Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Poverty is itself a lack of freedom. It is the inability to participate fully in such prosperity as exists. It means making stark choices that others need not make -- like whether one gets dental care of a toothache or pays the rent. It means that in practice the poor must sell out everything -- including individuality and honor -- for what is desirable or even necessary.

"Everyone for himself" is one of the lowest bases for ethical standards. Hunger is coercion. Poverty-enhanced ill health is coercion. Subordination to entrenched wealth in a system that recognizes no other virtue is coercion.

Wealth gives people power over others and freedom from being controlled by others.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Everyone for himself" is one of the lowest bases for ethical standards. Hunger is coercion. Poverty-enhanced ill health is coercion. Subordination to entrenched wealth in a system that recognizes no other virtue is coercion.

Precisely. The "free market" economic system is indeed a good thing, but one needs to define what it means to be "free" here. For example, job seekers driven by starvation and desperation aren't really all that "free" to turn down a job offer with insulting wages (which keep getting worse as the pool of desperate folks grows). The free market system only works its magic when all parties to the transactions are really "free" and not dealing under duress. That's less and less the case with this economy and this job market.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

But from my perspective, Eric, that's a trick question because it supposes that I see him primarily as being un-smart.

So you can't answer the question?

See here.

I find it very difficult to continue this eh-em "conversation" when you fail to see logic and reason. EVERYTHING Obama has been doing is smart. I don't always agree with the chosen resolution. But if you come from the perspective that he is seeking what is best for the country irrespective of ideology it is hard to view this man as acting out of ignorance.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

EVERYTHING Obama has been doing is smart.

Everything? He hasn't made any missteps, he hasn't done anything ill-advised? Come on -- everyone makes mistakes and no one is always brilliant.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whatever makes you happy. Someone else may see the "crazy" in calling our own people Hitler and Obama the idiot fool for not seeing it.

It is foolish, Mr. Summer, not to realize just who the 1/3 or 1/2 of our own people are...

Can't believe you said that...

...just as much as it was folly not to realize whom many of the Germans were in 1938. I feel less in common with the tea-party folks today than with the Germans of today. Just because they live within the borders of the same country I do, does not mean I can't see them for who they are. You should too.

This discussion is looking more and more like an exercise in futility. It's not that I don't believe you have a heart -- I'm sure you do. I just think you are so blinded by fear it's choking you. And I know that deep down inside you want to believe in the common decency of your own people, you just don't know how. I wish I had better words of wisdom. But alas, I'm fresh out. Best...

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

EVERYTHING Obama has been doing is smart.

Everything? He hasn't made any missteps, he hasn't done anything ill-advised? Come on -- everyone makes mistakes and no one is always brilliant.

Don't be disingenuous, ziggy. Read the rest of the post...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

EVERYTHING Obama has been doing is smart. I don't always agree with the chosen resolution. But if you come from the perspective that he is seeking what is best for the country irrespective of ideology it is hard to view this man as acting out of ignorance.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

EVERYTHING Obama has been doing is smart.

I'll tell you what summer.
Projections are often off base and I hope this one is, but I'll tell you what.

A year and a half from now in March 2013 when President elect Rick Perry sits down with Majority Leader McConnell and House Speaker Boehner to finalize a grand deal that replaces the income tax with a national sales tax that starts a dollar one of spending and has no rebates for the poor. And the only debate is how to craft the wording in the new Labor Act that virtually the ends right of workers to organize and strike.

Then you can tell me how smart it was for ex President Obama to ignore his base and surrender everytime he was supposed to be negoiating to make the future better.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I'll tell you what summer.
Projections are often off base and I hope this one is, but I'll tell you what.

A year and a half from now in March 2013 when President elect Rick Perry sits down with Majority Leader McConnell and House Speaker Boehner to finalize a grand deal that replaces the income tax with a national sales tax that starts a dollar one of spending and has no rebates for the poor. And the only debate is how to craft the wording in the new Labor Act that virtually the ends right of workers to organize and strike.

Then you can tell me how smart it was for ex President Obama to ignore his base and surrender everytime he was supposed to be negoiating to make the future better.

Whatever makes you happy...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

A year and a half from now in March 2013 when President elect Rick Perry sits down with Majority Leader McConnell and House Speaker Boehner to finalize a grand deal that replaces the income tax with a national sales tax that starts a dollar one of spending and has no rebates for the poor. And the only debate is how to craft the wording in the new Labor Act that virtually the ends right of workers to organize and strike.

Then you can tell me how smart it was for ex President Obama to ignore his base and surrender everytime he was supposed to be negoiating to make the future better.

If this does happen, it will be partially the Left's own fault for staying home and not voting to prevent their worst-case outcome.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whatever makes you happy...

What a deep meaningful and insightful answer.

It's clear that you have nothing to offer beyond blind loyalty to the current administration.

I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.

To the ignore list you go.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

If this does happen, it will be partially the Left's own fault for staying home and not voting to prevent their worst-case outcome.

True.

I really don't see a good outcome to the election of 2012.
The best outcome I see is an Obama re-election resulting in a holding pattern until 2016.
If I lived in a competitive state I might even consider casting a vote for him.
But as I am in SC I can cast a protest vote for the Green Party or whatever without worrying about it making a difference.

Originally Posted by Galen

The really amusing part is that the Tea Party thinks the same thing about you.

That they think this about me, is a large part of the reason why I think it about them.

This need that you have to demonize the opposing team is getting really old.

So am I. Which means that I can remember the Republicans when they were sane. I know, from living memory, that they have changed, and that by comparison they are not sane now.

Well, this certainly has been active.

I latched on to James's characterization of Tea Party folk as "ordinary citizens." In many ways that is true--they have jobs, or had them before they retired, families, houses, cars, etc. Many probably have fine character in their private life. However. . .

Politically, perhaps it's a characteristic of a 4T that there is no such thing as an "ordinary citizen," a concept which is mixed up with "consensus". There is a broad range of citizens with very strong views. And come to think of it, an "ordinary" white southerner in the last High was politically a very different person from an "ordinary" white northerner, so even 4Ts don't resolve everything.

What really disturbs me, James, is that the Tea Party members are out of touch with reality. Their rhetoric about government shows that. "One half of the country," a conservative recently commented on my blog, "is tired of paying for the other half." That's absurd. The only large class of people supported by taxation is, of course, the elderly. I pointed that out; he didn't reply. There are also the mantras about the 40% of people who don't pay taxes, which really means federal income taxes, even though they ARE payroll taxes and many of them are paying higher rates than millionaires. Tea Partiers routinely claim that federal programs to encourage home ownership caused the housing crisis, which is also absurd. They also talk about "taking our country back," which I find quite offensive. I am concerned that our out party, which may easily win the next election, is dedicated to a series of positions without basis in reality.

One point of fact: Scott Brown's election didn't doom the public option, Nelson and Lieberman's opposition to it did. I do think, James--in fact I know--that for good or ill, today's Republicans are far more dedicated to their positions than the Democrats were in 2007-8, which is a better comparison since they were up against a Republican President. They were elected to end the war in Iraq. They did nothing to do so.

Our democracy was the child of a rationalist age. Rationalism has been declining throughout my adult life in this country. (Both Left and Right are to blame for that, by the way.) The question we face now is whether we have enough rationalism left to get us through the crisis.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

One point of fact: Scott Brown's election didn't doom the public option, Nelson and Lieberman's opposition to it did.

Partially true, Nelson's "Cornhusker kickback" notwithstanding. But really, had Brown not won the election, the Senate Democrats (and their caucus, which included Sanders and Lieberman) would have had time to hammer out differences and possibly taken us closer to that public option, or at the very least changed some of the most objectionable portions of the health care bill (including lack of cost containment, more goodies for insurers and the strengthened link between insurance and employment). But when Brown was elected, basically negotiations and refinement of the bill had to stop and the House was forced to vote on the last (deeply flawed) version exactly as passed by the Senate -- because without that 60th vote for cloture, they couldn't have prevented any additional changes from being filibustered.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whatever makes you happy...

What a deep meaningful and insightful answer.

It's clear that you have nothing to offer beyond blind loyalty to the current administration.

I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.

To the ignore list you go.

I sure wish folks 'round here would make up their minds. Do they want to improve things or do they want to b*tch? Because even when you let them to b*tch with...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whatever makes you happy...

They still aren't satisfied...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

One point of fact: Scott Brown's election didn't doom the public option, Nelson and Lieberman's opposition to it did.

If I said that, I did not mean to. The importance of Scott Brown's election is that it came at the cusp of the legislative process. His stated election platform was to stop the ACA. He was elected and, instead of reconsidering, the House bulled ahead through parliamentary maneuvers and passed the bill. At the time, pundits said the process would not matter, but the law has never recovered in public esteem. The recent waivers are another sign of its fundamental political weakness. This was a strategic mistake on the part of house democrats and was a contributing factor to their dramatic repudiation in 2010.

James50

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I sure wish folks 'round here would make up their minds. Do they want to improve things or do they want to b*tch? Because even when you let them to b*tch with...



They still aren't satisfied...

Thus far you've had at least 3 people put you on ignore within the past few days. You can ..of course..put the blame on them for 'not getting it', or maybe you can look at yourself. If one person makes a point about you, you can probably dismiss it. If 2...might want to take a second look.

If 3 people state...the problem likely is how you come across. And you do come across as argumentative jerk and just don't listen. Typically the only people I put on ignore is spammers. But like I said, the problem isn't how they are, its how you are. I've managed to carry on conversations with most of the above without being ignored and I'm probably not the best debater out there.

Saying that the opposition of the most conservative Democratic Senators doomed the public option is rather like saying that Bush stole the 2000 election. My reaction to that has always been: Why was the election so close that he might have been able to? Florida (where he stole it if he stole it anywhere) would not have mattered if Gore had won his home state.

Similarly, when considering how the opposition of Lieberman and the conservative Democrats defeated the public option, my response is: Why were their yes votes absolutely necessary?

They were necessary because, 1) the Republicans had ceased behaving according to the Senate's gentlemanly unwritten rules, and using the letter of the written ones to be uniformly obstructive of any legislation that might give Democrats any credit with the people, and 2) party discipline was so tight that absolutely NO Republican votes for the ACA were possible.

Again, compare this with the passage of Medicare. Again, compare it with over a century of Republican Party history. These things are new. The GOP has never before behaved this way. Never. Now, the Democrats have: in the 1850s, leading up to the Civil War. They were just as irresponsible, nihilistic, and bent on destroying any ability of the U.S. government to function then, as the Republicans are now. And we know what happened as a result.

It's true that Brown's election made little difference, because the ACA had already passed the Senate before he took office. It did mean that the House couldn't make any changes to the Senate's version of the bill that couldn't be passed using reconciliation, but getting a public option past the Senate even without Brown couldn't be done the first time and it's doubtful it could have been done the second.

But that's really beside the point. The Democrats, if they hold a majority in the Senate, should not need 60 votes to pass any and every bill that comes up for discussion. Normally, most of the time, except in truly extraordinary circumstances, they should need only 51 votes. And also, it should not be the case that all significant bills to come through the Senate should receive literally not one Republican vote. All right, a progressive piece of legislation shouldn't expect support from most Republicans. But that anything proposed by the Democrats should be supported by literally NO Republicans is new.

Anyone my age or older who paid attention to politics in their younger days knows, if they're being honest with themselves and others, that something has changed. That includes you, James. You know this.

Originally Posted by James50

If I said that, I did not mean to. The importance of Scott Brown's election is that it came at the cusp of the legislative process. His stated election platform was to stop the ACA. He was elected and, instead of reconsidering, the House bulled ahead through parliamentary maneuvers and passed the bill. At the time, pundits said the process would not matter, but the law has never recovered in public esteem. The recent waivers are another sign of its fundamental political weakness. This was a strategic mistake on the part of house democrats and was a contributing factor to their dramatic repudiation in 2010.

James50

I have to agree about the waivers. What was it, over 1400 at last count?

But just to reiterate a point I made some time ago, this is a difference between the Dems and GOP. The GOP have a goal, they'll push it through quickly even if most might oppose it. Case in point-the Wisconsin budget. The Dems? THey'll drag it out for months, have their own members raise an issue publicly, and end result is the voters at large get fed up with the incompetence. Case in point-health care reform.

And as soon as I post..Rush posts the below. Basically in an ideal world, you would only need 51 Senators to pass legislation and you can abolish the 60 vote filibuster rule. I believe the article by Mike Lofgren points out the failing of the Senate today:

The US Senate has more complex procedural rules than any other legislative body in the world; many of these rules are contradictory, and on any given day, the Senate parliamentarian may issue a ruling that contradicts earlier rulings on analogous cases. The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a "high functioning" institution: filibusters were rare and the body was legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate producing the original Medicare Act tha

The problem is the Senate is too ingrained in its GI and Silent era proceduralism with squishy boomers (though they are the majority generation). complicit in this.

Maybe the thing to do is demand Senators abolish the filibuster. But that doesn't even address the Democratic party problem. Say you have 52 Democrats and no filibuster. The Democratic mindset is one of debate and process. You will inevitably have another Lieberman and Nelson and they'll get a 3rd one to hold up whatever big plan there leaving just 49 votes in favor. So while the filibuster is a problem, the bigger problem is the mindset among many Democratic elected officers.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Saying that the opposition of the most conservative Democratic Senators doomed the public option is rather like saying that Bush stole the 2000 election. My reaction to that has always been: Why was the election so close that he might have been able to? Florida (where he stole it if he stole it anywhere) would not have mattered if Gore had won his home state.

Similarly, when considering how the opposition of Lieberman and the conservative Democrats defeated the public option, my response is: Why were their yes votes absolutely necessary?

They were necessary because, 1) the Republicans had ceased behaving according to the Senate's gentlemanly unwritten rules, and using the letter of the written ones to be uniformly obstructive of any legislation that might give Democrats any credit with the people, and 2) party discipline was so tight that absolutely NO Republican votes for the ACA were possible.

Again, compare this with the passage of Medicare. Again, compare it with over a century of Republican Party history. These things are new. The GOP has never before behaved this way. Never. Now, the Democrats have: in the 1850s, leading up to the Civil War. They were just as irresponsible, nihilistic, and bent on destroying any ability of the U.S. government to function then, as the Republicans are now. And we know what happened as a result.

It's true that Brown's election made little difference, because the ACA had already passed the Senate before he took office. It did mean that the House couldn't make any changes to the Senate's version of the bill that couldn't be passed using reconciliation, but getting a public option past the Senate even without Brown couldn't be done the first time and it's doubtful it could have been done the second.

But that's really beside the point. The Democrats, if they hold a majority in the Senate, should not need 60 votes to pass any and every bill that comes up for discussion. Normally, most of the time, except in truly extraordinary circumstances, they should need only 51 votes. And also, it should not be the case that all significant bills to come through the Senate should receive literally not one Republican vote. All right, a progressive piece of legislation shouldn't expect support from most Republicans. But that anything proposed by the Democrats should be supported by literally NO Republicans is new.

Anyone my age or older who paid attention to politics in their younger days knows, if they're being honest with themselves and others, that something has changed. That includes you, James. You know this.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I sure wish folks 'round here would make up their minds. Do they want to improve things or do they want to b*tch? Because even when you let them to b*tch with...



They still aren't satisfied...

Thus far you've had at least 3 people put you on ignore within the past few days. You can ..of course..put the blame on them for 'not getting it', or maybe you can look at yourself. If one person makes a point about you, you can probably dismiss it. If 2...might want to take a second look.

If 3 people state...the problem likely is how you come across. And you do come across as argumentative jerk and just don't listen. Typically the only people I put on ignore is spammers. But like I said, the problem isn't how they are, its how you are. I've managed to carry on conversations with most of the above without being ignored and I'm probably not the best debater out there.

But sweetheart, I didn't say there was a problem. I was making an observation. And that observation is that complaining isn't enough for people. They need to drag you down in the same funk of despair they are in. Agree with me or not, I am not shoving my ideology down anyone's throats (again, check the posts). If you think differently than I do, gosh darn it it's a free country, god bless America, keep hope alive.

P.S. That's the second time you've called me a name, Hutch. It's beginning to look unimaginative...

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Partially true, Nelson's "Cornhusker kickback" notwithstanding. But really, had Brown not won the election, the Senate Democrats (and their caucus, which included Sanders and Lieberman) would have had time to hammer out differences and possibly taken us closer to that public option, or at the very least changed some of the most objectionable portions of the health care bill (including lack of cost containment, more goodies for insurers and the strengthened link between insurance and employment). But when Brown was elected, basically negotiations and refinement of the bill had to stop and the House was forced to vote on the last (deeply flawed) version exactly as passed by the Senate -- because without that 60th vote for cloture, they couldn't have prevented any additional changes from being filibustered.

I think if you review the history you will find that the public option was pretty much dead and buried by that time. The House might have tried to insist on it in conference, but I don't think it would have gotten very far.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Hutch74

If 3 people state...the problem likely is how you come across.

Option B would be the presence of a gang mentality.

Can I have your children, The Rani? Or, er uh, will you have mine?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Anyone my age or older who paid attention to politics in their younger days knows, if they're being honest with themselves and others, that something has changed. That includes you, James. You know this.

Of course, things have changed and the parties are more polarized. We are not in a 1T 1950s where consensus was high. Its partly ideological boomers, its part the terrible economic realities, and its part the ineffectiveness of our major institutions including government, corporations, and large labor unions.

Since November, 2010 progressives have been in retreat. They lost the many independents they had in 2008 and could not hold the enthusiasm of their base. For the most part, they have lost faith in Obama. You can blame the republicans if you want, but there is a lot more to it than that.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Anyone my age or older who paid attention to politics in their younger days knows, if they're being honest with themselves and others, that something has changed. That includes you, James. You know this.

Of course, things have changed and the parties are more polarized. We are not in a 1T 1950s where consensus was high. Its partly ideological boomers, its part the terrible economic realities, and its part the ineffectiveness of our major institutions including government, corporations, and large labor unions.

Since November, 2010 progressives have been in retreat. They lost the many independents they had in 2008 and could not hold the enthusiasm of their base. For the most part, they have lost faith in Obama. You can blame the republicans if you want, but there is a lot more to it than that.

James50

I may have to disagree with you Uncle Jim. They lost faith in themselves. The Obama movement has always been about people projecting their hopes and dreams onto him. As they lost faith in their own ability to maintain hope, Obama himself seemed to change. I've been there myself until I've literally had to shake myself out of it and say "Wait a minute, Obama isn't the problem."

Cheers