Unjust Spoils

[vicious796]

So, now you want to play that game? I gave you pristine examples of Obama calling for universal healthcare - SHIT relic he even CALLED it that in a few of them - and because someone OTHER than him moved otherwise, he didn't do it? Aren't we getting a little Bush Administration here?

My point was, from waaaaaay up there a few comments ago, that he's not a socialist. Because actions speak louder than words.

If you'd like, I'll rephrase my sentence: "Obama did not propose or try to push universal health care through the senate or congress while president".

My point was that Obama is a compromising moderate. Not a radical left wing nut job.

IIRC the original Obamacare bill had a public option to it and it was taken out for the sake of actually passing the bill - which became much more important than the contents of it because of the media craze surrounding this administration. Did Obama write the bill himself, walk down to the Congressional Hall, and say "I MADE THIS!"? No, of course not. However, his party attempted it, with his support, after his speeches on how important it was, and they just failed. Just because he didn't fight that certain-loss battle in person doesn't mean he didn't set others up to do it. He tried and failed.

Also, jay, pensions are quickly fading away as are company paid 401k plans. Welcome to modern America where only the government and military offer pensions of any sort anymore. We went from:

"Thanks for your service to this company for the past x years! We'll keep giving you half (or more) of your salary til you die!"

to

"Welcome to the company! People are living far too long and pensions are straight red for us after you all retire. We're going to set up an investment fund for you and put in half of the yearly allowable amount. Feel free to add to it if you want to as to ensure a good retirement!"

to

"Welcome to the company. In a year or so we'll put you in contact with someone (when they can make it in) who will show you how to set up your own 401k. We aren't going to put anything into it but you probably should if you ever want to retire!"

[jaybug]

You forgot to add the company needs to fund the CEO's golden parachute, and exhorbitant salary and stock options.

I'm sure that cessation of funding defined contribution pension plans will continue on for a while. The length of time depends on a couple of factors; how long the workers will remain on after they discover someone else is offering it elsewhere, and how long companies are not in any position to offer such. The best companies will try to re-start the program as soon as possible.

The worst companies will try to re-institute slavery, as a means of keeping costs down. Such as government employees, teachers, police and firemen, eliminate benefits like health insurance, retirement, paid vacations, and reduce wages closer to the federal minimum. And the unions are going to help them in that they will work very hard to get families to a "living wage" level, and it comes second only to health insurance coverage. And the latter may find reduced support, if it puts too many members in the 40% excise bracket.

Because you know that  the 40% number is what will be remembered, not that it is 40% of the amount over the threshold amount. Which may still be quite a shock to those who do not regularly save for such shocks.

[relic2279]

IIRC the original Obamacare bill had a public option to it and it was taken out for the sake of actually passing the bill

Public option is not even close to universal health care. They're 2 completely different things.

[vicious796]

IIRC the original Obamacare bill had a public option to it and it was taken out for the sake of actually passing the bill

Public option is not even close to universal health care. They're 2 completely different things.

So, you mean to tell me, that a tax-paid healthcare service managed and run by the federal government that's available for each and every single American resident isn't universal coverage?

[jaybug]

Isn't the public option open to anyone who wishes? And if everyone wished to elect such coverage, would that not mean universal coverage?

We must now be paying off WWI. Bush finally put paid to the Spanish-American War that was funded by the previous federal excise tax on telecommunications. The Federal excise tax on phone service is back! And I am not even using my land line to make long-distance calls.

[relic2279]

So, you mean to tell me, that a tax-paid healthcare service managed and run by the federal government that's available for each and every single American resident isn't universal coverage?

Thought we went over this before. The Public option was going to be budget neutral. None of your tax dollars would have funded it. People still had to pay for the public option. It was exactly as the name implies. Only an option.

Isn't the public option open to anyone who wishes? And if everyone wished to elect such coverage, would that not mean universal coverage?

All insurance companies are open to anyone who wishes. If you have the money to spend. Same with the public option. The public option wasn't going to be free.

Universal health care is what they have in Canada. If you don't know the difference between that and the public option, well, I don't have the time to educate you. I've done it before, and as you can see, people still can't understand, won't understand or refuse it because it's from the evil democrats.

[jaybug]

So, you mean to tell me, that a tax-paid healthcare service managed and run by the federal government that's available for each and every single American resident isn't universal coverage?

Thought we went over this before. The Public option was going to be budget neutral. None of your tax dollars would have funded it. People still had to pay for the public option. It was exactly as the name implies. Only an option.

Isn't the public option open to anyone who wishes? And if everyone wished to elect such coverage, would that not mean universal coverage?

All insurance companies are open to anyone who wishes. If you have the money to spend. Same with the public option. The public option wasn't going to be free.

Universal health care is what they have in Canada. If you don't know the difference between that and the public option, well, I don't have the time to educate you. I've done it before, and as you can see, people still can't understand, won't understand or refuse it because it's from the evil democrats.

How about it's 2,300 pages long?

[relic2279]

How about it's 2,300 pages long?

Great. If it was 10 pages long, I'd be pretty suspect as to it's intent and validity. Not entirely sure why that's a bad thing?

[jaybug]

It's a bad thing only in that few really know everything inside. It also breaks the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.

So relic, which side were you on today, the far-left criticizing Obama, or press secretary Gibbs for shooting back at them? Gibbs vs. Liberal Activists

[vicious796]

So, you mean to tell me, that a tax-paid healthcare service managed and run by the federal government that's available for each and every single American resident isn't universal coverage?

Thought we went over this before. The Public option was going to be budget neutral. None of your tax dollars would have funded it. People still had to pay for the public option. It was exactly as the name implies. Only an option.

Isn't the public option open to anyone who wishes? And if everyone wished to elect such coverage, would that not mean universal coverage?

All insurance companies are open to anyone who wishes. If you have the money to spend. Same with the public option. The public option wasn't going to be free.

Universal health care is what they have in Canada. If you don't know the difference between that and the public option, well, I don't have the time to educate you. I've done it before, and as you can see, people still can't understand, won't understand or refuse it because it's from the evil democrats.

I understand, very well relic, how something that's "budget neutral" actually works. Don't get snide with me as I've battled this back at you several times before that it will end up just like welfare. You're not technically supposed to be a wellfare lifer. You're only SUPPOSED to take out what you put in. However, we ALL KNOW how well that works. The public option was just a way to tax people for what might as well be universal healthcare and you know it.

Right now, you're just playing semantics. You wanted examples of Obama calling for universal healthcare - it never happened you said - I showed it to you. Well... that's not what I meant by calling for it. That's the same Bush-administration shit I've seen you get on your high horse about. Pot, meet kettle.

[relic2279]

It's a bad thing only in that few really know everything inside. It also breaks the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.

When it comes to creating a completely new insurance agency from scratch, that is born to compete on an even footing within the current industry, I fucking hope it's not simple. If it was, I'd be against it. I'd like to see your "KISS" system work in NASA or DoD or any other agency/business that requires actual intelligence to operate.

The public option was just a way to tax people for what might as well be universal healthcare and you know it.

The public option was supposed to compete with other insurers. It was a pay to play option. It certainly wasn't a "welfare free ride".
Or AKA extending medicare. That was already included and has already passed. Basically, the benefits for the ultra poor got passed, but the public option, who would benefit the middle class, got booted. Thank your fellow republicans for the removal of the public option.

You wanted examples of Obama calling for universal healthcare - it never happened you said - I showed it to you. Well... that's not what I meant by calling for it. That's the same Bush-administration shit I've seen you get on your high horse about. Pot, meet kettle.

Go back up and read the first three replies. This entire thread has been about "Obama being a socialist". I said he's not. I have provided proof. You're the one wanting to argue about semantics. I'm trying to stay on topic. If you want me to say it, then sure he called for universal health care years ago. But is Obama a socialist? That's been my point this entire thread. Actions speak louder than words. And his actions prove he is far from socialism.

[jaybug]

Socialism
  1. Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

Stolen from the Oxford English Dictionary.

Relic, I meant this kind of simple, with a touch of the second, or should I say, third.

Simple
 1. Free from duplicity, dissimulation, or guile; innocent and harmless; undesigning, honest, open, straightforward.
 3. a. Free from elaboration or artificiality; artless, unaffected; plain, unadorned.

I love the OED.

[relic2279]

'KISS' remember?

You here moufin' off about fings like facts and stuff. That's not how we work. I don't wanna read no definifions. I won't certainly wead no 2,500 pages of sum guvernment propagandas about no communismz. It all be trixum...


In all seriousness, the definitions you provided mean nothing to me. I already know them. It doesn't detract from anything I've said so I'm not entirely sure why you even brought them up.

[vicious796]

First, I made the mistake of getting online after I got home from my hockey game last night. My aggression wasn't fully worn off and I realize I may have been a bit sharp, I apologize. I hope, by now, you realize I respect you enough not to truly stab at you.

Obama has come to the table with the most liberal agenda I've seen in my lifetime. Sure, it's a very short lifetime, however he's more "free wheeling" than the last 3 Presidents I've been alive and conscious for. Going further back, you're hard pressed to find another winning candidate that ran on hopes and dreams, universal healthcare, and anti-war jargon. The room that we're in now has a line down the middle of it - on this side we're bringing up and going on what he's said, what he ran on, what "got him elected" - his platform. On your side, relic, you're speaking of what's been enacted, what bills have been offered, and where/how views have "shifted" in Congress.

I have no interest in arguing over the "correct" definition of words. What I've always tried to write is the point of view the common American will have. If you stack Obama up next to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan - shit even Carter - he's further left. Is he a "true" socialist - no. Is his agenda "socialist" compared to his recent predecessors? Yes, yes it is. He ran on the left and has acted as a ever-so-slightly-left-moderate. He's done absolutely nothing to "destroy partisanship" - I'd argue he's made it worse. However, when you hold a post of singular power - like the seat of the President - you can't afford to be anything but moderate and only slanted. Can you IMAGINE Pelosi with Congress stacked in her favor? Can you IMAGINE what would happen?

[jaybug]

Oh Relic, when you get some bill over 1,000 pages, and heck, it most likely is done with far fewer, there is no way to keep some congressman attaching some rider that is nothing but a spoke in the wheel of the bill. Poison pill clauses come to mind, and pork projects are another.

WE used to have a rule stating that any riders to bills before congress must be germaine to the bill. I don't know when that went out the window, but since then bills have gotten larger and larger, stuffed with all sorts of goodies to pay off members for their votes.

I'm just trying to see if I can even find the page you're on, let alone be on the same page.

So do you use Clinton's definition of the word "is?"

[relic2279]

If you stack Obama up next to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan - shit even Carter - he's further left.

I disagree, I think Obama is further right than Clinton was. (So far)

Is he a "true" socialist - no. Is his agenda "socialist" compared to his recent predecessors? Yes, yes it is.

But that's like saying McCain isn't a "true" fascist, but his agenda is... Actually, now that I think about it, he actually is a fascist in a way. So was Bush.

Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.

Basically, putting corporatism needs ahead of the populace. Combined that with nationalism (national pride) and poof. You have fascism.
And fascism is at the far end of the right wing spectrum. Much like communism is at the far left. Socialism lies a bit left of center, but not much. Sorry, but I'd rather America be a socialist country before becoming a fascist one. But it might be too late. We're already on a downward spiral into a totalitarian state.

Can you IMAGINE Pelosi with Congress stacked in her favor? Can you IMAGINE what would happen?

I doubt much would change. Both parties are fundamentally corrupt and controlled by lobbies and pursue their own interests. To be honest, I choose the party with less military industry complex and defense lobbies and ties. I pick the dems because I dislike war mongering. Not only is it immoral, but it costs us a fortune in tax dollars. It's the lesser of two evils.

Oh Relic, when you get some bill over 1,000 pages, and heck, it most likely is done with far fewer, there is no way to keep some congressman attaching some rider that is nothing but a spoke in the wheel of the bill. Poison pill clauses come to mind, and pork projects are another.

The "pork" has already passed. They simply nixed the public option from the bill, not the pork. Not sure what you are talking about. There wasn't any "meta-pork" that disappeared from the health care bill with the public option.

[jaybug]

I doubt much would change. Both parties are fundamentally corrupt and controlled by lobbies and pursue their own interests.

This is what really kills me, die party uber alles.

But don't forget, defense spending is all right here in the US if A. Paying prevailing wages to unionized workers. Also, the CEOs of the defense contractors are not making bank as Wall Street of even Big-Pharma corporations are making.

I pick the dems because I dislike war mongering.

I wonder what you would have done, had you lived in Georgia, while Sam Nunn was senator. OR senators Boxer and Feinstein, or Murray, or Reid, whose states are so dependent upon defense spending.

The "pork" has already passed. They simply nixed the public option from the bill, not the pork. Not sure what you are talking about. There wasn't any "meta-pork" that disappeared from the health care bill with the public option.

I'm talking about any bill, not just Obama-care. You reach a certain level of complexity, and you have more and more things that are not germaine to the bill, are purely pork, or are a big give away to get a congressman to sign on. Sometimes I think the president, any president needs to veto bills he would really prefer to have, but in total are not good for the nation.

I think it would be good for the nation, but I know that is not how things are done in Washington D.C. Can't go rockin' the boat now.

[relic2279]

Also, the CEOs of the defense contractors are not making bank as Wall Street of even Big-Pharma corporations are making.

Don't really care if it's the CEO's or if it's the investors making the bank. It doesn't matter regardless. The companies have an agenda to make more money, and without war, conflict and meddling, they make less money. Their business is inherently immoral. That is, if you consider war, killing and conflict immoral.

I wonder what you would have done, had you lived in Georgia, while Sam Nunn was senator. OR senators Boxer and Feinstein, or Murray, or Reid, whose states are so dependent upon defense spending.

Voted against them if they were for war mongering. But that is a dangerous train of thought. How much does Georgia rely on defense spending? The real question is, should any of us rely on an industry that needs war and conflict to flourish? I hope not...

[jaybug]

I was hoping to get you to elucidate more of a response besides how you would have voted. Besides, if you have a choice between a war hawk, and another war hawk, what choice do you have? Which would have been the case in Georgia. I can't say how much defense spending goes to Georgia. All I know if Fort Benning is located there, and the F-15s are built there. Beyond that I am not sure.

Much of our foreign aid is through arms gifts. This keeps people employed in good paying living wage jobs. I am not saying that manufacturing of war materiel is a good thing, only that keeping people working is a good thing.

It is wise to not confuse reality with a hoped for dream. There are still many nations and groups that would seek in inflict incredible harm to US should we render ourselves defenseless.

About the only people of whom I think well of for their absolute pacifist ways are the Amish. They will not fight under any reason, but will move away if push comes to shove.

Gandhi had a good idea for his time and place. But India and Pakistan have had five wars since then, because being reasonable only works with reasonable people. Faith is not reason.

So you are against investors. What exactly do you have for a retirement plan? To do your duty and die, instead of retire? If you want that, change the laws so reflect Social Security kicking in one year beyond life expectancy, just as it was originally intended. At least then you will only have to worry about giving money to less than 1/2 the population.

I think capitalism and communism/socialism ( I'm not sure which) could work together. Do this through retirement plans. It works thusly, you put money into a plan, and you get to decide which companies get the money, not just a particular stock/bond fund, unless there is a fund which has the social justice goals you strive for. And then when you have acquired stock in a company, YOU, and not the mutual fund manager get to vote your shares of stock. This way you can vote against ludicrous pay options to corporate executives. As it stands right now, fund managers only care that share price rises.

Having only one value is a poor way to run anything. Let alone a corporation/government/yourself. And trying to make it so that workers are made part of the social contract is a value that is not currently a part of a fund managers, or a CEOs corporate planning. Neither is training, but that is another value misplaced in today's work a day world.

What I see is not people trying to take control of the corporations, but the attempt to force government to run everything. This absolves them of their responsibility and any effort on their part. And sooner or later we get to bread and circuses, and the proles bringing nothing but children to the state.

And then from the right, we get vilification of the government workers, making it a tough place to be for those less to the left, in the workforce. They get ostracized by the right, and hammered by their co-workers from the left. They cannot respond to anyone, because it wouldn't be politically correct, or seen only as sucking at the government trough.

[relic2279]

I am not saying that manufacturing of war materiel is a good thing, only that keeping people working is a good thing.

And I agree. But there are other industries which can be forced, and our tax money re-allocated to, to retain those jobs. The US spends $600 billion a year on defense. And that military sink doesn't turn us a profit. We run it at a loss.
You could reallocate half that to a completely different industry and keep the jobs. And in addition, it would improve our economy since it would not be running at a loss, and likely have a good chance at turning a profit. Basically, defense spending is the worst place for our tax dollars to be.

It is wise to not confuse reality with a hoped for dream. There are still many nations and groups that would seek in inflict incredible harm to US should we render ourselves defenseless.

Thanks to economic and nuclear mutually assured destruction, the enemy nations are small and harmless. They could do no crippling damage to us. China and Russia are no longer threats thanks to m.a.d. We don't need a bloated military to handle the tiny countries like Iran and North Korea. If we wanted too, we could wipe out either country in less than a week via air superiority. And we're not their true enemy. Iran's is Israel, and North Korea's is South Korea (North Korea wants re-unification with the South). The only reason either country hates us, is because we sanction the hell out of them. We've been using our economic might to crush them. Not our military.

Though, I'm not saying we should completely get rid of our military. I'm saying we could cut our defense spending in half, still have the #1 military and have quite a bit of money to play around with.

About the only people of whom I think well of for their absolute pacifist ways are the Amish.

Don't like the Japanese? They have a pacifistic constitution forbidding war. Though, they have a super strong self defense force. Rated #9 in the world.

So you are against investors. What exactly do you have for a retirement plan?

Think you misread what I wrote. I'm against whomever is making the money in the private sector of defense contractors. Whether it be Blackwater, Halliburton, or Northrop Grumman. Most of their money is made during times of war and they have strong political ties and lobbies.

I think capitalism and communism/socialism ( I'm not sure which) could work together.

Communism and socialism are two different ideologies.
That's like me saying, "I think socialism and capitalism/fascism ( I'm not sure which) could work together." 
But I agree. I think it could work too.
Capitalism + socialism = Democratic Socialism. Which is what half of Europe has going right now. And one of those countries was rated the best in the world. A democratic socialist country.
Finland.
(Sorry ace... Norway got 6th. The US landed the 11th spot.)
http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

What I see is not people trying to take control of the corporations, but the attempt to force government to run everything. This absolves them of their responsibility and any effort on their part.

Think I've had this discussion with Vicious once. I don't think the government should run everything, but they should run industries which are price inelastic and will not work in a free market. Like health care.

Say you want some Oreo Cookies. You have 3 options. You can buy them from store A, buy them from store B or don't buy them at all. With health care, you have 2 options. Get surgery or treatment, or don't and die.
When you need care, you don't have the option to not buy the product/service. And thanks to your insurance company, you can't shop around. The price will be the same no matter what hospital you go too. It is not a free market compatible industry.