Who takes this guy seriously?

God told Beck his plan for us, and he'll tell you what the Bible told him, AFTER A WORD FROM HIS SPONSOR!

I LOVE THIS GUY!

Tea Party Utopia

The new tea party utopia...ARIZONA

1) Arizona passes bill to force Presidential candidates to document birth certificate.

2) A new gun law allowing anyone besides convicted felons to carry concealed weapons without registration or background checks.  The NRA is thrilled.

3) McCain's challenger for the Senate, J.D. Hayworth, on the danger of same sex marriage laws:

"I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."

  Latest Rasmussen poll shows Hayworth only 5 points behind and gaining ground.

4) A newly passed immigration bill that

"...directs police to determine the immigration status of noncriminals if there is a 'reasonable suspicion' they are undocumented. Immigrant rights groups say it amounts to a police state." (LA Times)

Even staunch conservatives, such as Fred Barnes, call law 'draconian...goes way too far' .  Tea Party activists, however, hold a reform rally on the steps of the capitol.  And why not, with 70% of the state supporting the legislation.

CRAP! I am finding myself still agreeing (somewhat)

I have written a page or so rebutting some finer points of your argument but I have found that I have lost heart in it.  Why? because taken overall- you are correct (don’t tell ANYONE).  So, what happens now?   How exactly do we get out of this mess?  Because, despite the Democrats screaming and ranting and crying about the Bush spending, they have taken the credit card and are out at the mall going on a binge.   I actually think that they simply cannot help themselves.  Yes, we are in for pain ahead, yes people are going to hurt, ( not sure I am with you on the tax increases though)  But I can certainly attest to the fact that increasing entitlements, reducing the amount of people with ‘skin in the game’ and increasing government size and power are not the way to go.

Jobs?  yea, they haven’t done well on that huh? Jobs are critical now, and the government does not seem to be finding policy that is working, well ,if you do not buy the “saved or created” phrase they like to tout.  People are in trouble and the Democrats are focused on Healthcare. They need to be looking at supporting and  increasing private sector jobs, not growing government, or pushing union positions.   California here we come.

Both parties need to focus on this, and I wish they would be having a real deficit or rather debt summit instead of this healthcare summit farce they are forcing on us.  Its time to get serious. 

(and I am pleased to hear you are tuning into Beck, I think he brings up some very interesting points and asks some tough questions)

(Oh one more thing- hypocrisy?  from the republicans on spending money they voted against? I must say, that if a HUGE pot of money is made available to spend, after being passed into law by the Democratic Majority, do you really expect the Republicans to stand aside and say, “Oh no, we are not going to take any money, we do not agree with the spending.  Yes, all our constituents, and their children will have to pay the bill, but we are not going to apply or ask for any money, we will simply let all the Dems use it up and spend it on all their pet projects. Now, that said, I believe they ought to be more honest about it and say that they hate the spending but are gonna get theirs.  Ideally, they might be able to get the money and simply hand it out to their constituents as a protest against the spending and allow the constituents use it to pay their taxes.

For hypocrisy, here is a much better play:  Biden taking credit for success in Iraq (after voting AGAINST the surge)?  or even better, how about this gem I stumbled upon today:

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

 

Hypocrisy is rampant and everywhere so much so that it is a useless charge either way.

Ocean of debt and delusion

It's shockingly ironic, but I disagree. It seems like we stopped talking the moment we found (gasp) common ground.  Whaddya know?  Maybe there is a way to shut us up!

It's obvious that fiscal realism is lacking in both parties.  Democrats, well I don't have to preach to you about their fiscal pipe dreams (that's your role in this blog).  My criticism of Republican economic stances are as varied as their stances. Some pretend to be fiscally conservative in Washington but come back to their state to brag about how much stimulus they dragged back with them, and yet can look us in the camera and claim they aren't hypocrites?  Others truly are fiscally conservative but will never come straight out and admit that lower spending WILL increase hardship for many (short term pain for long term gain, a la Reagan in early 80's, or so the story goes for those that believe it).  That short term pain may well ruin an already tenuous recovery (still without jobs). Are Americans really ready to take that chance today? Let's be brutally honest and admit the risk, OK!  Fiscal conservatism applied at this stage in the game could cause real economic dislocation, more than we've already seen in the last couple of years. Not saying it may not be worth the cost in the long run, but don't underestimate how hard the medicine might go down.

I think we all have seen this graph and know it's unsustainable.  But I believe most Americans have not internalized how much sacrifice is required to undo this level of debt. And I do mean debt. The current defecit is admittedly a large drop in the ocean, but the debt IS the ocean we're drowning in. There will likely have to be both huge spending cuts AND higher taxes to avoid massive inflation.  Who believes that we're gonna have a huge stimulus package recovery (D-Dreaming), or spend our way out of this through lower taxes and business stimulus (R-Dreaming) ? Ain't gonna happen. We both know that Dem & Republican parties lack the backbone to be honest with us about this.  It's far easier for them to claim obstructionism from the other party than to work together to fish us out of the ocean of debt we're in.

Funny, I caught Beck the other day riffin' on the similarities between the state of America today and the USS Titanic.  I guess the whole ocean theme must have sunk in (get it?).

At any rate, I share your frustration.  Not that it's any consolation...

Not much more to say

Well I will take your recent silence as an indication that we have done too much too soon.  Perhaps we have become to heated, too partisan?  too…. angry?  I dunno, I can personally attest to the fact that I have just been feeling rather overwhelmed with all the insanity I am hearing.  Like the health care summit; the jobs bill ( aka stimulus 2);, raising the debt ceiling; spinning the rising unpopularity of this administrations positions; and the overall stagnant economy. Things seem out of control with no end in sight.

I am looking forward to the November elections and can only hope that there are some significant changes.  WE need some new blood in there. ( There would be nothing that would feed my small and petty side than to see Nancy hand over her Speaker’s gavel and brand new plane) However, I must make a very serious comment here: The Republicans MUST get their sh*t together and make sure they are being fiscally conservative and take this deficit spending seriously. Everything needs to be scrutinized and entitlements need to be examined and we need to make some serious changes.  No matter what people want this is unsustainable:

Something needs to be done. The spending needs to be reigned in, this is insanity.

Oh I miss inflection, but (gasp) Common Ground???

Oh my dear, I am hurt that perhaps you think I do not pour over your every word.  I admit, there are times that I do not appreciate nuances and emphasis, typing is such a poor communication medium.  However, trust me that I am doing my best,  I put them on split screen, your post behind a word processing open document,, then I do the cut and paste thingamabob and off we are with my rebuttal. 

OK, I am not too big to apologize as you did not specifically call us Republicans, insurance companies or rich stockholders ‘evil”  I guess I assume that a  contemptuous sneer is present when you type these phrases are they are so often on TV and in commentary, and you are correct, I do think that most Democrats view stockholders and insurance companies as evil. I am pleased to hear you do not feel the same.  I won‘t make that assumption again ( ya know the saying, assuming makes an….)  So I will instead, try to concentrate more on the actual words and less on the inflection I hear when reading them.  So, formally, my deepest apologies, the perceived scorn was all imagined by me.  ( enough mea culpa?)  Unfortunately,  typing (for me) loses a large part of the message as vocals can provide critical nuance.  Well, we will do our best..

Lets move into the more exciting news,  I actually think we may (kinda) agree on something, the uninsured are a problem (regarding care and cost) and we are already paying for them.  Yes problem, but what is the answer?  Your position ( correct me if I am wrong) is that we have a moral obligation as a people to provide health care as a basic human right.  So this brings the larger ,Is health care a civil right?  Hmmm before I answer this,  lets move into another question,  what is healthcare?  Is it preventative medicine?  Is it critical care?  How about fertility treatment?  Treatment for gunshots as a result of drug activity?   What about obesity treatment?  Emergency room?  End of life care?  Physical therapy?  Dental?  Eye exams? Or about abortions?  You see I think it is easy to take the moral high ground and say, We need to provide healthcare for all, but as you delve into the particulars it is much harder to make decisions as to what should/can be provided, and at what cost.    This is the first question that ought to be tackled as many people obviously have great issues with providing ( if we are talking about those that financially are unable to pay for care) to others what they themselves may not have, or things that they feel are moral wrongs.  Then the next question should be what should we do about it as a people? And as a government?  I might be more than happy to provide catastrophic care policies,  maybe emergency care, pediatric well child, and even chronic care for long term conditions but I get a bit more hesitant on fertility treatments and certainly abortions.  Again, this is what I personally might support..  You get my point though yes?  This is a very difficult complex issue, and something which a ginormous 3,000 page bill could only make more muddled.

I have to admit that I do not necessarily thing that “health care” is a right.  (oh no, now I said it, what a terrible person I am) But I mean that in terms of a ‘civil right’ . Is it a moral obligation, OK yes, I can go with that more. Is it an indication that we are a just and compassionate country if we care for our own, YES, but a right , no.  In fact if we are going to hand over additional civil rights, I happen to think that food (or adequate nutrition) is more of a necessity in our country than health care.  Or how about housing?  I mean to me, these are more basic human rights than health care and millions of our  citizens are in desperate need of food and shelter.  According to NYT 49 million people are in jeopardy and housing: maybe as many as 4 million are homeless and millions other living in substandard housing. Habitat for humanity claims 95 million people have housing problems.  So where do we stop?  Do we?  Should we give everyone homes, jobs, food, and health care, provided by tax dollars?  Slippery slope that you can start sliding down if you are not careful, you land smack dab in the middle of socialism.

One final note we must use another time to discuss the billions spent in wars.  Constitutionally, we are obligated to spend money on defense of our borders and our country.  I am certain we agree about some things in this and disagree about others.  Regardless, I agree that it would be better if we spent less (far less) and used that savings to pay down our  ballooning deficits and debt and certainly by funding all of our unfunded liabilities THEN lets look at spending more on entitlements.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

The price action of the insurance companies has been clear all along.  The insurance companies benefitted from the bill COMPARED TO the kick in the teeth they would have gotten before a deal was struck. That explains the December move in insurance stock prices. However they stand to benefit even more now that the bill is essentially dead.  That explains the move yesterday. As for today, there's a common aphorism in the market: 'buy the rumor, sell the news'. 

Nowhere do I drop 'evil' at the doorstep of rich shareholders or insurance companies.  I can only assume you believe all democrats (including me) feel this way and so inserted this yourself.  You'd be wrong.

In fact I would be the hypocrite of all time if I did believe this.  Look at my last posts fer' Chrissakes!  I said I would greedily invest in and become the 'evil' rich shareholder if it looked like the insurance companies have a competitive advantage! It makes me wonder if you're even reading my blogs or simply trolling them for leftist catchphrases to abuse. 

I have no problem if insurance companies get rich selling us insurance. I don't begrudge their right to refuse insurance to high-risk individuals.  They provide a service for profit and their customer base are paying, low-risk individuals.  In turn they provide employment to actuaries, preventing them from boring the rest of us to tears during normal business hours.  They're great corporate citizens in this regard.

The problem (well, a problem among many) lies in the 30-50 million uninsured that can't pay or are deemed to be too high-risk for the insurers to take on profitably. I for one think that covering basic health insurance (through subsidies, fine) for these individuals is a worthy use of tax dollars.  We spent hundreds of millions of our tax money for quake relief in Haiti because millions have no recourse but to die in the street without our help. It's obvious we had to act when we saw thousands afflicted in one place, suffering at one time.  Yet over time, millions of uninsured, one by one, scattered across the country, face a similar fate: they'll require urgent, emergency medical care they cannot afford. I'm proud of our government response in Haiti, as well as all the charitable contributions from the private sector.  I'd be similarly proud of our response to those uninsured that need our help.

If there is a free-market solution that substantially reduces the number of uninsured, then I'm open to it.  Perhaps one was proposed and I missed it (not being facetious, I'm not the most informed person when it comes to all the proposed legislation).  Letting insurers operate across state lines and tort reform may help reduce costs for people that can already obtain insurance, and I'm open to hearing more from Republicans on both of these issues.  But bottom line: Even with these reforms, for profit insurance companies still have two basic requirements to get a policy: money and health.  And that rules out millions and millions of people in the U.S.