Republican victories in November could send us back to the failed Bush-era policies
The immediate future looks grim for Democrats. The Tea Party is celebrating a series of stunning victories in Republican primaries. Sarah Palin commands lecture fees of $100,000. Washington lobbying firms have raised the salaries of former Republican legislators and their assistants, convinced that the Republican Party will control the next Congress. Spending on advertisements by groups associated with the Republican Party since early August has far exceeded that of similar Democratic groups.
The prospect of a possible return to the policies of the Bush administration focuses the mind. Here were a few of the highlights. In a period that was for the most part a prosperous one, the Bush administration ran budget deficits between $300 billion and $600 billion each year for six of its eight years; in its last year the deficit was significantly higher. In half of these years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and were therefore solely responsible for this fiscal irresponsibility. And this was the president who had told the American people, in the presidential debate held on Oct. 3, 2000, that "the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and size of the federal budget."
When the economy headed into a recession at the end of his administration, a recession triggered in large part by the failure of his appointees adequately to regulate Wall Street and the housing market, it was primarily thanks to Democratic representatives in Congress that we managed to avoid a second Great Depression. It was largely Democratic representatives who voted to approve funds to safeguard the financial system, prevent the demise of GM, and create public works programs for the unemployed. Other aspects of the Bush administration's record that give one pause at the prospect of a Congress controlled by Republicans include its repeated attempts to deny the reality of global warming, followed by only the most lukewarm action to respond to the problem; a failure to take measures to restrain health care costs, which threatened and still threaten to make our businesses uncompetitive and limit access to health care; and the resort to torture in the war against terror, a policy both degrading to the United States and certain to prove counterproductive in the long run.
Press reports suggest that one of the factors driving the recent surge in support for Republican candidates, beyond a tendency to blame the Democrats for problems they inherited and campaign contributions from Wall Street managers distressed at tougher regulation, is fear of, and sometimes rage at, the growing power of the federal governments. This fear and anger especially animates the group known as the Tea Party, which seeks a return to what it sees as the ideals of the founding fathers.
Tea Party members oppose the Democratic health care plan, which will provide health care coverage to all Americans and restrain the growth in health care spending, as an unconstitutional expansion of the powers of government. One of the founders of the movement, Dana Loesch, has called for the elimination of Social Security. It is hard to pin down exactly where the Tea Party stands on the question of environmental regulation, but it appears to belong primarily to the "drill, baby, drill" camp, even after the BP disaster in the Gulf. Two of the major financial backers of the Tea Party movement, the billionaires Charles and David Koch, are bankrolling a campaign to undo California's restrictions on greenhouse emissions.
One can have some sympathy with Tea Party criticisms of the way government business is often conducted in Washington, and also in Sacramento, Albany, Springfield, and even Lansing. More than a few of our elected representatives disappoint.
But the cures it proposes are worse than the disease. Eliminating government powers because they have sometimes been abused may seem easier than reforming government, but would deprive our nation of the ability to respond to a host of challenges and crises. A good example is the Tea Party proposal of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. What the balanced budget proposal clearly reflects is a distrust of the methods of our republican government, a lack of faith in the ability of the electorate to remove from power individuals who, for example, promise to avoid deficits and instead create them. The very real danger is that the entire country will end up like California, where voters also adopted amendments limiting government taxing powers. One wonders where Republican advocates of balanced budgets were when the Bush administration and Republican congresses ran up huge deficits. The clear aim of the Tea Party is to reduce the size of government, to make it resemble more closely the United States government circa, say, 1840, or 1880. But when members of the Tea Party question the constitutionality of many post-New Deal federal agencies and programs, they misunderstand the nature of our constitution.
Edmund Burke, whom conservatives used to read, wrote in his famous essay on the French Revolution that society and governments are a partnership "between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." Our federal constitution illustrates Burke's meaning. It leads Americans always to look back, to follow rules established by the founders of the nation, who themselves largely followed English practices and precedents. We also look back to the interpretations of the constitution in court decisions over the intervening two plus centuries. At the same time, those who are living are also participants in the partnership. They are permitted to interpret the original terms of the partnership in light of their own circumstances, in case of need also to adopt changes. As Burke also wrote, "a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation."
Our constitution can be amended. But since the degree of difficulty inherent in the process of amendment makes such changes possible only at long intervals and in a limited number of instances, the Supreme Court has long interpreted the constitution to reflect the reality that the United States is no longer an agrarian society of four million, but an industrial nation of hundreds of millions. And this has meant taking the view that the federal government has the power to respond to many critical problems created by circumstances not anticipated by the founders. Think of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Federal Deposit Insurance.
In both domestic and foreign policy, President Obama has undertaken initiatives that are long overdue, in the teeth of bitter and often highly partisan opposition by Republicans in and out of Congress. His administration played a key role in preventing a second Great Depression, which those who recall the 1930s know had dire consequences for much of the world.
This election is in large part about whether President Obama will continue to have the power to respond forcefully to the many challenges facing the United States at home and abroad, or whether he will be hamstrung by the often bitter partisan opposition that has been all too clearly displayed in the course of the past two years; think of South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson's interruption of President Obama's address to Congress in the fall of 2009, "You lie!" It is time for those who do not share Congressman Wilson's notion of civility, or Sarah Palin's vision for America, to roll up their sleeves.
Eli Nathans is a resident of Ann Arbor and an associate professor in the Department of History at the University of Western Ontario.
Comments
DonBee
Sun, Oct 10, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.
Ghost - Illegal, yes we agree on that point. Widespread yes it is. Political Action Committees (PACs) contribute money to political candidates for their election campaigns. Some PACs contribute to candidates for state and local offices " governors, mayors, state representatives, state senators, etc. Other PAC's contribute to candidates for federal office " President, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations. Per the FEC report: The only way that these members can get their money back is to request it. The FEC has no mechanism under Beck to force the union to return the funds. Because so many PACs are set up for a short period of time, the cost of getting your money back is more than the money that was taken. Standing on principal will get you in trouble with your union brothers. Having belonged to a union for more than a decade. I learned, you go along or you don't get along. As the old saying goes: In theory there is not difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. In this situation it could be rewritten to say: In theory there are no unauthorized union dues going to PACs, in practice there are. As I said I will give you partial credit for being right, what I will not give you is that it does not happen. It happens with millions and millions of dollars in each election. As to the AAEA contract, I did not seek a lawyer out to read it, and when corrected I acknowledged the mistake in my next message. Next time since I know you are a lawyer I will ask you to read it for us all.
Milton Shift
Sun, Oct 10, 2010 : 12:10 a.m.
"Liberals, Hippies, Progressives, Socialists, Marxist, Communists. One in the same, just wearing different costumes. Their ideas have been tried the world over. Each time failed." Ha, are you kidding? Liberals are capitalists which Marxists definitely have strong disagreements with. Progressives can be anything from wacky Prohibitionists storming saloons with hatchets to Hillary Clinton. Socialists can be anyone who wants to pose as a leftist while pursuing a reactionary agenda. Self-proclaimed "communists" like the Maoists in China had no respect for democracy and contempt for the educated urban workers. "Communist" China came closer to war with the "Communist" USSR than the US ever did with the USSR. And hippies have no coherent political agenda of any sort, they're far too diverse. If I were to apply your style of simplification, I could consider you indistinguishable from Nazis, Mussolini, and Napoleon. Is this you? And as for your other "point," let me remind you that capitalism has failed numerous times in the last hundred years. Last time it failed like this was the 1930s, which led to the death of 65 million people in WWII. As the threat of global war looms once again (due to irreconcilable conflicts among the major capitalist powers), I find myself hoping it's not 6.5 billion this time around. Somehow, I don't think democratic management of the economy could ever compete with capitalism for the scale of damage done.
maallen
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.
Eli, Even though the Health Care law that passed was supposed to decrease the premiums of health insurance, or at the very least, control the cost of premiums. It has not. A letter that Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, wrote in September 9th admits that premiums will increase. The law does not help reduce the cost of health insurance like promised. It increases it. And they finally admitted to it. Now, the question is, by how much will the increase be by adding these new mandated benefits? Will one believe the government's estimate, who have not gotten one estimate correct when it comes to money and budgets. Or does one believe the industry, who every day sees the impact of cost to benefits ratio? Although the current law isn't the same as the health care in Britian, Canada, and Cuba, it is the first step toward that system. As noted all last year, the democrats wanted the government to run health care. But after the law passed without the government option, many democrats have explicitly stated that it will happen in the near future. And that this is just the first step. A point to consider: More regulation equals higher cost. In regards to the American Medical Association, it is important to remember that only 15% of practicing physicians are members of this organization. Majority of its members are from the medical schools, medical students, and retired physicians. With that said the leadership of this organization endorsed the new health care law in return for a promise by the democrats to improve physician pay scales. Now, think about it, what do you think will happen if the pay scales go up? Costs go up and therefore premiums go up. So it is important to remember that the leadership of this organization was bought for its endorsement. The membership overall did not support the new legislation. As a matter of fact, over half a million doctors from other organizations opposed the legislation compared to AMA's membership of around 200,000. The American Medical Association itself has been involved in many controversies throught its existence. It attempted to prohibit their membership from participating in HMO's (which actually lowered health insurance premiums.) They lost the lawsuit. They campaigned against Medicare. Now they oppose any cuts to Medicare (even thought the health care bill does exactly that.) Also, AMA developed a coding system that all hospitals and doctors must use to bill the government in order to get paid for services. Sounds good right? Well, AMA has a copyright on this information and therefore charges everyone to use it. According to the Supreme Court, it is illegal to copyright and charge for information required for others to be in compliance with federal law. This organization has made, in just one year, over $100 million dollars off of this.
Eli Nathans
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 7:29 p.m.
I want to thank Ann Arbor.com for publishing the opinion piece that started this exchange, for providing a venue for comments and criticisms, and for monitoring the level of civility. At the risk of overloading the circuits, may I add one set of further reflections prompted by the responses received to date? The comments suggest widespread dismay at the recent massive federal budget deficits. Some commentators in this exchange appear to think that deficit spending is always wrong. I would argue that deficit spending is justified in crises, such as wars, economic depressions, and recessions. Judged by this standard President Obama's deficit spending was not mistaken, since it took place at a moment of economic crisis, and arguably helped to avoid a world-wide Depression. It is neither liberal nor conservative to seek to avoid a repetition of the 1930s - what thinking person could want to relive that era? The Bush administration's deficits took place for the most part in a period of prosperity, and were therefore, in my view, unjustified. Among the most regrettable aspects of massive deficit spending in times of prosperity is that it undermines the legitimacy of such spending in times of need, as many of the comments evidence. Several commentators have attacked the Democratic Health Insurance Plan, and drawn comparisons with the health care plans of Cuba, Britain, and Canada. The Democratic Health Insurance Plan is significantly different from the plans in these countries, which certainly do have some significant problems. It will operate primarily through the existing network of private insurance companies and providers, while subjecting these entities to a higher degree of regulation, in part designed to decrease costs directly (so, limits on overhead), and in part to promote both cost-saving and higher quality through greater transparency and market forces (so, the requirement that insurers offer standard plans, to promote greater competition on price and quality). What the Democratic Health Insurance Plan has in common with the plans in the countries mentioned is that it will provide, for a premium based in part on one's income, a minimum level of universal coverage to all Americans, without a requirement, as currently in Medicaid, that individuals who are sick become impoverished to gain access to medical care. One hopes that it will provide a higher quality of care than elsewhere. That the American Medical Association endorsed the Democratic Health Insurance Plan is only one of many signs that those who attack it as socialism are, at best, being imprecise. The AMA would not endorse Canadian style health insurance. I am happy to note that no commentators have - yet - defended the Bush administration's use of waterboarding or other forms of torture against terrorists or suspected terrorists, policies openly defended by the principal Republican presidential candidates in 2008, with the notable exception of John McCain. Nor have they expressed support for Republican efforts to reduce environmental protections. Perhaps there is still a national consensus that our government is justified in seeking to prevent the BP's of the world from damaging the environment, and to require them to pay for cleaning up the pollution they cause. For some reason even those who styled themselves conservatives had little to say about my suggestions that we attempt to learn from the works of Edmund Burke. I regret the vitriol of certain of the commentaries. We are all in this together. I do hope that those who are politically uncertain will come to the conclusion that, as the debate conducted here suggests, there are significant differences between the two parties, and that in the upcoming election only the election of Democratic congressional candidates can prevent governmental paralysis or a partial return to what most commentators, even those who reject President Obamas initiatives, seem to agree were the failed policies of the Bush administration.
DonBee
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 6:11 p.m.
the Ghost wrote: "Many years ago the Supreme Court ruled that union dues CANNOT be used to back political candidates. Money that unions use must come from PACs who donations come in voluntarily. The State of Michigan has gone one step further, making it illegal for public employers to permit automatic deduction from paychecks for union members who wish to donate to PACs. Automatic deductions to United Way? OK. To a PAC? Not so much. Check your facts." So I did, first I called the NPR station in Washington DC where I heard the story, then I called the reported at the Washington Post who ran a similar story. Yes, I was in the Washington area working when this story broke. Then since I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, I called a couple and actually paid one for an opinion. So I hope that is checking facts enough. The decision is Beck, at least that is what 2 labor lawyers told me. If I am picking on the wrong decision, please correct me. The Michigan restriction does not apply to the DC unions. Secondly union dues can be used for issue advocacy and a wide range of other uses that are used by the union (2 lawyers opinions, not mine) to hide political activity. Third the way you avoid having your money used is to opt out and get a refund. It is not an voluntary opt in - it is an opt out. According to both lawyers the opt out rate is so low as to be laughable in most unions. When I ask the lawyer I paid why, he laughed and said "If you have to work with people everyday, would you be willing to make your self a target of your co-workers?" So Ghost, you are part right. Both NPR and The Washington Post stand by their stories. For those of you reading this and wondering what is going on, scroll way back up the discussion. Sorry, it took me time to do the fact checking, as I said, I am neither a stay at home nor a lawyer, so it cost me money to check my facts. So while you were technically correct, I will stand on my comments and the good offices of the lawyers I talked to, NPR and the Post.
maallen
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.
Speechless and Ghost, No word on what the "so called liberals" said about Cuba's health care? It wasn't just Michael Moore (according to you who is way out there to the left) but it was, I am assuming, by mainstream liberals that said how great Cuba's system is. No explanation why all these so called great health care systems in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere are now slowly privatizing services, rationing health care to bring down costs. Hmmmm.....
maallen
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 4:09 p.m.
Ghost, Interesting how you avoided questions and only answered the ones that you thought suits you. 1) So the limited amount of people, your friends and neighbors, that you hung around thought the same way you did. Hmmmm, who would have thought? Birds of a feather flock together. So those handful of people speak for the rest? POP!!!!! 2) Waiting in line for a year for a simple cat scan is rationing. It wasn't a matter of just waiting, it was a matter of life and death. If he had waited for a year like the Canadian system wanted him to, he would have been dead. Health Care is rationed not only in Canada, but in other government run health care countries, like France, Germany, Britian, etc. My in-laws didn't move to the front of the line. They scheduled an appointment just like everyone else and when it was their turn their needs were met. It's just that here, there isn't waiting lists like in other countries. We have the machines, the hospitals, the doctors to support whereas in Canada, the government doesn't have enough money for the equipment and the hospitals so there is a long wait for people. POP!!! Not sure what land you live in, but here it is not who has the money moves in first. I have been with insurance and I have been without insurance, I have had money and I have not had money. I have been seen by doctors regardless. POP!!! Again, there is medicaid/medicare, counthy health insurance programs for people to use. POP!!! 3)Did you not read what Britian is doing to their health insurance program? They are changing it because it isn't working. As I stated earlier, they are giving the control back to the patient and doctor as to what and how their care is to be instead of the government deciding it. Apparently, you missed that part. POP!!! 4) Sorry to hear that your daughter and her husband couldn't find a policy for under $400 per month. She and her husband could have had a policy for $300 to $400 per month. POP!!! And if she had wanted to as an individual under 30 could have gotten a policy with a $1,000 deductible with a reputable carrier that does not ask medical questions for $50 a month. POP!!! "Substantial deductible" is so subjective. It means different to everyone. POP!!!!! 5) You can get meaningful insurance for not as much as one might think. It's just a matter of where to allocate your money. Do you want that cable with the extra channels and the latest and greatest cell phone? Or do you want insurance? POP!!!! 6) Contrary to your belief "one has to be absolutely destitute to qualify." You would be amazed as to who qualifies. And even if you are over the income threshold, Mediciad can still pay part of your medical bill. Heck, you can even incur the medical bills up to 3 months before you even apply for medicaid and it will pay the bills. POP!!!! We already have the system to help those that don't have health insurance. POP!!! Maallen: 6) No one forced your dad to have the surgery. No doctor, no hospital, no health insurance carrier. No one. It was his choice to do the surgery. The doctor can recommend the surgery, but he can't force someone to do the surgery. It wasn't up to some bean counter sitting in a dark room running the numbers and trying to figure out would it be cost effective to do this surgery or would it be better off for the person to die. "Wait, we are spending way too much on these surgeries, we have to cut back now...sorry you can't live anymore." No, it was left up to your father to make that choice. I hope that when I am at that age I still have that choice whether to do the surgery or not to do it. Either way, it will be my choice and not some bean counter in Washington. That would be a shame. The words "death panels" didn't exist in the document. But what did exist was forcing the doctors and having government employees show up on one's doorstep to discuss end of life issues. That's what existed in the health care reform bill. It's not up to the government. It's something that is up to the individuals, their families, and if they choose, their doctors or whomever. But not the government. End of life issues and the wisdom of undertaking expensive procedures ARE matters of serious discussion. If we dont have that discussion in some systematic and regular form our health care costs will continue to escalateand we already have the most expensive health care system in the world on a per capita basis. But Palin, Beck, and their ilk have prevented that discussion through their willful misrepresentation of death panels that did not exist, thereby scaring (they are good at scare; not so good on inform) people and politicians to such a degree that it will be impossible to have exactly that discussion. Good Night and Good Luck
Speechless
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 9:31 a.m.
Various conservative European elected officials, with some collusion from U.S.-based insurance and multinational health care companies, have sought to undermine single-payer care through intentional underfunding. That doesn't change the fact that the U.S. has the worst system of access to affordable medical care in the developed world. As Ghost wrote above, it is also by far the most rationed system in the world, based on personal wealth. Despite the letter writer's implication, the approved Obama plan doesn't go all that much beyond the willful inaction of the Bush years. Rest assured that our private-based medical system is a huge train wreck in process. Ironically, the only thing that might stave off this impending wreckage for a little while longer is the new Obama mandate that requires everyone to carry health insurance. Otherwise, healthy younger people would continue to opt out altogether in growing numbers and thus crash down corporate health care's entire house of cards. This summer, shortly before passage of limited health care reform, the health insurance industry in California was reported to be near the verge of financial collapse due to decreased participation by healthier people, who instead chose to forego any health coverage.
Hot Sam
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 6:58 a.m.
"... Tea Party members oppose the Democratic health care plan... as an unconstitutional expansion of the powers of government...." One does not need to belong to the Tea Party to know that this is true...
maallen
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 1:46 a.m.
Ghost and Speecheless, Are you saying former President Jimmy Carter, Barbara Walters, late Peter Jennings, CNN's Morgan Neill, Maria Shriver, Katie Couric, Kate Snow, shall I keep going, are all, how did you say it, "so- called liberals?" Funny, because they all mentioned how wonderful Cuba's health care system is, not just Michael Moore. Also forgot to mention back in March of this year Cuba's health care system has changed too. All Cuban overseas residents are required to buy a health insurance policy when visiting Cuba. And it also applies to all travelers, foreigners when entering into Cuba. Wow, looks like they are using the premiums on the health insurance policy to start paying for services given!
maallen
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 1:04 a.m.
Ghost, I am glad you asked, I have lived in both England and Canada. And the "absurd" comments you alluded to aren't so absurd. So, where did you live in Europe and how long ago? And did you ever get the chance to experience their health care system or did our military cover you? Apparently, you haven't been following what is going on in either of those countries. Britian's healthcare model works like this: Their government run bureaucracy takes a look at the type and expense of the surgery, how the surgery will improve the quality of your life and your life expectancy. If this particular government employee deems the surgery worthwhile, then you get to have it. Britian is making cuts in the healthcare. They are decentralizing the system. They are putting the power back into the hands of the patients and doctors instead of the government. Currently the system is designed so as the how and the where patients are treated, and by whom is determined by decisions from 150 entities known as primary care trusts. Britian's government has put forth a plan to abolish this and allow the decisions and choices go to the patients. Also, they are abolishing their many current government set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatments and surgeries. Wow, what a system. Having lived in Canada also, here's what is going on over there: Where once private practices were illegal are now becoming acceptable. Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec are combining public and private care to help reduce wait times and control public spending. In June of 2005 Canada's Supreme Court said this: ""The Courts majority found that waiting lists for health care services have resulted in deaths, have increased the length of time that patients have to be in pain and have impaired patients ability to enjoy any real quality of life. Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), No. 29272, Sup. Ct. of Canada 130 C.R.R. (2d)99; 2005 C.R.R. LEXIS 76. The Court voted to invalidate the prohibition on private insurance. In 2006 Quebec announced it would improve access within the public system for cardiology, radiation oncology, hip and knee replacements, and cataract surgery within 6 month after being diagnosed. And if the surgery can't be performed at a government facility within 6 months, then Quebec will pay for the surgery at a private institution with in Canada or outside of Canada. Wow, what a system....I could go on, but wouldn't want to bore the Ghost with such silly every day stuff that happens in these two countries health care system. Also, my in-laws had to come here from Canada just to get a cat scan done on their son because there was over a one year wait to have one done. The poor kid had so much pain in his head there was no way he could wait for a year. Then my sister in-law in Canada had to deliver her baby in a hospital 3 hours away because the hospitals nearby her didn't have the proper equipment to handle it. When you have a healthcare system like that, you know something is wrong. Health care by choice. Did you know you can get a policy for $100 per month? Heck, if you are under 30, you can get a policy for $50. But people aren't buying it because they don't want to give up their cable. They don't wnat to give up their cell phone. They don't want to give up their bar night. Then there is medicare/medicaid, county health plans that all offer health insurance. To answer your question, I would like for you to bust just one conservative "myth." Just one is all I am asking. Can't be that hard, can it?
Speechless
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 9:58 p.m.
"...The only so-called liberal who points to Cuba as a model (and then only its health care model) is Michael Moore, and he is as far out of the liberal mainstream as...." Michael Moore used Cuba as an example of social health system in order to demonstrate how much was still possible even in a poor economy with very limited resources and funds. As for Moore being found "far out of the liberal mainsteam," I wish that were true; my occasional complaint with him is that he spends too much time hanging around that particular mainstream. Many liberal Democrats on this side of the pond, including Obama, would qualify as centrist or center-right Christian Democrats in western European politics.
Speechless
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 9:33 p.m.
"... Tea Party members oppose the Democratic health care plan... as an unconstitutional expansion of the powers of government...." In Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia or anywhere else in the developed world (and in Cuba, too), it's safe to say that any middle class or working class resident who demanded the replacement of their publicly-funded, universal health care plan with the American "system" of medicine would be, shall we say, widely regarded as unwell and in serious need of clinical attention.
maallen
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 5:36 p.m.
The mainstream liberals pointed to how well cuba's health care system is. Mainstream liberals pointed to how well Canada's health care system is. Mainstream liberals pointed to how well England's health care system is. And all of these countries are rund by the government's socialistic ideas. And guess what? It's not working. Canada is now allowing private practices to be set up and letting people pay out of their own pockets. Can you see what is happening? The rich are the only ones over there who can afford the best health care while the rest suffer with canada's socialistic health care. Cuba has stated they can no longer afford health care as it is. They have to change. England is rationing their care once again. And are now downsizing their socialistic run health care. So yes, the mainstream liberals pointed to all 3 of these systems as a model for the United States to follow this year. And after everything was said and done, we see what some have already known, government run health care does not work.
American Family
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 5:17 p.m.
Well, I must say that I really enjoy bantering with you and the others here. I like the debate. While you all now know that I subscribe to the Conservative beliefs, and I am very sure you and the others are committed Liberals, in the long run we all want what is best for our country. I do not believe the current course is a good one, and will lead to despair for all, and a lower living standard. You guys do. I guess only time will tell. Name calling and such like things really do not advance anyones agenda. So if it seems that I have done that; I am sorry. I do not think I am the "silly right", just as you and the others are not really the "looney left." As Americans we are free to disagree. That is part of the experiment the Founding Fathers created. So lets just hope the people what want to cause us harm, Liberals and Conservatives alike do not prevail after all. Remember that the people want to harm us only see Americans.
American Family
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 4:40 p.m.
That's it? Fizzle......
American Family
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 4:18 p.m.
I am endlessly fascinated by those who are obsessed with people that can not see how much endless handouts hurt the people they are trying to help in the long run. What was the saying... Feed a man fish that you have caught, and help him survive today. Teach him how to fish and watch him survive tomorrow and the rest of his days; whether or not you are there to hand him a fish or not. Liberals, Hippies, Progressives, Socialists, Marxist, Communists. One in the same, just wearing different costumes. Their ideas have been tried the world over. Each time failed. Let see if our History Buff can prove their idea has flourished and made the people prosperous and happy. Cuba is the closest example for us to look at. Have you seen photos of Havana lately? How many Florida Boat people have braved death to go to Cuba? Silly Liberals. Your ideas are for kids, or the naive. Time to leave the Commune and join the grown ups that have to work and be responsible for them selves and their families. Self reliance baby. That is the American way. If a man or woman needs to take two jobs to support his or her family then so be it. To sit on your butt and demand others take care of you is simply sad and degrading to all involved. If you are down and on hard times, of course most people will lend you a hand. But when you no longer try to support yourself, you admit failure. To yourself and your family. Can you really look yourself in the mirror then? Look your family in the eye? Liberals you do not understand what you are doing to people when you "help" them for a lifetime. Shame on you all.
Speechless
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 12:22 p.m.
"...This election is in large part about whether President Obama will continue to have the power to respond forcefully to the many challenges... at home and abroad..." I take issue with the letter writer, who is under the impression that Obama represents a major break with the policies of the Bush administration. While there has been a partial lifting of that cloud of darkness, for the most part it's been a continuation of the same. Obama has governed as Bush Lite far more often than not. The right wing rage aimed at Obama makes little sense. As for deficit stimulus spending, the restricted efforts by the early Roosevelt administration to jumpstart the economy in the 1930s were helpful, but fell well short of ending the Depression. Then comes World War II, with federal spending on an gigantic, Keynesian scale. The Depression just disappears. "... Taking and taking, day after month after year and not help themselves is lazy and wrong. How can anyone feel self worth if they are 100% at the mercy of someone else 100% of the time.... No, Lazy is lazy...." I agree. It's time for America's corporate leadership to stop being boardroom couch potatoes who spend their "working" lives doing little else besides attending meetings, jetting off to seminars, and generally freeloading (to the tune of six or seven figures) off the hard labor of their employees — the ones who do the actual, day-to-day work of running the business. Execs need to roll up their sleeves and cease their role as on-the-job financial dependents.
American Family
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
Well, first I am not whining. Stating the fact that never ending entitlements and no motivation to get back to work and contribute to the "welfare" (your words not mine) pot will 100% collapses the State and Federal treasuries is a true fact. Think about it. Try to think with your mind, and not just with your heart. I am the first one to want help out those in need. I will give up my dinner so another can eat. However, if I have to pay for them, pay for everything they need or WANT, and they are not willing to help themselves... in time I will be broke also, and then who will help that person? Heck who will help me as I am now as desuetude as he is? I just think that when a person is down and out, we should help them. But while we are helping them, they should be looking for a way to take care of themselves also. To just sit on the butt, is simply wrong. Taking and taking, day after month after year and not help themselves is lazy and wrong. How can anyone feel self worth if they are 100% at the mercy of someone else 100% of the time.. Then they have children and now I have to take care of the child then children also??! No, Lazy is lazy. And you are right, there are many other issues to worry about, but we need to fix our own backyards first. Liberals don't understand this. There is no forever to welfare, unless you want to keep people 100% dependent on the handout and kindness of other people for their every need. This sounds like slavery to me, and we fought a war to stop such a terrible thing here in America. Why do liberals want to resurrect such a thing using ""PC" words? A Rose is a Rose by any other name.......
Peter Baker
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:24 a.m.
@ American Family: To be whining about welfare being the biggest problem in a state like Michigan, where everybody and their brother knows (or is) a hard working good citizen without a job (meaning no paycheck to contribute to social security and no income to be taxed) is about as big an example of misplaced anger as I can think of. These people aren't jobless because they're too lazy and rich people's taxes are too high. Corporate profit motive, accelerated by lax regulation and consumer willingness to over borrow and spend got us to where we are.
Jay Allen
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 7:58 a.m.
I am glad that "opinion" was listed in the front of this as the FACTS are few and far between. Might I suggest before AA.Com allows trash such as this to be posted that you actually READ and research what is being published. As many have said, this is an extremely skewed view and it is a view from the far, far, extreme far left. Only those few that are even more out in left field can attempt to substantiate it. Just keep printing that money and handing out bailouts. Yep, it is sure working better than what we "had" [roll eyes]. eli nathans, anytime you wish to discuss this, just LMK.
maallen
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 5:20 p.m.
Oh, you mean during the time Obama has been involved with the budget process since 2005, for the beginning of 2006? It makes it even look worse, going from 8.5 trillion to 13.5 trillion That's 5 trillion dollars! You can go back in history as far as you want to justify your numbers. However, it is important to look at what is happening now and into the future. Spending 3.5 trillion in 3 years or 4.5 trillion in 4 years is crazy and unprecedented. It's time for the democrats to stop spending. And yes, congress has a very big say in the budget process. And the party in control can stop the crazy spending. Unfortunately, the democrats chose not to cut back on spending and only added to it. That is why the majority of the people are upset. That is why they are asking those that are in charge to stop this crazy spending. Since they refused to stop, that is why they will be voted out of office.
maallen
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 3:53 p.m.
What is the logic of having children stay on parents health insurance until age 26, when in fact, these adult children could get health insurance on their own for a lot cheaper premium? Oh, what if they had pre existing conditions? Well, State of Michigan has 5 carriers that don't ask medical questions, or deny those with pre existing conditions. We already have a congress that has spent 4.5 trillion dollars since 2007. And it isn't working. How much more do you want the government to spend? A It's time to clean out the chicken coop in Washington.
E. Manuel Goldstein
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 3:12 p.m.
Thank you President Obama, and congress, for passing health reform legislation that: allows my children to remain on my health insurance until age 26; that does not allow health insurance firms to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions; that closes the senior "donut hole". Of course many Americans would have preferred single-payer,or medicare-for-all as an option, but it was a good start. The Republican plan is to abort these health reforms - that would be a step backward in my opinion. Also, I think not enough stimulus money was spent in order to get our economy going. We need another stimulus spending bill. If Republicans regain control of congress, their plan is to continue and increase tax breaks for the wealthy. This would be another step backwards.
Hot Sam
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 1:20 p.m.
Some statistics and facts are like bikini's... What they reveal is exceptional... What they conceal is essential... A dense partisan fog prevents this discussion from going any where but back and forth. The direction we are heading in is simply not sustainable...our country needs a large dose of some strong tonic. It is apparent that the current bunch is not going to administer it. It is time for change.
maallen
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.
To increase our debt 4.5 trillion in just four years is just crazy. And all you have is something that was said over 6 years ago by someone who was not in charge of the budget like our current congress is?
E. Manuel Goldstein
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 12:16 p.m.
To quote arch Republican and last Vice President of the US, Dick Cheney, "Deficits don't matter". Spare me the hyperbole.
maallen
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:33 a.m.
Here are the numbers for our debt from 2000 to 20010: Date Dollar Amount 09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 From 2000 to 2007, we went from 5.6 trillion to 9 trillion over 8 years. An increase of 3.4 trillion Now when the Democrats took over in 2007, we went from 9 trillion to 13.5 trillion. An increase of 4.5 trillion in 4 years! Do we need more spending by the Democrats? No. Obama and the Democrats have had a free spending reign since 2007. Enough is enough. It is time for some good change.
American Family
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:25 a.m.
Well it is easy to tell the difference. If a person has put money in to the "Social Security Pot" from THEIR own pay check, and expect to receive a Social Security check when they are of age to RETIRE (or earlier if they become handicapped for some reason beyond any reasonable hope of returning to the WORK FORCE), then they are NOT lazy. If they expect a Tax Refund or Rebate, and have PAID taxes, they are NOT lazy. If they stand and or sit on their bottom, and have NOT put any money into the "Social Security Pot" from THEIR own pay check, act like they are on a life long vacation, and want to reach in to my pocket for money then they ARE lazy. If they expect a Tax Refund or Rebate, but alas, have not PAID taxes, they are lazy. See? Simple. Only liberals can not tell the difference :)
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.
And who are those people? Definitely not the vast majority of the unemployed or underemployed people I know.
American Family
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:54 a.m.
People who struggle, but are truly trying to make a living are not lazy. People with their hand out, and doing nothing are "lazy".
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:45 a.m.
Calling people who struggle to make a living "lazy" seems pretty elitist to me.
American Family
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:36 a.m.
To the Left Wing persons, I read with delight how you very gracefully show your elitist attitudes to anyone that is not a committed left wing liberal. You as a person, may be very nice, but your world views do not fit what most American's think. You solidly are in the "America is bad" and "Share the wealth with the lazy" crowd. That is okay. It takes all kinds. But when you call people names in your very "nose up in the air, while I am looking at you... you unwashed person"; you show how narrow minded you are. You give that some thought next time you make fun of other people beliefs. Remember Sir, We conservative believing people, by far out number the looney Left believers here in the Land of the Free and home of the Brave. If that is a sad fact to you and your like minded lefties, I am sure France or ever Cuba will greet you with open arms. Bush, as flawed as he was, kept the United States safe on his watch. A sneak attack does not count. Did Perl Harbor count against the Democrat sitting in office at the time? No. After the fact. That is what counts. How do you as a world leader react and defend your people? FDR did a great job on how he responded. So did "W". How is the current one doing? Making America look strong and able to defend her people and lands? No. And that is where he is failing sadly. America is weak looking to people that believe "might makes right." And one more thing. Mr. Tax and spend the country in to the ground, has indebted the United States more that ALL of his predecessors combined. We where about 1T in debit at the start of HIS watch, now we are over 4T. All on HIS watch. Good day and Good luck defending that in November. American's have been awoken, and next month the toilet will flush away the yuck.
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.
If we aren't allowed to blame Bush for 9/11, then surely we can't blame Obama for the economy.
DonBee
Tue, Oct 5, 2010 : 1:21 a.m.
Unions collect dues that are very hard to escape and use that money to back candidates. I consider that equal to corporations backing candidates. I don't want to stop unions, I think they are useful. I do want to see the unions not spend member dues for political purposes. The lastest issue for me is the decision by the AFT in Washington DC to spend millions in member dues to defeat the current mayor of Washington DC - so the new mayor will fire the Chancellor of the DC schools, who has made tremendous strides in fixing the schools in DC according to every news outlet in Washington DC. This to my mind is just as bad as a corporation spending money to defeat a candidate. Agree that both corporations and unions do not belong funding campaigns and you have my vote.
E. Manuel Goldstein
Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 10:29 p.m.
@Don Bee: I don't remember ever seeing where the US Supreme Court has ruled that unions are citizens, as they have done with corporations. In fact, the right to organize and bargain collectively was barely put in place in the 1930's in the US. If you are advocating a return to policies where labor unions are illegal, then I'm not with you. Labor produces all wealth. Many corporations are parasitic.
DonBee
Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 2:17 p.m.
@Luis Vazquez - I will vote in favor of this if unions are also included. Better yet, lets ban all funds that are not sent directly to the candidate. No third party money in the elections and candidates are responsible for their ads. If they are false all the laws apply, no exemptions. Deal?
E. Manuel Goldstein
Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 12:37 p.m.
Regardless of who "wins" or "loses" the upcoming elections, one thing has become crystal clear to me and many Americans: We must amend the US Constitution to settle once and for all that corporations are not citizens, nor do corporations deserve to have the rights of citizens. Corporate money has totally corrupted the entire political system and all political parties.
Jimmy Olsen
Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : noon
@Ghost "Bush II had had on his desk since April 2001 a report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S." By all accounts he did absolutely nothing to take action in response to that memo. His failure to take that report seriously puts the blood of 3000+ on his hands." Please tell me you don't believe that not one ounce of Bin Laden's activities crossed a former Presidents desk before Bush II and it is all his fault. Come on, the run up to that crossed the term of many Presidents.
Milton Shift
Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 10:45 a.m.
@a2citizen The system of bets they made rode on the assumption that there could be a market which would perpetually rise and never dive, even for a moment. The value of the derivatives vastly exceeded anything else here and their unwinding is the cause of the damage. The bankers and wealthy stockholders are entirely to blame for this crisis and all the costs incurred should come from their personal funds and assets. It's time for some "personal responsibility," except unlike the right wingers (who have nothing but contempt for the working class,) I don't just use this phrase to justify indifference to awful working conditions and resultant poverty.
Donald A. DeSmith
Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 10:38 a.m.
So Obama following the policies of Herbert Hoover and FDR was an improvement? They prolonged the Depression by how long? 10 years? Obamanomics has been a disaster. Bush wasn't great on economics either so we do need a change. I recommend "The Road to Serfdom" as a good place to start.
DonBee
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 10:58 p.m.
For a smaller military: 1) Admit drones are the wave of the future, that would mean that aircraft carriers and major air bases around the world could be downsized. Smaller, faster drone carriers could be produced that would offer more sorties than aircraft carriers do today. 2) Bring home the military from the various post WWII locations. No more troops in Japan, Germany or the UK. Keep an occasional logistics base and sign base rights for surge purposes around the world. 3) Make the military a desirable career, not a 5 and out that it is for most now. Make it possible for more enlisted folks to get a degree and become officers. To that end, close the ROTC programs. 4) Shorten procurement programs. In many cases 1 or 2 of something are built each year to keep a production line open, that increases the cost per item by a factor of as much as 10. 5) Take the gold plating off specifications and force pre-acceptance testing. The M2 Bradley is a good example of both of these problems. 6) Move all the aircraft to the Air Force, all the ships to the Navy and all the Ground Troops to the Army. Duplication of programs is a huge waste of money 7) Rebuilt the Humint capability that existed in the 1950s 8) Return to not sending troops without a declaration from Congress 9) Remove all the non-military programs from the Defense budget - welfare programs belong in Health and Human Services 10) Make the country independent of other nations for strategic materials and energy. Recycle, reuse, build sustainable infrastructure Do these 10 things and you will reduce the military size and budget significantly and not reduce the capabilities of the military by very much.
stunhsif
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 9:22 p.m.
@DonBee, ' My thought is we need a party that gets out of people's personal lives and moves as much of the cost of government to user fees as possible. You use it, you pay for it. A much smaller professional military, the Federal Government giving back whole chunks of authority back to the states. Why should the Federal Government dictate speed limits or what courses to teach in Pre-school? ' Most excellent, agree with everything you said. I agree with you about 85% of the time on A2.com and to laser in on the above post, I would ask you, how on earth does the military become a much smaller professional military? May I suggest that moving forward, we allow our military to fight war as it should be fought and as it was back in our parents and grandparents day. Forget about being "politically correct". How on earth are you supposed to fight religious zealots that are willing to hide out in their churches/mosques and civlian's homes and not risk collateral damage? Based on this DonBee, how on earth do we reduce the cost of war. We must stop being politically correct and allow our military to engage the enemy and use our technology to reduce the cost of war. At some point, the opponents "rational thinkers if their are any" will tell their military folks to go fight and engage their enemy and quit hiding amongst their women and children. On second thought, if they said that, they would probably be shot for treason. That is treason without reason!!!!!
DonBee
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 8:46 p.m.
On the flip side are the folks who want to keep raising taxes on people over $200,000 income as if there is a magic line at $199,999 and $200,000. What is magic about that number? I find it interesting that in a good year a farmer with a corn farm can make $300-400,000 and in a bad year they can make nothing. So they have to deal with the changes in the market. Does that mean the farmer is a bad guy in the good years and Ok in the bad years? There is so much waste in the current system it is not funny. 800 laptops in Detroit, various scandals in the Federal Government, Congress People and staff that have not paid their taxes. A candidate for State office on the edge of defaulting on a condo. It goes on and on. How do we really fix things? Neither party seems to have a useful answer and there are no real leaders on the national scene. Show me someone who is really leading. President Bush - nope, President Obama - nope. I almost feel like we need Kennedy and Reagan back again. The US needs new ideas on how to make government work, but I think we will need a new political party before we get any. My thought is we need a party that gets out of people's personal lives and moves as much of the cost of government to user fees as possible. You use it, you pay for it. A much smaller professional military, the Federal Government giving back whole chunks of authority back to the states. Why should the Federal Government dictate speed limits or what courses to teach in Pre-school? No party would sign up for this sort of a platform - the Republicans will not get out of people's personal lives, and the democrats either - they just want to pick on different things. User fees, nope, everyone wants loop holes for their favorite things. Oh well, let them eat Cake.
stunhsif
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 8:40 p.m.
@Scylding. Wow, great posts my friend. In my humble opinion, you bring "shock and awe" to A2.com at times. Most people ( who disagree with you) avoid responding to you because they have no reasonable response and for those that do try, you come back and drop a "bunker bomb" on them like GWB did on the Taliban in the middle east numerous times. @ AmericanFamily, Well said, for all the garbage people throw at GWB, I will fully agree with you. He kept this country safe during his watch ( don't blame him for 9-11) which is the single most important function of the federal government. Good post!
David Briegel
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 8:11 p.m.
Yes Ghost, the "good old days" of the Republicans in complete control of all branches and aspects of govt. The good old days of quadrupling the debt, quadrupling earmarks and pork, blackmailing K Street, My Pet Goat. Golly, we were great! Did they do one single thing for real people like, say health care. Nope. We couldn't possibly have looked more weak than we did on 9-11 while Bush-Cheney fiddled, contemplating how to give grandma's Social Security to Wall Street! Unless you consider when the Chicken Hawk NEOCON'S tucked their tail between their legs and cut and run for their folly in Iraq, leaving the Taliban and OsamaWho to run Afghanistan and NW Pakistan. And now we are sending our finest to try to fix that mess 9 yrs later! That's OK though, they aren't Republican dead. Can you imagine re-electing these geniuses for more of that? More tax cuts for billionaires. That is their only answer to every problem! A force to reckon with, indeed!
AAFish
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 8:04 p.m.
@American Family -- You are -- really -- a parody of yourself and rest of the Silly Right. Your lamenting of the so-called "weakness" that the USA has supposedly exhibited under Obama sounds like the frustrations of the 3rd grade schoolyard bully. You really WANT to be able to impose the USA's will on the rest of the world, as indeed we have been trying to do for decades -- but -- gosh whiz golly gee -- this just isn't being done under the current Administration. Such a shame. Your pseudo-quote of Obama's "apologizing" to the rest of the world is a figment of your -- and other righties's -- imaginations. What he did was admit that America has made mistakes. (Well, duh -- everyone -- except those blinkered by far right ideology -- already knew that.) You don't give a "rat's butt" what the "rest" of the world thinks of America. But apparently -- you can't make the connection between this attitude and our embassies being bombed, our citizens being taken hostage, and airplanes being flown into our skyscrapers? Then, you're beyond help. And -- by the way -- the "crazies" that I fear the most are the ones right here within our own borders. Tea Party wackos, Palin-worshippers, those who want to arm everyone, including criminals -- (NRA -- are you listening? I doubt it.)
American Family
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 4:36 p.m.
To Edward R Murrow's Ghost: No, not a joke. Under the current President, most of the nuts of the world that want to cause us great harm think we have become a nation of spineless jelly fish, ripe for the taking and kicking around. Mr. "Im sorry for America's might, and prosperity; please forgive us" has made the United States look weak. And looking weak in the world of crazies is not a good thing. For good or not good, history will judge. "W" was a force to recon with, and the crazies feared him, and US. I do not know about liberals, but I want to live in safety and prosperity. If the liberals that love what Mr. ISFAMGFP (figure that out) is attempting to do to America, I say: look at England, France, and Spain. See how safe it has become there by appeasing the crazies? "W" was not by any means perfect, but American's were a heck of allot better off in the world picture then. And, no, I could not give a rats butt what the "rest" of the world thinks of America. Who does the world come to when they need someone to save their bacon; when they have lost total control of their sorry countries? That is right. America. So why would I want to follow the Dems, when they are leading us to total destruction and perceived weakness in most every way? Yep, give me the good ol' Bush Era days again.
David Briegel
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.
Ghost, more accurately than even Eisenhower could have imagined, it truly is Perpetual War Profiteering!
David Briegel
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 1:44 p.m.
Mike, Your "re-distribution of wealth" is precisely what has occurred over the last 30 years as that promised "trickle down" actually gushed up into the hands of fewer and fewer people. And you left out inherited, that most noble of Republican "values"! It is obvious to all that the victors of the class warfare own the Republican party.
Scylding
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 1:08 p.m.
@mike from saline: Why, thank you, sir. I have seen many a great post from you, too, here and elsewhere! Nice to have allies like you; being a conservative near Ann Arbor can be a bit lonely, sometimes.
mike from saline
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.
@Scylding Great posts! And deadly accurate. All "Democrat, Liberal, Left-wing, progressive, [or whatever they're calling themselves these days] domestic ecconomic policies, are based on re-distribution of wealth. That means taking money from people who get there butts out of bed 5 or 6 days a week and go to work, and give that money to people who don't. It's as simple as that! Fortunatly we still live in a country where most people still believe that wealth should be EARNED, SAVED, and SPENT...not re-distributed.
Ian
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 9:53 a.m.
Don't let the establishment fool you. Democratic Leadership = Republican Leadership. There is no difference between them because both parties serve the same master. That is why no matter which party is in power, things will get worse for the average person. Wasn't the Democrats going to stop the wars if they were elected? Both parties have been hijacked. That is reason for the rise of the Tea Party (a true grassroots movement that is made up of 40% democrats and independents). Tea Party people are probably the most politically informed group of people. They've woken up to the lies that have been spewed for decades. Unforunately, still too many people are brainwashed and believe what they are told by the MSMs and our government.
Scylding
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 9:14 a.m.
@TruBlue Well, I tried to post a more complete response, but it isnt appearing, so heres an abbreviated one. Was the Wikipedia entry on Scylding good? Your "defense" of government-run concerns, and why we would want the government to run more than it does already, is my best offense. Regarding Social Security, you admit that congress pillaged it to compensate for profligacies elsewhere. In other words, the government sabotaged the government...oh, and us. And this proves that the government should be entrusted with more how.....? Moreover, you state, and I quote, "[t]he government mortgage finance 'companies' - indeed, they started to get into trouble WHEN it was mandated (willy-nilly by vote of Congress) that they 'follow racial equality guidelines.'" Skating on thin ice there, aren't you? I prefer simply to say that they were forced to loan money to people who weren't ready for the responsibilities of home ownership and leave race out of it. (But youre a liberal, so dont worry, nobody will call you on what you are implying.) Anyway, again, you are defending quasi-governmental organizations by saying, "well, if it weren't for the government (i.e. congress), government would work!" This is your defense of socialized medicine? Tell me, how long will it be before congress pulls the rug out from under that, too, eh? I will remind you of the sage words of the Gipper: "government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem." As recently as February of 2009, heady days just following the anointing of your messiah, 59% of Americans still believed that: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2009/59_still_believe_government_is_the_problem. I doubt their mood has changed in your favor. Somehow, that "rationality" of yours isn't working out so well.
lester88
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 8:54 a.m.
For Eli and Tru2blu76 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75296 "The immediate future looks grim for Democrats." Eli, you are spot on about this one.
DonBee
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.
TruBlu76 - I would suggest you live in the UK, France or other of the other countries that you name for successful health care. The wait for knee replacement can run into years, the time for cancer treatment might be 6 months, anything elective - take a trip to India, the US, or someplace else with an open medical system. The hospitals are mostly run down, especially in the rural areas, the people overworked and in their mind under paid. Doctors and medical staff have called in sick many times in the last decade to protest their pay and working conditions. At the very basic level it works, keep prices of medicine to a minimum (little or no drug research that is not state funded), keep people from filling lawsuits (your treatment did not work, so sorry), string out non-critical procedures (that way you level the overall use of facilities) and send people how as fast as you can from hospitals or never let them in (try riding in a speeding ambulance with someone you love having a complex birth that was supposed to be done at home in rush hour). We can fix much of the problem in the US with health care with a few simple changes: 1) Deal with the issue of malpractice - one national registry for issues, arbitration for damages, criminal penalties - not civil beyond the actual cost of the issue. 2) Bring preventive medicine to the forefront - keep people health, don't wait for them to get sick. Return nurses to schools as a starting point. 3) Open the doors on the medical schools and nursing schools - if there are more trained people out there, the prices they can charge will fall - right now doctors are a scare resource 4) Allow Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to practice by themselves for routine care. Let them setup storefronts in Meijer. The Health Care (Insurance) Bill did not deal with any of the real underlying causes. Until we fix these things, we will NOT stop the upward spiral of health care. All 4 were offered as parts of the Health Care (Insurance) Bill by members on both sides. The House leadership did not want to include any of it. After all Malpractice funds much of the Democratic Machine, like corporate money funds much of the Republican Machine. I would love to have coffee with you in a decade and see if we really fixed anything with the Health Care (Insurance) Bill.
lester88
Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 8:31 a.m.
@Tru2blu76 "Some of us who are versed in the science wonder what those like you mean when you say that human-caused climate change has been discredited." Did I say that? No. And the memo I am referring to is from the Obama Administration on what to call climate change. Is there climate change? Yes. The why is still up for debate. You can believe what you want but dont put words in my mouth. I happen to be someone who is not convinced. So keep wondering. People like you need to quit this "us" versus "them" and I'm smarter than you mentality.
a2citizen
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 11:56 p.m.
@Milton.Sorry, but I believe homeowners (your word, not mine) borrowing too much WAS the major cause of the financial crisis. The repackaged debt was based in their notes.
Scylding
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 11:53 p.m.
@Saalberg You said: "I have yet to hear a GOP voice rationally explain how having all Americans guaranteed affordable health care is a bad idea." Here's your rational response, in monosyllables for easy understanding: I do not owe you health care. "Guaranteed" means government spending taxes, Saalberg. You know, it would be great if everyone could have their own home, too, but look where that got us. Freddie and Fannie (quasi-governmental agencies under many layers of government regulation and oversight) made it possible for untold thousands of people to have their own home who otherwise couldn't have afforded it, but a funny thing happened? They couldn't afford it. They failed to make the payments. That's why a home is not a right. We as taxpayers did not owe these people homes, but now we're paying for them. It would be nice if everyone could have a car and food from Whole Foods, too, but getting a $30,000 hybrid and shopping weekly at Whole Foods with other people's money is not a right. Not yet, at least. Conservatives tend to have this odd fundamental belief, and it's kind of hard to shake it out of them. For some reason, they think that nobody will spend their hard-earned money as wisely as they will. I suppose they believe this because they think that only they know how much that money is really worth, because only they know how much time, effort, blood, and sweat went into earning it. You liberals, on the other hand, have the far more rational belief that the government has a much better idea of what your money is worth than you do, and will therefore spend it far more wisely than you will, so you quite logically can't wait to fork more and more of it over to them; and, not content to live out your dream on your own, you want to force everyone else to do it, too. Of course, the track record of government totally supports the rationality of this. Totally. Why, just look at Freddie and Fannie, and Social Security, and the VA system, Medicare, Medicaid, the Post Office - it all works so well, and so far under budget. No unfunded liabilities looming with any of those programs/organizations, nope. It's that pesky government thing, Saalberg.
andy
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 10:58 p.m.
Oh, and to a person who posted about the GOP blocking affordable healthcare, you need to check the facts. The GOP actually put forth several attempts to bring down healthcare costs. But this involved reigning in frivolous lawsuits. Which, since it seems the Dems are so heavily backed by trial lawyers, was blocked by the Dems. Healthcare costs can be brought down, but not by one the dimensional means that are being implemented.
andy
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 10:51 p.m.
you need to remember that a lot of what Bush had to deal with were regulations from the Clinton administration. The Bush policies were not what what lead to our current economic conditions. This isn't just the U.S., its world wide. What's happening now in the U.S. is being made worse due to new policies being implemented by our current administration and Congress. Our government is bankrupting our country by overspending. What we need now is leadership that will cut spending, repeal an ill thought government run healthcare idea and give a big size 13 to Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the democrats. If you want healthcare reform, letting the government run it is the worst thing that could be done. How can we, as a country, expect to recover when our government is rapidly burning money faster that they can print it. Obama was and is a joke. Then again, last time we had a president this bad was in 1976-1980
Jon Saalberg
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 10:12 p.m.
To the righties: it is a fact that the GOP is focused on blocking the President's agenda at any cost, - that means the American people are not as important as moving the country forward. You don't have to take my word for it. GOP leaders have said so in print and on FOX "news". They are proud of their obstructionism.I have yet to hear a GOP voice rationally explain how having all Americans guaranteed affordable health care is a bad idea. If all Americans have health care, they will go to the doctor before they are seriously ill, and save our country billions of dollars in avoidable health care costs.Czars were a creation of a GOP President, one of your icons, no less. The bank bailouts were instigated by Bush, not Obama. It is really tiresome that we cannot move our country forward, and that TP people are more interested in where the President was born and what religious faith he follows. What a waste of time.If it is "left-wing" to want to spend more on education, health care and affordable housing, and cut defense spending (which, by the way, this President has NOT done), I'm all for that. As the bumper sticker says, why is there always money for wars, but not education?
Stephen Landes
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 9:33 p.m.
President Obama is the deficit spending champ of all time. He totally fails the Burke partnership you cite in your article -- there is no keeping faith with the future when you total up $1.4 TRILLION in budget deficits in one year in office with more to come, and there is no partnership with the past when you totally gut the Constitution to create more and more power in the federal government including the appointment of countless "czars" who sidestep the advise and consent role of the US Senate. The latest of these czars being Elizabeth Warren who will in all but title only run the new credit agency and is accountable to no one but President Obama. That simply isn't right and it isn't Constitutional. President Obama is an incredible failure at everything except his personal, ultra-left wing agenda. He is a failure at maintaining any kind of budget control, a failure at "protecting and defending the Constitution", and a failure at maintaining and enhancing the image a prestige of the United States. Iran, North Korea, the Palestinians, Hugo Chavez, and Castro are all laughing at the US and doing exactly what they darn well please, most of which is harmful to the interests of peace-loving, western, democracies.
AAFish
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 9:20 p.m.
The amnesia exhibited here is utterly staggering. Anyone who was paying even a modicum of attention at the beginning of this economic mess knew that it was going to take at least two years to fix, and probably more. Certainly, the recovery is slow. (Yes, there IS a recovery in progress, the blathering of the right notwithstanding). People are frustrated, particularly the unemployed. (I've been there, and I remember.) But anyone who trusts the Republicans to improve things is totally delusional. Return them to power, and hang on for the ride -- right off a cliff.
Steve Pepple
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 9:18 p.m.
A comment containing a personal attack was removed.
Scylding
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 9:15 p.m.
@ Mr. Nathans (author of this opinion piece) You said, at least twice, that Obama and the Democrats have averted a second great depression. You sure about that? Let the tax rates climb back up and economic activity will decrease. Job creation will continue to elude Obama like a hot date that leaves him standing outside the restaurant door holding a rose. Tax revenues will stagnate. Meanwhile, the government just keeps getting bigger and bigger, and more costly. Given all of that, we could be in the same boat 5 years down the road, or worse. That's called....a depression. Get it? Stick with history.
Milton Shift
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 9:07 p.m.
johnnya2, your analogy doesn't apply because Obama didn't change anything. He has continued almost every policy of the former Bush administration. I've made a fun game out of replacing Obama's name in news articles with "Bush" and telling people it's from 2008. They fall for it.
Ian
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 9:04 p.m.
Clarification. When I say they above, I mean both the Democratic and Republican leadership.
Ian
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 8:59 p.m.
Stop arguing and please watch "The Obama Deception." We are all on the same team. We all want peace and prosperity and they want to destroy it.
A2D2
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 8:53 p.m.
At the end of the day, the best we can hope for is a legislative branch that is led by the party not holding the presidency. At least then we'll have a stalemate............. I've often wondered, are politicians inherently dishonest people or do they just get that way after they're in Washington?. Other than that, I really enjoy the political process!
LXIX
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 8:19 p.m.
Elections years are always confusing. Do we vote for the Republicats or Demoblicans? Clinton slashed fusion funding and trashed the Glass-Steagall banking regulations. Yet the Demoblican Congress could not simply restore what had worked since 1933 - separation of the investment mills and banking. Bush/Cheney? Go see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Obama? Like Bush, he is a wartime President and can do whatever he wants to vis-a-vis Executive Order. National Health is a National Security issue - make it so. Import quotas on China - National Security issue. Put Bush/Cheney on trial at Gitmo - Classified. Start another space race to mars worth trillion$ A national electric grid powered by sun and wind An all-electric transportation system (excluding rec vehicles/boats) All in the interest of National Security. Arrest all the suits at Goldman Sachs for terrorism - preventative National Security. Yes. He could. Pretty scary huh? Will Obama End the war? Heck no! Somebody thinks that 60 D. Senators are required to screw in a light bulb... the D. facto facts are that 60 is based upon a procedural agreement able to be broken at any time. A simple majority rules (but the same would also be true if the Republicats held a majority, too). What I wish to know is whether Michigan could sustain itself and be better off if it were to secede the Union? Or maybe become join Ontario as a Newer World Order Country.
David Briegel
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 8:13 p.m.
Imagine the Orange Man as the Speaker of the House. If that doesn't give you pause nothing will. Remember when his noble team of crooks were carving up the loot from K Street? Remember when that same team quadrupled earmarks and ran up huge deficits? Remember Billy Tauzin and his 2 million per year bribe? Don't you wish Social Security had been handed over to the banksters? Don't you wish our grand children had to pay for a couple more botched wars? It is sad that our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan today because the Chicken Hawk NEOCON'S cut and run for their folly in Iraq. Can you name the noble patriots in charge of banking before Dodd and Frank? Didn't think so. Do you relly believe corporate ownership of our experiment in democracy is a good thing? You ain't seen nuthin' yet if you give these clowns another chance. Naysayers need longer memories!
American Family
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 7:52 p.m.
Republican victories in November could send us back to the secure Bush-era policies. Thank God, and let us pray. I will never buy in to any form of Socialism.
johnnya2
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 7:44 p.m.
1. Democrats have been in control for two years. The economy HAS rebounded and is growing. Maybe not at the rate you would like, but it is growing. 2.Obama's job creation over the last year is almost exactly what is was over the course of 8 years with Bush and the republicans in charge on a average per month basis. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ 3. Blaming Obama for the problem is like blaming the QB who enters the game in the fourth quarter down by 5 touchdowns. He brings it back to two touchdowns and then blame the loss on him. 4. Health care reform had its first part take effect 10 days ago. I am glad stupid people think they know the effect of a 10 day old law, which is not even close to fully implemented. 5. Those who criticize Eli for"the view from Western Ontario" apparently can not read he is a RESIDENT of Ann Arbor. Of course, the Canadian government, which has health care for all is in much better shape economically because they have strict rules in regards to their banking industry and health care. No deregulation up there. 6. When is the last time a republican balanced a federal budget as president? The last democratic one did. The current one needs the opportunity to fix what the previous 8 years screwed up on. 7. Read the republican new contract on america. Tell me specific plans in there. In fact, if you read the original, here is what the has been aid by a libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, stated, "... the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%" as of 2000. Good job Newt
jcj
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 6:35 p.m.
BTW $100,000 for about an hour is what Al Gore gets for spreading his "green" propaganda!
jcj
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 6:31 p.m.
Too bad the Obama policies have not allowed Mr Nathans an opportunity to find a "job" in the US!
stunhsif
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 6:23 p.m.
After reading this opinion piece I had a hearty laugh as it was very apparent from the beginning of this guests column that the writer was a government employee. The repubs have learned their lesson and are not going back to the liberal spending that George Bush allowed. Despite that, I think I will still vote Libertarian because both the Dems and the Repubs are for large government.
Ian
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 6:07 p.m.
To learn the truth about what is really going on, watch the movie, "The Obama Deception." This movie has been seen by 40,000,000 people and censored by Googlevideo. The whole left-right paradigm is nothing more than divide and conquer by those in control. Please wake up.
Ian
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 6:01 p.m.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between Dems and Repubs. We have a ONE-party system pretending to be two separate and opposing parties. Best way to fool the public. I cannot believe so many people are still ignorant of this fact. Policies of both parties are exactly the same. Endless wars, bigger and bigger government, illegal wiretapping, torture, rendition, destroying the Constitution, massive cover-ups, etc., etc., etc.
Milton Shift
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 5:18 p.m.
By the way, since when did homeowners borrowing too much money become responsible for the financial crisis? It was the bets made on repackaged debt that caused the crisis. Don't blame an untimely breath of wind when your house of cards collapses. It's the fault of the banks and financial elite for building the house of cards in the first place, and they're trying to sell us on the idea that it's our fault to get us to pay for it.
Milton Shift
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 5:08 p.m.
I should point out that the reason things look grim for Democrats this fall is not because the American public is moving to the right, but because the Democrats make empty promises and have made it clear, through their ACTIONS, that they stand in solidarity with the wealthy elite and the Republican party - NOT with us.
Milton Shift
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 5:05 p.m.
When you look past the rhetoric, the former Bush administration and the Obama administration are very similar. As far as their actions go, they're almost indistinguishable. The change brought by election of a Democrat is illusionary at best.
sbbuilder
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 4:56 p.m.
Mr Nathans is a teacher of history. We can still argue differences in politics in the Roman Empire, or the Sumarian Kingdom, or whatever you want. The dissication (my word) of history is anything but exact, and is most certainly not a science. I would rather argue this on a different level, that of principles. Otherwise, there's just going to be a lot of hot air travelling back and forth.
lester88
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 4:19 p.m.
What an incredibly skewed view of the facts from the past decade. Proves what they say about opinions. These are the same left leaning talking points that we have heard before. I voted for change, now Im voting for change again. Im not a Republican or Tea Party supporter. Contrary to Eli, I relish the thought of a more balanced government to slow things down. Other aspects of the Bush administration's record that give one pause at the prospect of a Congress controlled by Republicans include its repeated attempts to deny the reality of global warming. LOL, Eli must have missed the memo. Its Global Climate Disruption now since the global warming data has faltered under scrutiny. Im good with the save the planet crusade, just dont spend my money doing it.
a2citizen
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 3:47 p.m.
Could send "us" back to....? Did you say "us"? a2.com, please. They may be next door, but a Canadian is not "us". Not defending Bush, but Democrat victories in November may send "us" back to the highly successful policies of Jimmy Carter. And we don't want to forget the highly successful policies of LBJ. Obama had a super majority in the Senate and the economy is still a mess. Failed Bush policies? My sentiments on Bush echo the dog catcher comment. But Bush didn't take out a home mortgage he couldn't afford. The only thing I will grant Canada is they have lending standards that prevent deadbeats from buying McMansions. That being said I really do not want to read a lecture from another smug foreigner.
talker
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 3:38 p.m.
The guest editorial does an excellent job of pinpointing issues. I'll add a few comments that may clarify some issues. 1. We are at a critical time, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that a corporation has the same rights as a person. Thus, I may choose to donate $50 or $100 to political candidates, but a corporation that benefits from polluting our air and water could spend millions of dollars on ads to elect politicians who will poison children who play near toxic waste. Without regulations that even the playing field for corporations, it can become a business decision for corporate executives to earn more, pollute more, and hurt "we the people." 2. To those who are angry that President Obama and the Democratic Congress haven't done enough, consider that the alternative would be worse for most of us and for the future of the United States of America. Also, the de facto need for 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate has precluded the passage of bills that the House passed and people want. 3. For some Republican politicians, the term privatize is a code word for letting we the taxpayers to pay more for inferior service. For example, no private companies could come near to providing the caliber of service the V.A. provides to veterans unless veterans paid out of pocket fees they don't pay now. 4. It was only after Republicans in Congress refused to support simpler and better health care reform and challenged every detail that the health care bill became so long and those that caused it now complain. The type of single payer system rejected by all Republicans and a minority of Democrats (Medicare type model)would have resulted in less expensive, better health care for more people. But what we have is a great improvement for many. Why should a health insurer be permitted to refuse coverage for someone diagnosed with a disease when anyone is one day away from a diagnosis that could cost more to treat. Some insurers' answer for that would be drop coverage when an insured person gets help. That's the old system that pre-dates President Obama. What other Presidents couldn't fix, President Obama has. We cannot look back to find out Thomas Jefferson's views because the framers of the Constitution could not have imagined the scientific advances people take for granted. I may add more points later.
DonBee
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 3:35 p.m.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (aka FUD). The old way to freeze people out. I have a book you might like, it has a character in it called "Chicken Little". I am not a Republican, and I still don't know who I am voting for in several races, but this kind of article is working to persuade me to vote for someone, anyone new. Maybe in Nevada or Alaska or Lower Strabobia they can, but I don't see the radicals running here. As to the value or negative value of President Bush's policies, we will find that out in about 30 years when an objective history book can be written. We are just now getting to the bottom of the Kennedy policies and that was almost 50 years ago.
nicole
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.
Blame Bush. Hey, that's Obama's strategy too! In fact, he's still doing it, instead of taking responsibility as President of the United States! We need less government, lower taxes, and control where it belongs, in the hands of the people. November can't come soon enough.
Basic Bob
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.
Health care reform has been disastrous. The insurance companies are still raking in money hand over fist. And families are hit the hardest, as we bear substantial risk when deductibles and copays are increased. Many people bear responsibility for our current economy. Companies bending over backwards to cut costs so they can please shareholders, the great war machine, intractable unions, consumer debt, big oil, Walmart, Toyota.... Neither Whether Democrats or Republicans have provided effective government in a long time. They are too busy kissing up to their core constituents and fat cat supporters. The partisan bickering is way out of hand. Until we decide that as Americans we want to work together for the good of America, we will get more of the same. Your vote for effective leadership is important. Don't waste it on petty party politics.
5c0++ H4d13y
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 2:41 p.m.
Of course the reason people are voting for republicans is because they are unhappy with what Democrats have done with the car when they had the keys.
Jimmy Olsen
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.
History is always 20/20 isn't it? In 10 more years, will we be looking back at the failed policies of the Obama administration and the democratically controlled congress who continue to drive trillions of dollars to our children's national debt in the name of stimulating the economy? Maybe had we gone into a depression, people would wake up and realize that borrowing 120% of the value of their house was/is not a good idea, or the banks that even lent them the money. We need to go back to the "basics". Wake up - the politicians offer lip service only - nothing has changed in Washington. Witness the railroading of the healthcare bill through congress. I'll bet half of them didn't have time to read it, better yet, understand it. Business as usual with that crowd.
Somewhat Concerned
Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 2:24 p.m.
The failed policies of the Bush era? Bush isn't running for anything. The successful policies of the Obama era? If you think we are enjoying success, then your definition of success is simply that Democrats are in control. Nothing else resembles success. Nothing. I wouldn't vote for Bush for dog catcher, and that's not the choice before us. It's not a choice between Obama and Bush. It's a choice between what is not working and a chance at another path. Another path may or may not work, but I don't think it will be worse than the downward path we're still on. Perhaps the view from Western Ontario is different, but that's my view from Michigan.