Discussion:
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
(too old to reply)
Keynes
2010-04-12 12:51:16 UTC
Permalink
(Myths? More like LIES.)

Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley

Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.

As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”

The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.

Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org

When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.

Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.

There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.

Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.

Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.

Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.

Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.

Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.

The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.

Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.

The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.

In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.

Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.

Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.

Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.

In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.

Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.

There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.

Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.

The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.

Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.

But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Wilson
2010-04-12 17:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
--
Wilson
Benjamin
2010-04-12 17:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.

I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.

B
Love
2010-04-12 18:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benjamin
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their
own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better
only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
--
Love
Benjamin
2010-04-12 19:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.

Ben
DT
2010-04-12 19:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those
silly things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my
cultural identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
Ben
I don't know about the "ordinary conservative Americans" up where *you*
live, but down here, Obama's definitely a socialist. Only because we
don't call anybody "commie" any more.

DT
Benjamin
2010-04-12 19:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the
developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those
silly things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my
cultural identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to
have a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully
believe it.
Ben
I don't know about the "ordinary conservative Americans" up where *you*
live, but down here, Obama's definitely a socialist. Only because we
don't call anybody "commie" any more.
DT
I suppose it would be more honest and accurate to say, "I don't believe
they understand socialism or Obama enough to have an informed opinion."
but that sounded harsh.

Man, I have a long way to go. :D

B
Love
2010-04-13 03:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benjamin
Post by DT
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to
their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone
else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind
since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries –
better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children.
Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of
8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the
developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more
generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those
silly things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my
cultural identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to
have a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully
believe it.
Ben
I don't know about the "ordinary conservative Americans" up where *you*
live, but down here, Obama's definitely a socialist. Only because we
don't call anybody "commie" any more.
DT
I suppose it would be more honest and accurate to say, "I don't believe
they understand socialism or Obama enough to have an informed opinion."
but that sounded harsh.
Man, I have a long way to go. :D
Well, it's a journey you can take in a saffron unbifurcated
garment if you want, so there's an upside.
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
DT
2010-04-13 14:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by DT
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our
working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that
join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of
disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich
against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone
else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact,
the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the
poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind
since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries –
better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial
benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family.
Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children.
Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of
paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days
of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of
8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US
than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder
in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and
Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the
poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US
children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and
early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich
to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family
benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the
developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more
generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those
silly things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my
cultural identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to
have a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully
believe it.
Ben
I don't know about the "ordinary conservative Americans" up where *you*
live, but down here, Obama's definitely a socialist. Only because we
don't call anybody "commie" any more.
DT
I suppose it would be more honest and accurate to say, "I don't believe
they understand socialism or Obama enough to have an informed opinion."
but that sounded harsh.
Man, I have a long way to go. :D
Well, it's a journey you can take in a saffron unbifurcated
garment if you want, so there's an upside.
As long as there's not an updraft...

DT
Love
2010-04-13 03:23:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <b1c88$4bc3774b$4038ecbe$***@PRIMUS.CA>, ***@yahoo.co.uk
says...
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their
own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better
only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
DharmaTroll
2010-04-13 05:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
says...
Post by Love
(Myths?  More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down.  That's how it's done.
It's true.  I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA.  Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure.  That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case!  :)
--
Love
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
The ordinary conservatives just follow what the GOP leaders and
conservative pundits say. If McCain said it in the elections, and then
Sarah and Glenn and El Rushbo keep repeating it, then the ordinary
folks repeat it. That's all that's going on here with the 'S' word.

And does anyone remember back 18 years ago? Same kind of thing going
on. During the first years of Clinton’s presidency, leading
Republicans, such as Sen. Bob Dole, denounced President Clinton a
“pretender.” They noted that Clinton gained the White House with less
than a majority of the popular vote (because of the third-party run of
Ross Perot). Then, rather than accept Clinton as a legitimate
president, the Republicans unleashed their newly minted right-wing
media machine (much of it having been assembled during the Reagan and
Daddy Bush years with the help of conservative foundations and right-
wing media moguls).

They didn't need FOX News: magazines, such as The American Spectator,
and newspapers, like the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal,
spread ugly rumors about the Clintons, while radio talk show hosts,
such as Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, filled the airwaves with hours
and hours of Clinton-bashing. In Congress, House Republican firebrand
Gingrich whipped his party into line against Clinton’s top legislative
goals. For the first time, every Republican voted against the federal
budget, which included tax increases to rein in the deficit that had
surged to unprecedented levels under Reagan and Daddy Bush. Back on
Capitol Hill, Gingrich's “revolutionaries” rallied – and railed –
against Hillary Clinton’s ill-fated health-reform bill.

Is the stuff we're seeing now really any different?

--DharmaTroll
Love
2010-04-13 06:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by DharmaTroll
Post by Love
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. =A0Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
The ordinary conservatives just follow what the GOP leaders and
conservative pundits say. If McCain said it in the elections, and then
Sarah and Glenn and El Rushbo keep repeating it, then the ordinary
folks repeat it. That's all that's going on here with the 'S' word.
And does anyone remember back 18 years ago? Same kind of thing going
on. During the first years of Clinton=92s presidency, leading
Republicans, such as Sen. Bob Dole, denounced President Clinton a
=93pretender.=94 They noted that Clinton gained the White House with less
than a majority of the popular vote (because of the third-party run of
Ross Perot). Then, rather than accept Clinton as a legitimate
president, the Republicans unleashed their newly minted right-wing
media machine (much of it having been assembled during the Reagan and
Daddy Bush years with the help of conservative foundations and right-
wing media moguls).
They didn't need FOX News: magazines, such as The American Spectator,
and newspapers, like the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal,
spread ugly rumors about the Clintons, while radio talk show hosts,
such as Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, filled the airwaves with hours
and hours of Clinton-bashing. In Congress, House Republican firebrand
Gingrich whipped his party into line against Clinton=92s top legislative
goals. For the first time, every Republican voted against the federal
budget, which included tax increases to rein in the deficit that had
surged to unprecedented levels under Reagan and Daddy Bush. Back on
Capitol Hill, Gingrich's =93revolutionaries=94 rallied =96 and railed =96
against Hillary Clinton=92s ill-fated health-reform bill.
Is the stuff we're seeing now really any different?
I guess not. It may be that we've only become so aware of
it up here since the wars began and all our spotlights have
been trained on US politics.

Now, you should know better than to suggest that Reagan had
anything to do with taking the deficit to record levels.
Everyone knows that "Reaganomics" was all about fiscal
responsibility and smaller government and lower taxes etc..

I mean, no way the GOP would use populist ideological
rhetoric to hoodwink people into a false sense of prosperity
that is really only a bubble, then count on the Democrats
being in power when the bubble pops so that the next cycle
the GOP can claim it was "tax and spend liberals" that sunk
the economy, rinse and repeat.
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Wilson
2010-04-13 11:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
Post by DharmaTroll
Post by Love
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. =A0Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
The ordinary conservatives just follow what the GOP leaders and
conservative pundits say. If McCain said it in the elections, and then
Sarah and Glenn and El Rushbo keep repeating it, then the ordinary
folks repeat it. That's all that's going on here with the 'S' word.
And does anyone remember back 18 years ago? Same kind of thing going
on. During the first years of Clinton=92s presidency, leading
Republicans, such as Sen. Bob Dole, denounced President Clinton a
=93pretender.=94 They noted that Clinton gained the White House with less
than a majority of the popular vote (because of the third-party run of
Ross Perot). Then, rather than accept Clinton as a legitimate
president, the Republicans unleashed their newly minted right-wing
media machine (much of it having been assembled during the Reagan and
Daddy Bush years with the help of conservative foundations and right-
wing media moguls).
They didn't need FOX News: magazines, such as The American Spectator,
and newspapers, like the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal,
spread ugly rumors about the Clintons, while radio talk show hosts,
such as Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, filled the airwaves with hours
and hours of Clinton-bashing. In Congress, House Republican firebrand
Gingrich whipped his party into line against Clinton=92s top legislative
goals. For the first time, every Republican voted against the federal
budget, which included tax increases to rein in the deficit that had
surged to unprecedented levels under Reagan and Daddy Bush. Back on
Capitol Hill, Gingrich's =93revolutionaries=94 rallied =96 and railed =96
against Hillary Clinton=92s ill-fated health-reform bill.
Is the stuff we're seeing now really any different?
I guess not. It may be that we've only become so aware of
it up here since the wars began and all our spotlights have
been trained on US politics.
Now, you should know better than to suggest that Reagan had
anything to do with taking the deficit to record levels.
Everyone knows that "Reaganomics" was all about fiscal
responsibility and smaller government and lower taxes etc..
I mean, no way the GOP would use populist ideological
rhetoric to hoodwink people into a false sense of prosperity
that is really only a bubble, then count on the Democrats
being in power when the bubble pops so that the next cycle
the GOP can claim it was "tax and spend liberals" that sunk
the economy, rinse and repeat.
Nice theory except for one thing. The President does not set spending,
that's the congresses job. The President can't even veto part of the
spending bill, he has to either accept the whole thing or reject it.
Other than that veto, if he doesn't like it all he can do is talk about
it.

You probably don't know this but all during the Reagan years the
Democrats owned the Congress. That's why we had high deficits. It was
due to overspending not under taxing. And when we had a balanced budget
under Clinton? The Repubs controlled both houses.

And those are the facts.
--
Wilson
DT
2010-04-13 14:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Love
In
Post by DharmaTroll
Post by Love
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. =A0Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
The ordinary conservatives just follow what the GOP leaders and
conservative pundits say. If McCain said it in the elections, and then
Sarah and Glenn and El Rushbo keep repeating it, then the ordinary
folks repeat it. That's all that's going on here with the 'S' word.
And does anyone remember back 18 years ago? Same kind of thing going
on. During the first years of Clinton=92s presidency, leading
Republicans, such as Sen. Bob Dole, denounced President Clinton a
=93pretender.=94 They noted that Clinton gained the White House with less
than a majority of the popular vote (because of the third-party run of
Ross Perot). Then, rather than accept Clinton as a legitimate
president, the Republicans unleashed their newly minted right-wing
media machine (much of it having been assembled during the Reagan and
Daddy Bush years with the help of conservative foundations and right-
wing media moguls).
They didn't need FOX News: magazines, such as The American Spectator,
and newspapers, like the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal,
spread ugly rumors about the Clintons, while radio talk show hosts,
such as Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, filled the airwaves with hours
and hours of Clinton-bashing. In Congress, House Republican firebrand
Gingrich whipped his party into line against Clinton=92s top legislative
goals. For the first time, every Republican voted against the federal
budget, which included tax increases to rein in the deficit that had
surged to unprecedented levels under Reagan and Daddy Bush. Back on
Capitol Hill, Gingrich's =93revolutionaries=94 rallied =96 and railed =96
against Hillary Clinton=92s ill-fated health-reform bill.
Is the stuff we're seeing now really any different?
I guess not. It may be that we've only become so aware of
it up here since the wars began and all our spotlights have
been trained on US politics.
Now, you should know better than to suggest that Reagan had
anything to do with taking the deficit to record levels.
Everyone knows that "Reaganomics" was all about fiscal
responsibility and smaller government and lower taxes etc..
I mean, no way the GOP would use populist ideological
rhetoric to hoodwink people into a false sense of prosperity
that is really only a bubble, then count on the Democrats
being in power when the bubble pops so that the next cycle
the GOP can claim it was "tax and spend liberals" that sunk
the economy, rinse and repeat.
Nice theory except for one thing. The President does not set spending,
that's the congresses job. The President can't even veto part of the
spending bill, he has to either accept the whole thing or reject it.
Other than that veto, if he doesn't like it all he can do is talk about it.
You probably don't know this but all during the Reagan years the
Democrats owned the Congress. That's why we had high deficits. It was
due to overspending not under taxing. And when we had a balanced budget
under Clinton? The Repubs controlled both houses.
And those are the facts.
And when the Rs controlled both houses for the first six years under W?
What went wrong then?

DT
Wilson
2010-04-13 16:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Nice theory except for one thing. The President does not set spending,
that's the congresses job. The President can't even veto part of the
spending bill, he has to either accept the whole thing or reject it.
Other than that veto, if he doesn't like it all he can do is talk about it.
You probably don't know this but all during the Reagan years the
Democrats owned the Congress. That's why we had high deficits. It was
due to overspending not under taxing. And when we had a balanced
budget under Clinton? The Repubs controlled both houses.
And those are the facts.
And when the Rs controlled both houses for the first six years under W?
What went wrong then?
DT
What went wrong? Collective stupidity and growing hubris along with a
parasite that grows in the swamps of Foggy Bottom which is known to
infect politicians who spend too much time there.

(Symptoms include a desire to buy votes with money you don't have).
--
Wilson
DT
2010-04-13 16:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by DT
Nice theory except for one thing. The President does not set spending,
that's the congresses job. The President can't even veto part of the
spending bill, he has to either accept the whole thing or reject it.
Other than that veto, if he doesn't like it all he can do is talk about it.
You probably don't know this but all during the Reagan years the
Democrats owned the Congress. That's why we had high deficits. It was
due to overspending not under taxing. And when we had a balanced
budget under Clinton? The Repubs controlled both houses.
And those are the facts.
And when the Rs controlled both houses for the first six years under W?
What went wrong then?
DT
What went wrong? Collective stupidity and growing hubris along with a
parasite that grows in the swamps of Foggy Bottom which is known to
infect politicians who spend too much time there.
(Symptoms include a desire to buy votes with money you don't have).
I see. So, your guys must've caught it from our guys, then?

DT
Wilson
2010-04-14 01:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Nice theory except for one thing. The President does not set spending,
that's the congresses job. The President can't even veto part of the
spending bill, he has to either accept the whole thing or reject it.
Other than that veto, if he doesn't like it all he can do is talk about it.
You probably don't know this but all during the Reagan years the
Democrats owned the Congress. That's why we had high deficits. It was
due to overspending not under taxing. And when we had a balanced
budget under Clinton? The Repubs controlled both houses.
And those are the facts.
And when the Rs controlled both houses for the first six years under W?
What went wrong then?
DT
What went wrong? Collective stupidity and growing hubris along with a
parasite that grows in the swamps of Foggy Bottom which is known to
infect politicians who spend too much time there.
(Symptoms include a desire to buy votes with money you don't have).
I see. So, your guys must've caught it from our guys, then?
DT
I believe it's endemic to the area.
--
Wilson
Love
2010-04-13 16:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Love
In
Post by DharmaTroll
Post by Love
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. =A0Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
The ordinary conservatives just follow what the GOP leaders and
conservative pundits say. If McCain said it in the elections, and then
Sarah and Glenn and El Rushbo keep repeating it, then the ordinary
folks repeat it. That's all that's going on here with the 'S' word.
And does anyone remember back 18 years ago? Same kind of thing going
on. During the first years of Clinton=92s presidency, leading
Republicans, such as Sen. Bob Dole, denounced President Clinton a
=93pretender.=94 They noted that Clinton gained the White House with less
than a majority of the popular vote (because of the third-party run of
Ross Perot). Then, rather than accept Clinton as a legitimate
president, the Republicans unleashed their newly minted right-wing
media machine (much of it having been assembled during the Reagan and
Daddy Bush years with the help of conservative foundations and right-
wing media moguls).
They didn't need FOX News: magazines, such as The American Spectator,
and newspapers, like the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal,
spread ugly rumors about the Clintons, while radio talk show hosts,
such as Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, filled the airwaves with hours
and hours of Clinton-bashing. In Congress, House Republican firebrand
Gingrich whipped his party into line against Clinton=92s top legislative
goals. For the first time, every Republican voted against the federal
budget, which included tax increases to rein in the deficit that had
surged to unprecedented levels under Reagan and Daddy Bush. Back on
Capitol Hill, Gingrich's =93revolutionaries=94 rallied =96 and railed =96
against Hillary Clinton=92s ill-fated health-reform bill.
Is the stuff we're seeing now really any different?
I guess not. It may be that we've only become so aware of
it up here since the wars began and all our spotlights have
been trained on US politics.
Now, you should know better than to suggest that Reagan had
anything to do with taking the deficit to record levels.
Everyone knows that "Reaganomics" was all about fiscal
responsibility and smaller government and lower taxes etc..
I mean, no way the GOP would use populist ideological
rhetoric to hoodwink people into a false sense of prosperity
that is really only a bubble, then count on the Democrats
being in power when the bubble pops so that the next cycle
the GOP can claim it was "tax and spend liberals" that sunk
the economy, rinse and repeat.
Nice theory except for one thing. The President does not set spending,
that's the congresses job. The President can't even veto part of the
spending bill, he has to either accept the whole thing or reject it.
Other than that veto, if he doesn't like it all he can do is talk about
it.
You probably don't know this but all during the Reagan years the
Democrats owned the Congress. That's why we had high deficits. It was
due to overspending not under taxing. And when we had a balanced budget
under Clinton? The Repubs controlled both houses.
And those are the facts.
And you sounded a lot like a news anchor signing off right
there, so I won't argue with you.
--
Love
Awaken21
2010-04-13 20:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by DharmaTroll
Post by Love
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. =A0Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
The ordinary conservatives just follow what the GOP leaders and
conservative pundits say. If McCain said it in the elections, and then
Sarah and Glenn and El Rushbo keep repeating it, then the ordinary
folks repeat it. That's all that's going on here with the 'S' word.
And does anyone remember back 18 years ago? Same kind of thing going
on. During the first years of Clinton=92s presidency, leading
Republicans, such as Sen. Bob Dole, denounced President Clinton a
=93pretender.=94 They noted that Clinton gained the White House with less
than a majority of the popular vote (because of the third-party run of
Ross Perot). Then, rather than accept Clinton as a legitimate
president, the Republicans unleashed their newly minted right-wing
media machine (much of it having been assembled during the Reagan and
Daddy Bush years with the help of conservative foundations and right-
wing media moguls).
They didn't need FOX News: magazines, such as The American Spectator,
and newspapers, like the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal,
spread ugly rumors about the Clintons, while radio talk show hosts,
such as Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, filled the airwaves with hours
and hours of Clinton-bashing. In Congress, House Republican firebrand
Gingrich whipped his party into line against Clinton=92s top legislative
goals. For the first time, every Republican voted against the federal
budget, which included tax increases to rein in the deficit that had
surged to unprecedented levels under Reagan and Daddy Bush. Back on
Capitol Hill, Gingrich's =93revolutionaries=94 rallied =96 and railed =96
against Hillary Clinton=92s ill-fated health-reform bill.
Is the stuff we're seeing now really any different?
I guess not.  It may be that we've only become so aware of
it up here since the wars began and all our spotlights have
been trained on US politics.
Now, you should know better than to suggest that Reagan had
anything to do with taking the deficit to record levels.
Everyone knows that "Reaganomics" was all about fiscal
responsibility and smaller government and lower taxes etc..
I mean, no way the GOP would use populist ideological
rhetoric to hoodwink people into a false sense of prosperity
that is really only a bubble, then count on the Democrats
being in power when the bubble pops so that the next cycle
the GOP can claim it was "tax and spend liberals" that sunk
the economy, rinse and repeat.
Nice theory except for one thing.  The President does not set spending,
that's the congresses job.  The President can't even veto part of the
spending bill, he has to either accept the whole thing or reject it.
Other than that veto, if he doesn't like it all he can do is talk about
it.
You probably don't know this but all during the Reagan years the
Democrats owned the Congress.  That's why we had high deficits.
They skyrocketed under Reagan, historical highs and Reagan supported
them.
 It was
due to overspending not under taxing.
 And when we had a balanced budget
under Clinton?  The Repubs controlled both houses.
The pay as you go system which eventually balanced the budget was
started by the dems and left in place when the republicans took
control.
And those are the facts.
Funny how facts can be presented in so many different ways..
Willyboy
2010-04-13 11:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the Right
is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course, ignorant of
reality.

The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of decency
sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". Communists
and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I love all the
"Obama is a socialist / communist" comments. President Obama isn't
even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to Dub the Shrub's left.
Obama is at best a left leaning moderate. These people wouldn't know
a socialist if it bit them on the butt or a communist if it spit in
their face. After living in Europe for several years, my concept
of "left" adjusted considerably. Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph
Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is left. Obama is not. Obama is left
only in comparison to how far extremist right the reactionary neocon
sects like the Tea Baggers are.
--
Willyboy |"I know of no more encouraging fact
| than the unquestionable ability of
willyboy at one dot net | man to elevate his life by a conscious
| endeavor" -H. D. Thoreau
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Willy is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Kitty P
2010-04-13 12:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willyboy
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the Right
is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course, ignorant of
reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of decency
sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". Communists
and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I love all the
"Obama is a socialist / communist" comments. President Obama isn't
even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to Dub the Shrub's left.
Obama is at best a left leaning moderate. These people wouldn't know
a socialist if it bit them on the butt or a communist if it spit in
their face. After living in Europe for several years, my concept
of "left" adjusted considerably. Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph
Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is left. Obama is not. Obama is left
only in comparison to how far extremist right the reactionary neocon
sects like the Tea Baggers are.
Good analysis.
Post by Willyboy
--
Willyboy |"I know of no more encouraging fact
| than the unquestionable ability of
willyboy at one dot net | man to elevate his life by a conscious
| endeavor" -H. D. Thoreau
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Willy is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-13 13:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
Post by Love
Post by Love
It's true.  I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA.  Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure.  That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case!  :)
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the Right
is alive and quite well, thanks.  They are, of course, ignorant of
reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of decency
sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". Communists
and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I love all the
"Obama is a socialist / communist" comments. President Obama isn't
even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to Dub the Shrub's left.
Obama is at best a left leaning moderate. These people wouldn't know
a socialist if it bit them on the butt or a communist if it spit in
their face. After living in Europe for several years, my concept
of "left" adjusted considerably. Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph
Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is left. Obama is not. Obama is left
only in comparison to how far extremist right the reactionary neocon
sects like the Tea Baggers are.
Good analysis.
I'm not getting into this argument ...

/l
Wilson
2010-04-13 16:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the Right
is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course, ignorant of
reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of decency
sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". Communists
and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I love all the
"Obama is a socialist / communist" comments. President Obama isn't
even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to Dub the Shrub's left.
Obama is at best a left leaning moderate. These people wouldn't know
a socialist if it bit them on the butt or a communist if it spit in
their face. After living in Europe for several years, my concept
of "left" adjusted considerably. Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph
Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is left. Obama is not. Obama is left
only in comparison to how far extremist right the reactionary neocon
sects like the Tea Baggers are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
--
Wilson
Keynes
2010-04-13 16:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the Right
is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course, ignorant of
reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of decency
sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". Communists
and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I love all the
"Obama is a socialist / communist" comments. President Obama isn't
even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to Dub the Shrub's left.
Obama is at best a left leaning moderate. These people wouldn't know
a socialist if it bit them on the butt or a communist if it spit in
their face. After living in Europe for several years, my concept
of "left" adjusted considerably. Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph
Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is left. Obama is not. Obama is left
only in comparison to how far extremist right the reactionary neocon
sects like the Tea Baggers are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
Straw man! Straw man!
(If I only had a brain...)
Kitty P
2010-04-13 16:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keynes
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any of those silly
things. That said, they do resonate with some part of my cultural
identity without knowing where they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would have to have
a very skewed understanding of political science to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the Right
is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course, ignorant of
reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of decency
sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". Communists
and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I love all the
"Obama is a socialist / communist" comments. President Obama isn't
even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to Dub the Shrub's left.
Obama is at best a left leaning moderate. These people wouldn't know
a socialist if it bit them on the butt or a communist if it spit in
their face. After living in Europe for several years, my concept
of "left" adjusted considerably. Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph
Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is left. Obama is not. Obama is left
only in comparison to how far extremist right the reactionary neocon
sects like the Tea Baggers are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
Straw man! Straw man!
(If I only had a brain...)
The analysis is about the misconception about socialism and Obama not being
even close to being left as most of us view the left.
Wilson
2010-04-14 01:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty P
Post by Keynes
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the Right
is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course, ignorant of
reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of decency
sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". Communists
and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I love all the
"Obama is a socialist / communist" comments. President Obama isn't
even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to Dub the Shrub's left.
Obama is at best a left leaning moderate. These people wouldn't know
a socialist if it bit them on the butt or a communist if it spit in
their face. After living in Europe for several years, my concept
of "left" adjusted considerably. Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph
Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is left. Obama is not. Obama is left
only in comparison to how far extremist right the reactionary neocon
sects like the Tea Baggers are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
Straw man! Straw man!
(If I only had a brain...)
The analysis is about the misconception about socialism and Obama not being
even close to being left as most of us view the left.
Yes well. The Neocons are not even close to being "right" as many view
the "right".
--
Wilson
Kitty P
2010-04-14 03:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Keynes
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the Right
is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course, ignorant of
reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of decency
sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". Communists
and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I love all the
"Obama is a socialist / communist" comments. President Obama isn't
even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to Dub the Shrub's left.
Obama is at best a left leaning moderate. These people wouldn't know
a socialist if it bit them on the butt or a communist if it spit in
their face. After living in Europe for several years, my concept
of "left" adjusted considerably. Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph
Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is left. Obama is not. Obama is left
only in comparison to how far extremist right the reactionary neocon
sects like the Tea Baggers are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
Straw man! Straw man!
(If I only had a brain...)
The analysis is about the misconception about socialism and Obama not being
even close to being left as most of us view the left.
Yes well. The Neocons are not even close to being "right" as many view
the "right".
--
Wilson
I think you're right (so to speak) :)
Willyboy
2010-04-13 18:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any
of those silly things. That said, they do resonate with
some part of my cultural identity without knowing where
they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a
socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would
have to have a very skewed understanding of political science
to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the
Right is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course,
ignorant of reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of
decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?".
Communists and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I
love all the "Obama is a socialist / communist" comments.
President Obama isn't even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to
Dub the Shrub's left. Obama is at best a left leaning moderate.
These people wouldn't know a socialist if it bit them on the butt
or a communist if it spit in their face. After living in Europe
for several years, my concept of "left" adjusted considerably.
Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is
left. Obama is not. Obama is left only in comparison to how far
extremist right the reactionary neocon sects like the Tea Baggers
are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
What name calling, Wilson? Dub the Shrub? I say it with love and
all due respect. Let me boil it down simply: Saying Obama is a
"socialist" is ridiculous. Obama is hardly even a left leaning
moderate. The only possible way anyone can paint Obama is "left"
is by comparing him the how extreme the extremist right has become.
--
Willyboy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Wilson
2010-04-14 01:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willyboy
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the
Right is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course,
ignorant of reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of
decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?".
Communists and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I
love all the "Obama is a socialist / communist" comments.
President Obama isn't even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to
Dub the Shrub's left. Obama is at best a left leaning moderate.
These people wouldn't know a socialist if it bit them on the butt
or a communist if it spit in their face. After living in Europe
for several years, my concept of "left" adjusted considerably.
Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is
left. Obama is not. Obama is left only in comparison to how far
extremist right the reactionary neocon sects like the Tea Baggers
are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
What name calling, Wilson?
"Extremist", "reactionary", "Tea Baggers".
Post by Willyboy
Dub the Shrub? I say it with love and
all due respect. Let me boil it down simply: Saying Obama is a
"socialist" is ridiculous. Obama is hardly even a left leaning
moderate. The only possible way anyone can paint Obama is "left"
is by comparing him the how extreme the extremist right has become.
The neocons and Bush were not all that far "right", except to extremist
leftists.
--
Wilson
Luke C
2010-04-15 03:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Willyboy
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the
Right is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course,
ignorant of reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of
decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?".
Communists and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I
love all the "Obama is a socialist / communist" comments.
President Obama isn't even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to
Dub the Shrub's left. Obama is at best a left leaning moderate.
These people wouldn't know a socialist if it bit them on the butt
or a communist if it spit in their face. After living in Europe
for several years, my concept of "left" adjusted considerably.
Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is
left. Obama is not. Obama is left only in comparison to how far
extremist right the reactionary neocon sects like the Tea Baggers
are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
What name calling, Wilson?
"Extremist", "reactionary", "Tea Baggers".
In some circles the first two are compliments.

In other circles the third is, too.

Luke
Wilson
2010-04-16 00:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luke C
Post by Wilson
Post by Willyboy
Post by Wilson
Name calling is not analysis.
What name calling, Wilson?
"Extremist", "reactionary", "Tea Baggers".
In some circles the first two are compliments.
In other circles the third is, too.
Luke
True, that.
--
Wilson
Willyboy
2010-04-13 18:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Kitty P
Post by Willyboy
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
Post by Love
Post by Benjamin
It's true. I don't really know anyone who believes any
of those silly things. That said, they do resonate with
some part of my cultural identity without knowing where
they come from.
I don't believe that most conservatives think Obama is a
socialist though.
I didn't until I got a report from a friend who recently
travelled to the USA. Apparently ordinary conservative
Americans DO call him a socialist.
Oh sure. That doesn't mean they THINK he's one. They would
have to have a very skewed understanding of political science
to actaully believe it.
And no chance that's the case! :)
There is no doubt the "Obama is a socialist" mantra from the
Right is alive and quite well, thanks. They are, of course,
ignorant of reality.
The Red Scare ended with the comment "Have you no sense of
decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?".
Communists and Socialists are no longer bogeymen. Besides.... I
love all the "Obama is a socialist / communist" comments.
President Obama isn't even a leftie. He's barely a tiny step to
Dub the Shrub's left. Obama is at best a left leaning moderate.
These people wouldn't know a socialist if it bit them on the butt
or a communist if it spit in their face. After living in Europe
for several years, my concept of "left" adjusted considerably.
Cynthia McKinney is left; Ralph Nader is left; Dennis Kucinich is
left. Obama is not. Obama is left only in comparison to how far
extremist right the reactionary neocon sects like the Tea
Baggers are.
Good analysis.
Name calling is not analysis.
What name calling, Wilson? Dub the Shrub? I say it with love and
all due respect. Let me boil it down simply: Saying Obama is a
"socialist" is ridiculous. Obama is hardly even a left leaning
moderate. The only possible way anyone can paint Obama is "left"
is by comparing him the how extreme the extremist right has become.
--
Willyboy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Keynes
2010-04-12 19:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Keynes
(Myths? More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
Deny everything with a word. Economical.
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-13 13:57:52 UTC
Permalink
(Myths?  More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See
www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
Set 'em up and knock 'em down.  That's how it's done.
On both sides.

Consider this:

Before Pres. Johnson instituted Medicare, MD's would supply a certain
amt of free services to their elder patients. Once Medicare began the
MD's started billing for many of the services they once provided pro
bono, causing a faster-than-anticipated rise in the cost of Medicare.
Johnson tried to introduce amendments to the legislation to mitigate
the cost growth but congressmen on both sides of the aisle blocked
it..

There's also been a steady change but almost invisible change in the
complexion of health insurance, a trend that led to increased costs
for everyone.

In the early 1970's, before the health insurance industry started to
seek increasing profits & generally pursue a non-mutual profit model,
many (but not all) state Blue Crosses were run as a functional mutual.
However many were taken over & subsumed under by an centralizing non-
profit magnate that internally sought executive perks that bore a
great semblance to a for-profit business.

Once the health insurance industry embarked on greater profit motives,
they started cherry-picking policy holders, dumping the sicker and
poorer into the Blue Crosses. This led to all manner of predictable
problems within the BC's, including higher premiums. This in turn saw
the commensurate increase in the number of uninsured people who'd have
typically joined a BC in the past.

C'mon man, I've seen you reason stuff through in the past. If you're
libertarian minded then from what I see you're a man without a party.
What do you & the Palinites or Cheneyites have in common? Religious
piety? Reactionary resentment? Limbaugh used to claim that CO2 didn't
cause any greenhouse effect. Pat Robertson says Haiti deserved it.

The propagandists want to keep you back in their fold by any means
necessary. If fear mongering be one of the tactics, then so be it.

/l
Wilson
2010-04-13 16:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Wilson
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. That's how it's done.
On both sides.
Before Pres. Johnson instituted Medicare, MD's would supply a certain
amt of free services to their elder patients. Once Medicare began the
MD's started billing for many of the services they once provided pro
bono, causing a faster-than-anticipated rise in the cost of Medicare.
Johnson tried to introduce amendments to the legislation to mitigate
the cost growth but congressmen on both sides of the aisle blocked
it..
There's also been a steady change but almost invisible change in the
complexion of health insurance, a trend that led to increased costs
for everyone.
In the early 1970's, before the health insurance industry started to
seek increasing profits& generally pursue a non-mutual profit model,
many (but not all) state Blue Crosses were run as a functional mutual.
However many were taken over& subsumed under by an centralizing non-
profit magnate that internally sought executive perks that bore a
great semblance to a for-profit business.
Once the health insurance industry embarked on greater profit motives,
they started cherry-picking policy holders, dumping the sicker and
poorer into the Blue Crosses. This led to all manner of predictable
problems within the BC's, including higher premiums. This in turn saw
the commensurate increase in the number of uninsured people who'd have
typically joined a BC in the past.
C'mon man, I've seen you reason stuff through in the past. If you're
libertarian minded then from what I see you're a man without a party.
What do you& the Palinites or Cheneyites have in common? Religious
piety? Reactionary resentment? Limbaugh used to claim that CO2 didn't
cause any greenhouse effect. Pat Robertson says Haiti deserved it.
The propagandists want to keep you back in their fold by any means
necessary. If fear mongering be one of the tactics, then so be it.
/l
Meh. Facts matter. But where to start with the inaccuracies above?

My health insurance is through Blue Cross / Blue Shield. Why? Because
they were the cheapest by far.

What I have in common with Palin and Cheney is a desire to see less
centralized control, a belief that in most cases a very lightly
regulated free market is better at setting prices than the government,
and an understanding that the United State's success, such as it's been,
is primarily due to the recognition (encoded in our founding documents
and in the hearts of it's citizens) that a free, self-directed
individual is by far the best basis for a functioning society.

Limbaugh and Robertson? I am not responsible for stupid things said by
anyone else. Pat Robertson isn't a complete moron but he's close enough
to be the MurkinLeft's favorite religious whipping boy when they aren't
going after the Catholics. And Limbaugh? Well of course the left hates
him. He has balls enough to come right out and say that he hopes they
will fail. Shocking. It's funny how those two bogey men are brandished
like a talisman by those who want to keep free thinking
classical-liberals such as myself in line. It's like a cross to
Dracula! :-)
--
Wilson
Awaken21
2010-04-13 20:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Set 'em up and knock 'em down.  That's how it's done.
On both sides.
Before Pres. Johnson instituted Medicare, MD's would supply a certain
amt of free services to their elder patients. Once Medicare began the
MD's started billing for many of the services they once provided pro
bono, causing a faster-than-anticipated rise in the cost of Medicare.
Johnson tried to introduce amendments to the legislation to mitigate
the cost growth but congressmen on both sides of the aisle blocked
it..
There's also been a steady change but almost invisible change in the
complexion of health insurance, a trend that led to increased costs
for everyone.
In the early 1970's, before the health insurance industry started to
seek increasing profits&  generally pursue a non-mutual profit model,
many (but not all) state Blue Crosses were run as a functional mutual.
However many were taken over&  subsumed under by an centralizing non-
profit magnate that internally sought executive perks that bore a
great semblance to a for-profit business.
Once the health insurance industry embarked on greater profit motives,
they started cherry-picking policy holders, dumping the sicker and
poorer into the Blue Crosses. This led to all manner of predictable
problems within the BC's, including higher premiums. This in turn saw
the commensurate increase in the number of uninsured people who'd have
typically joined a BC in the past.
C'mon man, I've seen you reason stuff through in the past. If you're
libertarian minded then from what I see you're a man without a party.
What do you&  the Palinites or Cheneyites have in common? Religious
piety? Reactionary resentment? Limbaugh used to claim that CO2 didn't
cause any greenhouse effect. Pat Robertson says Haiti deserved it.
The propagandists want to keep you back in their fold by any means
necessary. If fear mongering be one of the tactics, then so be it.
/l
Meh.  Facts matter.  But where to start with the inaccuracies above?
My health insurance is through Blue Cross / Blue Shield.  Why?  Because
they were the cheapest by far.
What I have in common with Palin and Cheney is a desire to see less
centralized control,
During Cheney's administration more power was centralized around the
federal executive branch. In fact the Patriot Act made us a police
state that is allowing democracy to continue for the time being. Al
Gore actually shrank the size of the federal gov. Didn't blah blah
about the subject as good as DC does though.
a belief that in most cases a very lightly
regulated free market is better at setting prices than the government,
and an understanding that the United State's success, such as it's been,
is primarily due to the recognition (encoded in our founding documents
and in the hearts of it's citizens) that a free, self-directed
individual is by far the best basis for a functioning society.
Limbaugh and Robertson? I am not responsible for stupid things said by
anyone else.  Pat Robertson isn't a complete moron but he's close enough
to be the MurkinLeft's favorite religious whipping boy when they aren't
going after the Catholics.  And Limbaugh?  Well of course the left hates
him.  He has balls enough to come right out and say that he hopes they
will fail.  Shocking.
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers so he
can't win an election for the right, and his blustering self important
persona combined with his inability to intelligently argue the facts
make him the perfect presentation of the opposition.
Wilson
2010-04-14 01:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Limbaugh and Robertson? I am not responsible for stupid things said by
anyone else. Pat Robertson isn't a complete moron but he's close enough
to be the MurkinLeft's favorite religious whipping boy when they aren't
going after the Catholics. And Limbaugh? Well of course the left hates
him. He has balls enough to come right out and say that he hopes they
will fail. Shocking.
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers so he
can't win an election for the right, and his blustering self important
persona combined with his inability to intelligently argue the facts
make him the perfect presentation of the opposition.
"Only 20 million" regular listeners? Keith Olbermann would give his
right testicle to have one tenth the audience. But you're right, he's
the guy the left loves, to hate.
--
Wilson
Awaken21
2010-04-14 12:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Limbaugh and Robertson? I am not responsible for stupid things said by
anyone else.  Pat Robertson isn't a complete moron but he's close enough
to be the MurkinLeft's favorite religious whipping boy when they aren't
going after the Catholics.  And Limbaugh?  Well of course the left hates
him.  He has balls enough to come right out and say that he hopes they
will fail.  Shocking.
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers so he
can't win an election for the right, and his blustering self important
persona combined with his inability to intelligently argue the facts
make him the perfect presentation of the opposition.
"Only 20 million" regular listeners?  Keith Olbermann would give his
right testicle to have one tenth the audience.
In political terms 20 million on the federal level means losing. In
context it's a tiny number. No doubt anyone can make a great living
with 20 million followers, but no one is going to win a federal
election with that small number. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh couldn't
even deliver South Carolina, which should have been a cake walk for a
conservative.
 But you're right, he's
the guy the left loves, to hate.
Not just the left, moderates and independents can't stand him either
and that is critical. It is the moderates and independents (100s of
millions of people) who elected Obama. If the far left had gotten what
they wanted the Pres candidate would have been Ms Clinton.

If I were still a republican I'd be encouraging my party to listen to
David Frum. I believe he's laying out the only course back to power
for conservatives.
Willyboy
2010-04-14 12:32:24 UTC
Permalink
If the far left had gotten what they wanted the Pres candidate would
have been Ms Clinton.
Based on my circle of friends who call themselves Left, if the
far left had gotten what they wanted, the Pres candidate would
have been Dennis Kucinich.
--
Willyboy |"I know of no more encouraging fact
| than the unquestionable ability of
willyboy at one dot net | man to elevate his life by a conscious
| endeavor" -H. D. Thoreau
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Willy is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Awaken21
2010-04-14 12:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willyboy
If the far left had gotten what they wanted the Pres candidate would
have been Ms Clinton.
Based on my circle of friends who call themselves Left, if the
far left had gotten what they wanted, the Pres candidate would
have been Dennis Kucinich.
Now there's something to scare the living beejeezus out of the far
right, Ms. Clinton being the moderate choice. LOL
Willyboy
2010-04-14 13:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
If the far left had gotten what they wanted the Pres candidate
would have been Ms Clinton.
Based on my circle of friends who call themselves Left, if the far
left had gotten what they wanted, the Pres candidate would have
been Dennis Kucinich.
Now there's something to scare the living beejeezus out of the far
right, Ms. Clinton being the moderate choice. LOL
This is why I say it is laughable to call Obama a Leftie, much less
a Socialist.
--
Willyboy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Awaken21
2010-04-14 14:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willyboy
Post by Awaken21
Now there's something to scare the living beejeezus out of the far
right, Ms. Clinton being the moderate choice. LOL
This is why I say it is laughable to call Obama a Leftie, much less
a Socialist.
Yes I agree.

When people call Obama a far left or socialist, that just tells me
how extreme right the person making the comment is. We haven't seen a
viable honest to goodness extreme left national candidate in decades.
Wilson
2010-04-14 16:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willyboy
If the far left had gotten what they wanted the Pres candidate would
have been Ms Clinton.
Based on my circle of friends who call themselves Left, if the
far left had gotten what they wanted, the Pres candidate would
have been Dennis Kucinich.
Plus, Kucinich has the hotest wife in politics.
--
Wilson
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-14 14:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.

Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...

/l
Awaken21
2010-04-14 15:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.
Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...
/l
I'm not so sure. They couldn't deliver the Pres election and they
haven't been able to deliver the congress either. They even failed in
a number of Southern States where they should have an easy time of
it. I believe that 7% is more of a problem for the right than a help
because they continue to alienate the exact people they need as allies
to win elections, namely moderates and independents.

Seems to me if you want to move a country of 300 million people and
your group numbers less than 30 million
you can't continue to alienate 60%+ of the population and expect to
win national elections.
DT
2010-04-14 15:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.
Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...
/l
I'm not so sure. They couldn't deliver the Pres election and they
haven't been able to deliver the congress either. They even failed in
a number of Southern States where they should have an easy time of
it. I believe that 7% is more of a problem for the right than a help
because they continue to alienate the exact people they need as allies
to win elections, namely moderates and independents.
Seems to me if you want to move a country of 300 million people and
your group numbers less than 30 million
you can't continue to alienate 60%+ of the population and expect to
win national elections.
I gotta admit to snickering just a little, when I heard this story this
morning:

"Florida Democrat Wins First Congressional Election After Healthcare Vote"
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018395142

Note that the winner actually received <16,000 votes, out of 560,000+
registered voters. 30 million is plenty, if everybody else stays home.

DT
(Of course, it *is* a "Democratic stronghold".)
Awaken21
2010-04-14 16:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Post by Awaken21
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.
Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...
/l
I'm not so sure. They couldn't deliver the Pres election and they
haven't been able to deliver the congress either.  They even failed in
a number of Southern States where they should have an easy time of
it.  I believe that 7% is more of a problem for the right than a help
because they continue to alienate the exact people they need as allies
to win elections, namely moderates and independents.
Seems to me if you want to move a country of 300 million people and
your group numbers less than 30 million
 you can't continue to alienate 60%+ of the population and expect to
win national  elections.
I gotta admit to snickering just a little, when I heard this story this
"Florida Democrat Wins First Congressional Election After Healthcare Vote"http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018395142
Note that the winner actually received <16,000 votes, out of 560,000+
registered voters.  30 million is plenty, if everybody else stays home.
DT
(Of course, it *is* a "Democratic stronghold".)
Yeah, being a FL person I noted it in the news this a.m.. Making this
coming election a referendum on Healthcare isn't going to be a good
strategy in central and south fl. And nominating an extreme right
candidate to run against a moderate dem I believe will be the repubs
latest "shoot myself in the foot" strategy. i.e. if Marco Rubio ends
up defeating Charlie Crist as the repub candidate for congress I
believe Rubio will have his ass handed to him by whichever moderate
dem is running.

IF that dynamic plays out nationwide also..
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-14 16:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by DT
Post by Awaken21
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.
Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...
/l
I'm not so sure. They couldn't deliver the Pres election and they
haven't been able to deliver the congress either.  They even failed in
a number of Southern States where they should have an easy time of
it.  I believe that 7% is more of a problem for the right than a help
because they continue to alienate the exact people they need as allies
to win elections, namely moderates and independents.
Seems to me if you want to move a country of 300 million people and
your group numbers less than 30 million
 you can't continue to alienate 60%+ of the population and expect to
win national  elections.
I gotta admit to snickering just a little, when I heard this story this
"Florida Democrat Wins First Congressional Election After Healthcare Vote"http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018395142
Note that the winner actually received <16,000 votes, out of 560,000+
registered voters.  30 million is plenty, if everybody else stays home.
DT
(Of course, it *is* a "Democratic stronghold".)
Yeah, being a FL person I noted it in the news this a.m.. Making this
coming election a referendum on Healthcare isn't going to be a good
strategy in central and south fl. And nominating an extreme right
candidate to run against a moderate dem I believe will be the repubs
latest "shoot myself in the foot" strategy.  i.e. if Marco Rubio ends
up defeating Charlie Crist as the repub candidate for congress I
believe Rubio will have his ass handed to him by whichever moderate
dem is running.
IF that dynamic plays out nationwide also..
There are some sane people in the Repub Party, just not enough of
them.... like Fla Repub Rules Committee chairman Alex Villalobos, who
is urging Crist to veto the teacher merit pay bill b/c it is
unconstitutional.

http://tinyurl.com/y7e9nz7

Villalobos lost his majority leader post a few years back when Jeb
Bush punished him for opposing a corporate school voucher tax-
diversion scheme, and was placed into a former broom closet as an
office.

Problem is he can't keep trying to wait out the extremists in the his
party. Given the right opportunity a smart chap like Villalobos might
eventually defect to the Dems, letting the Repubs drift deeper into
wackadoodles territory. It's the Fla. Repubs have made crazy laws like
the marriage "sin" tax -- already $100 they tried to increase last
session to $300 under the rubric of preventing divorce (this is some
bullshit Xian tax on secular marriages, BTW...).

The fees in Fla. are becoming utterly regressive & counterproductive -
reissuing a driver's license due to address change now costs $35 which
means a great many low- to middle-income itinerant apt. dwellers will
become scofflaws. The $400+ license plate xfer costs create additional
incentives for fee payers to misrepresent costs & so on...

Driving part of the Fla. deficit is the messed up homestead exemption
code that locks down property taxes for all grandfathered properties
(much like the the upsidedown Prop-13 tax mess in Calif from the
1970's). I guess seeing what a wonderful situation it created in
Calif, Fla. Republicans decided to create the same kind of damage that
will likewise take decades to undo. Doesn't help that so many retirees
relocate here & need to squeeze every penny, they also don't have a
vested interest in educating the next generation of nurse's aides,
house keepers & theme park attendants.

/l
Awaken21
2010-04-14 17:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
Post by DT
Post by Awaken21
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.
Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...
/l
I'm not so sure. They couldn't deliver the Pres election and they
haven't been able to deliver the congress either.  They even failed in
a number of Southern States where they should have an easy time of
it.  I believe that 7% is more of a problem for the right than a help
because they continue to alienate the exact people they need as allies
to win elections, namely moderates and independents.
Seems to me if you want to move a country of 300 million people and
your group numbers less than 30 million
 you can't continue to alienate 60%+ of the population and expect to
win national  elections.
I gotta admit to snickering just a little, when I heard this story this
"Florida Democrat Wins First Congressional Election After Healthcare Vote"http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018395142
Note that the winner actually received <16,000 votes, out of 560,000+
registered voters.  30 million is plenty, if everybody else stays home.
DT
(Of course, it *is* a "Democratic stronghold".)
Yeah, being a FL person I noted it in the news this a.m.. Making this
coming election a referendum on Healthcare isn't going to be a good
strategy in central and south fl. And nominating an extreme right
candidate to run against a moderate dem I believe will be the repubs
latest "shoot myself in the foot" strategy.  i.e. if Marco Rubio ends
up defeating Charlie Crist as the repub candidate for congress I
believe Rubio will have his ass handed to him by whichever moderate
dem is running.
IF that dynamic plays out nationwide also..
There are some sane people in the Repub Party, just not enough of
them....
That's because people tend not to stay where they are treated like
crap by a loud, ignorant gang.
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
like Fla Repub Rules Committee chairman Alex Villalobos, who
is urging Crist to veto the teacher merit pay bill b/c it is
unconstitutional.
http://tinyurl.com/y7e9nz7
Villalobos lost his majority leader post a few years back when Jeb
Bush punished him for opposing a corporate school voucher tax-
diversion scheme, and was placed into a former broom closet as an
office.
Problem is he can't keep trying to wait out the extremists in the his
party. Given the right opportunity a smart chap like Villalobos might
eventually defect to the Dems, letting the Repubs drift deeper into
wackadoodles territory. It's the Fla. Repubs have made crazy laws like
the marriage "sin" tax -- already $100 they tried to increase last
session to $300 under the rubric of preventing divorce (this is some
bullshit Xian tax on secular marriages, BTW...).
The fees in Fla. are becoming utterly regressive & counterproductive -
reissuing a driver's license due to address change now costs $35 which
means a great many low- to middle-income itinerant apt. dwellers will
become scofflaws. The $400+ license plate xfer costs create additional
incentives for fee payers to misrepresent costs & so on...
Driving part of the Fla. deficit is the messed up homestead exemption
code that locks down property taxes for all grandfathered properties
(much like the the upsidedown Prop-13 tax mess in Calif from the
1970's). I guess seeing what a wonderful situation it created in
Calif, Fla. Republicans decided to create the same kind of damage that
will likewise take decades to undo. Doesn't help that so many retirees
relocate here & need to squeeze every penny, they also don't have a
vested interest in educating the next generation of nurse's aides,
house keepers & theme park attendants.
The old people aren't the problem. They are mostly northern democrats
anyway. It's the southern fried rural republicans who keep pissing in
the soup. But to be fair when the FL dems had their chance they were
not exactly the image of public responsibility either..
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-14 16:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.
Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...
/l
I'm not so sure. They couldn't deliver the Pres election and they
haven't been able to deliver the congress either.  They even failed in
a number of Southern States where they should have an easy time of
it.  I believe that 7% is more of a problem for the right than a help
because they continue to alienate the exact people they need as allies
to win elections, namely moderates and independents.
Seems to me if you want to move a country of 300 million people and
your group numbers less than 30 million
 you can't continue to alienate 60%+ of the population and expect to
win national  elections.
That's kinda what I was alluding to...

Add on the Robertson/700 Club bunch w/ their pro-Zionist delusions
maybe another - what? - 5% (assuming some overlap w/ Lambast's
dittoheads...), bringing us to 12% ...

Such a segment can not only alienate the rest of the polity but they
can dominate a party machine if there's an exodus of party moderates.

Problem is that the party bosses have to keep the lights turned on, so
either they have to pander to a remaining cadre of wing nuttery or
going on a recruiting campaign for moderates (Wilson's "classic
liberal"). The GOP leadership would rather bide their time than change
philosophy, rehashing the same stale arguments that Herbert Hoover
used against FDR.

/l
Awaken21
2010-04-14 17:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.
Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...
/l
I'm not so sure. They couldn't deliver the Pres election and they
haven't been able to deliver the congress either.  They even failed in
a number of Southern States where they should have an easy time of
it.  I believe that 7% is more of a problem for the right than a help
because they continue to alienate the exact people they need as allies
to win elections, namely moderates and independents.
Seems to me if you want to move a country of 300 million people and
your group numbers less than 30 million
 you can't continue to alienate 60%+ of the population and expect to
win national  elections.
That's kinda what I was alluding to...
Yeah if you're a Republican supporter, from that point of view it is
a huge problem. Not that many of your team mates are noticing..
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Add on the Robertson/700 Club bunch w/ their pro-Zionist delusions
maybe another - what? - 5% (assuming some overlap w/ Lambast's
dittoheads...), bringing us to 12% ...
Such a segment can not only alienate the rest of the polity but they
can dominate a party machine if there's an exodus of party moderates.
Too late it's already happening. I was one of the first rats off the
ship back during the Clinton era and from what I've seen of the
numbers I've been followed recently by millions of people..
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Problem is that the party bosses have to keep the lights turned on, so
either they have to pander to a remaining cadre of wing nuttery or
going on a recruiting campaign for moderates (Wilson's "classic
liberal"). The GOP leadership would rather bide their time than change
philosophy, rehashing the same stale arguments that Herbert Hoover
used against FDR.
It's a shame that if you bring that up to Republicans and you are a
Republican, you get labeled a RINO and that's it for anyone in your
own party listening to you. At that point you might as well be Dennis
K..

"Excuse me, I think you've shot yourself in the foot."

"What? Who are you? Go away Satan I've done no such thing."

"The loud noise and the bleeding..?"

"Gosh your a stupid socialist, tis a flesh wound, not that I'm
admitting having shot myself.."

"You might need medical attention and I'm a moderate who's voted
Republican before.."

"Laalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you what with my hands over my
ears and the loud noises I'm making, you're a far left socialist,
LALALALA..."
Wilson
2010-04-14 21:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
The left loves Limbaugh. He's only got 20 million followers
That 7% is a problem.
Esp. when they go off on a tea party hallucination ...
/l
I'm not so sure. They couldn't deliver the Pres election and they
haven't been able to deliver the congress either. They even failed in
a number of Southern States where they should have an easy time of
it. I believe that 7% is more of a problem for the right than a help
because they continue to alienate the exact people they need as allies
to win elections, namely moderates and independents.
Seems to me if you want to move a country of 300 million people and
your group numbers less than 30 million
you can't continue to alienate 60%+ of the population and expect to
win national elections.
That's kinda what I was alluding to...
Yeah if you're a Republican supporter, from that point of view it is
a huge problem. Not that many of your team mates are noticing..
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Add on the Robertson/700 Club bunch w/ their pro-Zionist delusions
maybe another - what? - 5% (assuming some overlap w/ Lambast's
dittoheads...), bringing us to 12% ...
Such a segment can not only alienate the rest of the polity but they
can dominate a party machine if there's an exodus of party moderates.
Too late it's already happening. I was one of the first rats off the
ship back during the Clinton era and from what I've seen of the
numbers I've been followed recently by millions of people..
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Problem is that the party bosses have to keep the lights turned on, so
either they have to pander to a remaining cadre of wing nuttery or
going on a recruiting campaign for moderates (Wilson's "classic
liberal"). The GOP leadership would rather bide their time than change
philosophy, rehashing the same stale arguments that Herbert Hoover
used against FDR.
It's a shame that if you bring that up to Republicans and you are a
Republican, you get labeled a RINO and that's it for anyone in your
own party listening to you. At that point you might as well be Dennis
K..
"Excuse me, I think you've shot yourself in the foot."
"What? Who are you? Go away Satan I've done no such thing."
"The loud noise and the bleeding..?"
"Gosh your a stupid socialist, tis a flesh wound, not that I'm
admitting having shot myself.."
"You might need medical attention and I'm a moderate who's voted
Republican before.."
"Laalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you what with my hands over my
ears and the loud noises I'm making, you're a far left socialist,
LALALALA..."
That made me laugh. But I wonder. What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
--
Wilson
Awaken21
2010-04-14 22:58:55 UTC
Permalink
But I wonder.  What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You have very high expectations. Is that wise?

I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.

I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
historically large number of seats in the mid-term. but I don't have
an emotional interest in who wins beyond my own reps. My analysis of
the repub strategy is just a fun intellectual exercise for me. I'm a
strategy guy..
Love
2010-04-15 08:31:21 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Awaken21
But I wonder. =A0What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You have very high expectations. Is that wise?
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
It's "toe the line"....TOE not TOW!

[bangs head against floor repeatedly then runs out screaming]
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Awaken21
2010-04-15 14:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
In article
But I wonder. =A0What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You  have very high expectations. Is that wise?
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
It's "toe the line"....TOE not TOW!
[bangs head against floor repeatedly then runs out screaming]
My line, I get to decide how it gets moved. Don't run in the house you
could stub your tow.
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-15 15:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Love
In article
But I wonder. =A0What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You  have very high expectations. Is that wise?
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
It's "toe the line"....TOE not TOW!
[bangs head against floor repeatedly then runs out screaming]
My line, I get to decide how it gets moved. Don't run in the house you
could stub your tow.
Wlil yuo tow sotp tihs?

/l
DT
2010-04-15 15:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
Post by Love
In article
Post by Awaken21
But I wonder. =A0What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You have very high expectations. Is that wise?
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
It's "toe the line"....TOE not TOW!
[bangs head against floor repeatedly then runs out screaming]
My line, I get to decide how it gets moved. Don't run in the house you
could stub your tow.
Wlil yuo tow sotp tihs?
/l
Wow, I guess you towed 'em, didn't you?

DT
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-15 16:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
Post by Love
In article
But I wonder. =A0What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You  have very high expectations. Is that wise?
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
It's "toe the line"....TOE not TOW!
[bangs head against floor repeatedly then runs out screaming]
My line, I get to decide how it gets moved. Don't run in the house you
could stub your tow.
Wlil yuo tow sotp tihs?
/l
Wow, I guess you towed 'em, didn't you?
DT
Gagh. We're towdilly ridickerus....

/l
Kitty P
2010-04-15 16:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Post by Awaken21
Post by Love
In article
But I wonder. =A0What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You have very high expectations. Is that wise?
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
It's "toe the line"....TOE not TOW!
[bangs head against floor repeatedly then runs out screaming]
My line, I get to decide how it gets moved. Don't run in the house you
could stub your tow.
Wlil yuo tow sotp tihs?
/l
Wow, I guess you towed 'em, didn't you?
DT
Gagh. We're towdilly ridickerus....
/l

He's only towting the obvious.

K
Love
2010-04-16 04:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Love
In article
But I wonder. =3DA0What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You =A0have very high expectations. Is that wise?
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
It's "toe the line"....TOE not TOW!
[bangs head against floor repeatedly then runs out screaming]
My line, I get to decide how it gets moved. Don't run in the house you
could stub your tow.
Like I'd notice with the concussion I have now... :)
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Awaken21
2010-04-16 11:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Love
In article
But I wonder. =3DA0What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You =A0have very high expectations. Is that wise?
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
It's "toe the line"....TOE not TOW!
[bangs head against floor repeatedly then runs out screaming]
My line, I get to decide how it gets moved. Don't run in the house you
could stub your tow.
Like I'd notice with the concussion I have now...  :)
Towtaly.

Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-15 14:53:03 UTC
Permalink
But I wonder.  What are you guys going to tell each
other come the fall when the Dems get their asses handed to them?
You  have very high expectations. Is that wise?
The Phyllis Shaffley mob tried the same take over in the late '80's &
it bombed.
I expect dems will lose seats as the party in power normally has in
the mid-term elections. What I'll be interested in looking at is how
many seats repubs have gained compared to historical percentages for
mid-term elections.
I'm very skeptical that repub strategy of alienating everyone who
doesn't tow their line with a religious fervor will deliver an
historically large number of seats in the mid-term.  
People have long memories when they suffer job losses, bankruptcies,
upsidedown home notes while continuing to see a increasing trade
deficits that could serve to fuel another bubble in the future.

The whole Tea Party farce has failed to ignite more than its existing
constituency that rests on greatly reduced base ... their long term
prospects will not improve with time just by making noise.

/l
Awaken21
2010-04-15 15:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
The whole Tea Party farce has failed to ignite more than its existing
constituency that rests on greatly reduced base ... their long term
prospects will not improve with time just by making noise.
Looks the same to me too.
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-14 14:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
Set 'em up and knock 'em down.  That's how it's done.
On both sides.
Before Pres. Johnson instituted Medicare, MD's would supply a certain
amt of free services to their elder patients. Once Medicare began the
MD's started billing for many of the services they once provided pro
bono, causing a faster-than-anticipated rise in the cost of Medicare.
Johnson tried to introduce amendments to the legislation to mitigate
the cost growth but congressmen on both sides of the aisle blocked
it..
There's also been a steady change but almost invisible change in the
complexion of health insurance, a trend that led to increased costs
for everyone.
In the early 1970's, before the health insurance industry started to
seek increasing profits&  generally pursue a non-mutual profit model,
many (but not all) state Blue Crosses were run as a functional mutual.
However many were taken over&  subsumed under by an centralizing non-
profit magnate that internally sought executive perks that bore a
great semblance to a for-profit business.
Once the health insurance industry embarked on greater profit motives,
they started cherry-picking policy holders, dumping the sicker and
poorer into the Blue Crosses. This led to all manner of predictable
problems within the BC's, including higher premiums. This in turn saw
the commensurate increase in the number of uninsured people who'd have
typically joined a BC in the past.
C'mon man, I've seen you reason stuff through in the past. If you're
libertarian minded then from what I see you're a man without a party.
What do you&  the Palinites or Cheneyites have in common? Religious
piety? Reactionary resentment? Limbaugh used to claim that CO2 didn't
cause any greenhouse effect. Pat Robertson says Haiti deserved it.
The propagandists want to keep you back in their fold by any means
necessary. If fear mongering be one of the tactics, then so be it.
/l
Meh.  Facts matter.  But where to start with the inaccuracies above?
My health insurance is through Blue Cross / Blue Shield.  Why?  Because
they were the cheapest by far.
What I have in common with Palin and Cheney is a desire to see less
centralized control, a belief that in most cases a very lightly
regulated free market is better at setting prices than the government,
and an understanding that the United State's success, such as it's been,
is primarily due to the recognition (encoded in our founding documents
and in the hearts of it's citizens) that a free, self-directed
individual is by far the best basis for a functioning society.
We all want that, to the extent that it's a functionally pragmatic &
the playing field is level. There has to be a limit to centralized
control and intrusion into local affairs, but the Repubs play a pseudo-
libertarian card here. Look at the "freedoms" we enjoy and their
related costs.

For instance, there's the great American habit of subsidizing
construction in hurricane-prone areas, so now we have very intrusive
building codes in inland areas as well as coastal and ridiculous
insurance premiums.

There's the long-standing problem of white flight & sprawl, and the
commensurate deculturing of urban areas, all heavily subsidized by
road building - very expensive roads servicing vast fleets of cars
traversing greater distances than anywhere else on the planet. The
reality is that gov't has been manipulated to underwrite another wave
of segregation, benefiting real estate interests through a continued
wave of new neighborhoods enjoying "new" (read: predominantly white)
schools. Gov't by the people? Some more equal than others.

Additional costs are introduced, such as the loss of locally grown
agricultural products that now require more shipping and processing,
etc.

All this has been subsidized by local, state & federal governments,
many times to the immediate and discernible detriment of the
municipalities that find themselves subsidizing externalized costs
like storm water runoff, watershed contamination, floodplain
mitigation, expanding road, fire, police & public school districts and
so on.

This *IS* a case of de facto social engineering that BENEFITS those
better off & diverts funds that might benefit dwindling urbanites.
Both parties have had a hand in abiding this mess at a local level but
at the national & state level real estate interests lean heavily
Republican b/c of their agenda for reduced regulation.
Limbaugh and Robertson? I am not responsible for stupid things said by
anyone else.  
Granted, but they're hijacking what's left of your nominal party (not
that I'm a two-party apologist)...
Pat Robertson isn't a complete moron but he's close enough
Eh, rounding down, he's still a fool ... if he actually represents (or
reprehents...) a movement of any size then he's a dangerous fool. If
he can get away with condemning entire cities, states and nations then
he can scare his constituency with just about any propaganda he
likes.
to be the MurkinLeft's favorite religious whipping boy when they aren't
going after the Catholics.  And Limbaugh?  Well of course the left hates
him.  He has balls enough to come right out and say that he hopes they
will fail.  Shocking.  It's funny how those two bogey men are brandished
like a talisman by those who want to keep free thinking
classical-liberals such as myself in line.  It's like a cross to
Dracula!  :-)
Hah.

Smarter people than I have complained we need a sane & functioning
GOP. If it takes liberals yelling at you about demagogues like
Robertson & Limbaugh then you're not worried enough about their
current impact on our political system... those two bogeymen (and a
few others) seem to be lose cannons on the deck of the GOP juggernaut
& are doing a grand job of scaring even me.

Granted Al Gore is a fool, and w/ the carbon credit system in
disarray, he might now be a much poorer fool, but he doesn't scare me
the same way his reactionary counterparts do.

/l
Wilson
2010-04-14 18:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Meh. Facts matter. But where to start with the inaccuracies above?
My health insurance is through Blue Cross / Blue Shield. Why? Because
they were the cheapest by far.
What I have in common with Palin and Cheney is a desire to see less
centralized control, a belief that in most cases a very lightly
regulated free market is better at setting prices than the government,
and an understanding that the United State's success, such as it's been,
is primarily due to the recognition (encoded in our founding documents
and in the hearts of it's citizens) that a free, self-directed
individual is by far the best basis for a functioning society.
We all want that, to the extent that it's a functionally pragmatic&
the playing field is level. There has to be a limit to centralized
control and intrusion into local affairs, but the Repubs play a pseudo-
libertarian card here. Look at the "freedoms" we enjoy and their
related costs.
For instance, there's the great American habit of subsidizing
construction in hurricane-prone areas, so now we have very intrusive
building codes in inland areas as well as coastal and ridiculous
insurance premiums.
There's the long-standing problem of white flight& sprawl, and the
commensurate deculturing of urban areas, all heavily subsidized by
road building - very expensive roads servicing vast fleets of cars
traversing greater distances than anywhere else on the planet. The
reality is that gov't has been manipulated to underwrite another wave
of segregation, benefiting real estate interests through a continued
wave of new neighborhoods enjoying "new" (read: predominantly white)
schools. Gov't by the people? Some more equal than others.
Additional costs are introduced, such as the loss of locally grown
agricultural products that now require more shipping and processing,
etc.
All this has been subsidized by local, state& federal governments,
many times to the immediate and discernible detriment of the
municipalities that find themselves subsidizing externalized costs
like storm water runoff, watershed contamination, floodplain
mitigation, expanding road, fire, police& public school districts and
so on.
This *IS* a case of de facto social engineering that BENEFITS those
better off& diverts funds that might benefit dwindling urbanites.
Both parties have had a hand in abiding this mess at a local level but
at the national& state level real estate interests lean heavily
Republican b/c of their agenda for reduced regulation.
<smeep>

Letting people choose to live where they want to live equals "social
engineering"? Lee, that's so messed up. But thanks for a perfect
example of warped leftist thinking. It's so far out of the historical
US mainstream that words almost fail me. You're starting from an
assumption that government should be able to control these things. I
start from the approach that they should stay the hell out of it as much
as possible.

Putting the government in charge of stuff like this runs counter to the
principles that made this nation different from the rest of the world
and fueled our success. Free choice. It's easy to point to the
problems that freedom allows, but the supporters of government
over-management seem blind to the problems *that* would cause.

This is exactly the sort of thing people are talking about when they
claim we're heading towards "socialism". Centralized management sucks.
Decentralized decision making creates a social structure that is much
more flexible and can route around problems as they arise much quicker
and more effectively. Big daddy will not save us from ourselves.
History shows that in the end centralized power in the hands of a few
will only feather the nest of the small group of elitists who are in
charge. It leads to the jack-boot of tyranny on the neck of the
individual.
--
Wilson
DT
2010-04-14 19:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Wilson
Meh. Facts matter. But where to start with the inaccuracies above?
My health insurance is through Blue Cross / Blue Shield. Why? Because
they were the cheapest by far.
What I have in common with Palin and Cheney is a desire to see less
centralized control, a belief that in most cases a very lightly
regulated free market is better at setting prices than the government,
and an understanding that the United State's success, such as it's been,
is primarily due to the recognition (encoded in our founding documents
and in the hearts of it's citizens) that a free, self-directed
individual is by far the best basis for a functioning society.
We all want that, to the extent that it's a functionally pragmatic&
the playing field is level. There has to be a limit to centralized
control and intrusion into local affairs, but the Repubs play a pseudo-
libertarian card here. Look at the "freedoms" we enjoy and their
related costs.
For instance, there's the great American habit of subsidizing
construction in hurricane-prone areas, so now we have very intrusive
building codes in inland areas as well as coastal and ridiculous
insurance premiums.
There's the long-standing problem of white flight& sprawl, and the
commensurate deculturing of urban areas, all heavily subsidized by
road building - very expensive roads servicing vast fleets of cars
traversing greater distances than anywhere else on the planet. The
reality is that gov't has been manipulated to underwrite another wave
of segregation, benefiting real estate interests through a continued
wave of new neighborhoods enjoying "new" (read: predominantly white)
schools. Gov't by the people? Some more equal than others.
Additional costs are introduced, such as the loss of locally grown
agricultural products that now require more shipping and processing,
etc.
All this has been subsidized by local, state& federal governments,
many times to the immediate and discernible detriment of the
municipalities that find themselves subsidizing externalized costs
like storm water runoff, watershed contamination, floodplain
mitigation, expanding road, fire, police& public school districts and
so on.
This *IS* a case of de facto social engineering that BENEFITS those
better off& diverts funds that might benefit dwindling urbanites.
Both parties have had a hand in abiding this mess at a local level but
at the national& state level real estate interests lean heavily
Republican b/c of their agenda for reduced regulation.
<smeep>
Letting people choose to live where they want to live equals "social
engineering"? Lee, that's so messed up. But thanks for a perfect
example of warped leftist thinking. It's so far out of the historical
US mainstream that words almost fail me. You're starting from an
assumption that government should be able to control these things. I
start from the approach that they should stay the hell out of it as much
as possible.
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?

DT
Wilson
2010-04-14 21:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Meh. Facts matter. But where to start with the inaccuracies above?
My health insurance is through Blue Cross / Blue Shield. Why? Because
they were the cheapest by far.
What I have in common with Palin and Cheney is a desire to see less
centralized control, a belief that in most cases a very lightly
regulated free market is better at setting prices than the government,
and an understanding that the United State's success, such as it's been,
is primarily due to the recognition (encoded in our founding documents
and in the hearts of it's citizens) that a free, self-directed
individual is by far the best basis for a functioning society.
We all want that, to the extent that it's a functionally pragmatic&
the playing field is level. There has to be a limit to centralized
control and intrusion into local affairs, but the Repubs play a pseudo-
libertarian card here. Look at the "freedoms" we enjoy and their
related costs.
For instance, there's the great American habit of subsidizing
construction in hurricane-prone areas, so now we have very intrusive
building codes in inland areas as well as coastal and ridiculous
insurance premiums.
There's the long-standing problem of white flight& sprawl, and the
commensurate deculturing of urban areas, all heavily subsidized by
road building - very expensive roads servicing vast fleets of cars
traversing greater distances than anywhere else on the planet. The
reality is that gov't has been manipulated to underwrite another wave
of segregation, benefiting real estate interests through a continued
wave of new neighborhoods enjoying "new" (read: predominantly white)
schools. Gov't by the people? Some more equal than others.
Additional costs are introduced, such as the loss of locally grown
agricultural products that now require more shipping and processing,
etc.
All this has been subsidized by local, state& federal governments,
many times to the immediate and discernible detriment of the
municipalities that find themselves subsidizing externalized costs
like storm water runoff, watershed contamination, floodplain
mitigation, expanding road, fire, police& public school districts and
so on.
This *IS* a case of de facto social engineering that BENEFITS those
better off& diverts funds that might benefit dwindling urbanites.
Both parties have had a hand in abiding this mess at a local level but
at the national& state level real estate interests lean heavily
Republican b/c of their agenda for reduced regulation.
<smeep>
Letting people choose to live where they want to live equals "social
engineering"? Lee, that's so messed up. But thanks for a perfect
example of warped leftist thinking. It's so far out of the historical
US mainstream that words almost fail me. You're starting from an
assumption that government should be able to control these things. I
start from the approach that they should stay the hell out of it as
much as possible.
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.

That said, I'm all for charging impact fees whenever a new house gets
built to pay for the roads and new infrastructure it will require. That
seems only reasonable.
--
Wilson
Awaken21
2010-04-14 23:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know.  Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Wally Chapman
2010-04-15 02:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.

Wally
Ned Ludd
2010-04-15 02:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...

"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."

Ned
Awaken21
2010-04-15 02:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know.  Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
  It's oldthink.  Inner city schools are over.  White trash hillbilly
schools are over.  The only hope is...
 "...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
 and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
 on..."
 Ned
After decades of statistics, study etc. the only scientific fact that
they can clearly point to as helping children break the cycle of
poverty is learning a 5000+ word vocabulary before age 7.
Ned Ludd
2010-04-15 02:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other
away before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
Ned
After decades of statistics, study etc. the only scientific fact that
they can clearly point to as helping children break the cycle of
poverty is learning a 5000+ word vocabulary before age 7.
Very scary. But believable. If you really don't know what the
words mean, you will tune out for the rest of your life.

Ned
Awaken21
2010-04-15 03:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other
away before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
Ned
After decades of statistics, study etc. the only scientific fact that
they can clearly point to as helping children break the cycle of
poverty is learning a 5000+ word vocabulary before age 7.
  Very scary.  But believable.  If you really don't know what the
words mean, you will tune out for the rest of your life.
 Ned
Sounds about right. It's also possible that other people open or close
opportunities for you based on how you speak. Ye Olde Henry Higgins
theory.
Keynes
2010-04-15 03:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other
away before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
Ned
After decades of statistics, study etc. the only scientific fact that
they can clearly point to as helping children break the cycle of
poverty is learning a 5000+ word vocabulary before age 7.
Very scary. But believable. If you really don't know what the
words mean, you will tune out for the rest of your life.
Ned
Folks can keep on learning all through life.

For instance I learn a new word every day.
(Of course this means I have to forget an old word.)
Nobody in Particular
2010-04-15 03:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keynes
Folks can keep on learning all through life.
For instance I learn a new word every day.
(Of course this means I have to forget an old word.)
Can you give an example of a word you have forgotten?
Keynes
2010-04-15 03:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Keynes
Folks can keep on learning all through life.
For instance I learn a new word every day.
(Of course this means I have to forget an old word.)
Can you give an example of a word you have forgotten?
Sadly, no.
Awaken21
2010-04-15 11:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keynes
Post by Nobody in Particular
Post by Keynes
Folks can keep on learning all through life.
For instance I learn a new word every day.
(Of course this means I have to forget an old word.)
Can you give an example of a word you have forgotten?
Sadly, no.
I can.

It's uhhh.. mmmm.. well it's.. hmmm..
Lee Rudolph
2010-04-15 11:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keynes
Folks can keep on learning all through life.
For instance I learn a new word every day.
(Of course this means I have to forget an old word.)
Ha! Piker!

Any sufficiently mature person ought to be able to
learn the *same* new word every day. And forget it, too.

Lee Rudolph
Love
2010-04-15 09:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want t=
o!
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. =A0Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner c=
ity
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other a=
way
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
=A0 It's oldthink. =A0Inner city schools are over. =A0White trash hillbil=
ly
schools are over. =A0The only hope is...
=A0"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
=A0and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
=A0on..."
=A0Ned
After decades of statistics, study etc. the only scientific fact that
they can clearly point to as helping children break the cycle of
poverty is learning a 5000+ word vocabulary before age 7.
Similarly, literacy is the single greatest factor in
breaking the uncontrolled population growth cycle.

Somewhere between kindergarten and the academy there
is an as-yet unrealised crisis of relevance.
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Wilson
2010-04-16 00:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
Post by Awaken21
Post by Ned Ludd
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
..."
After decades of statistics, study etc. the only scientific fact that
they can clearly point to as helping children break the cycle of
poverty is learning a 5000+ word vocabulary before age 7.
Similarly, literacy is the single greatest factor in
breaking the uncontrolled population growth cycle.
Somewhere between kindergarten and the academy there
is an as-yet unrealised crisis of relevance.
I'm not sure what it is you are saying but it sure does sound both
relevant and important.
--
Wilson
Love
2010-04-16 05:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilson
Post by Love
In
Post by Awaken21
Post by Ned Ludd
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
..."
After decades of statistics, study etc. the only scientific fact that
they can clearly point to as helping children break the cycle of
poverty is learning a 5000+ word vocabulary before age 7.
Similarly, literacy is the single greatest factor in
breaking the uncontrolled population growth cycle.
Somewhere between kindergarten and the academy there
is an as-yet unrealised crisis of relevance.
I'm not sure what it is you are saying but it sure does sound both
relevant and important.
That's the effect I was going for. Thanks for confirming it.
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Love
2010-04-15 08:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
That idea has been on my mind a lot lately. As time goes
on school seems more about creating justifications for
authority structures than about knowledge or competence.
The survival of any testing regime is Darwinian, with the
need for maintaining authority structures as the primary
adaptation pressure.
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Kitty P
2010-04-15 13:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other
away
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
That idea has been on my mind a lot lately. As time goes
on school seems more about creating justifications for
authority structures than about knowledge or competence.
The survival of any testing regime is Darwinian, with the
need for maintaining authority structures as the primary
adaptation pressure.
Love
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
It sometimes seems that's the deal, and without a doubt that 'is' the deal
in some middle eastern education that is turning out radical progeny right
now. But the dynamic in western capitalist cultures seems to be continuously
moving towards teaching people to make an income, which in turn feeds the
capitalist system. There probably isn't anything particularly sinister about
that, I mean except when greed and consequent suffering takes over. Working
with kids, I found that the difference between birth control as controlling
personal financial resource is far far stronger than the technical
information on how to not get pregnant.

What I do find interesting though, is that critical thinking skills do not
seem to be emphasized as much as they should be in schools. Those skills are
also the difference between most universities and those fast growing quasi
trade schools that skip the basic arts, science, & humanities. Without
critical thinking skills - an individual and a nation can become someone
else's road kill stew.

Kitty
Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple
diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable
villains back of it all. -John W. Gardner
Love
2010-04-16 04:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kitty P
Post by Love
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other
away
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
That idea has been on my mind a lot lately. As time goes
on school seems more about creating justifications for
authority structures than about knowledge or competence.
The survival of any testing regime is Darwinian, with the
need for maintaining authority structures as the primary
adaptation pressure.
Love
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
It sometimes seems that's the deal, and without a doubt that 'is' the deal
in some middle eastern education that is turning out radical progeny right
now. But the dynamic in western capitalist cultures seems to be continuously
moving towards teaching people to make an income, which in turn feeds the
capitalist system. There probably isn't anything particularly sinister about
that, I mean except when greed and consequent suffering takes over. Working
with kids, I found that the difference between birth control as controlling
personal financial resource is far far stronger than the technical
information on how to not get pregnant.
What I do find interesting though, is that critical thinking skills do not
seem to be emphasized as much as they should be in schools. Those skills are
also the difference between most universities and those fast growing quasi
trade schools that skip the basic arts, science, & humanities. Without
critical thinking skills - an individual and a nation can become someone
else's road kill stew.
Well, when you talk about turning out people who can make
an income you are talking about people who fit into the
authority structure. The capitalist system as it is now
is not mostly about the ability to do things that require
critical thinking or even creativity, it's about being
able to operate as an instantiation of an abstractly
defined function in the business org chart. And not to
make it seem like I mean capitalism is at fault, the same
is true in governments. We have a model of the human
being as a part to "fit in" an economy. This is the
consequence of a worldview thrust upon us by coming to
understand the world in macroeconomic terms...at least
that's what I suspect. The content of education is less
important than that it can produce people who are graded.
Some assumptions are made about what that grading means
then used to justify putting people into their economic
slots. Increasingly, the content is only important in
highly regulated fields of endeavour, and it is knowledge
of procedures and protocols -- knowledge about how to
fit in.

The argument that industry/business needs the knowledge
that is taught in school is only relative to the need to
compete within the system. Industry can usually teach
the specific knowledge necessary to anyone with a
grounding in the (classical) kinds of knowledge, but when
competition is pitched it hopes to have some of that
already taken care of when it hires a person. In other
times we find industry lamenting things like the lack of
general education and critical thinking skills, saying
things like "just send us people who can think, we can
give them the specific skills they need".

This is an emergent phenomenon, not the consequence of
conscious design, or capitalism, or public education,
or anything like that. Where it leads, I have no idea,
but I don't think it will change until we find a new
worldview to organise our activities, or at least one
that makes macroeconomics subordinate to it.

Interesting about how birth control is best received
in terms of personal financial control. Duly recorded
in my little black book of pedagogical magicks.
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
DT
2010-04-15 13:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you
could get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
Ned
Cool! Everybody gets two weeks of school at the age of six, THEN we
turn 'em loose in Wilson's neighborhood!

DT
Ned Ludd
2010-04-15 16:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write
them off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood
is ok? I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
Ned
Cool! Everybody gets two weeks of school at the age of six, THEN we turn
'em loose in Wilson's neighborhood!
DT
OK, smartypants, has this ever been tried? And it could be tried,
without a huge upfront cost or a big hairy change in curriculum. It
could be done as a controlled experiment in any central city school
in America.

Two weeks (5 hours a day, five days a week, for two weeks) of
intense, one-on-one training showing each student (1) how to use
a computer to search the internet, and (2) how to locate available
computers at libraries, schools, etc. You could teach them how
to find free, interactive, on-line programs to learn such things as
touch typing, grammar, and - hopefully - pronunciation. Perhaps
there are even programs available to teach them the 5,000-word
vocabulary that is so necessary to survive in this century.

And it would be SO easy to monitor the results of the test.
Just randomly take 50 kids at age six and give them the 2-week
intensive training. Then randomly pick 50 other kids as a control
group and let them go through school normally. See how the
two groups perform over the next few years on standardized
tests.

Ned
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-15 16:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write
them off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood
is ok?  I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you could
get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
 It's oldthink.  Inner city schools are over.  White trash hillbilly
schools are over.  The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
Ned
Cool!  Everybody gets two weeks of school at the age of six, THEN we turn
'em loose in Wilson's neighborhood!
DT
  OK, smartypants, has this ever been tried?  And it could be tried,
without a huge upfront cost or a big hairy change in curriculum.  It
could be done as a controlled experiment in any central city school
in America.
  Two weeks (5 hours a day, five days a week, for two weeks) of
intense, one-on-one training showing each student (1) how to use
a computer to search the internet, and (2) how to locate available
computers at libraries, schools, etc.  You could teach them how
to find free, interactive, on-line programs to learn such things as
touch typing, grammar, and - hopefully - pronunciation.  Perhaps
there are even programs available to teach them the 5,000-word
vocabulary that is so necessary to survive in this century.
  And it would be SO easy to monitor the results of the test.
Just randomly take 50 kids at age six and give them the 2-week
intensive training.  Then randomly pick 50 other kids as a control
group and let them go through school normally.  See how the
two groups perform over the next few years on standardized
tests.
 Ned
It'd work, given the right circumstances. But even at suburban schools
the crab bucket syndrome yields predictable results....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

/l
DT
2010-04-15 17:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by DT
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by Wally Chapman
Post by Awaken21
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write
them off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood
is ok? I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Change "inner city gangstas" to "white trash hillbillies" and you
could get an op-ed piece in the local newspapers down here.
Wally
It's oldthink. Inner city schools are over. White trash hillbilly
schools are over. The only hope is...
"...It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy
and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then
on..."
Ned
Cool! Everybody gets two weeks of school at the age of six, THEN we
turn 'em loose in Wilson's neighborhood!
DT
OK, smartypants, has this ever been tried? And it could be tried,
without a huge upfront cost or a big hairy change in curriculum. It
could be done as a controlled experiment in any central city school
in America.
Two weeks (5 hours a day, five days a week, for two weeks) of
intense, one-on-one training showing each student (1) how to use
a computer to search the internet, and (2) how to locate available
computers at libraries, schools, etc. You could teach them how
to find free, interactive, on-line programs to learn such things as
touch typing, grammar, and - hopefully - pronunciation. Perhaps
there are even programs available to teach them the 5,000-word
vocabulary that is so necessary to survive in this century.
And it would be SO easy to monitor the results of the test.
Just randomly take 50 kids at age six and give them the 2-week
intensive training. Then randomly pick 50 other kids as a control
group and let them go through school normally. See how the
two groups perform over the next few years on standardized
tests.
Ned
Hey, you're the one that brought it up! With no attribution, I might add.

When I googled it up, that quote seems to come from the New York State
Teacher of the Year, 1991. http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html Looks like
some of the home school crowd have picked it up, though.

One of the Texas State Board of Education members has sworn he'll never
send *his* children to a public school.

DT
Ned Ludd
2010-04-15 20:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by DT
Cool! Everybody gets two weeks of school at the age of six, THEN we
turn 'em loose in Wilson's neighborhood!
DT
OK, smartypants, has this ever been tried? And it could be tried,
without a huge upfront cost or a big hairy change in curriculum. It
could be done as a controlled experiment in any central city school
in America.
Two weeks (5 hours a day, five days a week, for two weeks) of
intense, one-on-one training showing each student (1) how to use
a computer to search the internet, and (2) how to locate available
computers at libraries, schools, etc. You could teach them how
to find free, interactive, on-line programs to learn such things as
touch typing, grammar, and - hopefully - pronunciation. Perhaps
there are even programs available to teach them the 5,000-word
vocabulary that is so necessary to survive in this century.
And it would be SO easy to monitor the results of the test.
Just randomly take 50 kids at age six and give them the 2-week
intensive training. Then randomly pick 50 other kids as a control
group and let them go through school normally. See how the
two groups perform over the next few years on standardized
tests.
Ned
Hey, you're the one that brought it up! With no attribution, I might add.
When I googled it up, that quote seems to come from the New York State
Teacher of the Year, 1991. http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html Looks like
some of the home school crowd have picked it up, though.
One of the Texas State Board of Education members has sworn he'll never
send *his* children to a public school.
DT
Wow. Absolutely brutal! And this was laid down 20 years
ago. It's definitely the source of the "50 Hours" quote.

I still think it might work. Or might work with a certain
incorrigible subset of the school-age population.

Ned
Déjà Fu
2010-04-15 22:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Cool! Everybody gets two weeks of school at the age of six, THEN we
turn 'em loose in Wilson's neighborhood!
DT
OK, smartypants, has this ever been tried? And it could be tried,
without a huge upfront cost or a big hairy change in curriculum. It
could be done as a controlled experiment in any central city school
in America.
Two weeks (5 hours a day, five days a week, for two weeks) of
intense, one-on-one training showing each student (1) how to use
a computer to search the internet, and (2) how to locate available
computers at libraries, schools, etc. You could teach them how
to find free, interactive, on-line programs to learn such things as
touch typing, grammar, and - hopefully - pronunciation. Perhaps
there are even programs available to teach them the 5,000-word
vocabulary that is so necessary to survive in this century.
And it would be SO easy to monitor the results of the test.
Just randomly take 50 kids at age six and give them the 2-week
intensive training. Then randomly pick 50 other kids as a control
group and let them go through school normally. See how the
two groups perform over the next few years on standardized
tests.
Ned
Hey, you're the one that brought it up! With no attribution, I might add.
When I googled it up, that quote seems to come from the New York State
Teacher of the Year, 1991. http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html Looks
like some of the home school crowd have picked it up, though.
One of the Texas State Board of Education members has sworn he'll
never send *his* children to a public school.
DT
Wow. Absolutely brutal! And this was laid down 20 years
ago. It's definitely the source of the "50 Hours" quote.
I still think it might work. Or might work with a certain
incorrigible subset of the school-age population.
Ned
You guys will enjoy this (so will Wilson):

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue2.htm
and this:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm
and this:
http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm

Lovely stuff!
Love
2010-04-15 08:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. =A0Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Well, as a wealthy city dweller I resent paying for
emergency medical airlifts for every cornpone asshole
who throws a heart attack while living his country
lifestyle of deep fried pork rhinds and pickup trucks
as personal transportation.
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
DT
2010-04-15 17:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Love
Post by Awaken21
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. =A0Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Well, as a wealthy city dweller I resent paying for
emergency medical airlifts for every cornpone asshole
who throws a heart attack while living his country
lifestyle of deep fried pork rhinds and pickup trucks
as personal transportation.
The point I was trying to make relative to Wilson's original statement,
was that social engineering is happening anyway. We can't *not* social
engineer.

The Austin area has started building more roads east of town, partially
in an effort to keep development further from the
environmentally-sensitive Hill Country. Of course, that part of the
Hill Country is already populated by folks who moved out to Lake Travis,
because they liked the seclusion, then whined because "We need a mall!
We have to drive 20 miles to shop!" So a mall was built. Southwest of
town, they're complaining that "traffic's so bad, we need more bigger
roads!" Of course, if more bigger roads are built, more people move out
there, and traffic gets worse.

And so it goes...

DT
Love
2010-04-16 05:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DT
Post by Love
In article
Post by Awaken21
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. =A0Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
Well, as a wealthy city dweller I resent paying for
emergency medical airlifts for every cornpone asshole
who throws a heart attack while living his country
lifestyle of deep fried pork rhinds and pickup trucks
as personal transportation.
The point I was trying to make relative to Wilson's original statement,
was that social engineering is happening anyway. We can't *not* social
engineer.
The Austin area has started building more roads east of town, partially
in an effort to keep development further from the
environmentally-sensitive Hill Country. Of course, that part of the
Hill Country is already populated by folks who moved out to Lake Travis,
because they liked the seclusion, then whined because "We need a mall!
We have to drive 20 miles to shop!" So a mall was built. Southwest of
town, they're complaining that "traffic's so bad, we need more bigger
roads!" Of course, if more bigger roads are built, more people move out
there, and traffic gets worse.
And so it goes...
Okay, I take back that cornpone asshole stuff.

The roads wouldn't be necessary if it was a one-way trip,
but it never is. People move to the country then work
in the city. We so need to start making users bear costs
directly instead of justifying it all as infrastructure.
It's infrastructure for a world out of balance. And
costs need to be real, including environmental impact.

Highspeed interwebs and trains are the proper kinds of
infrastructures to build today.
--
Love

May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Wilson
2010-04-16 00:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Wilson
Exactly! People should be able to live wherever the hell they want to!
But why should *I* have to pay for them to have roads?
DT
I don't know. Prolly for the same reason I have to pay for inner city
gangstas to go to school when a sizeable percentage blow each other away
before they're old enough to hold a job or pay taxes.
So you wouldn't mind if we didn't try to educate them. Just write them
off as human trash and set them loose in your neighborhood is ok?
I find it hard to believe you think you've made a point.
No, no, no! Dale asked why he should have to pay for roads that don't
benefit him as much as they do the developers and the people who are
subdividing the countryside. I believe I should have to pay for the
roads and the gangstas. Just in case, you know?
--
Wilson
Beerlet Dhiblang
2010-04-13 13:42:02 UTC
Permalink
(Myths?  More like LIES.)
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is
hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much
more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other
countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor
people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US
in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European
countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic,
Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. Seewww.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths
about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into
thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to
lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of
us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider
in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in
the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10%
in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the
U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than
Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double
the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for
families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with
children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those
countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the
family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one
of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead
last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity
leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave
at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual
days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of
annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere
else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison
with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in
Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than
in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor
here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among
the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however,
is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education,
the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part
because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so
low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of
governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in
the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied
for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the
path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with
our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our
sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/10
I'd like to see some of these data fully validated, but I find them
credible. Although I've seen them cited elsewhere over the years in
other moderate, credible articles what I think is missing is a
relative per-capita ranking & other data breakdowns.

Simple rankings can be misleading, particularly when there may be
particular skewings coming from specific subgroups, like illegal
aliens, or minorities in Mississippi. To generalize this way isn't a
whole lot better than reactionary tropes (c.f. "teenage immigrant
welfare mothers on drugs.").

It's not that things are so utterly dismal here, but there are plenty
of problems for a place that's still a land of plenty. As for the
argument about socialism, even Republicans aren't going touch the
safety nets of social security or medicare for their own retired
constituents.

Surely the relative socialism of the USA is lesser than the European
model, but by what margin & total impact?

/l
Awaken21
2010-04-13 13:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beerlet Dhiblang
It's not that things are so utterly dismal here, but there are plenty
of problems for a place that's still a land of plenty. As for the
argument about socialism, even Republicans aren't going touch the
safety nets of social security or medicare for their own retired
constituents.
I happened to be on CSPAN when the House was doing some routine work
for SS. It looked like a bi-partisan love in.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...