The other Awards Obama will will this year...

[Jester]

Exactly. Both illusions, and the real thing. Although, I'm still suspicious of the totalitarian socialist state side less the ridiculousness of an Acorn conspiracy and the birther nonsense. I don't think people really understand the idea of creeping socialism, and how insidious totalitarianism can be.

Totalitarianism isn't "insidious". To my knowledge, there is not a single example in history of slow, creeping totalitarianism taking hold of a country. It has, in every last case, been a function of some kind of armed takeover, or at the very least, an obvious, sudden, revolutionary change towards authoritarianism.

On the other hand, there are dozens of examples of democratic states enacting much more vigorous "socialist" reforms, especially in the field of health care, which have not come even close to totalitarianism. Some of the freest, least "totalitarian" countries in the world have highly socialized health care systems. So, the historical record appears to be the exact opposite of what you're suggesting, not that this should dissuade you from your doomsaying. :rolleyes:

you have a government monopoly over an industry, it is a short step to justify stamping out any competition and the underground economy by making private contracts illegal. Then, given the circumstances, it is then easily justifiable to stamp out the dissent by making dissent illegal.

And from there, it's just another slip down the slope to making *kittens* illegal. And what kind of monster would make kittens illegal? Why, imaginary Obama, of course! I'm afraid this kind of thinking is exactly the kind of nonsense Mr. Tomorrow is ridiculing. "We can't have health care reform, because health care reform will lead to the end of the free market, and the end of free speech, and death camps, and a boot standing on the human face forever!"

Astroturf my latex buttocks.

Sounds painful, but if you insist...

Today our Senate finance committee voted on a bill that actually doesn't even exist yet. Forget about voting on bills that haven't been read. This is a vote on one that hasn't even been written. It is a concept of the merger of two very disparate bills that will be merged behind closed doors by a handful of Dems, and then the umpteen gazillion pages will be put to a vote before anyone can read or fully comprehend it's impact.

Voting for a reconciliation of two existing bills isn't quite the same as voting for something non-existent. This is just the regular business in the bizarre world of having two equal houses whose functions overlap almost entirely. My suggestion? Abolish the senate. But, then, that would require the votes of Senators, so we can probably shelve that idea. :lol:

We really don't deserve freedom if we are not willing to stand vigilantly for it.

Against all challengers! Especially those promising moderate, watered-down health care reforms, possibly-but-not-definitely involving some vague notion of a public option, perhaps with a "trigger" or "opt-out" for states! Aux armes!

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I know what I want to believe.

Quelle surprise

[--Pete]

Hi,

Abolish the senate. But, then, that would require the votes of Senators, so we can probably shelve that idea.

Minor nit: the state legislatures can call for a convention to propose an amendment without the consent of the Senate -- indeed with no federal involvement at all. Congress gets to choose whether a proposed amendment gets voted on by the state legislatures or by state conventions. So, the federal government can be almost completely taken out of the process (never actually happened and probably never will -- but it is the law). However, the last provision would seem to indicate that the Senate cannot be abolished without the consent of all the states, although that may be a matter for interpretation, in which case, the Supreme Court would probably end up deciding the issue.

However, there could be major changes to both houses that would make them much more representative of the population as a whole. A simple change would be to institute a more equitable voting system than the present 'winner take all'. Other possibilities is to change the Senate to a body representative of the voters of a state and the House representative of the nation as a whole. That would further erode the state's position in the overall scheme, but that's been pretty much a joke anyway since 1886. Term limits might be another useful ideas, although there are down sides to losing the experienced policy makers too soon. Instead of term limits it might serve better if incumbents in any post were banned from running for any office during the term they were serving. Making it for the term, rather than while in office, would eliminate the possibility of an incumbent resigning a few months before his term expires so that he can run for the same office (or any other). This proposal would fix the incumbency advantage, forcing the voters to re-evaluate the candidates at each election. It has the advantage of permitting a person to continue serving (with breaks) for as long as he wants to and the people want him.

There are many other changes and improvements that have been proposed over the years. In this, Jefferson was right, and the constitution should probably be rewritten every generation or so.

--Pete

For easy reference:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Jester]

So, the federal government can be almost completely taken out of the process (never actually happened and probably never will -- but it is the law). However, the last provision would seem to indicate that the Senate cannot be abolished without the consent of all the states, although that may be a matter for interpretation, in which case, the Supreme Court would probably end up deciding the issue.

I stand corrected.

You might be able to get Texas and California on board, but good luck convincing Wyoming and Rhode Island. :D

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

Quelle surprise

Non non non - Quel dommage!

[kandrathe]

Totalitarianism isn't "insidious". To my knowledge, there is not a single example in history of slow, creeping totalitarianism taking hold of a country. It has, in every last case, been a function of some kind of armed takeover, or at the very least, an obvious, sudden, revolutionary change towards authoritarianism.

Not always. There are many examples of nations where there is a non-military, non-revolutionary transition to a totalitarian state. Italy, Japan, Germany before WWI, North Korea, etc.

On the other hand, there are dozens of examples of democratic states enacting much more vigorous "socialist" reforms, especially in the field of health care, which have not come even close to totalitarianism. Some of the freest, least "totalitarian" countries in the world have highly socialized health care systems. So, the historical record appears to be the exact opposite of what you're suggesting, not that this should dissuade you from your doomsaying.

Right. But do they have a pay tsar who monitors executive salaries? Do they have legislation taxing executive bonuses at 90%? Do they have an executive branch that enacts defacto censorship, legislative hostility and "punishments" towards companies and organizations it determines are domestic "enemies". Of course, you would take this to the ridiculous extreme of bringing *kittens* and death camps into the same conversation. :rolleyes:

I'm afraid this kind of thinking is exactly the kind of nonsense Mr. Tomorrow is ridiculing. "We can't have health care reform, because health care reform will lead to the end of the free market, and the end of free speech, and death camps, and a boot standing on the human face forever!"

You equate health care reform with a government monopoly on providing health care, and borrowing 1 trillion dollars to pay for it (from Mr. Tomorrow).

Voting for a reconciliation of two existing bills isn't quite the same as voting for something non-existent. This is just the regular business in the bizarre world of having two equal houses whose functions overlap almost entirely.

Not quite. These are two vastly different Senate bills. This is not a reconciliation, this is merging two very different bills behind closed doors, with amendments, etc. So, what comes out of the sausage factory will not be what went in.

I'm actually one of those Americans who is *for* health care reform. I just believe that reform means simplifying the process, allowing companies to compete to sell a decent product, and enough government checks to ensure that the product is not fraud. I would remove the tax incentive for companies to offer health insurance (thereby penalizing people who want to have insurance not aligned with their jobs). I would encourage more direct negotiation between health providers and patients, and get the 3rd party insurers out of the middle. Whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, SChip or any other government program, they are many times more expensive than predicted, fraught with waste and abuse, and based (as is this one) on borrowing the money from Mr. Tomorrow.

[Jester]

Not always. There are many examples of nations where there is a non-military, non-revolutionary transition to a totalitarian state. Italy, Japan, Germany before WWI, North Korea, etc.

In Italy, Mussolini took power in a paramilitary coup - the march on Rome. So scratch that one.

In North Korea, Kim Il Sung took power during WWII, with the support of the Soviet Union's military - same as most of Eastern Europe. So scratch that one too.

Germany before WWI was not, in any meaningful sense, a totalitarian state. So scratch that one as well.

Japan is the strongest case, but it was hardly a country that had a solid democracy that slid slowly into totalitarianism piece by piece. The Tokugawa shogunate was an absolutist dictatorship, and even Meiji Japan was hardly a functioning democratic state - more like a militaristic oligarchy.

But I'll even spot you Japan, as an interesting sort-of-exception. In all other cases, Totalitarianism has been imposed by some kind of force - a coup, a revolution, a takeover by a foreign nation, or something similar. Functioning democracies have not historically just drifted aimlessly into totalitarianism through "creeping socialism".

Right. But do they have a pay tsar who monitors executive salaries? Do they have legislation taxing executive bonuses at 90%? Do they have an executive branch that enacts defacto censorship, legislative hostility and "punishments" towards companies and organizations it determines are domestic "enemies".

Sure, plenty of functioning democracies have had "supertaxes" that tax the extremely wealthy at rates of 90% or higher. Not many of them have kept them, but most of Northern Europe has had them at one time or another. Executive salary caps are also not particularly unusual in countries with a closer relationship between the state and business.

As for "de facto" censorship, and "punishment" towards domestic "enemies", I'm not sure what you're going on about, but it sounds kind of paranoid.

Of course, you would take this to the ridiculous extreme of bringing *kittens* and death camps into the same conversation. :rolleyes:

I was just making fun of your slippery slope argument. Obviously, nobody is killing kittens or creating death camps, and it is silly to suggest as much. You, however, are talking about Totalitarianism. You know, THIS kind of government. Or THIS kind. Or THIS kind. So, I'm not really feeling very apologetic for "exaggerating" - considering the satirical context.

As per health care, I see you haven't budged much since the last thread on the topic, but if you want my reply to any of that, it's all sitting there, so I won't bother going over it. Anyone interested is more than welcome to read through it again.

-Jester

[eppie]

You equate health care reform with a government monopoly on providing health care, and borrowing 1 trillion dollars to pay for it (from Mr. Tomorrow).

Of course, borrowing money, especially when it is a lot, is never good. But to use this as an argument for health care reforms seems very ridculous to me.

You can use the 'have pity on coming generations' argument for a lot of things, but not against health care. These are really the words from somebody who has good healthcare opportunities and who can't imagine himself in the shoes of somebody who hasn't.

There is enough money to go round in the US, if you don't want healthcare for everybody because you are afraid of asking a few % more taxes to people with lots of money that is fine, but don't start crying about future generations.

The trillion dollars of health care will by the way mainly be spend on workforce inside your own country, and on medicine (of which you also produce enough), so money that feeds directly back into your economy.


But I guess the right of some people to be filthy rich is more important.

[kandrathe]

Of course, borrowing money, especially when it is a lot, is never good. But to use this as an argument for health care reforms seems very ridiculous to me.

Why do you think what is happening is reform? It is different, but probably not better. What makes you think that the government will do better at this than they do at any other thing they do?

You can use the 'have pity on coming generations' argument for a lot of things, but not against health care. These are really the words from somebody who has good health care opportunities and who can't imagine himself in the shoes of somebody who hasn't.

Are you speaking for yourself? My family has been uninsured for over a year. I think I know and live the issues.

There is enough money to go round in the US, if you don't want health care for everybody because you are afraid of asking a few % more taxes to people with lots of money that is fine, but don't start crying about future generations.

Yes, you are very compassionate. Would you mind paying for my families health care eppie? It must give you a nice warm feeling knowing you are forcing someone else pay for the amenities of all. There is no need to actually be charitable anymore with people such as yourselves ensuring that every person is forced to fork out their hard earned sweat and future economic security.

The trillion dollars of health care will by the way mainly be spend on workforce inside your own country, and on medicine (of which you also produce enough), so money that feeds directly back into your economy.

Well, yes, I guess you can call it an economy. Much as the Soviets used to have, but it's hardly a free market.

But I guess the right of some people to be filthy rich is more important.

Another idiotic knee jerk liberal platitude. Who do you think pays taxes? Rich people? Bahahahaha. No, they rig the reins of power such that they never have to pay taxes. The bulk of taxes are paid by the middle class, and always will be. You are taking from the middle to give the the lower middle and lower classes. The rich are out of your grasp unless you propose to tax actual wealth.

[Jester]

Another idiotic knee jerk liberal platitude. Who do you think pays taxes? Rich people? Bahahahaha. No, they rig the reins of power such that they never have to pay taxes. The bulk of taxes are paid by the middle class, and always will be. You are taking from the middle to give the the lower middle and lower classes. The rich are out of your grasp unless you propose to tax actual wealth.

While I certainly agree with you that the extremely wealthy, whose "income" is almost entirely in the form of capital gains and other easily-disguised forms, do not pay their fair share of taxes, it is certainly not true that the majority of taxes are paid by the "middle". The top 10% of income earners pay almost 70% of the total income tax bill, and the top 1% pay almost 40%. Unless the top 10% (or 1%!) are your "middle class," it is not true that the rich do not pay the most taxes, nor is it true that they do not pay the majority of taxes.

For context, the lowest earner in the top 10% earns about 113,000 dollars per year - that's almost quadruple the mean income. The lowest earner in the top 1% earns just over 410,000 dollars per year. 40% of income tax dollars are coming from these guys and dolls, earning just shy of a half million every year. Maybe some people near the bottom of that 10th percentile are "upper middle class" highly earning professionals, but by and large, we're talking about people with way more than enough income to live a very comfortable life.

That's not even counting capital gains taxes, of which the filthy rich pay the vast majority, since they are the ones with the capital making the gains. Nor corporate taxes, which almost definitionally are not paid by Joe Middle Class.

Now, the rich might not pay the highest *rate* of taxes, which is something that should be fixed, although that's a notoriously tough problem. But trying to cast this as taking a slice of the "middle class" is bogus. Most of the money the government brings in still comes from the highest earners, not the middle of the pack.

-Jester

Source, 2007 numbers.

[--Pete]

Hi,

One small nit:

Nor corporate taxes, which almost definitionally are not paid by Joe Middle Class.

Corporation pass their taxes on to their customers, and eventually to the consumer. This becomes regressive tax on all, including the middle class.

Otherwise I agree with you -- but then again, you do have the numbers on your side ;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

In Italy, Mussolini took power in a paramilitary coup - the march on Rome. So scratch that one.

No. The march on Rome was a quasi-paramilitary "brown shirt" group of about 20,000 people. We frequently have millions march on Washington DC, without anyone even changing their mind, let alone cede power. Italy became a totalitarian state with out a bloody coup or revolution. Rather, Victor Emanuel decided the Mussolini government wouldn't be that bad.

In North Korea, Kim Il Sung took power during WWII, with the support of the Soviet Union's military - same as most of Eastern Europe. So scratch that one too.

Nope. North Korea became a totalitarian state without a revolution or bloody coup. Kim Il Sung was given the leadership in the wake of a power vacuum left by the Japanese. He didn't take power, he was given it by the Soviets. But, ok, yes, a war did create the vacuum. But, then again, any political crisis will do, such as planes flying into buildings.

Germany before WWI was not, in any meaningful sense, a totalitarian state. So scratch that one as well.

Nope. Germany became a totalitarian state. Although, one might argue it took the beer hall putsch and the night of the long knives to intimidate the opposition enough to stand down.

Japan is the strongest case, but it was hardly a country that had a solid democracy that slid slowly into totalitarianism piece by piece. The Tokugawa shogunate was an absolutist dictatorship, and even Meiji Japan was hardly a functioning democratic state - more like a militaristic oligarchy. But I'll even spot you Japan, as an interesting sort-of-exception. In all other cases, Totalitarianism has been imposed by some kind of force - a coup, a revolution, a takeover by a foreign nation, or something similar. Functioning democracies have not historically just drifted aimlessly into totalitarianism through "creeping socialism".

Right. Often in the past they went that way rather quickly as an overreaction to socialism or communism, but that is still neither here nor there. The American political system has blended itself into a quasi-socialist pablum, whether you are talking about Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snow, John McCain, or George Bush. They have all gone to the politically expedient position of raiding the future to toss money at the electorate in an ever expanding array of social spending and expeditionary wars we cannot afford. Our people are tuned out to the political system, and are rather happy willing slaves of the state as long as you keep the boob tube filled with T&A and football games.

Sure, plenty of functioning democracies have had "supertaxes" that tax the extremely wealthy at rates of 90% or higher. Not many of them have kept them, but most of Northern Europe has had them at one time or another. Executive salary caps are also not particularly unusual in countries with a closer relationship between the state and business.

Whether or not they are extremely wealthy is not part of the determination. The State is preventing private companies from compensating their employees in the manner they see fit.

As for "de facto" censorship, and "punishment" towards domestic "enemies", I'm not sure what you're going on about, but it sounds kind of paranoid.

Shocking! Yes, for example the "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" ordered Humana to stop scaring its customers when they sent out a mailing that stated that if health care reform legislation as currently drafted, goes through, the Medicare Advantage program may be eliminated. Nope, we can have Humana warning its customers about the negative effects of legislation. Maybe you haven't heard about Sen. Rockefeller's bill S.773, which among other items gives the government emergency powers to disconnect private companies from the internet. Maybe you didn't know that Anita Dunn has come right out and announced that with regards to the Fox News network, the White house plans "to treat them the way we would treat an opponent". So what does that mean? Do you want to be an "opponent" of the executive of the most powerful government on the planet? Seems petty to me. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch will suddenly die in mysterious circumstances. Eric Holder an avowed champion of internet censorship, hasn't moved on anything yet, the government seems to have other fish to fry. I could go on and on... But, you get the idea. The Obama administration has made it clear that if you f**k with them, they will f**k with you. It's the Chicago way.

I was just making fun of your slippery slope argument. Obviously, nobody is killing kittens or creating death camps, and it is silly to suggest as much. You, however, are talking about Totalitarianism.

Yes, I know. I was making an obscure joke about death camps for kittens, and clubbing baby seals for fun and profit. Because exaggeration is so effective in making a rational arguments seem ridiculous, also in the congruence of mountains and molehills. I believe ridicule is in the debate play book... yes, here it is... ... exaggerate the opponent's position...

As per health care, I see you haven't budged much since the last thread on the topic, but if you want my reply to any of that, it's all sitting there, so I won't bother going over it. Anyone interested is more than welcome to read through it again.

Thanks for not going down that road again. You are right. I haven't spontaneously changed by mind since it still seems reasonable to let the free market offer services for people to purchase. You do still believe in the "supply" and "demand" curve, right? And, I'm pretty resistant to the idea that "more government" is an answer to any problem. I'm not resistant to government leading us to resolve our own problems, like unaffordable health care.

[kandrathe]

Now you are confusing the rich with people who work for a living.

The 10% mark is income over $113,018. Even the 5% mark at $160,041 is hardly wealthy if you live in a more cosmopolitan city. It seems pretty much upper middle class to me.

That's not even counting capital gains taxes, of which the filthy rich pay the vast majority, since they are the ones with the capital making the gains. Nor corporate taxes, which almost definitionally are not paid by Joe Middle Class.

The funny thing about capital gains is that any capital loss will offset them, and then you really only have to "pay" for gains once you sell something and then realize the gains without subsequently investing in something else. This is why stock options make for great bonuses, since the officers can sell them off slowly or gift them away once they are vested. It's kind of a big tax free bank account that will be taxed if you can't figure out a way to get around the taxes, but then again, there are plenty of vehicles for getting around the taxes. Ask Charley Wrangle.

[Jester]

Now you are confusing the rich with people who work for a living.

The 10% mark is income over $113,018. Even the 5% mark at $160,041 is hardly wealthy if you live in a more cosmopolitan city. It seems pretty much upper middle class to me.

Anyone who makes well over 100,000 dollars is at the very least on the high end of "middle class". Anyone making well over 400,000 dollars is "rich" - and that's *forty percent* of the income tax base.

So, yes. Taking from the "upper middle class" - to some extent - and from the "earning rich" to a much larger extent. Getting money out of people who no longer need to work for a living is tougher, but by no means impossible - just look at the distribution of the capital gains tax. And if someone is simply eating their wealth, making no money but merely consuming, then their money will end up in the hands of others soon enough in any case.

If that's supposed to dissuade Eppie from his position by showing him that it's not really helping the distributional curve, I'm not sure it's going to do the job.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If that's supposed to dissuade Eppie from his position by showing him that it's not really helping the distributional curve, I'm not sure it's going to do the job.

There is no way to really chart the wealthy in relation to the 1/2 million or so people who are paid high wages. Besides, eppie is never swayed by facts or logic.

[DeeBye]

Besides, eppie is never swayed by facts or logic.

Hey pot! That kettle over there called you black!

[Vandiablo]

Hey pot! That kettle over there called you black!

Let's not pull drugs and race into this discussion.

[Jester]

No. The march on Rome was a quasi-paramilitary "brown shirt" group of about 20,000 people. We frequently have millions march on Washington DC, without anyone even changing their mind, let alone cede power. Italy became a totalitarian state with out a bloody coup or revolution. Rather, Victor Emanuel decided the Mussolini government wouldn't be that bad

Tens of thousands of Fascist paramilitaries seized key positions around Italy, and then marched on Rome, demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister in favour of Mussolini. Victor Emmanuel didn't just up and decide one day that this Mussolini chap should rule - he gave in to fascism after what amounts to a complete overthrow of the existing government, preferring Fascism to a civil war. But that was the threat, and it was perfectly credible. Mussolini took over with the threat of force - and it has sweet tweet in common with legal, non-violent protests in Washington DC.

Nope. North Korea became a totalitarian state without a revolution or bloody coup. Kim Il Sung was given the leadership in the wake of a power vacuum left by the Japanese. He didn't take power, he was given it by the Soviets. But, ok, yes, a war did create the vacuum. But, then again, any political crisis will do, such as planes flying into buildings.

Are you just reflexively disagreeing with me? You say "nope," and then proceed to repeat exactly what I said: He took power during a war, supported by the Red Army. QED.

Nope. Germany became a totalitarian state. Although, one might argue it took the beer hall putsch and the night of the long knives to intimidate the opposition enough to stand down.

???

What does this have to do with Germany pre WWI? The Beer Hall Putsch was in 1923...

The American political system has blended itself into a quasi-socialist pablum, whether you are talking about Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snow, John McCain, or George Bush. They have all gone to the politically expedient position of raiding the future to toss money at the electorate in an ever expanding array of social spending and expeditionary wars we cannot afford.

How on earth is it that you have somehow wrapped George Bush's wars into the rubric of "quasi-socialist pablum"? Does this actually seem sensible in your head? Because from where I stand, it's like saying "Napoleonic pacifism" - contradictory nonsense.

Yes, for example the "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" ordered Humana to stop scaring its customers when they sent out a mailing that stated that if health care reform legislation as currently drafted, goes through, the Medicare Advantage program may be eliminated. Nope, we can have Humana warning its customers about the negative effects of legislation.

You can if they're imitating official documentation and possibly using public funds to further their own propaganda. That's well within the government's purview to regulate, and not censorship. Companies can bitch and moan, but not on the public dollar, and not while (pretending to be) acting in the public interest. That what they were saying is also dubious at best is also interesting, but beside the point. (Also rather amusing that the attack on public health care is that it might reduce their much-valued public health care. Socialism is wrong, unless it's the kind that benefits you personally! In which case it's great, but somehow not socialism!)

Whether these allegations turn out to be true or not, the investigation will presumably tell us - I have no idea. But that's the concept, using public funds and quasi-public mailings inappropriately. Not that there is any lack of media scaring seniors about health care reform. I hear there's a channel that pretty much broadcasts that kind of stuff 24/7, and that a huge chunk of its viewership is elderly...

(Oh, and as for Astroturfing your butt, here's a great example - insurance megacorporation intentionally stirs up outrage based on bogus claims to protect its own profit margins.)

Maybe you haven't heard about Sen. Rockefeller's bill S.773, which among other items gives the government emergency powers to disconnect private companies from the internet.

No, I haven't. Apparently the idea is to bolster America's defences against the possibility of cyber-terrorism or computer warfare? I'm pretty sure the President already has those emergency powers, so probably such a bill is unnecessary. But while you may find this ominous (I can't say I like it) it certainly isn't an example of the President shutting down, censoring, bullying, threatening, or any of the other things you're implying. It isn't even a law yet, let alone a used power, let further alone an abused one.

But, of course, if you've got a particular Idea of Obama, I'm sure it all fits perfectly with his creeping-socialism-totalitarianism-takeover-scheme.

Maybe you didn't know that Anita Dunn has come right out and announced that with regards to the Fox News network, the White house plans "to treat them the way we would treat an opponent". So what does that mean? Do you want to be an "opponent" of the executive of the most powerful government on the planet? Seems petty to me. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch will suddenly die in mysterious circumstances. Eric Holder an avowed champion of internet censorship, hasn't moved on anything yet, the government seems to have other fish to fry.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/a...u_n_316691.html

And, of course, for the umpteenth time, I find that your link describes something totally different from what you're suggesting.

THIS is what the Obama administration is saying about Fox News:

"Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again... when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition."

His *ideological* opponents. Not enemies of the USA. He's treating them (rightly) as the propaganda arm of his political opponents - not as public enemies to be assassinated.

He is still about a hundred times more open with the press generally than Bush ever was. He just isn't interested in dealing *neutrally* with a "press" organization that doesn't return the favour. With Fox, it's shields up, which is the only reasonable way to respond to a network overtly hostile to every aspect of his presidency since long before day 1. But, "uniter" that he is, he hasn't even said he'll stop talking to them, let alone that they'll suffer any consequences. That's not even close to censorship.

I could go on and on...

Can and do.

But, you get the idea. The Obama administration has made it clear that if you f**k with them, they will f**k with you. It's the Chicago way.

They really haven't. Honestly, you're just taking stuff way out of context, adding ominous scare quotes to totally innocuous non-events, blowing things far out of proportion, and reading your own bias into everything Obama says or does. I'd argue against something more specific, but there isn't anything - just a bunch of rightist paranoia, the latest Drudge nonsense, the latest manufactured outrage, all packaged together in the old 2008 anti-Obama campaign meme of "He's from Chicago, therefore he's basically Al Capone." It's old hat, it doesn't match reality, and it's paranoid.

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

Corporation pass their taxes on to their customers, and eventually to the consumer. This becomes regressive tax on all, including the middle class.

Not always. You are right if the product price has little or no effect on demand.

For products whose demand is based on price, as is the case for the product of a monopoly or for a prestige product only made by one manufacturer. In this case, the price is set to an optimum-profit value that often has little to do with the cost of making the product. The effect of the manufacture cost is providing a floor that the seller will not go below -- but often the "sweet spot" price for such a product is well beyond the manufacturer cost (otherwise there would be 0 units sold).

Those of you who have studied economics already know what I'm saying (mumble mumble elasticity mumble) but I'll provide an example for anyone who is saying "WTF Van?"

Case study. Vandelay Industries makes a premium electronic ear canal cleaner that is unmatched in the ear cleaner market. Nobody else's product comes close, so there is a demand for VanGo's Earwax-B-Gone. Here is a price/demand chart:
For $15: 9000 units would sell.
For $20: 7000 units would sell.
For $25: 5000 units would sell.
If the cost of making each unit is $5, then the pre-tax profit is:
For $15: 9000 * $10 = $90,000
For $20: 7000 * $15 = $105,000
For $25: 5000 * $20 = $100,000
Vandelay Industries would set the price at $20 to maximize profit, and expect to move 7000 units.
Suppose a new tax came along that was about 33.3%, so VI had to pay $35,000. You might figure that $5 per unit, so they should raise their price by $5 per unit. But the price/demand relationship has not changed, so if the sale price goes to $25, Vandelay would lose $5000. They aren't going to do that. They'll keep the price the same. (Tho they may have trouble making payroll...)

Maybe I'm not distinguishing "customer" vs. "consumer" like you do, so maybe my argument is all wrong. If so, I will be happy to learn why.

-V

[eppie]

Why do you think what is happening is reform? It is different, but probably not better. What makes you think that the government will do better at this than they do at any other thing they do?

You need good healthcare for everybody, and of course that is going to cost. The probelm here is not with the government, the problem is with the mentality of the people. People need to understand that a more social healthcare system, will benefit the entire country, and is not a slippery slope into communism. (I know the propaganda they feed you)

Are you speaking for yourself? My family has been uninsured for over a year. I think I know and live the issues.

And you were happy with that?

Yes, you are very compassionate. Would you mind paying for my families health care eppie? It must give you a nice warm feeling knowing you are forcing someone else pay for the amenities of all. There is no need to actually be charitable anymore with people such as yourselves ensuring that every person is forced to fork out their hard earned sweat and future economic security.

I pay for other people's health care. Me and my wife both have a nice income and are hardly ever ill. Likely during our life we will contribute more than 3 times the money that we will 'get back' by using health care. And I seriously couldnot give a ***. It also doesn't give me a warm or righteous feeling, and probably when these contributions were not obligatory I wouldn't pay so much.......and that is exactly the reason why I am in favour of social health care system (I mean social, not socialist). You and me, are already lucky we were born in a rich country.....we can live a good life solely because we were born where we were born. On a smaller scale I think it is a good thing that parents who get a handicapped child don't have to slip in to pverty but are supported through common money. Again, it doesn't give me a warm feeling, it is just what a developed country should do.

Well, yes, I guess you can call it an economy. Much as the Soviets used to have, but it's hardly a free market.

I believe all pharma companies work in a free market. If also medical personell salaries were market conform they would probably be lower. Anyway that is not the point. The point is making sure everybody can get the treatment he needs.

Another idiotic knee jerk liberal platitude. Who do you think pays taxes? Rich people? Bahahahaha. No, they rig the reins of power such that they never have to pay taxes. The bulk of taxes are paid by the middle class, and always will be. You are taking from the middle to give the the lower middle and lower classes. The rich are out of your grasp unless you propose to tax actual wealth.

That is a problem of how you wish to receive tax money. This has nothing to do with how you spend tax-money. On president uses the money to go to war (although he actually just uses it to pay, via a different route, his oil and wepons selling friends) and another president uses it for health care. But both are cases of spending. You are talking about your problems with receiving taxes......your point is the less taxes teh happier I am, and that is your right, I just think that the US if they wanted could invent a working system for health care. If they choose to do so is up to the voters.