Obama '08?

George, one of the things I find to be rather amazing is the fact that some people persist in ignoring the lessons of history in regard to the repeated failures of central planning along with authoritarianism as the governing core of economic policy. Surely there are enough history books now written for everyone to read about it all? Yet, it seems to me that liberal leftists persist in believing that somehow it can be done better next time, if only the right guy is in charge or something like that. I wonder if it boils down to wanting to believe in a messiah, a king, somebody that is almost godlike in their vision.

During my years of observing politics and now the years of debating on this forum for example, I think I am coming around to the idea that peoples political views really are closely related to their core moral code or religious convictions. I wonder if the difference lies in whether we have a faith in God or faith in Man. This reminds me of the old adage to not discuss religion or politics. Could it be that they are actually very closely related?

okie, How can you of all people compare history to current events? You have rarely, if ever, gotten anything right. Your assumptions are mostly challenged, and when asked for evidence, you provide none.

Well I think there is an important difference with respect to individual liberties and freedom. Many of the movements that set out to reform the bad side effects of capitalism ended up focusing on the "general welfare" or the condition of the "average person" or in some cases the preferred proletariat or "socialist man", often to the deliberate detriment of urban middle class or bourgeois folks. Indeed many of their social philosophers professed a great love for "man: or mankind in general but, at the same time, a remarkable willingness to kill and destroy many individual men and women who opposed their ideas (the Leninist "Irreconcilables").

Even in things as narrowly defined as health care the protagonists of single payer, centarlly managed care usually cite average outcomes as the rationale for their programs. There is little doubt that enormous costs could be avoided by curtailing the care provided to classes of people ranging from severely premature babies, to those of an advanced age or those suffering from chronic diseases whose treatment is expensive (kidney failure and diabetes come to mind here) - and with relatively little effect on the public mortality statistics that are so often used to rationalize these programs. I believe this principle is intuitively understood by most peopole, and this is what makes fears of things like "death panels" so easily aroused. The fact is that the public health care systems in Britain and Canada do seriously limit the treatments available to some of these classes of patients - they really have no other choice if their goal is to apply limited centrally managed resources to where they will "do the most good" with respect to the average statistical measures of success.

In a free market these rationing decisions are - as Cyclo has noted - made on the basis of wealth and individual choice (for those with the means to make a choice). We all know from our own experience of life that wealth is not a reliable indicator of moral merit . So how does one choose between these flawed alternatives?

I think the answer lies beyond the limits of academic science and theory. My preference is for individual freedom and free markets. My understanding of history is that these principles almost always deliver better average outcomes (despite the perversities of their distribution principle) than do the authoritarian alternatives. To use a frequently encountered metaphor, I value political systems and cultures that regard individual humans as irregular rocks, each with unique features, rather than identical bricks of equal value and utility. The latter view almost always ends up with tyranny, oppression and gross dysfunction.

Excellent entire post, George, and I quote your above paragraph which I think captures the philosophy that most conservatives embrace wholeheartedly. Your statement that individual freedom and free markets tend to deliver better average outcomes would support the principle as stated by the quote from John Kennedy that "a rising tide lifts all boats." I find it interesting that modern liberals have seemingly chosen to discard the economic beliefs of one of their own Democratic darlings or icons, John F. Kennedy.

Oh, it's hardly new. You need look no further than the rest of the developed world to find ways that health care is provided to a populace on a basis other than by favoring those with the greatest wealth. And the results are equal or superior to ours in every way.

These countries are having no more difficult a time maintaining their systems than we have maintaining ours - though this doesn't stop you from continually pronouncing ours superior. The cost of health services here has risen FAR faster than it has in those countries you mention; but you don't ever see fit to point THAT out.

Single-payer health care is not a difficult concept to understand or implement. And as a Californian, you may find that out - along with me - very soon. Brown has promised to sign the same universal HC bill that Schwarzenegger vetoed twice.

Cycloptichorn

He did nothing of the sort and neither have you. Point to the specific part of the bill that even SOMEWHAT resembles a 'death panel.' I predict you will be unable to do so.

Cycloptichorn

How does Gov Moonbeam plan to pay for it?
The state is already broke.

If my memory serves, our country spends over 13% of our GDP on health care, while those countries that provides universal health care cost about 8% of their GDP. Even while spending the most on health care, we have over 40 million who are not covered.

We have a cost and logistics problem that's not been addressed; premiums continue to increase at rates far greater than our inflation rate. Something is drastically wrong with this picture.

Spend more, get much less people covered.

It's cheaper than what we are doing right now. Do you even understand how Single Payer HC works? It is far less expensive than a private system.

Cycloptichorn

Why must you be so condescending?
Yes, I do understand how single payer works.

But,even though it is cheaper, it still isn't free
And since the state of CA is completely broke, my question still stands.

The fees for the HC will be paid by the same people who are paying them now - the citizens of the State. This is an integral part of how single-payer works, which is why I asked. The state doesn't have to 'afford' anything. And for those who the state currently IS paying for - such as State and University employees like myself - they will be SAVING money over the current for-profit insurance system.

You seem to think that it will be some sort of huge additional expense. I don't know why you think that.

Cycloptichorn

mm, California is not only broke, but they can't even balance the budget with honest numbers. They continue to play games with revenues that they know will never develop - such as bailouts from the feds.

They should all be thrown out of office; they're costing the state extra millions for the delayed budgets to pay interest on loans they can't afford.

If I was a nit picker like you & parados I would ask you what this has to do with death panels. However, I am not and I won't .

I believe a serious financial crisis is likely to explode in either Illinois, New York, or California sometime in the next two years, with Illinois being the likely first in line. There will be an instant cry for a Federal bailout, and this could be a particularly difficult issue for president Obama - one that could engender deep hostility and resentment in states that have been financially more conservative. It won't be lost on folks that the major claimant states have long-term Democrat governments.

I wonder how (or if) you will explain the fact that Texas has just as big a budget deficit problem as California does, George. You won't be able to blame it on any sort of long-term Dem governance....

Not only that, but there are several other states facing large budget shortfalls in FY 2011 - Arizona, SC, Georgia - which have the same problem. None of which have any semblance of long-term Democratic governments.

Damn facts! Always getting in the way of what seems like a good argument.

I think an honest discussion of State budget shortfalls, and the potential Republican response to them, should include the fact that national Republicans see these shortfalls as a way to attack public employee unions head-on.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not sure why you're addressing me about death panels. That was a lie perpetrated by Palin and Boehner - that the conservatives repeated often enough for many seniors to believe it.

The explosion already happened; the California legislature just doesn't realize what they have produced with all those fake numbers. The sound (of fury) will be sounded by Californians when they continue to learn that most California legislators work on sponsored special interest bills over the care of California.

I predict that will happen in 2011.

There's a difference between state level short term budget shortfalls and the relatively smaller number of states that have used their bond issuing authority to fund ongoing operations instead of capital improvements that will raise revenues. I'l agree that both types of problems have become more widespread than in the past and some involve states with republican governments. However for chronic deficits; game-playing to hide their consequences; excessive borrowing; and gridlocked legislatures chronically unable to deal with the issues Illinois, New York and California lead the pack - and the leading edge of the crisis is very likely to involve them with Illinois at the front.

I will readily agree that the solution to this widespread problem will inevitably entail confrontation with the national state & local government employees union. It is a major source of the problem and defeating it will be a necessary element of the solution.

I didn't notice any statistics in your post either.

Actually, the lack of evidence on your part would be support for my statement.

One can hardly argue that California has excessive debt when compared to Texas.
Texas debt $81 billion
California debt $88 billion


Texas 2012-13 estimated deficit - $20 billion
California 2011-12 estimated deficit - $25 billion
Texas budget spending 2010 -$85.7
California budget spending 2010 - $92.5

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Texas_state_budget
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/

I'm curious as to which unions in Texas caused the problem that is similar in size to California.

George Soros and his Democrat Party appear to believe their ends justify their means.

George Soros in his 1995 book, page 145, Soros on Soros, I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.

George Soros has owned and directed the Democrat Party since December 2004.

"Sam Hananel in his associated Press article, December 10, 2004,"] On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."

Soros … pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.

Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, committed $5 million to MoveOn, while he and his friend Peter Lewis each gave America Coming Together $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.)

George Soros has directed the members of the Democrat party to pass or continue legislation that violates the Constitution of the USA as lawfully amended. George Soros directed the federal government to adopt and/or continue the following such programs.

• Healthcare Reform:
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/health-care-providers/center-for-health-solutions/health-care-reform/index.htm?id=USGoogle_hcreform_310&gclid=CKLi6PKDzKUCFUN66wodrlBmlA
National health reform is here. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the reconciliation bill are law. Together, they will trigger sweeping changes and disruptions — some rather quickly and some over many years.
http://www.naturalnews.com/026733_health_health_care_healthcare.html
What's really in Obama's health care reform bill? Almost no one knows, and here's why: It's 1,017 pages long and written in an alien form of bureaucratic English that can barely be decoded by earthlings.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2300451/posts
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."
• TARP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Assets_Relief_Program
The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It is the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. …
• Stimulus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009.
• Fannie Mae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_may
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (OTCBB: FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was set up as a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), ..
• Freddie Mac:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac (OTCBB: FMCC), is a public government sponsored enterprise (GSE), headquartered in the Tyson's Corner CDP in unincorporated Fairfax County, Virginia. …

The Constitution does not delegate power to the federal government to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not and do not earn it. The Constitution does specify that the federal government can take a person’s property to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States.

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Article I. Section 8 (1789)
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; …

George Soros’s Democrat Party adoption and and/or continuation of the previously listed programs (Healthcare Reform, TARP, Stimulus, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) , are evidence that they are adhering to the enemies of the USA, giving them aid and comfort, and arethereby guilty of committing treason.

Article III (1791)
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The Constitution of the USA as amended is part of the supreme law of the land.

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

George Soros has declared his intention to create a new world order through the suppression of the U.S. economy.

Ah, now the truth comes out. The whole issue is nothing more than a political attack against groups you dislike.

I'm going to go ahead and say: no. California's problems don't stem from their employee unions as much as they do from the debt they ran up thanks to Pete Wilson's deregulation of the energy market in '96, and then compounded by Schwarz' idiotic cutting of taxes in 2003 and the Republican legislatures refusal to raise taxes at all, despite our poor financial situation. The people of California are consistently a Liberal, Democratic group these days, but the gerrymandering and stupid 2/3rds rule to raise taxes in the Senate has destroyed our ability to govern the way we wish. Essentially, the Republicans have destroyed the ability to raise the capital to run the programs that the majority of the citizens want to see enacted. They have held the state hostage to their ideology, despite the fact that they are in the massive minority in the State governance and will continue that way for the known future.

I think that the US government will indeed bail out California and other states, be they red or blue. They can't afford not to.



What would you like to see statistics about? Nothing I wrote demanded a statistic, but I'd be happy to provide them for you - the budget gap for many red states is, percentage-wise, far higher than California's.

First though, I'd love to see you respond to Parados' last post - instead of ignoring it, as you typically do when he makes good points.

Cycloptichorn