The “Section 8″ers, (referring to the apocalyptic and delusional Article 1, Section 8 folks who think “promote the general welfare” can mean whatever they want it to mean, even if it contradicts other parts of the Constitution – and its the end of Democracy if we don’t) are abound in full bloom it seems. No matter how much the Progressive masters have showered the gift of another entitlement on the masses, looking to create as many cake-eaters as possible, it seems that it isn’t Christmas the morning after after all. In fact, the insurance companies are still reaping the rewards. There is no public option. And the Heavy Breathers have yet to figure out how to make the 15 million who already qualified for subsidized health care sign up for it. Howard Dean was right, and it should have been killed. But the Social Democrats were faced with a terrible dilemma. Pass a piece of crap, or look ineffective. They chose crap.
See, the problem isn’t so much that there aren’t needed reforms. The problem is, what the Social Democrats have done really solves none of them. What they HAVE done is pass on billions in expenses to the states, created a massive federal job hiring program, put an administrative panel in charge of what medical care you will and won’t receive, and raised your health care costs. I never in all the time of this argument heard a leftist explain how doing these things reduces medical costs. It reduces spending. But nowhere does a rational leftist have a single example of government regulating something equalling lower costs. Reducing spending only means limiting and controlling what medical procedures you can and can’t have. The only way “cost” is lowered is when individuals are in charge of buying things with their own money, like plastic surgery and laser eye procedures. The crickets will chirp long and exhaustively while leftists struggle to give one example otherwise. And America knows it.
Now, I was amused at the notion my celebrating the Ninth Circuit decision was “changing the subject.” I guess to a so-called polemicist who is only capable of roiling one thought in his mind at a time, having a second thought IS changing the subject. But I thought it was good to note that the Left has been rolled back on its atheistic ass. Psychos will have something to say, I’m sure.
What do they think they really accomplished on Sunday?
Let’s look at reality.
There no longer is any difference between the Democrat Party, and the Social Democrats of Western Europe. They aren’t liberals. They’re leftists. They don’t agree with your right to be an individual. To be left alone. To live and die on your own decisions. More than that, the federal government, rather than the last line of protection after your family, your neighbors, your community and your state, for these Heavy Breathers the federal government is the one and only protection from the dangers they see in just living their lives. They can’t without Big Brother.
As a libertarian (small l, no party affiliation) with a National column, I have opposed this “horrible federal government expansion into health care” just as a vast majority of Independents have for months and still do 54% to 30%. It was never about getting people medical care. The argument that suddenly health insurance equals medical care is sophistry I have always been too insulted to even address. Its been about redistributing wealth, and now that the bill is passed Leftists aren’t shy about admitting it. Its about Vern making sure other people pay for his health care. Its about pushing that bill off on to familys making $50,000 or more. Its about ignoring pre-exising conditions for children.
In the next twelve months, we are going to have a debate on a National Sales Tax, or a VAT. The medicare cuts or “fraud savings” are counted twice by counting the money as savings and then spending it on a new entitlement. Second, the benefits kick in after the taxes are collected, and the actual cost of all of this is 2.5 trillion. They have never been open and honest about the cost of what they consider this noble effort to insure the uninsured.
And now we will all pay.
Vern’s List of Lies
- ACORN – The cover for this prostitution peddling org got blown wide open and it will never get put back on, much as Vern is an apologist for this disgusting, discredited group of losers.
- The American people want Obamacare what, a day later? You’re a dollar short and a few rocks loose, Vern. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/18/fox-news-poll-oppose-health-care-reform/ http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2010/03/cnn-poll-on-obamacare-its-still.html
I can find more polls to counter his cherry picking, but who has the time to counter such dreck. More fun to pick on the rest of his garbage. Point made. - The real reason Scott Brown won
- Health Care expenses will go down
- Obamacare will reduce the deficit
- And my favorite, the Bogus “Death March Statistic” Social Democrats like Vern trot out no matter how many times its proven a lie…44000 will die from lack of health insurance.
So, scumbag liar, libeler and drunken coward, Vern. Get back to doing what you do best. Tickling the ivory and generally making a fool of yourself.
Regarding Section 8, it isn’t really about whether it means “whatever we want it to mean”.
It’s just simply that the Judicial branch (you remember that 3rd branch of government that the Founders created, right?) has generally interpreted that clause very broadly and decided that was the Founders intent. In general. That’s just the way our history has gone.
“The problem is, what the Social Democrats have done really solves none of them.”
Would you care to address the problem of poverty among elderly Americans pre- and post- Social Security?
Anon
Certainly. Eliminate social security as a mandatory program. NPR has a nice little lesson for you on what life was life before social security, how society was strengthened by the necessity to save for your old age, families taking care of each other, and so on. The damage done by the Left in regards to what was the American way of life is incalculable.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4567019
Do you have any notion of how to address the problem of poverty other than “more of the same?”
Ahh, the “everyone is in it for themselves” society. Well if you don’t believe that “society was strengthened” by having millions of elderly lifted out of poverty as a result of Social Security, then you have no room to talk about alternate “worldviews”.
No. You are a liar if you say that “millions were lifted out of poverty” and you have no room to talk about wanting to do good for anyone. Before Social Security, the elderly had savings and a family safety net that gave them a higher standard of living than now. Just like more people graduated with a high school degree BEFORE it was mandatory.
The effects of regulation on life are the snake oil leftists keep selling.
You have negated your right to discuss any alternatives at all.
And if you think that fulfilling the obligation to take your grandparents into your home is a “everyone in it for themselves” society, that just shows how screwed up you are. People who insist that the collective provide them with a retirement and health insurance and eventually food and shelter, are the selfish ones who refuse to bother to do it themselves, at the expense of others. The day anyone is able to say that my wanting to pay for my retirement myself is selfish with a straight face, well George Orwell will really roll over laughing.
“Before Social Security, the elderly had savings and a family safety net that gave them a higher standard of living than now”.
Not true;
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html
For the record, I am not a fan of this bill.
That being said, what I am a fan of is the consternation of the GOP over 1) how these were passed, and 2) how “mean” the Democrats have been in not playing bipartisanship. Now that the Democrats have grown a backbone of sorts, taking a page out of the GOP playbook, Republicans seem incredulous.
In terms of your “the problem isn’t so much that there aren’t needed reforms” posture (i.e. the one the GOP took when it realized the bill might actually pass), you people had 8 years to do something about these “needed reforms” . . . and did NOTHING.
You keep pointing to the fact that the public were against this bill, and many were. But you have massively confused this with the fact that they are very supportive of healthcare reform. The GOP squandered any opportunity to be a part in shaping a better bill in their all or none stance, and the further away the bill gets in the rearview mirror, the more people will warm to it (as with Medicare and Social Security).
In the long-run, this is a huge political victory for the Democrats, who will be seen as the party that took a risk on changing healthcare. If you remember, this is what people loved about Regan and even GW (before he really opened his mouth) – the idea that their leaders did what they thought was right, not what was popular. This is why people rightly despised Gore and Kerry, both perceived as too beholden to public opinion.
You and the GOP got played.
So, scumbag liar, libeler and drunken coward, Vern. Get back to doing what you do best. Tickling the ivory and generally making a fool of yourself.
LMAO, I’m lovin’ it! Something getting you down lately, Juice Brother?
Anon
bzzzzzzt!!! Wrong Answer judge!
Social Security Increases Poverty
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2302
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16968
http://calulmann.com/2008/09/social-security-is-a-disgrace.html
For the record, ww
I worked against George W Bush in 2000, devoting all my time, sleepless nights, and months away from family to the cause. That your side constantly refers to the so called stupidity of a man who played you for eight years never ceases to amaze. This is nothing for the Democrats. And it will benefit no more than when Civil Rights legislation was passed because of Republicans. If the country wants BIGGER GOVERNMENT and SMALLER INDIVIDUALS, it will get them.
For the record, everyone who may not have been around or has forgotten, Terry’s maiden post on this blog: http://orangejuiceblog.com/2008/06/reflections-on-the-dash-between/
From June of ’08, it was based on the premise “George W Bush will be seen as one of our greatest Presidents.” It was followed by many other Bush-worshiping pieces. I admit that was gutsy at the time, most Republicans were already running as fast as they could from W, but still…
Terry, do you mind telling us (if you can turn off the hate for a moment) who WAS this “conservative candidate” you worked so hard for in 2000? Not McCain?
Were you worried that Bush really WOULD be a “compassionate conservative?”
Vern, dialing down the hysterics might suit you. Read this:
Relaxed minds remember better.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62N4VJ20100324
Where is that article about how well Air America is doing Vern? Or that piece praising the stability of ACORN?
I worked for the Reform Party in 2000 Vern. Pat Buchanan. I was Chief of Office staff and then Webmaster.
That piece you mention was one of my favorites. It highlights how a man you leftist simpletons derided as an idiot got better grades in college than Al Gore, had a better military IQ than John Kerry, and a higher SAT than Bill Bradley, ran rings around you.
I will close with the final paragraph. Its as aprapo today as then:
I think political dynamics in this country have changed dramatically. The irrational hatred of the Bush Presidency has exposed the Left Wing of America for what it is, a sclerotic political vision that truly feels America deserved 9/11. It’s a political vision that truly believes that all the past attempts to produce peace and prosperity have failed and has concluded that all things wrong in the world have been caused by trying to be right. Unless they’re suffering severe cognitive dissonance, few believe Bush is doing anything other than what he thinks is right. Which is why they so vehemently disagree.
You’re a psycho Vern. Seek help.
Thank you, Terry. Buchanan, not a terrible choice. The hysterics are in your head.
Your essay is as psychotic as I remember. Especially that last passage that you’re so proud of. I never, or rarely, doubted that Bush was doing what he believed in. But I never thought you really believed what you write, and now I’m really starting to worry that you do. That’s scary.
In sum, fellow sane people, the reason we disagreed with most everything Bush and Cheney did, is just because they were earnest. We had no real substantive gripes at all. Or that’s how Terry sees it anyway.
Okay, Terry, I’ll seek help. Sure. Bye now.
Oh and the reason we sane people constantly bring up Bush and Cheney is not because we’re lazy arguers, but because:
1) We want to make sure America NEVER gets that bad again; and
2) The opposition party STILL has not a single idea that’s not a Bush-Cheney idea.
Between you and me Vern, I have more of a belief in your lack of good intentions than you ever had for Bush. Next up, bringing down the individual mandate.
from http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/health_care_reform_unconstitutional/
———————
But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause’s power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying “cash for clunkers” is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.
If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.
Prepping that story Vern.
Knock yourself out, T-Crow.
If I had to guess for which conservative candidate Terry campaigned in 2000 I’d say it was Alan Keys. I have a family member, that although having better genes than Terry, still uses many of the same horrible arguments, and he was an ardent Keys supporter.
This interesting excerpt from a Media Matters article by Eric Boehlert might help explain Terry Crowley’s apoplexy;
My hunch is that over the past few months, the right-wing media, along with self-adoring Tea Party members, made the mistake of believing their own hype. They convinced themselves that not only did 2 million people take to the streets of the nation’s capital last September to protest Obama (a number that was off by 1.9 million), but that “millions” more had marched coast-to-coast over the past 12 months (a number that was completely fabricated). They fastidiously constructed their own parallel universe and convinced themselves that last summer’s mini-mobs at local town hall forums had defeated health care reform. They thought their rowdy show of force, complete with Nazi and Hitler posters, and even some protesters parading around with loaded guns, had changed the debate.
Listening to Limbaugh, they thought they were dictating the agenda. Watching Fox News, they though they reflected the mainstream. And reading right-wing blogs, they thought they had killed health care reform.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It was the sudden and rude realization that, instead, they’d spent the past few months trapped inside an echo chamber, I think, that created the volcanic and unhinged response we’ve seen play out in recent days. It’s the kind of childish and hysterical reaction I didn’t think we’d ever witness from a major political movement.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003230001