Thursday, January 19, 2012

Miscellaneous 107

1) While it's fair to say that I don't speak for ALL swing-voters, I can say that when Mr. Gingrich throws around that "Obama is a food stamps President" line, this particular swing voter does in fact cringe. And I'm not even saying that it's a racist sentiment necessarily - just that it a) doesn't sound right in general and b) what in the hell was Mr. Obama supposed to do, let the people go hungry during a recession that he himself didn't create (yes, one could argue on the merits of his policies, and whether or not these policies made the recession worse, etc.)? I'm telling you here, folks, if Mr. Gingrich does get the nomination (still an extremely unlikely scenario), and talks like this during the general election, he'll more than likely get annihilated.............2) Two more huge gets for N.C. State skipper, Tom O'Brien. Desmond Owino (the 20th ranked player regardless of position in North Carolina - phenomenal in that the dude only started playing football about a year ago) and Kenderius Whitehead (the 25th ranked player regardless of position in the talent ladened state of Georgia) have both given their verbal commitments to play for the 'Pack in Raleigh. The latter commitment is especially significant in that Mr. Whitehead apparently also had an offer from (the University of) Georgia. For the 'Pack to have gone into the SEC's backyard and gotten not not just a leftover but a blue-chipper is extremely impressive. Hopefully, such coups can continue.............3) Here's a question for my conservative friends/colleagues. How in the heck could the "individual mandate" go from being a conservative Heritage Foundation idea to a radical European socialistic idea in less than two decades? I mean, is it simply because Obama and the Democrats are championing it now? Please, explain (and, no, I'm necessarily defending it here - I'm just confused) this to me.

35 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

3). You've got it figured out.

Ema Nymton said...

.

One can lie oneself to POWER. One cannot lie oneself to the truth.

The truth is the game is fixed. And those have fixed the game are not interested in truth, justice, or the American way.

The RepublicanT Party are so desperate to seize power. NOTHING is beyond their willingness to lie, cheat, or steal.

(You know what is going to happen. As soon as Mr Romney is anointed as the RepublicanT Party nominee, he will stop pandering to the whacked-out clowns of the Right Wing. He will immediately jettison the rhetoric of being a 'conservative.' He will try move to the middle. And lose.)



Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

dmarks said...

emm said: "The truth is the game is fixed."

Ah yes, the paranoid conspiracy theory. I guess nothing will deter you from presenting this lie, because its simple logic is rather appealing to those with uncritical minds.

Of course it is "fixed" by imaginary entities who have meetings that never take place to make decrees that never occurred.

dmarks said...

Case in point on the ignorance of the second commenter: The Republican primary process, like that of the Democrats, does not include "annointing". It is rather democratic, actually.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Jerry, Ema, dmarks, I just wish that the process was a little more open. I mean, I know that you can't necessarily fit everybody up on that stage but it would have been nice to hear a little bit more from Karger, Roemer, Johnson, and McCotter, for instance.

w-dervish said...

Everyone knew the nominee was going to be Romney from the beginning. I don't know how "democratic" that is. I think the outcome was "fixed" at least in that regard.

He's the richest Republican running... so of course he is the "annointed" one. dmarks defends this kind of democracy (of, by, and for the rich) because it's his kind of democracy.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The Republicans also seem to have a "who's next in line" policy that a lot of people find inexplicable.

Truth 101 said...

Republicans do place a premium on who's turn it is when decided who to choose as their presidential nominee.

Dole , McCain and Reagan are perfect examples of this. Romney will be another.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

McCain (who actually DID run as a different type of Republican the first time around) tried to cut in line back in 2000 and got pissed upon because of it.

The Heathen Republican said...

Regarding #3, the first time I recall hearing about the mandate was during the 2008 primary when Obama denounced it, so I can't speak to why it was ever a conservative idea. It violates the free market principle, so it can't be considered conservative in my mind.

The best explanation I have is an advocacy for universal access to health care and a desire (not a mandate) for universal health insurance to spread the costs -- both of which I support -- but not a requirement that everyone buy health insurance. I know that isn't the explanation you're looking for, Will.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You're right, HR, Mr. Obama did denounce the individual mandate. But that was before he got a gazillion dollars from the insurance and pharmaceutical sectors. The "Benjamins" apparently helped him changed his mind.

John Myste said...

I don't think Obama ever wanted the Individual Mandate. He wanted Universal Healthcare, but he could not get that through Congress. It is much easier to pass the Affordable Healthcare Act and then later change it to allow the government to pick up the patient participant half. He had to do do it this way.

P.S. No one argue with me. I have to work this weekend and don't have time to defend myself.

Thanks in advance.

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,wrong about Romney being the richest one running.....that would have been Huntsman.

w-dervish said...

John Myste: P.S. No one argue with me.

I'm not arguing with you on this one. You're right and Will is wrong. President Obama included the mandate in his legislation because it was a Conservative idea and he thought he would get Republican support for including it.

What I don't understand is why Will says he's going to vote for Obama... considering how crooked he believes him to be.

Rusty: ...wrong about Romney being the richest one running... that would have been Huntsman.

USA Today says, "Romney... was worth between $190 million and $250 million ... Jon Huntsman... is worth between $11 million and $74 million... (Article date: 4/20/2011)

Truth 101 said...

Huntsman's family has lots of money so I can see the mistake.

Their company is pretty good. pays a good dividend and it's relatively cheap right now. I did a short term trade on it recently and made a few bucks. Looks like a good long term trade also.

I'm not long on anything right now as I'm holding lots of cash, for me lots of cash, in anticipation of another big drop.

I atone for my greed with donations to the DNC and MoveOn.Org.

dmarks said...

WD said: "He's the richest Republican running... so of course he is the "annointed" one. dmarks defends this kind of democracy (of, by, and for the rich) because it's his kind of democracy."

Actually, I defend this kind of democracy because each interested Republican has had exactly one vote in these primaries so far. And that is nothing to do with "rich".

"Rich" really has nothing to do with anything. If this were the case, Steve Forbes would have already served his two terms, and Dick DeVos would have been governor in Michigan for two terms instead of Jennifer Granholm.

Steve Forbes getting nowhere. Dick DeVos not getting elected. That's my kind of democracy also.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You're a mind-reader now, too, wd? Admit it, if a Republican had this stinky of a money trail following his decision-making, you'd be excoriating him. And why would he include a component that the Republicans had so completely turned against in an effort to get their votes? Again, you make no sense. The modifications of the bill were more of an effort to get the recalcitrants in his own party; Blanche Lincoln, Mark Prior, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, etc..............As for Mr. Obama, he's a crony capitalist; just like Bush, just like Clinton. And, yes, I'll be voting for him regardless. The Republicans are nuts.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Pragmatism and cronyism can go together, btw.

Jerry Critter said...

There are very few in Congress, including both Democrats and republicans, that don't have the stink of a money trail mixed up with their decision making. That's a problem that can only be solved with public financing of elections.

w-dervish said...

I don't know what mind reading has to do with anything. That was obviously his strategy. And yes, the mandate was probably to win over Conservative Democrats as well.

Also, I do not believe the Republicans had "so completely turned against" mandates until after the Democrats said they were for them. Obama a crony capitalist like bush? I strongly disagree.

dmarks: And that [has] nothing to do with [being] "rich".

It has everything to do with it. Everyone running for the Republican nomination is rich. Barack Obama wasn't rich when he ran for president. He's a lot less rich now then any of the Republican plutocrats who want the nomination.

dmarks: Steve Forbes getting nowhere. Dick DeVos not getting elected.

Steve Forbes was more a Libertarian. Libertarians can't win the Republican nomination. Give me a break dmarks.

Dick DeVos is an extremist wack job. He had to buy every vote he got. That's a testament to the power of money. I think your examples prove my point dmarks.

The fact that both of these unqualifed weirdos got any traction at all... was because they're rich.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Jerry, I agree. It's the only way that we can get the filthy money out............wd, Obama was a strong proponent of single payer. He went from THAT and NO individual mandate to not even fighting for the public option, ALL of which completely transpired AFTER he outraised Mr. McCain 3-4 to 1 from the insurance and pharmeceutical industries. Again, if a Republican had ever had a paper trail like this (and this doesn't even address the stimulus package - yet another monstrous bonanza for big business), you'd be going bonkers and you know it.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yes, wd, the Republicans once supported the individual mandate.....BACK IN 1993! Again, I can't read Mr. Obama's mind any better than you can. But what makes more sense; him trying to please his contributors, or him trying to please the people who are so frigging hell bent on beating him?

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

Will: ...the Republicans once supported the individual mandate... BACK IN 1993!

Mitt Romney on 9/28/2011 described the individual health mandate as a "conservative idea"... on Sean Hannity's radio show...

Romney said, "The idea for a health care plan [in Massachusetts] was not mine alone. ... The Heritage Foundation -- a great conservative think tank -- helped on that..."

Mitt said this less than 4 months ago, which much more recent then 1993. When RomneyCare was signed into law the Heritage Foundation described the law as, "clearly consistent with conservative values".

Regarding the Heathen Republican's confusion about the individual mandate... the conservative value it upholds is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Frankly, I'm confused as to how he could have forgotten that value.

In 2007 Newt Gingrich said the individual mandate was the "ultimate conservative idea" because "personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it".

This was in 2007, not 1993!

The Heathen Republican said...

@w-dervish
Personal responsibility is a conservative principle, but if your logic applied, the government could mandate all kinds of individual choices and you would argue that it's conservative for government to do that because it's mandating personal responsibility.

In addition, conservative principles are not all equal. First and foremost is the principle of limited government. If mandating personal responsibility exceeds the defined role of government, limited government is the more important principle.

My so-called confusion is about a) the desire to have everyone insured and b) a government mandate that everyone become insured. Your quotes actually contribute to the confusion. None of your Newt quotes include "individual mandate" in the quoted portion, so I can't be sure you're not conflating the two.

The thing is, it wouldn't surprise me if Newt did specifically advocate for a mandate, but as I read the words you quote, I hear him saying he wants everyone to be personally responsible to insure themselves, not that government should mandate it. That's what I agree with, and that's conservative. Mandating the purchase of anything is not.

w-dervish said...

Heathen Republican: Personal responsibility is a conservative principle, but if your logic applied, the government could mandate...

That isn't my logic, it's Newt's. I'm for single payer, under which a madate would be unnecessary.

Heathen Republican: if Newt did specifically advocate for a mandate...

An "individual mandate", Gingrich said, should be applied "when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed".

In the 2008 [Gingrich book] "Real Change", he wrote, "Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond).... (source: Huffington Post, 7/12/11)

"we should insist" = individual mandate.

The Heathen Republican said...

You're going to think I'm parsing your words, but my intent is not to be argumentative. "We" can "insist" everyone buy health insurance, but that doesn't have to mean a government-enforced mandate.

I agree that if the government "insists" it is backed by a law or mandate. When a man outside of government rights a book saying we insist, it doesn't have the same weight.

In order to spread public health care costs around, I agree that we need to insist almost everyone* buy health insurance. I oppose the government mandating that we buy health insurance. I don't think there is a contradiction with those two statements. I'm conservative. Mandates aren't conservative.

*I say "almost everyone" because I would favor a goal of 95% insured. The top 5% of income earners don't need insurance because they can pay for any contingency. It seems pointless to have a law requiring Rush Limbaugh to buy insurance when he can pay his bills in cash.

Truth 101 said...

So you would do away with mandatory auto insurance Heathen?

Mandatory attendance of school through age 16?

Mandatory registration in selective service?

Mandatory seatbelt and helmut laws?



I can go on and on but hopefully you understand that be being against one mandate, or as you ridiculously call government insistence, then you are against all of them.



You're kicking hell out of these guys WD. Well done.

The Heathen Republican said...

It's never so easy Truth, but I suspect by your praise of WD you're not actually interested in a conversation.

Mandatory health insurance is a mandate based solely on my ability to breathe. To exist, you're required to have insurance.

Mandatory auto insurance is not a federal requirement, so it's covered by state constitutions. It is a requirement in order to drive on public roads, which is reasonable. I can choose not to drive.

Mandatory education, while a worthy objective, is outside the power of the federal government. Can you point me to it in the U.S. Constitution?

Mandatory selective service is covered by the enumerated powers of the federal government as the government is responsible for maintaining an army and national security.

Mandatory seat belt and helmet laws are excessive intrusion, in my opinion. As are no texting and cell phone bans in the car. Can you show me in the Constitution where the federal government is supposed to keep us all safe from accidents?

w-dervish said...

Heathen Republican: "We" can "insist" everyone buy health insurance, but that doesn't have to mean a government-enforced mandate.

I don't know how you an insist on anything unless you have the force of law to back it up. Without that you're just suggesting.

Why don't you just say you disagree with Newt?

Heathen Republican: Can you show me in the Constitution where the federal government is supposed to keep us all safe from accidents?

The General Welfare clause. According to Wikipedia, "...in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion".

The Heathen Republican said...

WD, I think I do disagree with Newt, but your quotes from him are not definitive. You pointed your questions at me and tried to claim that supporting an individual mandate is a conservative idea. I responded to you, but I note you've ignored my responses. Is that typical?

Anyway, your arguments notwithstanding, a mandate is not a conservative idea even if you can point to a conservative who supports a mandate.

I'm well aware of the Court's interpretation of the General Welfare clause. The New Deal court changed their approach when they were being threatened by FDR with a court packing plan, but that doesn't make it right. (You would have seen that for yourself had you read a little further in Wikipedia.)

The original understanding was that the Constitution includes seventeen enumerated powers and any spending for the 'general welfare' should be limited to those enumerated powers.

The general welfare clause is not an enumerated power in itself. I know that's the current law, but I don't have to like it. It's not unheard of to overturn precedent, so I can only hope the Roberts court does just that.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yes, wd, Romney did support the individual mandate and Gingrich may have opened his yap a time or two, but the national Republican party hasn't liked it for years and that's one of the reasons why both of those individuals had to backtrack (Gingrich went on Limbaugh's show and immediately backtracked) and disavow it on a national level.............Mr. Obama knew that the Republicans weren't going to cooperate with him up front. The much more plausible reasons for his capitulation were a) trying to get people like Pryor, Lincoln, Landrieu, Baucus (another guy in the hip-pocket of big insurance, big pharma, etc.), Nelson, etc. to support him and b) as pay back to the insurance companies for the gazillions that they donated to his campaign.............Follow the money, wd.

Truth 101 said...

The Feds withhold funds from states that don't have helmut or seatbelt laws Heathen.

The Heathen Republican said...

Way to miss the point by a mile, Truth.

Truth 101 said...

I saw you point and it wasn't true Heathen. The federal government can and does control the things I mentioned through the pocketbook.

You can try all you want to dodge that with your rhetoric but that doesn't change it. it only means you can't admit when you're wrong.