"What makes us so special you are willing to excuse a change on the grounds it’s adversarial"
I’m not excusing anything. I would like to see universal health care so that my children are protected. But I see it as impractical since the Clinton plan was squashed almost as soon as it was explained. And that was when we could easily afford it. Paying for it is difficult now and the Republicans will never go for it. What you want is wishful thinking. The chance that it might is slim to none and Slim just left town.
I feel that you (and I) are with the majority. Those who would want a change and perhaps universal HC, regardless of the form but feel it’s too big a task. I feel we are just about there and the Republicans know it, when all the provisions are in. Getting employer based out of the system is a key to full employment and the next step.
What I think might work would be for the Feds to set up groups of people that are equal to USA demographics and sell them to the lowest bidder. The risk is the same for all groups and the price should be just about the same for all insurers. The insurers would be obliged to join in because eventually all citizens would participate. Maybe these citizen blocks would be sold for a finite period and rebid every 5 or so years with the hope of keeping the price down. Insurers generate profit by buying more blocks. The government would be responsible for running the process, including devising the purchase specification, reviewing the bids, and awarding them. This would keep the insurers in the game and level the field for all areas, ages, and economic classes.
First off, I don't believe in "too big to fail". The few incompetent banks (and it was really just a few) should have been allowed to fail, FDIC would have backed bank accounts, and the banks assets would have gone up for auction; so in effect, both the accounts and assets would have gone to banks that did not behave incompetently. And, yes, it was incompetence, if you look into it, these banks and investment firms were flat-out warned by the very people who developed the credit default swap algorithms that they were abusing them, and that they'd lose all the money they made and then some eventually. You know, if I invested in stocks, bonds, etc., and got a bail out every time I lost money, i could make money too!<br><br> As for GM etc. Well, the big issue was that the "big 3" had been telling the UAW for at least 20 years that the contracts they were forced into in the 1970s were unsustainable. The "big 3" were stuck -- due to the high prices of these contractual obligations, they were losing money on almost every car. The UAW members understandably didn't want to cut anything they had in their contracts (although if they had cut it like 15 or 20 years ago, the cuts would have been fairly small). The car cos couldn't raise prices on the cars enough to even break even, or they would be much more expensive than the competition and not sell. They couldn't cut corners on the cars to save money -- well, they have on some over the years, and those models don't sell well since they end up missing features compared to competition, missing reliability compared to competition, or maybe having those but being all "cheap" and rattly compared to competition. Pepole like to make it out like GM, Chrysler, and Ford were completely incompetent. There was some incompetence over the years, but really they were in an intractable situation. The cash bailout was really more the gov't stepping in when it was way too late, what has saved the big 3 really was making the automakers and UAW renegotiate (if the gov't had had them renegotiate several years earlier, the cash would not have been necessary.)<br><br>
Whitey, this perception that the Constitution and Bill of Roghts were created as “living” documents is false. The historical evidence, the papers and writings of the founders, clearly indicate that the documents were intended to LIMIT the powers of the government and in this goal reseve all rights not specifically given to the federal government under the constitution to the states. There even exists a specfic amendment called the “States Rights” amendment to ensure this. The “living document” arguement is used by those who would like to see the documents interpreted in ways they were never meant to be.
A “constitutionalist” believes in limited federal powers. That’s exactly what the founders believed in. And they tried to ensure it in perpetuity with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
MB, to suggest that none of the founding fathers believed in a strong central government is not only an over-generalization, it is patently false. The original Bill of Rights was a compromise among those who wanted a strong federal government and those who didn’t.
It’s interesting to see conservatives characterize the constitution and founding fathers one way, while liberals characterize the constitution and founding fathers another way, all while I get called a liberal and one who sees the constitution wrongly because I take the middle ground.
Our constitution is similar to the Bible in how people view it. People focus on the part that supports their beliefs and ignore the rest. I simply take the stance that both sides are wrong not to view both documents in their entirety.
Like it or not, the founding fathers where a diverse group of white land owners. They were diverse in religious views and they were diverse in their intentions about our country’s future. Anyone who claims to know “what the founders believed in” is full of himself and has ignored those founders who disagree with his beliefs.
hwertz, the FDIC only covers bank balances up to $250,000 per depositor per bank. If the banks had been allowed to fail, there would have been a run on the banks, and the consequences, whether you acknowledge them or not, would have been disastrous.
Whitey, the founders were a diverse group. But they were united on limiting the powers of the central government. Remember that they were seperating this country from overbearing British rule, and did not want to trade one tyrannical government for another.
Yes, I have read the whole thing. And no, I am not “full of [my]self”. Nor have I ignored any of the founders. Nor do I appreciate the namecalling. Educated, intelligent people confronted with the same facts can disagree, but not by calling one another names. I’ll not continue discussing the issue if it deteriorates into name calling.
Many of the founding fathers were slave owners…so we still hold them in such high esteem that we interpret their intent as to how to govern under their conditions and apply it to ours ? Hardly. Times change and such ideas of letting our "founding father " decrees decide the solutions to today’s problems in every instance is asinine. We fought a Civil war to preserve a central govt. Remember ? Our central govt. instituted the interstate highway for national defense and we must preserve our industrial capability for the same reason. The founding fathers argument gets tedious and unwarranted especially if they were allowed to “vote” against either of these ideas.
@hwertz: the banks that were bailed out were investment banks. FDIC coverage of deposits was a non-issue. Part of the motive was to protect foreign partners of those banks. Those partners have been acknowledged but remain unnamed to this day. Probably major banks in Germany, France, and England as well as other countries I’m unaware of. I don’t mean it’s the Zionists or the Illuminati, just the big banks. As for the Big 3, remember Ford didn’t take the bailout money.
@Whitey: anyone who keeps more than the FDIC limit in an account deserves what they get. And I’m pretty sure the limit is per account, not per bank. You might want to check that. If a bank fails, a run on the bank is a non-issue, but you’re probably saying there would be runs on other banks. That’s always a possibility. And again, the banks that were bailed out were investment banks, in the sense that even if they were mixed savings and investment banks due to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, it was the investment side of the house that led to the bailout, so that foreign banks wouldn’t fail.
@dagosa: “We fought a Civil war to preserve a central govt. Remember ?” Well, yeah, that’s why the winners fought the war. And history is written by the winners.
“Our central govt. instituted the interstate highway for national defense” Like our space program, the interstate is another good idea we borrowed from the Nazis, but we’re all cool with that, right? Even though the Nazis were slave-owners?
Mountain Bike is right: the Constitution is not a living document. Try telling your employer that the HR manual is a living document when things don’t go your way. It does however contain a cumbersome process by which it may be amended. You can read about it right in the document. Hopefully that is what keeps us from reaching the point where we have to invoke Jefferson’s maxim (and remember that Jefferson put the “O” in slave owner): “The Tree of Liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Actually, I got a notice from my bank in McAllen a few weeks ago which said the $250,000 limit only applied ot money which was earning interest. If a customer had more money in the bank in an account which was not bearing interest, the protection was not limited to the $250,000. Check with your local bank.
The problem with the Obama-like viewpoint that interpretation of the Constitution is subject to presidential or bureaucratic decree, instead of the amendment process, is if they get to ignore the Constitution, so do 300 million people. In either case, failure to follow the central law of the nation is called anarchy. History shows that “the people” are much better at anarchy than the government thugs are, once it gets started. And, there are around 300 million firearms in private hands in the US.
The US is essentially in a state of governmental anarchy now. I notice on Drudge in some of our cities the citizens are playing with it, too.
There is a concept called "the will to be governed. For example, the IRS tax system only works because most people do their best to comply. If 3% of a society lose their will to be governed, no nation can stand. That seems like a small number, so I wonder if the mechanism is that the 3% go wild, the government goes wild, and that forces people to take sides, and pretty soon it’s all over. Not sure, that’s my theory.
IMO, there are more than 3% of the US citizens who no longer have the will to be governed, only needing some major outrage by the government to set them off.
No, to talk about a living Constitution meaning anything but the legal amendment process is a terminal act for a nation whose laws, down to the city parking ordinances are derived from it.
Arguing for a limited roll in federal government and accepting FDIC insurance as a limiting amount for savings is like voting for a party who wants to eliminate Medicare while fighting for every benefit for yourself.
Hypocrisy is alive and well.
Ford didn’t take the money because they had just sold everything the company owned and leased it back. Stroke of genius or good luck? I guess we’ll find out one day.
Hypocrisy only for those who don’t know why FDIC was created. it was not created for the old widows who tend to lose all when banks mess up. It was created as a mutual aid agency, so banks would help out other banks which failed. Sure, indirectly it protected depositors, but it was intended to stop runs on banks, which destroy banks, in many cases needlessly. And, the runs may spread to solid banks, like an epidemic. One run on one bank may well take out all banks in the area, that’s what used to happen.
Each bank has to contribute so much in case of failure. The gov’t only gets involved with tax payer money, when it threatens the national economy and all the banks can’t cover the losses.
The only reason they protect the widows is because that is necessary to protect the banking industry.
I note with interest that no one wants to talk about the real solution to the health care industry, which is for individuals to take responsibility for their own health care, with proper diet and exercise.
I am 69. I have not yet used one cent of taxpayers money, vis Medicare. the only reason I signed up for Medicare is the extreme penalities involved if you ever need it later. And, here in Mexico, total health costs for my wife, also 69, and I, has averaged around $50 a year since I had shingles, covered by private insurance, around 10 years ago.
No, better eat like hogs, then whine that other people are supposed to help pay for your health care. Oh, how dare those evil Republicans suggest I change my lifestyle. I WANT to eat a whole cake for supper!
Let me tell you why GM went broke, and why it should have been allowed to fail.
My SIL who lives near McAllen, Tx, got his diploma in EE around 1990 or so. His room-mate got a degree in automotive engineering. That man’s first job, sort of his mandatory first job, was for a large well-known car company whose name shall only be implied.
He was assigned to an equalizing project that year. You may wonder what equalizing is.
It was known how long a cheap motor produced by that company typically lasted. They realized that other parts might not fail at the same time. The example he gave was something trivial like the hinge on the glove compartment door. I am not sure that was an equalized part, he admitted it was an example only. They wanted as many parts as possible to also fail around the same time the motor did.
At this same time, Toyota and Honda had teams studying their cars trying to find places which could be beefed up to extend the life of the car.
That young man the minute his year was up, put out his resume. He said he did not get a degree in engineering to make cars fail.
They were kept in business by blind patriotism long past the time they should have failed. The American way is supposed to be those who do a better job are supposed to succeed. Those who do a worse job, but especially those who deliberately mulct the public out of good money for junk, are supposed to fail. Those people who bought junk only because they viewed it as American junk basically sold out the US and its future.
I can see the arguments that to let Chrysler and GM fail, might have destroyed our economy. Not sure it is true, but I can see where it may well be true.
In any case, it’s past now and we can’t change that. I am also glad those car companies, at least GM and Ford, not sure about Chrysler, have started making cars which meet minimum standards of quality and reliability. It is better if we can make our own quality cars, but buying junk as we did for 40 years just to save American jobs is pretty lame.
I bought my Sienna after 3 years of funneling buckets of money into a pathetic Dodge Caravan. I expect to drive Toyotas until I die or cannot drive any more.
This Sienna has over 175,000 miles on it. Last year, a wing lost a screw, and the battery failed without warning.
This year, the hatch handle broke, and I got the dreaded P0420 code. By the way, after all the discussion about lacquer thinner, it went away. The light went out, and hasn’t come back on,and I just drove it two hours plus this morning.
This is at 175,000 miles. That Caravan, I’d drive to Amarillo, and as soon as I got there, I called a mechanic and made an appointment. When I got to the Midwest, I’d call a mechanic and make an appointment. When I got back to Texas, call again. that was between 120,000 and 180,000 when I sold it for a song, and got a good car. Repairs included a transmission rebuild, $1500 and steady outlays every time I drove across country.
Well, all I can say is conservatives should be glad the U.S. government is getting out of the car business. That was, after all, one of conservatives’ main objections to the bailout; that once Obama plunged us into socialism, he would never get us out as he promised he would. You know … the old “slippery slope” theory. At least by selling the shares, Obama is keeping that particular promise.
"Here is a quote from President Bush’s September Bailout speech,
“So I propose that the federal government reduce the risk posed by
these troubled assets and supply urgently needed money so banks and
other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending. This
rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or
industry. It is aimed at preserving America’s overall economy.”
Republicans must convince people that Obama is responsible for all of
the bailouts, or else their charge that he is leading the nation
towards socialism won’t work. By the current GOP standards, George W.
Bush was the original socialist, since his administration enacted the
financial bailout. Republicans are trying to rewrite history to make it
fit their attacks on Obama. The only problem is that only those who have
chosen to believe the lie are denying the truth. If Barack Obama is a
socialist, then so was George W. Bush."
I maintain that if the situation occurred with all branches of congress in control of either conservatives or liberals alone, we would have the same bail out. Posturing and hypocrisy on this issue and most others is alive and well. Politics require they run for office with every speech they make and disagreeing with the other side is the only way to separate and define themselves as an opponent and individual. When "Sarah or Mitt" choose the next bail out, conservatives will think of some reason to lockstep in line, forget the past and try to re write history again. Now argue that only banks are too big to fail and not car companies so we can weasel out of this can of worms. I can hear it now.
I was against TARP too, because it’s primary purpose was to protect foreign partners. Whitey, when did the govt sell off our GM stock? I missed that memo. At the current price we’d be taking a loss.
They were diverse in religious views and they were diverse in their intentions about our country’s future. Anyone who claims to know “