens or penalties it imposes on you, it does purely unilaterally. Unlike the groups you described, made up of willing members, constantly reassessing and acting upon their level of desire to continue being so, a government is above and outside its subjects.
Government (at the very least, under the nation-state paradigm; I can't speak very well to other models) is looked at as 'other' because it is other. That's its nature.



*the sole exceptions being people who as adults manage to obtain citizenship under a government of their choosing. That vanishingly small number of people are the only ones for whom a homeowners-association analogy makes even the slightest bit of sense. But how many of us here fit into that group? Anyone?
Yeah.

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.

Well, so do you. Surely you don't do your own police work or firefighting, and you probably are too busy in your enterprise to home-school your kids. You do not deliver your own mail. You could never hold your own against an invading army, and you certainly wouldn't do surgery on yourself. I know of men who relied upon their wives (one, that is -- I wasn't living in Utah about 150 years ago unless you can associate me there through reincarnation) to do their own sewing and canning. The roads are well-maintained to the extent that you rarely have to call the government to report a suspension-destroying pothole -- but as a rule some civil servant (really a laborer on the public payroll) usually patches the roads.

You are a specialist, and specialization of effort is essential to even the most basic of civilizations. Sure, you are in the air-conditioning business, but you depend upon the government to supply the money, enforce contracts (including those in which you allow someone to buy on credit), and educate your employees if you have any. You rely upon the government for the roads on which you drive and through which you get your supplies. You depend upon the government to ensure that your bank doesn't misappropriate funds in your FDIC-insured bank account. You depend upon the government to educate people who provide services to you so that (my favorite metaphor) that the person who prepares the dough for your pizza hasn't confused some deadly insecticide with flour because the illiterate baker's helper doesn't know the difference between two white powdery substances.

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.

If someone decides to default on a credit contract with you or through his arrangement with a credit-card issuer or a finance company on payment to you for your provision of equipment or services, and the government court decides on your behalf, are you going to align yourself with the defaulting debtor? I thought not. Enforcement of contracts is an essential duty of government.

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.

You are not your own... name whatever you do not do well because you have concentrated your efforts elsewhere or because you lack either the temperament or the raw skills to do the job. You depend, for example, upon an educated and competent populace not only as clients but for the services that you need.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't see defensiveness there as much as frustration with someone who repeatedly doesn't understand the relationship between public services and private enterprise.

KIA posts insults to public workers and public services. At the same time, like anyone else he uses those very same services.

Trying to portray any of the progressives on this forum as "parasites" is a futile exercise. It has been shown time and again to be false. Yet KIA keeps on with the lies and with the insults.

Nobody begrudges KIA his success in business. He is simply wrong in his assertion that he got there through his individual efforts alone. He was supported along the way, both directly and indirectly, by governmental institutions.

Kiff, as a taxpayer, I'm entitled to use the roads, public schools and public libraries. IMO, the basic services that you keep harping about will always remain in place. Who actually does the work public employee or private contractor might change over time. BTW, my parents had to do with my personal success than the Progressives or the government. My parents funded the public schools that I attended, funded the roads that I road or drove to school on and funded the removal of snow which allowed me to get to school safely. You keep saying government does all this stuff for me as if it was free or an act of social charity. Well, that's obviously not the case with taxpayers. Taxpayers provide the financial means for everything that's government. Now, I realize a substantial portion of the population and your political base are what you commonly refer to as being "parasites". Obviously, you aren't a deadbeat. You went to school. You earned your grades. You earned your degrees. You earned your job. You pay your taxes and contribute your skills to society. Government didn't drive you to school. Government didn't drive you to succeed in school. Government didn't drive you towards your career. Government didn't limit you on your level of success. Government subsidize you for poor choices, personal shortcomings and personal failures.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Well, so do you. Surely you don't do your own police work or firefighting, and you probably are too busy in your enterprise to home-school your kids. You do not deliver your own mail. You could never hold your own against an invading army, and you certainly wouldn't do surgery on yourself. I know of men who relied upon their wives (one, that is -- I wasn't living in Utah about 150 years ago unless you can associate me there through reincarnation) to do their own sewing and canning. The roads are well-maintained to the extent that you rarely have to call the government to report a suspension-destroying pothole -- but as a rule some civil servant (really a laborer on the public payroll) usually patches the roads.

PB, you're missing my point. We will always have public schools, police, firefighters and other basic public services. The people and organizations who currently provide those services will most likely change. In other words, the teachers will most likely not be members of a union.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

PB, you're missing my point. We will always have public schools, police, firefighters and other basic public services. The people and organizations who currently provide those services will most likely change. In other words, the teachers will most likely not be members of a union.

LOL, the Ruling Class is having a outright war against public education, demonizing teachers in the process. Destroy teachers' unions and you will get "teachers" that are just glorified baby-sitters.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Majority of Wisconsinites support then protestors. Walker's popularity has tanked and Obama's has surged in Wisconsin.

That's fine. I believe that people have the right to choose there own destiny. If Wisconsin financially tanks, the red states will benefit from their losses. If Minnesota tanks, North and South Dakota and Montana will benefit from its losses. Right now, you rely on my wealth staying in Minnesota. I can simply move that wealth from a blue state like Minnesota to red state like Montana. It can become an ugly game that we are willing and financially able to play.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Right now, you rely on my wealth staying in Minnesota. I can simply move that wealth from a blue state like Minnesota to red state like Montana. It can become an ugly game that we are willing and financially able to play.

This is a similar game to what corporations play when they try to blackmail cities and states to give them tax breaks so they won't move elsewhere. A nice way to race to the bottom, IMO.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't see defensiveness there as much as frustration with someone who repeatedly doesn't understand the relationship between public services and private enterprise.

Add to which the Rani has not seen me in years, knows nothing about what's going on in my life at this time, didn't know me well (or want to) even when we were seeing each other, and is in no better position to comment on the subject than Exile is -- possibly worse, since she has some cause to erroneously think she knows.

However, in one point she's correct. None of the reforms I advocate are for my benefit; there is indeed a separation there. I am in my fifties. I don't have all that much longer to live anyway, and certainly my working days are numbered and the number is not great. This is not about me. It has never been about me. And I deeply resent anyone trying to make it about me -- especially a narcissistic, self-centered, arrogant little piece of shit who was born a short easy climb from a modest measure of success, made that climb, and has coasted ever since. And that description, frankly, fits either one of those two posters.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

That's fine. I believe that people have the right to choose there own destiny. If Wisconsin financially tanks, the red states will benefit from their losses. If Minnesota tanks, North and South Dakota and Montana will benefit from its losses. Right now, you rely on my wealth staying in Minnesota. I can simply move that wealth from a blue state like Minnesota to red state like Montana. It can become an ugly game that we are willing and financially able to play.

Minnesota, or Wisconsin for that matter have real cities in them. That means that they have a customer base for you of the size that the Dakotas and Montana can't match. Even if you total all three population together both MN and WS are twice as populated. And unlike a large corporation that can blackmail a state for a tax rebate with the promise of hundreds or thousands of jobs, you don't have the scale to extort the state for a pay off. All of us tax payers, including you, pay for corporate graft. Welfare for the rich costs you a lot more every ear than what is usually thought as welfare does.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

This is a similar game to what corporations play when they try to blackmail cities and states to give them tax breaks so they won't move elsewhere. A nice way to race to the bottom, IMO.

I don't feel sorry for the states who place themselves in that position and fall for it. Unfortunately, Minnesota has become one of those states. Eventually, the state of Minnesota will fall and hit bottom.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I don't feel sorry for the states who place themselves in that position and fall for it. Unfortunately, Minnesota has become one of those states. Eventually, the state of Minnesota will fall and hit bottom.

Bullcrap, if that were true are are so many major companies still in Minnesota?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

PB, you're missing my point. We will always have public schools, police, firefighters and other basic public services. The people and organizations who currently provide those services will most likely change. In other words, the teachers will most likely not be members of a union.

No union?

Unions are the only organizations that can stand up to bureaucratic organizations that can retain experts on chiseling down the wages of employees by pitting one worker against another. That applies as much to for-profit corporations and governments.

If I were in state, county, or municipal government employment in Florida, where the Governor is a crook as well as a stooge of out-of-state interests, then I would need a union. We all know who the management of large business represent -- and it certainly isn't people who do the real work. When Big Business captures state government as in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- well, you get the idea. Big Government isn't entirely inimical to Big Government, but it certainly wants government service gutted when such doesn't create a direct profit or protect the obvious interests of Big Business.

If the generational theory means anything, then this decade has many parallels to the 1930s. One is that union membership which had reached its saecular nadir in the 1920s ballooned in the 1930s. Corporate power peaks in the corrupt boom at the end of a 3T with the peak of political conservatism and then crashes with the credibility of Big Business.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

No union?

Unions are the only organizations that can stand up to bureaucratic organizations that can retain experts on chiseling down the wages of employees by pitting one worker against another. That applies as much to for-profit corporations and governments.

If I were in state, county, or municipal government employment in Florida, where the Governor is a crook as well as a stooge of out-of-state interests, then I would need a union. We all know who the management of large business represent -- and it certainly isn't people who do the real work. When Big Business captures state government as in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- well, you get the idea. Big Government isn't entirely inimical to Big Government, but it certainly wants government service gutted when such doesn't create a direct profit or protect the obvious interests of Big Business.

If the generational theory means anything, then this decade has many parallels to the 1930s. One is that union membership which had reached its saecular nadir in the 1920s ballooned in the 1930s. Corporate power peaks in the corrupt boom at the end of a 3T with the peak of political conservatism and then crashes with the credibility of Big Business.

The America of today is no longer the America of the 1930's. We are more advanced and our standards are much higher. Personally speaking, I don't know any meat cutters or automobile manufacturers. The center of America is now largely profressional vs manufacturing. The world has changed. The government isn't in the same position as it was back then. The nation isn't in the same position as it was back then. Nothing is the same as it was back then. Yet, for whatever reason, you're still using it to support your theory.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The America of today is no longer the America of the 1930's. We are more advanced and our standards are much higher. Personally speaking, I don't know any meat cutters or automobile manufacturers. The center of America is now largely profressional vs manufacturing. The world has changed. The government isn't in the same position as it was back then. The nation isn't in the same position as it was back then. Nothing is the same as it was back then. Yet, for whatever reason, you're still using it to support your theory.

Yes, workers' rights, what an archaic notion! *sarcasm*

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The America of today is no longer the America of the 1930's. We are more advanced and our standards are much higher. Personally speaking, I don't know any meat cutters or automobile manufacturers. The center of America is now largely profressional vs manufacturing. The world has changed. The government isn't in the same position as it was back then. The nation isn't in the same position as it was back then. Nothing is the same as it was back then. Yet, for whatever reason, you're still using it to support your theory.

Well, you do buy meat in the supermarket that has been cut? Did you ever wonder how that was done? By machine, you say? But are there workers on the assembly line tending that machine?

You don't know any automobile manufacturers - probably because you don't speak Japanese. Or Swedish. Or other languages. Ours engaged in a race to the bottom, failed miserably, and - except for Ford, an honorable exception - ran screaming to Big Daddy, crying "We're too big to fail!"

Daddy should have spanked them. However --- cars are sill being made. I wonder where? Honda, SAAB, Volkswagen, Fiat....

If going into the 2012 elections, your big concern is the federal deficit, or Medicare or Social Security shortfalls, then maybe what you should ask for is that they all just stay home and not legislate nuthin -




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss=ezra-klein

What happens if Congress goes home

It is a fact that if congress simply goes home — doesn’t do anything for the next 10 years except keep the federal government on autopilot, or if it does do things if it pays for whatever increases in spending it enacts by raising taxes and pays for whatever tax cuts it enacts by cutting spending — that we do not have a long run deficit problem. If congress goes home for ten years our program spending is matched to our tax revenues, which means a declining debt burden because the growth rate of the economy is larger than the interest rate on our debt.

That's right - all that needs to happen is we go from Bush's top tax rate of 39% back to Clinton's 35% and we let the Affordable Health Care Act continue to provide insurance to millions who would otherwise be without, and we: solve the entire federal deficit problem; solve our projected Medicare, Medicaid, and SS shortfalls; keep our military at its present expenditure rate (hopefully this comes down for other reasons); and continue to meet our debt obligations.

Then maybe we could turn our attention to the millions out of work and doing something about a weak economy?

Nay, where would the fun be in that for the right wing nut 3T albatross around our necks?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, you see what you want to see.
That's why my post was directed at The Wonkette.

Again, for the Wonk


Personal defensiveness.

Exile may not have a clue, but I sure do. When I figured it out, many years ago, that's why I said adios.

I saw that quote as expressing frustration at having a RW poster accuse him of being a parasite. I could understand that, in that Brian and I share similar political philosophies. But that's just my take; I've never met the man.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I am in my fifties. I don't have all that much longer to live anyway, and certainly my working days are numbered and the number is not great.

This post alarms me. Are you sick? An average 55-year-old can expect to live 25 more years. Do you have reason to expect it to be less in your case? Or does 25 years fall into the "not all that much longer to live"?

Given that I will turn 55 in about 6 weeks, this hits home to me.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Kiff, as a taxpayer, I'm entitled to use the roads, public schools and public libraries.

Stop right there.

Plenty of people use my library who do not pay taxes to my funding authority. It is not accurate to give "taxpayers" special privileges in this case, because any person who is willing and able to follow a basic code of conduct is entitled to browse the Internet, do research, and have access to library materials.

As for public roads, I would wager that plenty of people who don't pay income taxes or property taxes use those roads. Nobody looks at your tax bill before you get on the road.

IMO, the basic services that you keep harping about will always remain in place. Who actually does the work public employee or private contractor might change over time.

Private contractors do not have the same kind of accountability to the public that public workers do. By definition. That is why I oppose vouchers, private prisons, and other takeovers of public services, because the emphasis becomes profit rather than service or accountability.

BTW, my parents had to do with my personal success than the Progressives or the government. My parents funded the public schools that I attended, funded the roads that I road or drove to school on and funded the removal of snow which allowed me to get to school safely.

Not only those two people. I think you know this.

You keep saying government does all this stuff for me as if it was free or an act of social charity. Well, that's obviously not the case with taxpayers. Taxpayers provide the financial means for everything that's government. Now, I realize a substantial portion of the population and your political base are what you commonly refer to as being "parasites".

Excuse me. I don't refer to them as parasites. Your sloppy grasp of facts is truly appalling.

Obviously, you aren't a deadbeat. You went to school. You earned your grades. You earned your degrees. You earned your job. You pay your taxes and contribute your skills to society. Government didn't drive you to school.

Government kept the roads clear so I could go to school.

Government didn't drive you to succeed in school.

My teachers were paid by a government authority.

Government didn't drive you towards your career.

Which career would that be? The unsatisfying one I had in the private sector or the one I currently enjoy in the public sector?

Government didn't limit you on your level of success.

Why would it? If anything, it helped me.

Government subsidize you for poor choices, personal shortcomings and personal failures.

Whatever that means.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

PB, you're missing my point. We will always have public schools, police, firefighters and other basic public services. The people and organizations who currently provide those services will most likely change. In other words, the teachers will most likely not be members of a union.

Then they will cease to be public services and will become privately contracted enterprises with all the hazards that this model encompasses. No thanks.