patrick.net

Artic Cat says

Poor white people aren’t embarrassed by lack of education or angered by their loss of work. They are angry at having 30+% of their meager earnings taken at gunpoint, only to fund grants for art that defames their religion. They are angry at having to pay taxes to bail out Wall St. while they live in poverty.

"Poor whites" (or blacks, or hispanics, or asians) pay so little in taxes that it's laughable for them to complain. If you live below the poverty line, you don't pay a cent in federal taxes, and in most states you won't pay anything either. Even if you make all the way up to the median, you're still paying virtually nothing. The spending that they're bitching about is other people's money -- of which they are the primary beneficiaries. 30%? What a load of bullshit. Federal, State, and payroll taxes COMBINED do not make up even 15% of pay for someone at the median income level, and the combined total is negative (thanks to refundable tax credits like the child tax credits) for those at or below the poverty line.

The only people who really have cause to bitch about their taxes are the middle class. Rich people just pay capital gains, and poor people pay little to nothing. Meanwhile, somebody making a low six figure salary can easily be shelling out 25-30% to the federal government alone.

Artic Cat says

They are tired of the Democrats, the people that told them “we will help you” give them the shaft. They may not understand the complexities of global wage arbitrage, but they know damn well when they have been promised the world and gotten screwed instead.

What "shaft" have they gotten? Please explain this to me. Welfare? Section 8? Food stamps? I'd love to know how you think they're getting "the shaft".

Artic Cat says

Recall that the deep south and middle blue-collar America were traditional Democratic strongholds. Not so much these days.

Yeah, back when the Republicans were "the party of Lincoln". Southern allegiance had a clear and marked shift when the democrats decided to support the civil rights movement. I'm sure that was about economics, though!

Artic Cat says

They see the simple truth that both Democrats and Republicans are nothing but bags of hubris that help themselves to others money and play on the misfortunes of others to get re-elected. Their common sense tells them that adding even more of such governance, is not the answer to their problems. Before you condemn them as fascist, perhaps you should spend 6 months or a year living in a rural middle America to get a real perspective on who these people are, and why they so oppose what you support.

I was born and raised in rural middle America. I have family there. They oppose whatever the Democrats do for essentially 3 reasons:

1. Abortion
2. Homosexuals
3. Minorities

Where I grew up, in the 1990s it was still normal for all black people to be referred to as "Nigger" -- not just as an epitaph, but as a synonym for "black". That's still true for the most part, though at least nobody says it in public.

Now, I wouldn't call the poor whites fascists. For the most part, they're just ignorant people who are being manipulated by evil people. History is full of them.

Quite frankly, if the democrats could spin their messages a little differently, most of the poor whites would be on their side.

Artic Cat says

Oh, one more thing. Isn’t it interesting that conservative, rural America managed to sidestep most of the housing run up and follow on implosion? Maybe their not so ignorant after all…

All unpopulated areas sidestepped the housing run up. Know why? Because there isn't demand. Demand in cities is high (that's why it's a million+ for a studio apartment in manhattan). Demand in the country is low ($100k will buy you a giant home with acreage). Take a look at any of the mini metros throughout the midwest, though, and you'll find the exact same housing stupidity that you found in California.

nosf41 says

What is the price of your freedom: A socialist health care system?
If Obamacare was such a good plan - it would be easy to defend it.
There are better solutions to health care reform than single payer government health care.
Why are you bothered by the Fox News?
The time of Walter Cronkite and few people controlling the news delivered to US public is over. At least there is one TV news organization that cannot be counted as cheerleaders for Obama. Even better, we have Internet (You Tube) to get information from various sources.
Dems have really “helped” the working class. They have been in charge of Congress for much longer period than GOP in the last 50 years. During that time the working class position in the society has declined.
I will not vote for Democrats until they change the following policies:
a) Support for ever increasing taxes on “middle class”
b) Support for illegal immigration
c) Continuing support of teachers’ unions, bad performing schools and spending on wasteful education programs.
d) Continuous support for able bodied “welfare queens”
e) Support for affirmative action programs (reverse racism)
f) Promotion of socialist agenda (it is real; not an imaginary “evil enemy”)

Holy Hanna, where to start...
First off, do you even know what the definition of "Socialism" is? Without looking it up, write it down here for us please.
"What is the price of your freedom?" What does that even mean? And how does having a partially gov sponsored healthcare system erode your freedoms, whatever you may perceive them as being? If you want to attack gov for a reason related to freedom then go scream about AT&T spying, or what happened to J Padilla, or why the banks are being 'rewarded' for failing and shit up about healthcare and let them do something that will help people for a change.
"If Obamacare was such a good plan - it would be easy to defend it."... Lets be honest here, Any plan Obama came up with would be attacked by the GOP, most of them have said as much or said so plainly. The GOP sees breaking Obama's healthcare plan as a political victory and the motivation for attacking it has very much less to do with the actual substance of the plan than with political maneuvering, which to me makes their position all the more cynical and disgusting. And again, do you even know what the plan is?
"There are better solutions to health care reform than single payer government health care." And those would be?... The system we have in place now is terrible, its expensive, limiting, bureaucratic, and it kills for profit, Thats what its designed to do - Its a FOR PROFIT system which means its going to put the profit margin ahead of your gradma's kidney, how much worse could that be? A gov sponsored plan is intended to be not for profit, meaning its closer to an altruistic system BY DESIGN. I would have thought that much would be plainly obvious. ...And why is it that the USA is the ONLY industrialized nation that does not have some form of gov heath system, aside from for the Elderly?
I'm bothered by Fox news because they seem more interested in flinging partisan oriented inflammatory poo than providing credible news and context. Everybody can have their own opinions but they can't have their own facts, and it seems to me that one of the key goals of Fox News is not to provides facts and context but to OBSCURE it, to rally party faithful to an attack, whichever attack happens to be the cause of the day for the GOP party. C Krauthammer admitted so much in an interview last year.
JHC, I'm not calling you an idiot, but you sure sound like one.

kentm says

Holy Hanna, where to start…
First off, do you even know what the definition of “Socialism” is? Without looking it up, write it down here for us please.

I grew up in a socialist/comunist country: The government controlled the economy, health care, education, media...
The health care was affordable, but treatment options were limited. Very often there were shortages of medications. Even basic things like pain medications were rationed. Not enough hospital beds led to overcrowding. When she was a child, my wife spent few days in a hospital - sharing a bed with another kid.
I could go on and on with stories illustrating the point that central planning and government monopoly does not work well.

“If Obamacare was such a good plan - it would be easy to defend it.”… Lets be honest here, Any plan Obama came up with would be attacked by the GOP, most of them have said as much or said so plainly.

Obama is on the record that his ultimate goal is a single payer system where government is the sole provider of health care services. I do not want a "dear leader" and his "czars" deciding who gets treated. In a socialist system, doctor could make a mistake and you had no recourse whatsoever. A bad or a mediocre doctor was protected - it was almost impossible to be fired, just like public school teachers in the USA.
A thousand page health care reform bill is not the way to go. Even members of Congress admitted that they did not read the bill and still willing to support it.
I have posted on another forum (http://patrick.net/?p=16740&cc=58) several ideas about changing the US health care system.

Yea, nosf41 - our current system is awesome and people always receive the best available treatment:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure4-2009sep04,0,4503502.story

HMO claims-rejection rates trigger state investigation
The increased attention also comes on the heels of a first-of-its-kind report issued this week that said the California health insurers reject 1 in 5 medical claims.

Six of the state's largest insurers rejected 45.7 million claims for medical care, or 22% of all claims, from 2002 to June 30, 2009, according to the California Nurses Assn.'s analysis of data submitted to regulators by the companies.

The rejection rates ranged from a high of 39.6% for PacifiCare to 6.5% for Aetna for the first half of 2009. Cigna denied 33%, and Health Net 30%.

Anthem Blue Cross, the state's largest for-profit health plan, and Kaiser, the state's largest nonprofit plan, each rejected 28% of claims.
------------------------------
FYI, denial of payment usually means denial of treatment. Denial of treatment, even for minor ailments, often results in death.

"I could go on and on with stories illustrating the point that central planning and government monopoly does not work well."

No thankyou - we already have enough stories here about central planning and non-government monopoly that doesn't work well. Your home country's system sucked, I get it. But our system, where medications are plentiful yet people are either denied them or can't afford them is horrible and doesn't work - unless you're not sick. Money equals treatment.

Healthcare should not be an option. No matter what country you're in at the time.

"I grew up in a socialist/communist country". I grew up in a partially socialized system too, Canada, and I'm proud of what the gov there was able to accomplish and provide for its citizens. Is it perfect? Of course not but its a better system for people than one designed to put human welfare behind its bottom line, and is more wasteful by multiple factors - did you know that the current US health care industry spends roughly 25 percent of its $ on beaurocracy while Medicare spends a little over 5? And if you want to trade stories about deficiencies in either system I suppose we could do that until our fingers fall off, but I can guarantee you this: a system thats designed to deny services and withhold medication IN ORDER TO PROFIT BY IT will always seem more horrific to me. ...but we could start it off by me asking you this: How much do you think you are worth? How much for your left leg? How about your right eye?

Aside - Whats your opinion of the police/fire/military systems in the US? I'd bet you don't have any problems with those government monopolizations.

"Obama is on the record that his ultimate goal is a single payer system where government is the sole provider of health care" They have never said anything other than they want to introduce single payer as an option and keep the rest of the current set up intact. If you're not capable of stating facts here please don't post.

kentm says

“I grew up in a socialist/communist country”. I grew up in a partially socialized system too, Canada, and I’m proud of what the gov there was able to accomplish and provide for its citizens. Is it perfect? Of course not but its a better system for people than one designed to put human welfare behind its bottom line, and is more wasteful by multiple factors - did you know that the current US health care industry spends roughly 25 percent of its $ on beaurocracy while Medicare spends a little over 5? And if you want to trade stories about deficiencies in either system I suppose we could do that until our fingers fall off, but I can guarantee you this: a system thats designed to deny services and withhold medication IN ORDER TO PROFIT BY IT will always seem more horrific to me. …but we could start it off by me asking you this: How much do you think you are worth? How much for your left leg? How about your right eye?
Aside - Whats your opinion of the police/fire/military systems in the US? I’d bet you don’t have any problems with those government monopolizations.
“Obama is on the record that his ultimate goal is a single payer system where government is the sole provider of health care” They have never said anything other than they want to introduce single payer as an option and keep the rest of the current set up intact. If you’re not capable of stating facts here please
don’t post.

Sorry to tell you, Obama did say such thing. Search You Tube and you will find the speech on his ultimate goal for the health care reform. He said it few years ago. Current health care reform proposal is the FIRST step towards that goal.
I would like to see a change in the US health care system. We need increased competition. Any regulation preventing insurance companies from offering their service across state boundaries should be removed. In a competitive industry, overhead costs will be minimized. Costs should be transparent and people using health care services should pay a portion of their bill out of pocket and the rest should be paid by the insurance (when dealing with major health issues). The ordinary (preventive) care should be paid 100% out of pocket - just like car maintenance. We do not use insurance to cover tire replacement, oil change or minor fixes.

Budgets for fire/police/military are too big. We do not need hundreds of military basis throughout the world. Whenever fire/police departments announce a job vacancy, there are hundreds of applicants for each position. Their benefits (overtime and pensions) could be slashed without any fear of not having enough people qualified to do the job.
Do you live in the USA?

"Sorry to tell you"...

(www.healthreform.gov)
the administration's plan lists eight goals that must be achieved to address the millions of Americans who do not have health insurance as well as rising health care costs.
1.) to reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government;
2.) to protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs;
3.) to guarantee choice of doctors and health plans;
4.) to invest in prevention and wellness;
5.) to improve patient safety and quality of care;
6.) to assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans;
7.) to maintain coverage when you change or lose your job;
8.) to end barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions.

"In a competitive industry, overhead costs will be minimized". The current system is competitive. Why have costs skyrocketed at the same time profits are surging? Why are heath care levels declining? Why do parts of the US now have health stats on par with some third world countries?

One of the stated goals of the current reform push is to INCREASE competition by providing another option. So... thast a good thing, right?

My point on the fire & police is that you don't complain that they're a socialized nightmare. And an aside - So you actually want to slash the wages of the people who keep us safe?

kentm says

“Sorry to tell you”…
(www.healthreform.gov)
the administration’s plan lists eight goals that must be achieved to address the millions of Americans who do not have health insurance as well as rising health care costs.
1.) to reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government;
2.) to protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs;
3.) to guarantee choice of doctors and health plans;
4.) to invest in prevention and wellness;
5.) to improve patient safety and quality of care;
6.) to assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans;
7.) to maintain coverage when you change or lose your job;
8.) to end barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions.
“In a competitive industry, overhead costs will be minimized”. The current system is competitive. Why have costs skyrocketed at the same time profits are surging? Why are heath care levels declining? Why do parts of the US now have health stats on par with some third world countries?
One of the stated goals of the current reform push is to INCREASE competition by providing another option. So… thast a good thing, right?
My point on the fire & police is that you don’t complain that they’re a socialized nightmare. And an aside - So you actually want to slash the wages of the people who keep us safe?

Increased health care costs are the proof that there is NOT enough competition. Cosmetic surgery costs, lasik eye surgeries have decreased in the past few years. That is what increased competition does.
In my industry, the software costs have been significantly reduced in the past decade. We have to bid competitively in order to win jobs.

I do not fall for the government propaganda. It is one thing to have nice goals - the current proposal will not result in achieving those goals. 1000 page bills that nobody can completely understand is not the way to go.
Obama does not want increased competition in the health care - he wants a government takeover. At least that is what he promised to his supporters long time ago.

Something is wrong when cities are going bankrupt because of the costs of fire/police and public employee benefits. As long as there are hundreds of applicants for those jobs - you will not persuade me that they are not overpaid for their service. There has to be a balance. They should be well paid - but not overpaid when compared to the rest of the society.

Kevin says: "Yeah, back when the Republicans were “the party of Lincoln”. Southern allegiance had a clear and marked shift when the democrats decided to support the civil rights movement. I’m sure that was about economics, though!"

Actually, Kevin, it's the other way around: The civil rights movement actually shifted towards the democrats (and marxism) and the left tossed their working white constituency under the bus. Consider that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a REVEREND using his CHURCH to spread leftist, marxist ideas but the left doesn't mind it when religion and politics mix in that case. When you generalize about working class whites as a bunch of ignorant racists being manipulated by "evil" people, consider what the so-called civil rights movement has done for black men for the past 40 years: Pushed them out of the home and into prisons via the welfare state and affirmative action that benefitted mostly middle class white women.

I sat on a Los Angeles jury 5 years ago when a Hispanic man was being railroaded with an assault and kidnapping charge. He had apparently struck back at his mother-in-law and ex-wife when they attacked him and took his daughter that he was scheduled to be with that day after they had capriciously refused to release her as per court order. Minority women on the jury said that a man had no right to attack a woman even in self-defense and the woman judge didn't dismiss them for cause. I was the only white on that jury that stood up and defended him (and it really annoyed the woman judge too, she dismissed me which was ok since I was an alternate.)

While we have to take Kevin's word for it that he heard the dreaded N word uttered by middle American whites, the seething racism directed towards working class whites by leftists is obvious to all, except, well, leftists themselves. That brings us to his other point: That the poor don't pay high taxes (well, Federal taxes at least). It's a cute generalization by the left that not only are non-white-hating, non-leftist whites all racist, ignorant, etc. but also poor. Actually, it's the opposite: Most leftists are non-white and have not graduated from college with a minority having Harvard degrees in law, economics and philosophy (and look at what good that has done society!) It's the right that has whites, granted, but also middle and working class of all races who build neighborhoods that, well, the white leftists secretly move to (and drive internal combustion engines) instead of riding the bus and living in more "diverse" crime-ridden inner cities... that brings us to:

Gays, homosexuals, feminists, policy wonk government workers, etc. There's an obvious problem with these core, elite white leftists: They tend to not have many children (much like Old Europe.) This is why they literally have to import voters from non-white countries in the hopes of keeping their dream alive to make America become a copy of... white Sweden! (And they don't see how that isn't going to work either...) Falling birthrates isn't necessarily a problem, really. As societies become more advanced there is less need for illiterate menial labor. The problem is that the socialist pension ponzi schemes along with voter demographics are failing so, like Hitler in his bunker or Heaven's gate cultists drinking special vodka martinis, they would rather go to their deaths (and take as much of society as they can with them) than admit they're wrong. Yet... even as they refuse to admit that there's a SLIGHT possibility that they might be mistaken, they find it unreasonable that others shouldn't change their minds after being told how stupid, racist, ignorant, poor, etc. they are. Hmmm, kind of like a religious bigot (but enough about "fascist" Jeremiah Wright!)

I love how one of the points of fascism was spreading fear. Yeah, leftists never do that! "EEEK! The sky is falling because of global warming, er climate change! Quick! We have to do something NOW otherwise in a century the temperature of the world will rise a half degree!" or even Patrick saying that not going along with his plan means we'll all be bankrupt and dead. Yeah, real cogent argument there.

Seriously: it's hard to get people to change their minds (look at all the messages they put on packs of cigarettes) but perhaps one of the few things that might work is the "scared straight" program. Show a bunch of kids the typical cigarette smoker (low class) and they might think twice before heading down that road. I have a number of leftist friends and relatives I grew up with and most are single and living in their mothers' attics. Yes, I am NOT making that up!

Just thought I'd comment on the new link that was added from the Huffington Post to the patrick.net home page this morning. They scream about how a Republican fighting against the current healthcare bill is a hypocrite because he used the services of Bethesda Naval Hospital, which they hold up as a shining example of government run medicine.

They seem to think that socialized healthcare will grant them access to a flagship research center / military hospital that is (surprise!) only open to high level politicians. Yea, and social security will grant us all the same pension benefits that congress has generously voted for themselves.

As the previous poster noted, all the whining, crying or laws in the world won't stop the inevitable collapse of such "I want it all and I want someone else to pay for it" systems, nor will they stop the demographic shifts that will tilt the USA ever more to the right.

"Increased healthcare costs are the proof that there is NOT enough competition" So more competition is good. Excellent, I agree with you! As a public option will be only one more player and the larger healthcare industry as it stands will be left alone this is a good thing, right? Done. Argument over. So, again - shut up about healthcare reform and let the gov do something good for people. Cosmetic surgeries are exactly the reference that has no bearing on this discussion as its an entirely elective luxury, as opposed to general healthcare decisions such as, say, your grandma's last kidney/life. I think its distasteful that you'd try to introduce that as a balance point against real healthcare issues.

"In my industry, the software costs have been significantly reduced in the past decade" There's no comparrison, why you even make that one here is beyond me. In software dev two factors are responsible for reduced costs: Outsourcing and a more mature, better trained, larger workforce. So... in what way would you apply this formula to healthcare? And here's a rebuttal of a similar nature: heathcare costs are up because apples are more red this year.

"I do not fall for the government propaganda." Indeed, you seem very selective about what propaganda you fall for.

"Something is wrong when cities are going bankrupt" Cities were not going bankrupt three years ago when the housing industry and investment industry appeared more solid. These issues cropping up now has little directly to do with fire/police dept costs, as opposed to the investments gone bad that were supporting them and the monies borrowed against the apparent certainties they represent. and anyway this issue is sidetracking from the original point - I made the reference to point out that your attacks on gov run services was selective, as you - aside from wanting the people who do these jobs to be screwed over as much as the average person with health insurance is - don't seem to have any problems benefiting from their services.

And anyway, you're arguing in circles, pulling in selective and irrelevant facts. This isn't that productive of a discussion, I don't want to continue with it. But to close out I'd just really encourage you to look into these issues that you seem to be reacting against from a selfish and entirely knee-jerk position, to form opinions based on the facts and a consideration of the larger picture and not the 'hot button talking points' that are fed via Fox etc. I think you're focusing on this issue as a proxy for other, deeper gov trangressions.

...and, to bring it back to patrick's original topic, I'll point out that using "hot button" issues and "talking points" are a key method of controlling and directing people who are inclined toward an authoritarian/fascist mindset.

PolishKnight says

Actually, Kevin, it’s the other way around: The civil rights movement actually shifted towards the democrats (and marxism) and the left tossed their working white constituency under the bus. Consider that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a REVEREND using his CHURCH to spread leftist, marxist ideas but the left doesn’t mind it when religion and politics mix in that case. When you generalize about working class whites as a bunch of ignorant racists being manipulated by “evil” people, consider what the so-called civil rights movement has done for black men for the past 40 years: Pushed them out of the home and into prisons via the welfare state and affirmative action that benefitted mostly middle class white women.

Why are you conflating religion and the civil rights movement, or even the feminist movement? Or welfare? These are completely distinct issues.

The whites stopped voting democrat because they supported civil rights, period. The party's basic policies didn't change one bit (social safety nets, protectionism, etc. -- the same exact platform that they had been riding on since FDR). Democrats didn't care about minorities before the civil rights movement because, well, the minorities were rarely able to vote in the first place.

PolishKnight says

While we have to take Kevin’s word for it that he heard the dreaded N word uttered by middle American whites, the seething racism directed towards working class whites by leftists is obvious to all, except, well, leftists themselves. That brings us to his other point: That the poor don’t pay high taxes (well, Federal taxes at least). It’s a cute generalization by the left that not only are non-white-hating, non-leftist whites all racist, ignorant, etc. but also poor. Actually, it’s the opposite: Most leftists are non-white and have not graduated from college with a minority having Harvard degrees in law, economics and philosophy (and look at what good that has done society!) It’s the right that has whites, granted, but also middle and working class of all races who build neighborhoods that, well, the white leftists secretly move to (and drive internal combustion engines) instead of riding the bus and living in more “diverse” crime-ridden inner cities… that brings us to:

This is a weird, incoherent rambling bit with a few distinct arguments. The original subject was that poor, working class whites turned against the left for no logical reason.

I never said that all racists are poor or that all poor people are racists -- I just said that poor, ignorant white people are generally racist, and that is God's honest truth -- and those people overwhelmingly support the "right" (well, Republicans anyway).

Poor, ignorant black people also tend to be racist, but they support the democrats because when they look at Republicans they see poor ignorant white people.

"Inner cities" -- have you been to a major city in the last 20 years? "Inner cities" are generally the most desirable in big cities, and poor people can't afford to live there and are instead forced out to the long exurb commutes.

The rest of your post makes even less sense. I love that you think Hitler was a leftist.

"The whites stopped voting democrat because they supported civil rights, period. "

You still don't get it. The whites stopped voting democrat because Democrats don't support civil rights FOR WHITE PEOPLE.

Period.

It's rather amusing that you accuse me of conflating feminists and other special interest groups together when you had just done a similar thing in your own post to demonize middle Americans:

"They oppose whatever the Democrats do for essentially 3 reasons: 1. Abortion 2. Homosexuals 3. Minorities"

With the left, it's somewhat more simple: You can join da club if you're NOT 1. White 2. Male.

Which is probably why the self-hating white guilt white male leftist dreaming of Swedish socialist paradise is dying out like the shakers cult. Generally speaking, self-hating groups or with sexual identity angst eventually die out. At least with the shakers, they made great furniture...

Your excuse for black racism is amusing that you seem to think it matters that they "see" poor ignorant white Republicans. Hilarious. At least with whites, it's "seen and nor heard" or more specifically, violent crime by blacks against whites occurs at a 10:1 ratio (from fedstats.gov)

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Kreager.shtml

Before you peg Fred as a radical right conservative, consider that he has bashed conservatives: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Conservatives.shtml

(I also love the contrast between the notion that Republicans are generally poor, white trailer park trash and at the same time, evil rich white guys out to oppress everyone. As I said, they're the MIDDLE CLASS, which, in a strange way, is "poor" to a typical metrosexual who needs $400K to get a 1bedroom roach shack in SF,DC,LA, etc. which brings us to:)

Yes, I lived in Los Angeles and what people think of "LA" (Santa Monica, West Hollywood) is NOT center LA. DC is murder capital, USA. And NYC? It took a REPUBLICAN mayor to clean that up after a black mayor let crime run rampant.

Regarding Hitler as a leftist. Look up what the term "national socialism" means. Hitler supported government funded infrastructure projects and national daycare. In fact, his own spending spree on the autobahn caused him to bankrupt the treasury early and go to war sooner than he expected and was prepared for contributing to him losing WWII.

kentm says

“I do not fall for the government propaganda.” Indeed, you seem very selective about what propaganda you fall for.

I do not trust politicians who advocate big government programs, which regularly fail to deliver on original promises (income tax, AMT, Social Security, Border Control, ...)
Obamas health care reform proposal does not introduce just one additional competitor. It is a first step towards government takeover of the health sector. I do not want somebody with your mindset make decisions about my acces to health care services.

“Something is wrong when cities are going bankrupt” Cities were not going bankrupt three years ago when the housing industry and investment industry appeared more solid. These issues cropping up now has little directly to do with fire/police dept costs, as opposed to the investments gone bad that were supporting them and the monies borrowed against the apparent certainties they represent. and anyway this issue is sidetracking from the original point - I made the reference to point out that your attacks on gov run services was selective, as you - aside from wanting the people who do these jobs to be screwed over as much as the average person with health insurance is - don’t seem to have any problems benefiting from their services.

I do not want government employees to be "screwed over". However, they should not be isolated from the economic problems experienced by the rest of the society. It is not sustainable that public sector employees be paid excessively. Few days ago, Patrick published a link to a database listing salaries of public sector employees in the Bay Area. Look it up - it is very educational.

And anyway, you’re arguing in circles, pulling in selective and irrelevant facts. This isn’t that productive of a discussion, I don’t want to continue with it. But to close out I’d just really encourage you to look into these issues that you seem to be reacting against from a selfish and entirely knee-jerk position, to form opinions based on the facts and a consideration of the larger picture and not the ‘hot button talking points’ that are fed via Fox etc. I think you’re focusing on this issue as a proxy for other, deeper gov trangressions.
…and, to bring it back to patrick’s original topic, I’ll point out that using “hot button” issues and “talking points” are a key method of controlling and directing people who are inclined toward an authoritarian/fascist mindset

I am not sure what you are talking about here? It would help if I knew if you had any stake in the health care debate. Are you a US citizen, resident or you still live in the socialist paradise north of the border?

"Easily I could be be just as assumptive and blind and say “the left and their MSNBC”.
Really? The channel that put Michael Savage on with his circus act and then cancelled it due to lack of ratings?
"The left". What crap. You wouldn't know the left if it bit ye.

"I am not sure what you are talking about here? It would help if I knew if you had any stake in the health care debate. Are you a US citizen, resident or you still live in the socialist paradise north of the border?"

I live in the US, I have for 10 years, I have a baby here. Stake enough, as much as anyone else who has to deal with the nightmare the US healthcare system has become.

I love many things about the US, but the way the healthcare system is arranged I do not.

best,
Kent M

"I love many things about the US"

Hahahaha! Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

PolishKnight says

You still don’t get it. The whites stopped voting democrat because Democrats don’t support civil rights FOR WHITE PEOPLE.

Oh, I forgot that white people were attacked by dogs, sprayed with fire hoses, forced to sit in the back of buses, beaten by police for gathering in public, prevented from working, eating, or going to the bathroom in the same places as everyone else, or lynched in their front yards for the audacity to try to vote.

Please.

PolishKnight says

It’s rather amusing that you accuse me of conflating feminists and other special interest groups together when you had just done a similar thing in your own post to demonize middle Americans:

Oh friend, I'm not demonizing "middle Americans", I'm stating the simple truth of what poor, ignorant white people do and believe. Not all "Middle Americans" are poor and ignorant -- and not all are white for that matter. Those who are poor and ignorant just happen to vote Republican for completely illogical reasons.

Not that all Republicans are poor or white either -- and there are even a few left who aren't ignorant. Most of the rational conservatives vote libertarian these days though.

PolishKnight says

With the left, it’s somewhat more simple: You can join da club if you’re NOT 1. White 2. Male.

What do you mean by "da club" here? I know plenty of white males whom you would probably consider "leftists". I've voted for the democratic ("leftist", in your narrow world-view) candidate in the last 3 presidential elections and I'm both white and male.

PolishKnight says

Your excuse for black racism is amusing that you seem to think it matters that they “see” poor ignorant white Republicans. Hilarious. At least with whites, it’s “seen and nor heard” or more specifically, violent crime by blacks against whites occurs at a 10:1 ratio (from fedstats.gov)

There is no rational basis for racism, jackass. A racists is a racist is a racist. Do you really want to try to make the argument that whites have more grievances against blacks than the other way around?

I'll never make excuses for racists. I said that racist blacks vote democrat because they look at the republicans and see their white counterparts.

PolishKnight says

I also love the contrast between the notion that Republicans are generally poor, white trailer park trash and at the same time, evil rich white guys out to oppress everyone.

Well, friend, that is the truth. The middle class votes Democrat overwhelmingly, and has been a solid block for the democrats since the depression.

The upper class is pretty much split between republicans and democrats. The lower class skews heavily towards Republicans, with the notable exception of lower class blacks and hispanics, who vote democrat. These are publicly available statistics -- it's not something that's hard to find.

PolishKnight says

Regarding Hitler as a leftist. Look up what the term “national socialism” means. Hitler supported government funded infrastructure projects and national daycare. In fact, his own spending spree on the autobahn caused him to bankrupt the treasury early and go to war sooner than he expected and was prepared for contributing to him losing WWII.

I'm just going to ignore your obvious ignorance on the issue and point out that you have no idea what the term "left" means. You're now equating being a "leftist" with socialism, which is woefully ignorant.

Being "left wing" means that you believe in giving the power to the people, being "right wing" means that you believe that the power is best left in the hands of the elite, and that "the people" shouldn't be able to interfere with what the elite power structure wants to do.

This has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with race, and it has nothing to do with economics.

What hitler believed and what the anarcho-capitalists believe are the same: wealthy, powerful families make all the decisions and control everything. Classic right-wing ideology.

The USSR was a perfect examples of right wing socialism.

Now, if you want to argue about economics, you're welcome to it, though I suspect you know even less about that subject than you do about the organization of society.

Kevin says

This has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with race, and it has nothing to do with economics. What Hitler believed and what the anarcho-capitalists believe are the same: wealthy, powerful families make all the decisions and control everything. Classic right-wing ideology.
The USSR was a perfect examples of right wing socialism.
Now, if you want to argue about economics, you’re welcome to it, though I suspect you know even less about that subject than you do about the organization of society.

Wow! USSR = "right wing socialism". Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin were right wingers?
Do you have any other novel ideas?

"Oh, I forgot that white people were attacked by dogs, sprayed with fire hoses, forced to sit in the back of buses, beaten by police for gathering in public, prevented from working, eating, or going to the bathroom in the same places as everyone else, or lynched in their front yards for the audacity to try to vote."

Sure they were. By Uncle Joe Stalin. Most of the recent horrors against humanity have been perpetuated by atheistic leftists. In addition, as I pointed out previously, most black men in recent times are greater victims of welfare policies that reward women kicking them out of the home. But those facts are an "uncomfortable truth", so to speak, so you choose to just ignore them and continue repeating comfortable platitudes.

My newfound "friend" says: "There is no rational basis for racism, jackass."

And in the same breath says:

"Do you really want to try to make the argument that whites have more grievances against blacks than the other way around?"

The very notion of group race guilt _is_ racism. Racism is judging someone by their race rather than their character (someone famous once said that...) Here's the URL (again) about a black on white race crime that you perhaps don't even classify as racism since, after all, she was white and therefore shares race guilt for all crimes against blacks:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Kreager.shtml
In Baltimore a young white woman boards a bus and wants to sit down. Each time she tries to take a seat she is told by nine black middle-schools students, ages 14 and 15, including three girls, that she can’t. Finally she sits anyway. The little—the middle-school students, I mean—attack her. From the Examiner, “She sustained ‘serious injuries’ and had to be transported to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, according to a police report…[Sarah] Kreager suffered two broken bones in her left eye socket, police said. She had eye muscles that were damaged…She had deep lacerations on the top of her head and another above her neck. Her face will never be the same."

Kevin claims, falsely: "The middle class votes Democrat overwhelmingly, and has been a solid block for the democrats since the depression." "These are publicly available statistics — it’s not something that’s hard to find."

Hahahaha! Indeed, Kevin, here you go: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
In the 2004 election, Democrats dominated income ranges below $30K. That's your "middle class!"
"I’m just going to ignore your obvious ignorance on the issue and point out that you have no idea what the term “left” means. You’re now equating being a “leftist” with socialism, which is woefully ignorant."

I'm reminded of Michael Jackson calling his accusers "ignorant". "They're so ignorant."

"Being “left wing” means that you believe in giving the power to the people, being “right wing” means that you believe that the power is best left in the hands of the elite, and that “the people” shouldn’t be able to interfere with what the elite power structure wants to do."
Yeah, and pushing all the power to Washington via big government is really about giving power "to the people..."

Your whole position is bankrupt not only economically, but also logically and morally as well. You pontificate about the evils of racism while bashing whites. You argue for socialist "solutions" that are currently socialist problems (medicaid). And the fun part is that at a certain, subconscious level, you already know this. That's the only reason we're having this conversation (isn't psychology great?)

I love this close: "What hitler believed and what the anarcho-capitalists believe are the same: wealthy, powerful families make all the decisions and control everything. Classic right-wing ideology."

Yet, you IDOLIZE the wealthy and well connected: Obama, Kennedy's, Soros (who made money turning in his fellow Jews, at least when he hated his own kind he turned a profit unlike pathetic self-hating white male leftists here). You regard the working class as schlubs and at the same time deny that you have to appeal to the lowest of them (in the welfare state) just to keep your whole ideology from dying.

The coup de gras: "The USSR was a perfect examples of right wing socialism."

Hahahaha! I really pushed your buttons. Cut back on the cool aid.

Tenpoundbass says: "I’ve always considered my self a Democrat, by default, because I knew I wasn’t with trampling over far off villages under Uncle Sams toe because their village was in the way of some agenda that American republicans had."

Welcome to the club, Tenpoundbass! I personally, when I was younger, was a liberal libertarian until I actually learned what the Democrat/leftist/socialist agenda was. It was an interesting point in my life when I had to come to grips with the fact that I was fighting on the wrong side for stuff that didn't make any sense upon the most basic examination. It was embarassing and humbling and it's no wonder that some people choose to put massive amounts of energy into denial rather than admit they're wrong (it's kind of like alcoholism or drug abuse.)

The left preaches that racism is the most horrible thing on earth and turns around and uses racism against whites as a political tool to appeal to non-whites. Ditto (hmmm, perhaps shouldn't use that word...) with sexism. Want to see a feminist turn into a traditionalist? Present her with the dinner bill! It's not only cheap sentiment but moral hypocrisy that goes to a level of sublime absurdity. In it's own way, it's beautiful.

Regarding trampling over far off villages: I personally disagreed with the Iraq war and, for that matter, with most of our military foreign aid efforts. But, that said, consider that at least these are FOREIGN places being bombed out while the leftist agenda has transformed most American metro centers into office parks. The right lives in the exoburbs while the left lives in the suburbs and drive cars to get there. Suburban sprawl? THANK WHITE FLIGHT!

The left is all about elitism beginning with getting a special membership card that proclaims: "You're a leftist and therefore not a bad, bigoted, racist, stupid, poor loser like those who disagree with us. Marxist bible study is on Thursday and the pancake dinner on Friday" (Oh, I'm getting it mixed up with Catholicism. My bad. Catholicism is BETTER!)

It's all about that even if they don't go to heaven (a nice apartment in Stockholm) they can still feel better that others are going to hell and if they wind up going too then they'll drag as many as they can down with them.

I too was thrilled when I moved to the "tolerance" mecca of the Bay Area many years ago. As the years passed, I started to notice that the many on the far left were really no different than the far right. Different causes, equally wrong. No reason or logic to back up their positions, and nothing but rhetoric and hate if you should have a different point of view.

The left can be just a vile and hate filled as the KKK.

Just look at the posts in this thread. It's a great example.

Just got back today.

nosf41 makes the most sense in these postings. Patrick is out in left field. I prefer to have my inalienable rights protected by God (the God of the bible) fearing men (and women) who would honor the Constitution. Healthcare is not an inalienable right. Don't forget that this country was founded by men escaping from religious tyranny to be governed by their God (of the bible).

PolishKnight says

Sure they were. By Uncle Joe Stalin.

Holy Shit, I didn't know Stalin was making rules in the USA. Learn something new every day!

PolishKnight says

The very notion of group race guilt _is_ racism. Racism is judging someone by their race rather than their character (someone famous once said that…) Here’s the URL (again) about a black on white race crime that you perhaps don’t even classify as racism since, after all, she was white and therefore shares race guilt for all crimes against blacks:

I don't classify these crimes as racism -- I classify them as crimes. Black people are disproportionately poorer than white people and poor people commit disproportionately more crime than everyone else, so it's inevitable that most "interracial" crime will be black-on-white. This isn't a matter of race at all -- it's a matter of poverty.

PolishKnight says

Hahahaha! Indeed, Kevin, here you go: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
In the 2004 election, Democrats dominated income ranges below $30K. That’s your “middle class!”

Maybe you should look at all elections [not just presidential, either], not one presidential election where the democrats tossed out the crappiest candidate they could shit out. Democrats definitely dominate the non-white lower class, I will give you that -- it's the whites that were the topic of discussion though.

PolishKnight says

Yeah, and pushing all the power to Washington via big government is really about giving power “to the people…”

No, you don't "push all the power" to anyone. You completely miss the point. You don't want to "push all the power" in any organization because that organization will just dominate everyone. This is why our government has checks and balances.

And, yes, I trust the government way more than corporations. At least I have some say over who runs the government.

PolishKnight says

Your whole position is bankrupt not only economically, but also logically and morally as well. You pontificate about the evils of racism while bashing whites.

My "whole position" that ignorant poor people make irrational decisions is bankrupt economically and logically and morally? How on earth does that even make sense?

Other than ignorant poor whites, which ones am I bashing? I know lots of ignorant, poor whites (I'm related to plenty of them, and I used to be one), and I'll stand by my argument that ignorant, poor whites are overwhelmingly racist and are easily manipulated (obama is a muslim, obama is not a citizen, obama is a socialist)

PolishKnight says

You argue for socialist “solutions” that are currently socialist problems (medicaid).

What socialist "solution" am I arguing for again? Please enlighten me. Why do you think I'm "arguing for" medicaid? Do you even know what you're typing?

PolishKnight says

Yet, you IDOLIZE the wealthy and well connected: Obama, Kennedy’s, Soros (who made money turning in his fellow Jews, at least when he hated his own kind he turned a profit unlike pathetic self-hating white male leftists here).

The only person on that list that I even remotely like is Obama, so I don't know why you think I'm "idolizing" these people (Soros in particular infuriates me, as he has done some truly vile shit with currency exchange that rightfully earned him a price on his head in Thailand). Why are you talking out of your ass?

PolishKnight says

You regard the working class as schlubs and at the same time deny that you have to appeal to the lowest of them (in the welfare state) just to keep your whole ideology from dying.

When did I deny that you have to appeal to the welfare state? I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Do you live in some bizarro alternate universe where I post on forums with a completely different brain?

PolishKnight says

The coup de gras: “The USSR was a perfect examples of right wing socialism.”

Hahahaha! I really pushed your buttons. Cut back on the cool aid.

Once again, you know absolutely nothing on the subject of right vs left because you're stuck in a narrow world view that thinks "left = socialism, right = capitalism", which is an ignorant stance that ignores the myriad combinations of economic systems and governance that have proven track records of failure and success. For hundreds and hundreds of years, left has referred to democratic systems where people make the decisions and right has referred to autocratic systems where dictators make the decisions.

"I don’t classify these crimes as racism — I classify them as crimes. Black people are disproportionately poorer than white people and poor people commit disproportionately more crime than everyone else, so it’s inevitable that most “interracial” crime will be black-on-white. This isn’t a matter of race at all — it’s a matter of poverty."

That's my whole point. You won't see any racism against whites even when it's clear, as it was in this case, that there was no financial motivation whatsoever for the crime. It's funny how you whitewash, pardon the pun, of black on white crime as being mere poverty based is a perfect response to acusations of police profiling and greater rates of black incarceration. Good going! This leads us to:

"Holy Shit, I didn’t know Stalin was making rules in the USA. Learn something new every day!"

Indeed, and this is not happening today either as you wrote earlier:
"Oh, I forgot that white people were attacked by dogs, sprayed with fire hoses, forced to sit in the back of buses, beaten by police for gathering in public, prevented from working, eating, or going to the bathroom in the same places as everyone else, or lynched in their front yards for the audacity to try to vote."

These crimes occurred in the past and probably also committed by a lot of poor whites. So using your own logic, whites should be absolved. You're using a clear double standard.

The rest of your thinking is full of holes that are easy to poke fun at (such as Uncle Joe supposedly being a right winger even as you love big government) but I don't want to bore the reader or give you an opportunity to weasle out of your clear illogic. You know your positions are untenable which is why you hate whites and project that hate onto them. Whatever you might say about the people you grew up with, they're better, and more honest, than you'll ever be. Live with it.

"Racism" is the new McCarthyism.

There are some great comments in this thread. Unfortunately, I believe many are wasting their breath; as I probably am now.

When a post starts using an obviously slanted reference as their source to justify fascism, than that person is not going to be swayed with rational argument. Psychology studies have shown that once people buy into a set of facts, they're unlikely to change their minds, even if presented with evidence to the contrary. So this gentleman is trying to tell you what he believes is fact and is not looking for debate. If you don't believe it; then you are a right-winger, nut, simpleton, or some other pejorative term. If another commenter presents a coherent argument - he will either ignore you, or pull out one of your sentences and take it out of context.

Funny thing is, it would be trivial to dig up an article of bullet points to fit President Obama as a communist, a fascist, or a racist. Of course, it's equally ridiculous but, the person writing it believes it absolutely.

jackrusse1l says

Laurence Britt ... is a liberal activist from New York who was on the Executive board of a Local ACLU chapter. ... He has no professional credentials, only a biased aspect to try to make fascism fit.

Thanks, Jack, for the info about Britt. I've criticized his "14 points" elsewhere:
http://orangecoyote.blogspot.com/2006/07/britt-on-fascism-in-free-inquiry.html
but briefly, the problem with his list is that he fails to define fascism, and then fails to give any examples. It's just a laundry list of things Britt does not like.

I was listening to some windbag on NPR from Canada the other day lecturing Diane Rheem, he was going on about how America criminalizes the youth in this country.
Then I thought, wait a minute, aren't these the clowns that let Motor Cycle gangs actually be more than Movie legend, myth and justification for a middle aged balding man to go into to 20K debt for a Harley.

We've had Motor Cycle gangs for decades and have never tolerated them being anything more than symbolic. Canada has them running around shooting up the gentle folks, kids and police.

I love it when other countries knows what's better for America than we do, complete with opinion and all.

PolishKnight says

Tenpoundbass says: “I’ve always considered my self a Democrat, by default, because I knew I wasn’t with trampling over far off villages under Uncle Sams toe because their village was in the way of some agenda that American republicans had.”

Welcome to the club, Tenpoundbass! I personally, when I was younger, was a liberal libertarian until I actually learned what the Democrat/leftist/socialist agenda was. It was an interesting point in my life when I had to come to grips with the fact that I was fighting on the wrong side for stuff that didn’t make any sense upon the most basic examination. It was embarassing and humbling and it’s no wonder that some people choose to put massive amounts of energy into denial rather than admit they’re wrong (it’s kind of like alcoholism or drug abuse.)

Tenpoundbass was thrown out of the tank, for not eating the Bluefish.

Sarah Palin will punish you all!

wcalleallegre says

Don’t forget that this country was founded by men escaping from religious tyranny to be governed by their God (of the bible).

Poe's Law in play.

Troy says

wcalleallegre says

Don’t forget that this country was founded by men escaping from religious tyranny to be governed by their God (of the bible).

Poe’s Law in play.

LOL!

Yeah, this country was founded by wealthy white land owners who were tired of paying taxes to England and who were tired of not having any representation in British Government so they were without say over being taxed. Don't get it twisted.

The Pilgrims who fled religious persecution really didn't found our country. Thomas Jefferson who wrote the constitution was a very wealthy land owner and owner of many slaves. George Washington, our first president and General of the Revolutionary Army, was a very wealthy land owner and owned many slaves. These white wealthy men and other white wealthy men founded our country mainly to keep their money here in the USA and have a say over the governance of their own land.

Religious freedom was an end product of the construction of government.

Oh, and the majority of the Founding Fathers weren't Christians. They were mainly Free Masons, Quakers, and Deists. They instituted a SEPARATION of church and state because THEY DIDN'T TRUST RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS in governance. Our Constitution doesn't create a Theocracy where we are "ruled by God." Our Constitution creates the polar opposite form of governance. It's supposed to be a government "for the people and by the people." God wasn't supposed to be a part of any of it. The US Consititution is a completely SECULAR document and our government is meant to be SECULAR.

Some people really need a civics class or ten.

bump!

A recent study of longevity found that educated men now lived 14 years longer than men without high school diplomas. Women in the same groups were 10 years longer. The study found that the 5 year drop in life expectancy of the uneducated whites brought them below the life expectancy for African Americans.
All you have to do is see where you are in the pecking order.
Of course in Sweden with its egalitarian income system, the longevity differences are much much closer. So what's the problem with the less educated seeing the light?

simchaland says

Some people really need a civics class or ten.

add to that: world history, economics, other languages, philosophy, etc, etc,
at free, quality, public schools.

and on top of that education (which I have) some people should follow the news before commenting on it!

nosf41 says

Any regulation preventing insurance companies from offering their service across state boundaries should be removed.

That is certainly a good point - even countries that have mixed systems with basic universal health care and either additional private insurance or opt-out for private insurance if desired do not place any limitations on where the insurance companies can or cannot operate.