Thursday, April 08, 2010

Cruising the Web

David Freddoso outlines five things that we've learned about Obamacare after it passed. Nothing good, of course.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution had a fascinating story yesterday about the prejudice facing black conservatives who have joined in the tea party movement. Apparently, liberals think that blacks should all think uniformly as liberals. Whites are allowed to have different opinions, but blacks are denied that freedom of opinion. And when there are those individuals who have formed opinions different from the liberally-approved line, they face true racist insults. Imagine that. Who are the true racists? What do liberals have to say to explain 37 blacks running for Congress as Republicans?

I don't usually put much stock in polls, particularly six months out from elections, but Michael Barone points to an interesting result from a recent Rasmussen poll. More people say they think the ideas of the tea party movement are closer to their own than say that President Obama's positions are.

Dorothy Rabinowitz explains away the myths that have grown up about how Muslims in America are being victimized. Tom Hanks should pay attention.

For all his campaign rhetoric, Obama certainly seems to appreciate and use the war powers that Bush developed.

Eliot Spitzer
wants to come back. Please, no.

19 comments:

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Obamacare after it passed. Nothing good, of course

are you in favor of repealing the parts that will make it illegal for health insurance companies to deny insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or to kick people off of insurance because of "lifetime coverage limits"?

you know, the mandate to buy insurance will be the most difficult part of the bil to repeal mostly because it is the part of the bill that the insurance companies like the most

since it guarantees them about 30 million new customers

that's why the republican party, no enemy of big insurance companies, is quietly creeping away from the repeal position

most likely if they take over congress this year they will make the show of passing repeal, knowing full well, and reassuring their friends in the insurance companies, that it will get vetoed, and they won't have the votes to override the veto

and then you will never hear of repealing it again

mark said...

Vowing to repeal the bill is simply a good fundraising tool. And with the republican party too afraid to fire an incompetent, embarrasing leader, they'll take what they can get. Even if it means lying to their followers.
As for the mandate, why are republicans suddenly content in allowing people to mooch off hardworking taxpayers? Anybody who can afford insurance should be required to buy, at minimum, a policy for catastrophic coverage. If people want to gamble with their health and accept the full consequences it they have a health issue, fine. But it's not much of a gamble when the debts will be picked up by others. what happened to personal responsibility?

Pat Patterson said...

But let's say that the Republicans do get some form of repeal through Congress and then it lands on the President's desk before the next presidential elections. Can't we assume that Pres Obama might pull a Jerry Brown and sign the document with an eye towards reelection. It wouldn't be the first time a politician decided that his continued stay in office was more important than mere ideas.

And if you consider how the Health Care Act was passed, bypassing the usual route, than who's to say that the money to fund the bill will ever get out of the Appropriation Committees?

tfhr said...

TV and mark(back to back),

It's like peanut butter and chocolate combined in one sugary mess of Progressive confection.

There's TV pinning his hopes on greater government control of our lives on the presupposed Republican allegiance to insurance companies. That should tell you something about the real value of such an arrangement wherein insurance companies are colluding with the government(regardless of party).

And mark, worried about "mooching" but putting an end to it with government enforced "personal responsibility" while 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

Sweet irony!

Tacitus Voltaire said...

passed, bypassing the usual route

actually, the bill was passed normally. the house passed the senate bill with a simple majority. the senate passed another bill with budget fixes under reconciliation, which is what it is for and has been used dozens of times that way by both parties

what is it that you think was unusual?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

There's TV pinning his hopes on greater government control of our lives

apparantly dealing with my actual opinions is too much for you, so you make up stupid ideas that you attribute to me

Pat Patterson said...

Simply that the majority party couldn't pass it the normal way and shoehorned it into a parliamentary manuever that would elicit self-immolation on every corner of the nation of Democrats convinced that fascism had finally arrived. Somethng akin to the present administration discovering that signing statements are not so bad after all. All of the other reconciliation acts were passed with a majority of votes in both parties but that failed to acquire cloture.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

while 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax

some people are so clueless that they don't even realize when they should be ashamed of themselves

mark said...

The "sweet irony" is that repubs are against helping provide insurance for people in need, but are okay with picking up the tab when people with the resources to buy healthcare walk away from their debts, knowing that hardworking taxpayers will be stuck with the bill.
"Sweet irony" would include the repubs openly practicing affirmative action. They hired Steele in part because he is black, and now are afraid to fire him because he is black.

tfhr said...

TV,

The problem is that you cannot (or choose not to) see the consequences of handing so much power to the government. I don't think you're that stupid, so I believe that you want greater government control. Could I be wrong on my estimation of your intellect?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Simply that the majority party couldn't pass it the normal way and shoehorned it into a parliamentary manuever

they didn't use any unusual "manuevers" to pass it, this last comment shows that you apparently can't even describe to me what it is you think they did

now, pat, try again and see if you can actually name or describe the unusual "manuever" you imagine that they performed. k?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

tfhr said...
so I believe that you want


you seem very good at believing things that aren't true

tfhr said...

mark,

I'm not in the business of defending political parties and I don't have the inside information that you claim to have with your observation that Steele was hired because he was black. Can we take that as confirmation on your part that affirmative action is a bad thing? I'll wait for your response.

Your comment about people with the means to cover their medical expenses simply blowing off payment leads me to wonder if you find that our current health care issue could be solved by better bill collection. Aren't you heartless! Along with your position to enforce personal responsibility via government edict, I suppose you'd have bill collectors threatening to break recently set fractures. Next thing you know you'll want everyone to pay income taxes to the federal government! How can you sustain class warfare that way?!

My how the Progressive mind works when it's hand is on the lever. Forced personal responsibility - is there anything more ironic than that? Maybe if we'd been spared decades of entitlement spending we would not be looking for the government to repair what it broke so many years ago.

tfhr said...

TV,

OK, so tell me why you want SMALLER government and then explain just how this expansion of government into health care accomplishes that.

Well?

mark said...

tfhr,
Only common sense is needed to know that race played a factor in Steele's hiring and/or continued employment. Surely you aren't so stupid as to believe otherwise.
I've stated my position regarding healthcare mandates clearly: People with the means to pay for insurance should be required to buy at least a catastrophic policy. You're embarassing yourself with your idiocy about bill collectors rebreaking fractures.
Perhaps you're not aware, but government, (under both dems and repubs) have always had laws and penalties in order to "enforce" responsiblity for those who are too stupid and/or too selfish to do the right thing (we even have to tell people they can't text while driving).

tfhr said...

mark,

I liked this best: "...'enforce' responsiblity for those who are too stupid and/or too selfish to do the right thing...."

What would we do without liberals and Progressives to decide for us what is best when it comes to our own health?! I guess the rest of that comment is about "spreading the wealth" and being able to decide what "the right thing" is for us. I love the irony of liberal generosity with OTHER people's money! You had better hope that the Dems do not prevail in this massive intrusion because they will not always hold the reins when it comes to deciding what is the "right thing" to do.

Your first paragraph is really disturbing because it sounds as if you believe that a black man can only achieve through the racist largess of white men? Hmmmm...I guess you really are a Democrat. Are you sure you're not mistaking your own bigotry for "common sense"? If that's not what you're saying, please explain because you come off sounding very nasty.

And you also think the government should be able to force a citizen to buy insurance. That's not just mean, it's tyrannical. I guess that makes you a Progressive because that certainly isn't very "liberal", at least not in the classic sense of the word.

Where does The Constitution give that power to the government? Just wondering because I've not seen the amendment that makes that the case. Now I have seen the Second Amendment. Does that mean you're going to have to go out and buy a gun? Yikes!

Pat Patterson said...

Since the Budget Act of 1974 was created primarily to prevent deficit and to prevent the president from impounding monies that in some cases were the result of veto overrides. The use of reconciliation was never intended to short cut the creation of any bill but rather a struggle between the legislative and the executive. Not a situation where both branchs were simply trying circumvent normal parliamentary actions.

mark said...

C'mon tfhr, you can do (much) better than that. I've never gone in for being politically correct. You only insult yourself by pretending to be offended. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that what I said about Steele is true.
It will be interesting if the courts ever hear arguments regarding mandates. Lumping that in with mandatory gun-buying and thugs breaking limbs over a lack of insurance is a bit over the top, don't you think?
Lately your posts have devolved into the inane blathering of the likes of skay and weevil. Perhaps you need a hobby. Retirement is making you soft.

tfhr said...

mark,

Who said I was offended? I said you sounded disturbed. I also said that you may have confused your own bigotry for "common sense". I'll stand by that now as you've done nothing to show otherwise.

Sometimes a little satire is useful in illustrating the point. If the government can require us to buy health insurance then where does it stop?

Please don't worry yourself about my retirement, mark. Living here in the DC area means there are thousands of jobs requiring clearances. If I find a job that entices me I can probably return to the Intelligence Community within a couple of weeks - the time needed to crossover clearances. The rest of the country doesn't seem to be doing as well and that disturbs me. I thought Obama was going to make jobs a priority. Whatever happened to that?