After Decades of Redistributing Wealth to the Rich ...

[Bruce Gourley]

After decades of redistributing wealth to the rich (principally Reagan's legacy), will health care reform mark the beginning of an effort to reverse the ill effects (both as a nation and among families) of ?

[KeithE]

Yes and it is about time. The growth in income/wealth inequality since 1980 needs to be tracked by more progressive taxation on income/wealth. Instead the opposite has occurred. I do not for a second believe there has been any corresponding growth/recession in human effort inequality -that person at McDonald's or on the road crew works just as hard, as do the executives (although the number of "offsites" has grown dramatically)

That is one good thing about the health care bill that passed. Another is the revenue gathering involved in greater taxes on the high income and investor class in a time that it is really needed in manner that will not squash needy people. The supposed gain of insurability of the 32,000 uninsured is still 4 years off - nothing to celebrate yet. But most of the rest of the Health Care Bill is a gift to the strugggling health insurance industry and the not-so-struggling pharmaceutic industry. Virtually nothing to control costs through Tort reform or use of preventive medicine or use of nurse practioners or control of administrative costs. Did you know that the number of administrators in the health insurance business has grown 2500% (25x) since 1970 (2000% since just 1990)? Or that the money spent on researching claims denials has grown by 800% since just 2000.

Ref: These are very retribitible sources from the Physicians for National Helath Care Program (PNHP)

So I'm not happy about passage of the bill, except that redistribution of wealth over the last 3 decades has been partially arrested . And perhaps it will keep health care discussion going until real reform can take place.

[ET]

[Bruce Gourley]

[KeithE]

to that mentioned Bruces' post and demonstrated in ET's post (sorry if that is mean, but I suspect your are quite angry ET, correct me if I misinterpreted your feelings). These window breakers are not doing their cause any good.

As for the feeelings across the country about the health care bill:

in a manner that listens to all not just those breaking windows. That means your cartoon is not very accurate ET.

I don't like the bill either but will continue to argue peaceably for single payer or Medicare for all or Medicare you can buy into and above all cost controls.

[Jonathan]

This new found concerned about death threats and physical intimidation tactics is a good thing...but a political calculation.

After the 1994 election, Gingrich's office received several death threats and members of his staff were subject to physical intimidation..oh, and Gingrich didn't have the MSM to front for him (remember that major mag cover with the headline "The Gingrich who Stole Christmas"?).

A local office of Senator Bunning reported death threats after his recent attempt to force the Senate to use stimulus funds for an extension of unemployment benefits.

Henry Hyde received several death threats during the Clinton impeachment ordeal. And then there's the voter intimidation in the last election by members of the New Black Panther Party (investigation mysteriously dropped

This type of thing is very distasteful..no, it is evil. But it is what happens in big boy government. Gingrich, Bunning and other Republicans are outraged (as clearly stated by the House minority leader today) by the actions of a warped few, but they have to be a bit amused at how the threats and intimidation this time around are being covered by the press.

Concerning Obama's (and Bruce's and KeithE's) desire to have the government redistribute privately earned wealth...at the moment is it sufficient to say is that a there are a lot of folks who don't take kindly to someone else trying to take control of what they've sacrificed long days, week, and years to earn for the benefit of their own families. It would not be a good idea to try to back all of them into a corner. The Obamacare bill passage doesn't anger me anymore than watching a dog chase a cat...that's what dogs do. Progressives, for more than century, have worked to implement their statist experiment in the USA...that's what they do.

[Bruce Gourley]

[Haruo]

Round goes the wheel of fortune, don't be afraid to ride.
There's a land of milk and honey waits on the other side.
There'll be peace, and there'll be plenty, you'll never need to roam,

Refrain:
As we go rolling home, as we go rolling home:
Rolling home, as we go rolling home,
as we go rolling, rolling, as we go rolling home.

The gentry in their finery do prosper night and morn,
While we unto the fields must go, to plough and sow their corn.
The rich may steal the power, but the glory's ours alone,
(refrain)

The frost is on the hedgerow, the icy winds do blow,
While we poor weary labourers strive through the driving snow.
Our dreams fly up to heave, up where the lark has flown,
(refrain)

The summer of resentment, the winter of despair;
The journey to contentment is set with trap and snare.
Stand to, and stand together, our glory's ours alone,
(refrain)

So pass the bottle round, and let the toast go free;
Here's a toast to every labourer, wherever he may be:
Fair wages now and ever; we'll reap what we have sown,
As we go rolling home, as we go rolling home:
Rolling home, as we go rolling home,
As we go rolling, rolling, as we go rolling home.

I forget the author; Tams?

[Jonathan]

[ET]

[Howard V]

I would opine that the real violence is that which the democrats have foisted off on the American people with this so called health bill [now law]. That is real violence IMO. In the long run it really is not about health care nor nor insurance nor controlling costs. It is about controlling people, namely us.

Howard

[Bruce Gourley]

[ET]

[Bruce Gourley]

ET and Jonathan, I love you guys: your freedoms are ever more constrained, your lives ever more endangered, and your taxes ever more siphoned off, by corporations. Yet you beg for more restraints on your freedoms, you defend the pro-death greed-driven policies so common now in the corporate world, and you happily support politicians who redistribute your taxes to wealthy corporate owners -- because somewhere along the story of your lives, someone apparently convinced the two of you (contrary to Adam Smith, I might add) that laissez-faire capitalism is the greatest good on planet earth.

It is as if the two of you are plugged into a corporate Matrix (I love that movie!).

[Jonathan]

[Bruce Gourley]

[ET]

[Bruce Gourley]

[ET]

Thank you for that recap. Yet that's got absolutely nothing to do with providing anything of substance to address the issue that you brought up and which I "ranted" about: your statement -- that in my opinion is ludicrous -- that corporations somehow offer a greater threat to us than big government.

I doubt any critique of capitalism would be much more than the standard stuff such as this from Wikipedia: . Probably encompasses most of your objections as well. For something more specific, I find those notorious "golden parachute" deals absurd - where some exec gets a boatload of money as he leaves a company on the down slope; however, the arrangement is still one between private parties and to regulate it in some attempt at addressing wealth inequities in society as a whole comes with a list of other issues and implications that must to be addressed.

As the saying goes, "capitalism is the worst economic system there is....except for all the others." Without visiting all those links, I don't ever recall many specifics or questions as to what constitutes legitimate regulation. From what I recall, the majority of such discussions usually revolved around wealth inequities or a vague assertion of the need for "tight controls" without any suggestion as to just what exactly is meant by that phrase, even though I know I have asked you to expound on it. I can't recall any discussions where it was asked of me to provide a dissertation on what constitutes a proper regulatory environment and as such my responses were directed at how whatever the proposed "solutions" by those desiring "tight controls" were, in my opinion, either of dubious merit, rehashes of failed policies or objectionable because of the principles of individual liberty they violated or the infringement on the rights of others they violated.

But back on topic. My rant was justified in my estimation. You made a ridiculous assertion that corporations/businesses are more dangerous to personal liberty than government. That's about as silly a statement as one could make. Human history, not someone's opinion, favors my view far more than it does yours.

[Bruce Gourley]

[KeithE]

[ET]

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

I wonder what happened to biblical innerrancy and the sabbath year and year of jubilee? I can't see that Jesus cancelled either. Are we not concerned for that which might jeopardize our finances by forgiving debts?

[ET]

Hmmm....appears we have a bunch of moochers in this country. Half of households are enjoying the benefits paid for by the other half...at least at the federal level. Must be some truth to the saying that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.

, AP news story.

Sandy, is that all you can toss about? Someone doesn't agree with you, then they're doing nothing but "parroting the corporate mouthpieces on talk radio". This weak accusation seems to be one of "Sandy's top 5 rebuttals" that you regurgitate on a regular basis in these discussions. Apparently you do not realize that much of what passes for conservative philosophy and these supposed ideas being parroted by corporate mouthpieces in these matters pre-dates talk radio -- and corporations -- by years, some of it almost 200 years. You fall neatly into that category of conservative opponents who try to claim to win an argument by morally dismissing the people with whom you disagree.

Furthermore, what the Bible teaches when it comes into these matters of personal income and wealth rarely comes into play in these discussions except as support for taking someone else's money to accomplish some goal. While folks will spout left and right Jesus' concern for the poor, they'll overlook the consideration of "do unto others as you would have done to you". How much of my money would I want someone to take from me to accomplish a goal of their choosing and in a manner with which I may not agree? What if the money they take from me was money I wish to donate to someone in my church? There is no praise in "force charity", even if some wish to imply there is.

Given that studies have shown that conservatives give more to charity both in time and money and even blood than their liberal brethren, you're argument that somehow conservatives are not living by Biblical principles because they don't bow to the "wisdom" and seeming omnipotence of those inhabiting white buildings who wish to plan our lives and control us for our own benefit is in error. You might want to browse , by Arthur Brooks. One of the most interesting bits around this is who some of the most generous people are relative to their income: Poor, religious people.