The Smiley Smile Message Board

Meanwhile...outside the fortress of Candy Canes and Unicorns... reality hits America.

Here, in this thread-topic, our non-government reporters will aim to bring some reality to the topic of ObamaCare.  Without the hypotheticals of pipe-smoking professors and paid-for special interests.  Here is the real story -- as it happens -- of a once mighty nation preparing for its decline as it attempts to fight its way through Obama's Health Care provisions.  People's right to affordable, quality care -- diminishing...day by day, right before your eyes.  An all seeing government, growing more and more powerful every day -- intruding into the most personal aspects of your lives.  Business struggling through mounds of legal nonsense...forced to make drastic cuts or close it's doors.

This is ObamaCare.  The debate is over.  The time has come.  Now... only reality.


Post'em as you find'em boys (and binders of girls)...

PA COLLEGE SLASHES INSTRUCTORS' HOURS TO AVOID OBAMACARE
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/21/Surprise-PA-College-Slashes-Hours-To-Avoid-Obamacare

Obama is hell bent on turning the United States into a third-world country. Marxist utopia, here we come!

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/grusbf5/good-morning-america-heres-those-layoffs-you-voted
http://www.diversityinc.com/leadership/papa-johns-ceo-blames-obamacare-for-cutting-workers-hours/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/
http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-tax-increases-could-lead-to-massive-layoffs

So is this the thread where we just make up a whole bunch of stuff?

OK my turn: I can't believe Obama is sending men to the sun in an effort to colonize it. What is he thinking?!?!

Companies are tyrannical structures and will use any excuse available to reduce costs and boost profits. This is why while in the last four years, corporations have been recording record profits whilst simultaneously using the "economic crisis" as an excuse to cut jobs. Why should it be surprising that Obamacare - something that I don't agree with but is nevertheless proven to reduce the national deficit - should be now the excuse that corporations go to in this ongoing desire to boost profits.

I love it! Violence (aka the government aka ) is used to force individuals to pay money for something they would be much better off staying away from (big pharma and the medical industrial complex) all in the name of, what, freedom? Better health? Hilarious. I'm looking forward to the announcement that we've always been at war with eastasia. I think the right and the left can really come together on this topic...enslave everyone for your own desires. Good job all you folks who still prop up the legitimacy of the system by doing your religious, I'm sorry, moral duty every couple of years and voting. Boy, all these wonderful gifts from on high...what next?
 National Deficit! Oh, you mean that money which is stolen from future generations in order to prop up the expansion of the state. Stop making excuses for violence and theft. Time to evolve ideas, folks.
  One more reminder (this is for the lefties out there);
   Corporations are Legal Fictions that the GOVERNMENT created, therefore their power comes from the gun that the state carries around everywhere. Last time I checked Wal-Mart doesn't have military-garbed police kicking in doors and shooting your dog because you have the wrong plant-matter in your closet. No, that would be your friend (and humanity's foe) the State.

Did anyone say it was 'free healthcare'? You'll start going on about 'Obamaphones' next...

You only think some 'other' - read - no-one you know, because you obviously don't associate with such free-loading 47% scum, but you possibly see being POOR elsewhere and hear about on the news - are 'stealing' your money if you're remarkably dim, which the anti-crowd here aren't doing much to convince me of otherwise.

What are you talking about?


You're sort of right - I mean, Obamacare is a slight improvement on the previous US healthcare system which was barbaric but the US should employ an actual socialized medicare plan and eliminate big pharma and the medical industrial complex.


Freedom? When used like people like yourself, it is a mere buzzword with no real meaning. Better health? Most definitely. Better for the economy? Most definitely. Better for the American people in general? Most definitely.


I'm glad your "message to lefties" is this stupid. Which corporations? Which government? How do you account for the fact that in many cases corporations have more power than the government? So, in this case, for example, the government is prevented from negotiating drug prices which is one of the reasons why drugs are far more expensive in the US than in other countries in the industrialized world where the government has more control over healthcare.


No, they just exploit humans in order to profit off of their labor and toss them aside like chattel if they step out of line. In the case you outline, we can participate in a way that prevents such actions. In the case I outline, we can't, at least not without fundamentally altering and undermining the very structure of the corporation. This is why corporations are inherently tyrannical while governments aren't, which is why I can never accept your use of terms like "freedom" as being anything other than a trivial buzzword arbitrarily evoked to con people with genuine desires for some kind of real autonomy.

Of course not. This is fairy tale land, remember.

There's nothing free to begin with.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act neither protects the patients nor does it offer the "affordable care" referenced in the title. The left just doesn't understand economics and think money grows on trees.

There's no place in the world where health care is free. Don't take that up with us, take it up with the first poster who began this whole discussion with a straw man. There are simply systems that are far more efficient and can function properly and those are the socialized health care systems.

Okay...
The government IS violence, period. The only way the government functions is using coercion (force, threats of force, etc.) to take individuals wealth (property, money). The government creates nothing at all, other than debt for the unborn.

The US health care industry exists as it is Because of government interference, not despite it. Forcing me (or anyone) to help support it is absurd at best.

Freedom = the rights of the individual to self-ownership, the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others, the sanctity of justly acquired private property, and voluntary exchange, voluntary association and voluntary contracts. When used by people like me...

All corporations. And since we are talking about Obamacare, I am speaking of the US government (though all governments are by definition monopolies of violence).

So undermine the corporation taking away the power that the state gives to it.  Stop pretending that government is the savior (in the twentieth century alone governments are responsible for the deaths of over half a billion people. This is called democide.) Why defend this institution that has been tried for, oh, what, 10,000 years? It is failed. Voluntary interactions are 100% of the time preferable. Stop defending the use of violence against me and everyone else.

His "free healthcare 4 ever" thing was facetious...a commentary on Obama's brain-dead supporters - something I can understand very well as I have almost daily discussions with Obama acolytes who think that he's the second coming of Christ and he's going to end the wars and give everyone free health care and a house and car and iPhone 5.

Well, let's look at this realistically. The government can function non-coercively. So, for example, if we define government as being specifically organized by the public and fully controlled by the public (and this is a reasonable definition and is how democracy should function) then you eliminate coercion. However, if are we going to be honest in our use of the term coercion then we must acknowledge that it is impossible in a capitalist society to attain property and money without coercion. If there is anything that fosters violence and use of force, and reinforces a power dynamic, it is a capitalist economy.


Again, though, in reality, if the government in the United States got more involved in health care they would significantly reduce the debt for the unborn.


That's completely false. I mean, honestly, you're living in a dream world. I repeat, unlike other industrialized countries, the United States government is strictly prohibited from interfering in the affairs of drug companies and therefore have had no control over the amount of waste that the public, by and large, pays for. If the government could interfere, they could significantly reduce health care costs.


Well, you're not being forced, for one. And second, you're a hypocrite. The public has essentially been supporting you all your life - essentially created life as you know it - and for you to have the arrogance to now turn your back and say that you don't have to "help support" anyone else is a textbook definition of hypocrisy and also just smugly self-serving.


Exactly. You simply re-define freedom in order to justify being a corporate apologist. Your definition means just about nothing to anyone who has struggled for real freedom throughout history and to be honest it is a disgrace when you consider what people who have had genuine struggles, participated in them to the full (which meant that they didn't have time to complain about it on the internet) have actually gone through and have actually accomplished.


No, not all corporations. This is not the 1600s.


The state doesn't give it power. Let's suppose you are correct for a moment that the state creates corporations. So what? It doesn't follow that just because you create something that you empower its ongoing existence. If I died tomorrow, my child would continue to grow without me. What's more, this is just a historical falsity. We've seen what happens in periods of American history where the government interferes less in the corporate world - typically corporate power grows, and public power diminishes. This is just a historical truism and what's more this is true of the present if you compare nation by nation - where the state is less intrusive, the corporate world ends up being more powerful and, most certainly, ends up bolstering the power structure that divides the ownership class from the labor class.


Of course, governments have the capacity to do really bad things. That's a trivial observation. One can easily say that they have the capacity to do excellent things, like, for example, save
 millions of lives every year, which they do. Like, revive dead rivers. Like, end widespread illiteracy. Like create a middle class. The government, of course, is not "the savior" - the public are the ones who can have the actual control and they should use it, which is why they should pressure the government to do these good things and to not do these really bad things, and we know this is perfectly within our capabilities.

That sounds really cool! You must make those people seem really stupid...that is why you do this, right? I mean, as a good Libertarian (aka The Ego Party).

"Me, me, me" is human nature.

Oh, here we go again with that old chestnut, "human nature" which just so happens to fly in the face of real evidence, such as the anarchist collectives in the Second Spanish Republic, the Italian factory occupations, democratic workplaces all over the world, the fact that self-centered systems have essentially had to be beaten into people with extreme violence, the structure of basic human relationships...Given what happens in the real world and what humans actually do and how they perform, it seems that you don't know the first thing about human nature.

Yeah, and this is why a completely free, unregulated "free market" is pure suicide without any sort of enforced organization that YOU will call Government.....

But like I said in that other thread, a lot of "kids" these days (whom I'm not even much older than) are simply too young to actually remember Regan. They can't even envision a time when they didn't love the machine or bend over for their own enslavers.....

Come 'ole Ronnie, the coporations assumed the divine rights Kings had before simply claimed as their own. And for those scoundrels in the game: economics justified it! And what happened? under Reagan's tax cuts, we plunged into the greatest debt in the history of the world. And who came to the rescue? Alan Greenspan who figured Regan could hide part of the debt by borrowing a few billion dollars a year from the social security trust fund...... Figure the rest out......

Oh, and meanwhile JP Morgan/Chase rakes in billions a year processing food stamp payments.......

True, though not just because of tax cuts but also because of Reagan's radical expansion of a protected market system for the wealthy elite. Those two coupled together essentially constituted what was ultimately an extremely disastrous management of the economy.

...not this again.

well I still don't have health care and my health is not in the best of shape, so....I dunno.  More importantly, neither do my wife or daughter. I mean s*** if I die tomorrow who the f*** cares but my daughter is more important.

but THIS is freedom, right??

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20169595/video-shows-shoppers-pushed-shoved-during-black-friday-sales

No one forced them to go there at all hours of the night for silly sales. They knew what they'd be in for. I'm neither sympathetic for nor concerned about their plight.

So, ya know, if you left your cave and got hit by a car, I could say the same thing: "Oh, well he was stupid enough to leave his house".....

I"m not trying to make a point that they should be sympathized with. Quite the opposite....

Sorry but that doesn't wash at all. Studies routinely show that there is ultimately a lack of free will in the behavioral impulses triggered by advertisements - which is probably why the ad industry is so enormous because it works in effectively creating unnatural desires. See John Bargh's work for a more detailed analysis on this.

Hey, if people choose to be born and breath in oxygen and utilize synapses and require nourishment and clothing/shelter, I have no sympathy for them, right?  >:D

Exactly - and this is what I mean when I suggest that these uses of the term "freedom" from faux-Libertarian movement is nothing other than an arbitrary line in the sand and what's ironic is that it is a definition that has been supplied and made available to them to proliferate on internet sites by corporate America.

that quote got screwed up.

In any case, I think that is a load of crap. Maybe it works on weakminded people or the pathologically stupid, but I personally think it's an excuse for people to act like assholes

I gave you the name of the author who has done the analysis. Please feel free to explore it, review the testing, do your own testing to explore the flaws, and present your own counter-argument. Until then "that is a load of crap" fails on even the most basic level of a response.

Ok, I am going to kill a whole bunch of people, rape somebodys cat, and steal some valuable art, and then blame it on black Friday ads. There is no such thing as free will.

 Or, more likely a majority of the human race is made up of slime, and I happen to be one of the few intelligent beings left. I am typing this on my cellphone at Costco, so I am watching the madness firsthand

That wouldn't hold up in court. Stop being ridiculous....

So, in other words, you are not actually going to offer a real response. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I'm talking about studies that have shown how advertisements directly affect  specific behaviour and create specific desires. A McDonald's commercial isn't meant to create the desire to kill - it creates the desire to use their product, which is exactly what the Black Friday consequences are all about. The scenario you describe has exactly zero to do with that. Like I said, if you want to disagree with the study properly, then review the testing, explore its flaws, do your own study and present a counter-argument. If you can't do that then your objection to the claim is entirely groundless.

Yeah, that's about right.

If you're free to educate and inform yourself, then others are free to simply make up their minds based on personal/ego perception and leave it at that.

Besides, didn't Kant make some very decisive criticisms of Bargh's work anyway?

I am typing this on my phone...when I get home I will be more than happy to give this the response it deserves (I am actually demonstrating this phone to a customer,specifically speech-to-text)

Ask the customer if he agrees with me.  :)


Didn't see this until now but it confirms the theory I postulated on the first page that the faux-Libertarian party in the United States mostly functions to stroke people's egos and allows people to construct themselves as superior beings who can see the things that the rest of us idiots can't see (I guess that's why there's a nifty overlap between faux-Libertarians and conspiracy theorists). To be honest, it makes me positively gleeful to see posts like this and the one by TRBB where he discusses "Obama's brain-dead supporters." These things serve only as positive reminders that this movement will never see any real progress or genuine support - which will be fine with you anyway since you can use the world's revulsion at your ego-stroking enterprise to reinforce your belief that the world is made up of 98% idiots and 2% geniuses (you).

in any case I just don't believe it. I  happen to be exposed to the same advertisements as everyone else. I don't feel the urge to camp out a week early just to buy some stupid bauble. The reason why I don't buy into it is because I see people behave like complete sh*t every day over the stupidest things. The way people behave on the roads, the way they act in a store...this is normal behavior. Normal, stupid behavior. Ego stroking? Hardly. I am watching people throw trash on the floor just so someone else will pick it up, cause it's funny to treat workers like dirt, right? I don't even work for Costco I work for Motorola, yet this still makes me angry. Nobody is watching where they are going and just plowing away into others with their baskets.

do you think I like this? wish people were more decent to each other,but they aren't. sh*t... I should shoot a video with this phone to prove my point

I must agree to a point.... I've worked retail too and anyone who has done so: it will make you take notice of such behaviors to an inflated extent... I mean, retail alone will drive you to view humanity by and large in the lowest way possible.... But you can certainly go to far in assuming things.

On the roads as well. people always have to be first. . I should probably make a youtube video carry this phone around shoot footage to prove my point...

That's fine - creationists don't believe in evolution, 9/11 conspiracy theorists don't believe in the "official story." The point is that the onus is on you to prove the point wrong.


Advertisements are not targeted towards "everyone" - they are targeted to specific markets and they have direct, material behavioral effects on those markets. The fact that you don't necessarily respond the same way to the same ads is meaningless. You bought into the Gary Johnson ad campaign to the point where you were egregiously misinterpreting youtube videos in an effort prove his point on child labor.

I absolutely believe people behave the way you describe - but it is because their desires are created for them and often whip them up into hysteria. Sometimes ad methods are used to sell wars so that a relatively pacifistic population can suddenly turn rabidly anti-outsider (as has happened in US history) and sometimes ad methods are used to create desire in a product. These methods work and studies show that it is ultimately inaccurate to suggest that this boils down to strength of mind.

Of course it boils down to strength of mind and courage of conviction. There was no conclusive proof whatsoever that Afghanistan was behind 9/11. I knew as much then as I do now. The warmongering since 9/11 is the result of one thing and it's not ad campaigns...it's DEMOCRACY. The people wanted war and they got it. Now all of a sudden they don't want it.

Oh, and you think a TON of money and advertizing genius wasn't utilized to sell us the war we supposedly "wanted"?

No, it doesn't. The studies show that advertisments affect "automatic behavior" which means that it is not "under conscious control."


We're going to get into this? I suppose you're right - you know as much now as you did then on this matter, which is nothing. According to the FBI head Robert Mueller, while "investigators believe the idea of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon came from al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, the actual plotting was done in Germany, and the financing came through the United Arab Emirates from sources in Afghanistan." So while this not how the mainstream media reports it, it seems fairly certain at this point that there was involvement by Afghanistan. Though the facts as presented above don't justify US reaction, in my opinion.


What people? The US population didn't believe Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 until after a massive propaganda campaign. That's not democracy.

People are in possession of at least a low-functioning brain. They have the ability to see propaganda. They're just too stupid to do so.

Besides...the whole "it's a ton of money and advertising genius" argument when it comes to bad behavior is the same bullshit that Christian conservatives use for their little "legitimate rape" responses.

Once again -- the ego-stroking philosophy of the faux-Libertarian movement. What amuses me most is that TRBB is one of the most indoctrinated posters on this board to the point where he presents websites that disagree with his point of view, believing that they actually agree with his point of view. When you read things through an indoctrinated lens, you begin to see only the things that reinforce your belief system.

What are you talking about?

TRBB, have you every drank a coke in your lifetime?

How old were you when you first had one?

Do you ever drink it now, as an adult?

People blame glitzy ad campaigns for stupid behavior on Black Friday. Christians blame the rape victims for being raped because "they had it coming". It's a VERY similar argument.

I fail to see how this is relevant to this discussion.

They are two completely different arguments aside from the fact that you used some of the same words. If anything, your argument resembles the Christian argument because you believe we should have no sympathy for those involved in the Black Friday riots are because "they knew what they'd be in for" which is virtually saying "they had it coming." The fact that this is your argument and that now you try and equate my argument with one virtually identical to your own is the definition of absurdity.

If being unconvinced that any initiation of force is somehow beneficial, then yes, I am fully indoctrinated. More power to me for being such.

Well, that's not what we're talking about at all, so I'm not sure why you should bring that up. I myself believe that force bears a heavy burden of proof that can rarely be proven but that's not how you're indoctrinated.

Then explain your position. How am I indoctrinated?

You're indoctrinated by the massive propaganda movement that has erupted since 9/11 to initiate people into the "free market" movement, which by no coincidence has an extraordinary small following outside the United States. It's remarkable, for example, that Ayn Rand is virtually unknown outside of North America where she is a fetishized cult figure and for a good reason - she is part of a major indoctrination program. Other countries don't have those programs which is why Rand's views are understood as sheer lunacy outside of North American borders but are accepted by a number of brainwashed typically middle-class white males.

I don't equate companies that have Black Friday sales with rapists. If you do...I don't really know what to say to that.

I actually do not worship at the altar of Ayn Rand. I was never a fan of her writing. I probably would be considered an Objectivist because most of my beliefs fall into that philosophy. I identify as an anarcho-capitalist. That movement existed long before 9/11; it goes back to John Locke and Adam Smith. Classical liberalism.

I do find it ironic that Christian conservatives idolize her, for two big reasons - she was an atheist and she was pro-choice. Both are traits I share with her.

Since I never did that, I can only accept that as a disgusting rhetorical trick on your part.

You mean the philosophy created by Ayn Rand?


Hate to tell you, but neither Locke nor Smith are anarcho-capitalists. I realize that movement existed long before 9/11 but it sure has been since that way more people have been indoctrinated into the cult so that they do things like pretend people who never were part of the cult are part of the cult.

rockandroll, you never responded to my private messages.

I never said you did...and I'd hope no one is that insensitive. I'd also hope no one ever equated the two, ever.

I know they're not anarcho-capitalists but they did believe in a much more laissez-faire market than they're credited for. They're on the same level as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison with regards to economics. They were never anarchists like Mises or Rothbard.

 Quite simply, no one will know the full impact of ObamaCare - negative and positive - until it goes in to full effect starting in 2014. The closest comparison we can make based on empirical evidence (RomneyCare) was certainly not a disaster for the state of Massachusetts.

 No government program is without its flaws. Every government program ever introduced along similar lines (Social Security FDR Medicare/Medicaid LBJ) was greeted as a portent of doom by the Right. My suggestion is that ObamaCare does not have to be static; rather it can be refined over time as needed. 

 As an individual provided with existing health care through my employer, I can tell you that ObamaCare will not have any discernible impact on my coverage.

Having just watched the Black Friday video I must ask, isn't there Health & Safety laws against cramming that many people into an enclosed space? It MUST be breaking fire regulations if nothing else.

I think Erik is implying that you drink Coke because you have been brainwashed to do so through massive advertising campains.

Another thing: that particular video mainly shows unfortunate white trash, latino, african american stereotypes but if you let the video run out, it links you to a clip at a Victoria's Secret shop in a mall that is quite unreal with a bunch of (what appear to be mainly) white, middle class soccer moms behaving like it's the climax of Dawn of The Dead

Actually, Pepsi is my preferred pop of choice.

Did someone really try to explain and/or justify the behavior seen at various Black Friday mobs and stampedes across the US by suggesting it was the fault of advertising?

As Jon Lovitz would say: Yep, that's the ticket. Always find someone to blame, that will surely move us forward.

It absolutely boggles the mind trying to understand why some folks - heck, some entire philosophies - go to such lengths to excuse people acting like idiots, committing crimes, or simply disrespecting other people by finding something or someone whom they disagree with to blame for that behavior.

It's easy to go into public, with others, and act civilized. Plenty of shoppers on Friday shopped and came home, without incident or any idiotic behavior. Plenty is too weak of a word - how about millions?

To flip the whole thing around, there were thousands of retail stores across the US where there were NO stampedes, NO push-and-shove matches, and NO cases of idiots and assholes who don't know how to act in public bopping someone over the head for a f***ing phone or television.

Can we then also credit or praise "advertising" for those good shoppers who didn't cause trouble and act like idiots? Or does someone or something else get the credit and praise when those folks acted like normal people who were out shopping for bargains at their local stores?

Since both groups - those pushing and shoving and causing problems and those who shopped politely without incident - saw the same advertising, yet each behaved differently when put into the same situation.

The blame game is getting so f***ing old.

THANK you.

Can we just blame Bush and get it over with?

Libertarians are sexist Nazi KKK racist jackbooted gun-toting murderous Christian thug rednecks who hate everyone who isn't a white, heterosexual male! Oh, the habitat for humanity!

Except that you were the one that tried to equate my argument with these "Christian conservatives."

That's true. To be honest, I know next to nothing about the people you mentioned.

No one tried to blame the behavior of those Wal-Mark rioters on advertizing. I put the clip up as a joke, a nudge and RockNRoll brought up a study on the long term/long range effects of advertizing through various entrenched media. A very valid point which can be related to the clip in question if one wishes...It's not like human behavior can't be studied and that there is no cause and effect at play in the world?

 Blame game??? It's fine when we're blaming the government or left-wingers, but when someone dare blame the free market..... boo hoo!!!!

In fact, it's the opposite. Adam Smith, for example, is simply a figure who we're supposed to worship but not read. So, for example, we're supposed to ignore the fact that he is widely supportive of a form of what we would call a progressive taxation, believing that the wealthy in particular should "contribute to the public expense." Ultimately, Smith advocated markets only on the grounds that perfect liberty would lead to perfect equality.

Jefferson, whom you mention, was a major statist and both The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 and The Louisiana Purchase are widely understood to be internal improvement subsidies.

Can you explain to me how you are not "playing the blame game" in this sentence?

Tu quoque, defined as:

Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented[2], whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

That tactic won't work with me as a means to derail or divert the points I originally raised, and they were far from inconsistent. It's as pointless as playing tic-tac-toe. My points are laid out clear and concise in the original post. Therefore I won't play the "I know you are, but what am I?" game.

Note the quote in bold print:



So referencing studies which show that advertisements are the trigger for certain behavioral impulses, where this was the direct response to a link about shoppers getting roughed up during a Black Friday sale followed by someone else saying no one forced them to be there, then using the term "unnatural desires",  isn't directing blame to the advertisers?

Seriously?  :)

And it's a good point.... Make of it what you will or simply disagree with it.

I don't think you quite grasp "Tu quoque" and given your argument I don't think you are being clear - do you think playing the blame game is a bad thing or don't you? Yes, if a smoker says "smoking is wrong," his point is not invalidated because one can certainly still hold the position that smoking is wrong while being a smoker and that certainly doesn't suddenly make smoking a good thing. But if your beef with me is that I'm playing the "blame game" then it simply makes no sense that you should blame someone else in the course of your argument. Do you really mean to say that I am blaming the wrong party?

Yeah, and that's about whether or not people were "forced to go there" not about whether they were forced to riot. So if your point is, as it was, that "Plenty of shoppers on Friday shopped and came home, without incident or any idiotic behavior" then that hardly undermines my point. Certainly, when desire is created it can have various kinds of effects, can't it?

First, don't post about not getting shown respect in these public opinion debates as I saw posted a few months ago and then post a comment to me like the one in bold. It comes off as arrogant if not worse to tell someone what they do or don't "grasp" in this kind of context, unless you're so secure in your own grasp of the notion of "tu quoque" or anything else to consider passing such a judgement on someone else's use of the term.

And for the record, who exactly did I blame for people acting like assholes to other shoppers, or causing stampedes or riots or whatever, in my post? The main point I made was the individual who decides to bash someone over the head in order to get a phone or a television is solely responsible for that decision, and should answer for that decision. It is foolish - to me - to suggest ANYONE OR ANYTHING except that individual led that particular individual to hurt another person in that moment when they decided a phone was worth more to them than the person standing next to them.

Simple human nature - respect people around you, show them respect and expect a level of respect in return. Plenty of shoppers showed that basic human-to-human respect on Friday and came home with some good deals, and didn't get trampled or hurt anyone in return. And that ultimately is the better choice for someone to make, isn't it?

A lot of it comes back to my strong disagreement with attempts to explain or excuse bad choices with moral relativism, simple as that, and much more with that train of thought than any "beef" with anyone in particular here or elsewhere.

Well, in the part that you didn't bold and that you ignored entirely, I explained why I don't think think you grasped the term. I agree, if you read that phrase out of context as you are suggesting then it would sound "arrogant if not worse."


Well, what is foolish to me - in fact, outright dangerous - is to ignore the causes of actions, that is if we are serious about preventing such actions from occurring.


Nevertheless, plenty of shoppers were incited in general to participate in this event because a particular desire was created for them. Had this day not been constructed and relentlessly advertised, and essentially made part of the cultural fabric, there would have never been that many people out shopping. The riots like the one Erik posted are just about entirely expected now - it has become a yearly tradition and if you don't believe that that is behavior that is both fostered and encouraged then you should be prepared to see an endless amount of it.


Well, if it is that is the case then perhaps you can demonstrate where I did this.

Ouch. Yes, I've heard about how the Government (which is defined as a monopoly on violence even by your dear leader, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ ) helps everybody and it steals from the wealthy and gives to the needy, using force. Now, you want to "look at this realistically" and then you make up a definition of a government that does not exist anywhere on earth.

So, you don't like capitalism (voluntary human interactions that are win/win , but now a term co-opted by the state and used to define the Semi-facisistic model that permeated most of the 20th century as well as the current reality), you think I owe everybody something simply because my parents f***ed in the imaginary boarders that are controlled by a particular group of sociopaths, you think it's hypocritical of me to insist that morality applies to everyone (including men in blue or green uniforms, and men that where black dresses and judge people, and any politician) meaning if I can't take 30% of your earnings, well it only follows that I can't vote for somebody to do it for me? Maybe you can explain in one or two sentences exactly what part of me you are entitled to?
   The state enforces law, which IT creates. The laws that govern corporations, and allow them to exist as entities that privatize profits to the upper management while the shareholders and often the public take any losses are created and overseen by the state. They can legally do this. I understand that states no longer create corporations as they did during the age of discovery. Do you understand how the state is the guy with the gun in the room?
  
  I'm neither on the left, right, or Libertarian. I simply accept the non-aggression principle at face value (that you can't hit someone or take their stuff, ever, except in the extreme of self-protection). Taking this to its logical conclussion I accept no authority over me,nor do I have authority over anyone else. I certainly don't pretend that a politician who never met me and would never know a single thing about me somehow represents me because some schmo in the suburbs voted for him.  Most people try to think of reasons that they or their favorite group should not be included in this principle. I consider it universal.
  

        

I suppose your first mistake is referring to Obama is my "dear leader" - he is neither that in practice, nor in spirit and I am a fierce opponent of Barack Obama, which is why in my very first post in this thread I state my opposition to Obamacare. Perhaps you should actually engage with the points I raise rather than respond to the fiction you've created.


I hardly made it up. Are you familiar with The Gettysburg Address? Furthermore, the definition of government I used (which I repeat is probably the best definition of it there is) has existed in history so I'm not sure what you mean.


Any economic system including capitalism could in theory operate by "voluntary human interaction" - it's hardly an accomplishment to use that to bolster the argument in favour of capitalism.

 
Not just the 20th century. Capitalism was ushered into existence with necessary extreme violence and coercion.


No, this has nothing to do with the state in which you were born. Life as you know it and your place in it is always dependent on and determined by the society in which you exist no matter where you are born.


No, I think it's hypocritical to suggest that once your social position has by and large been created for you by the public that you want to not do the same for someone else.


I'm not entitled to any "part" of you - nor am I expected to believe the things that are fundamentally not part of you are.


In fact, the state essentially granted rights to the corporations that in many respects put corporations outside of the reaches of state control at the beginning of the 20th century. Corporations in the United States, from the position of the law, have been by and large outside of the hands of state for quite a long time now.


Well, if you are suggesting that the state is the most powerful entity in the state-corporation-population triumverate, then, no, I don't understand that.
  

 ::)


So in that sense you oppose capitalism since it functions with an inherent power structure and means to profit off the labour of others.

Regarding black Friday-
My tolerance for these behaviors is running thin.  In the hospital right now, and I just heard someone get into it with someone cause apparently she hit someone while texting and driving and didn't appreciate being criticized. Brings to mind the fact that I live in Texas, and the governor Rick Perry said it should not be made illegal because grown folks should not have their behavior governed. So much wrong with that. Fight is just about out of me at this point though. Had a long response all typed up and the post I was responding to has had several replies since and I cannot copy paste on this phone.

But I do agree with rnr about the fact that these behaviors are encouraged. It is that very fact that sickens me. I just don't understand that mentality...why people have to act like this with each other.

Black Friday has turned into a bloodbath of greed. People honestly need to chill the hell out and stop fighting over consumer products that can be bought on cyber monday.

Glad to hear you did not participate in the Election process, because if you did, then yes, Obama IS your dear leader. Maybe not the one you voted for, but the system you defend and participate in gave him to you. Like I always say, if you vote you can't complain!
Please, tell me about my social position.
You are not really saying that I owe "the public" something simply for being alive?  I know for a fact I owe you nothing. Perhaps there are people who have helped me, and being a good person I do my best to recompense them any way I can. But I don't use force, nor do I advocate force, which most people in society seem to love.
  The Gettysburg Address? That was a short speech given by a man who was directly responsible for the deaths of over six hundred thousand people , many of them non-combatants. Hopefully that is not your ideal.
   The only entity that has the supposed "right" to use force IS THE STATE. Without the state and people's belief in it's legitimacy, corporations would not be protected by the guns of the state. Naturally they feed off each other. However, the state can exist without corporations, but corporations would not continue to exist as they do because they would not be protected by law (legitimate force).
   Of course I oppose capitalism, if we use your definition. I fully support markets however, and the peaceful and voluntary trade between individuals. And sorry, I really don't owe you any of my money, though I don't mind spending some time in discussion, freely and voluntarily.

He's not my "dear leader" in any sense because I'm not from the United States. But even if I was and even if I voted, I would not accept your premise because one could very easily on the one hand fight to overturn or significantly alter the system as it currently exists (as I think one should both in the US and in Canada where I live) and on the other hand (whilst holding one's nose with the other) vote in the election because it is understood to be a very necessary step in the process of altering the system because it is much harder to do that under more repressive, tyrannical figures who take away the rights of the public, making it more difficult for them to participate in activist culture.


I don't know anything about your social position but my point is not about your specific social position. Rather, I am suggesting that all social positions are essentially made available through a publicly subsidized social system. So for example, the emergence of the middle class in the United States was by and large created by public subsidies, namely the New Deal. Not only did the New Deal essentially construct the class system as it was understood for decades but it also made substantial changes in who was being educated, how much education they were to receive, how many were to receive a particularly good education, and so on. And obviously it meant that a particular level of creativity was achieved. Furthermore the 20th century was a period of unparalleled economic growth in the US and this is primarily the result of publicly subsidized industrial development.

The class system fundamentally began to change in the 1970s and most significantly under Reagan in the 1980s and at that point there became less opportunity and therefore there ended up being a larger gap between the rich and the not-rich and what it meant to be part of the middle class fundamentally changed. The 90s then saw a major economic miracle which was mostly publicly funded. But by and large, the public has essentially created the social positions that have been made available to you.


Since that's not what Lincoln was addressing in the particular part I'm referring to, I'm not sure why you would leap to such a conclusion.


But that's a right that is severely curbed by the public. So for example, the state simply couldn't get away with, say, an extermination campaign because the public would be abhorred by it. And if it did it would either have to do it covertly or radically propagandize the public in order to get away with it. That suggests to me that, in fact, it is the public who are far more powerful than the state since the state can only use the power that they can get away with using.


You are correct that corporations "would not continue to exist as they do" without the state - they would indeed face some dire consequences because you are correct to a degree they are dependent on the state (more through public subsidies than through direct violence, though). But we know how they would react to these dire consequences because there is a historical record on that. Corporations that are no longer dependent on government would be forced to exploit labor as much they can which without state interference would be limitless. So you are correct that corporations probably would not be making the kind of profits they do now, but the power structure would more than likely be bolstered even further since the public would be largely rendered powerless within a structure that is still fundamentally tipped to benefit those in charge, namely the ownership class. So I agree, corporations would not exist as they do now but the situation would be far more grim for the majority of the population that it would be for corporations.


Well, since capitalism does mean private ownership, then we would have to use my definition.


Do you mean trade for profit or trade because, say, I may be good at producing one thing and you another and they are of equal value so we trade our items.


You make it sound so personal!

But it IS personal We keep talking about the state, government, and corporations, when really, all that exists are people. Take away the people and those institutions vanish. It IS personal because you are advocating for the state, which is, by definition, a monopoly on violence. When folks start to talk about almost pure concepts like we have, I feel it's best to bring it back to real things that we, as individuals, can affect. I do not support the use of force against a person or their property for any reason, barring in the extreme of self defense. I do not support it against you, but you seem to be supporting a State's right to do just that to me (and anyone else). It doesn't matter how many people vote for something, that certainly doesn't give it legitimacy, unless you think it's legitimate to, say, lynch someone because the majority of a racist town says so. I take it personal because you actually think you have the answers for other people and their problems, and you want the state to enforce your ideas, whereas I advocate for peaceful, non-coercive trade between individuals. As long as you advocate for violence I will take it personally.

Forgive me if I disengage from this topic.

That's not quite what I mean, nor what anybody means when they commonly use the term "personal."


Again, that's a false premise - you're talking about specific governments and specific contexts. Furthermore, another false premise, I am not advocating for the state because I am an anarchist in the traditional Bakunin/Rudolf Rocker sense. Fundamentally, I don't believe that the state has the right to exist as an authoritative body within a power structure. So ultimately I advocate for whatever will ultimately allow a society of autonomous individuals to flourish, and whatever course it takes is up to those individuals.


Well, here, I entirely agree with you.


Well, first of all, I don't accept you throwing in "or their property" for several reasons. Remember that the idea of private property in the capitalist sense is and always will be bound with actions that fundamentally robbed the vast majority of the English population from their means of subsistence. Therefore, the preservation of private property in the capitalist sense is simply the maintanence of force over the population. Furthermore "property" is just too vague a term because it can mean either personal property or productive property and the wealthy elite thrive on us not recognizing that distinction. So to merely say "property" is to really open a can of worms that would really need to be addressed if we were to talk about the material reality of people's lives.

Again, as I said above, I don't support a "State's right" to use force against a person. I simply defend the existence of the state over structures where the public has less say and is more easily rendered subservient and I also would call for a more flexiable and historically accurate definition of "government."


Maybe I'm naive but I would like to believe that a society which is autonomous wouldn't be making decisions like that. I don't accept the tyranny of the majority argument - it entirely eliminates the very real existence of compromise. If you are with a group of eight friends and everyone but you wants to go to the same restaurant and you want to go to another but you decide to go with them anyway, you certainly wouldn't argue that they were using force. In a decent and civilized society, I would imagine that there would be a common principle of compromise and they would be organized as voluntary anyway so even if one would feel consistently excluded, they would not necessary have to participate.


No, that's completely false.


But individuals can do far more than simply "trade." In fact, systems of "trade" are largely imposed so those matters are, I think, secondary.

This is simply not true. What you have credited the "New Deal" with achieving in the US was actually achieved by the necessities of World War 2 through the military, which covered all bases from industry to transportation to education. The military and the need to expand the military's capabilities and strength in order to win the war was the major catalyst in the socioeconomic earthquake that followed in the post-war years.

The fact that millions of men were called up or volunteered to serve, and got educated, trained, and dispatched to areas they never would have seen nor lived had it not been for the war was the biggest socioeconomic jolt this country has experienced in modern times.

Just a heads-up: My father, my uncles, and various family members served in that war and I have heard many stories and accounts direct from those primary sources, which I trust above any textbook or analyst. They lived it - and what happened in their experience is what happened in those cases, so the revision and analysis will simply fall short of what was the reality of their experience. Was it a 100% shared experience? Nothing is, of course - but many, many people shared something similar in that era.

Consider this: When my father was called to basic training, actually it will be approaching the anniversary of that since he had to board the train two days before Christmas in 1943 directly from high school at age 18, there were men at his boot camp who had to sign an "X" on any paperwork because they were illiterate and had come from very rural areas where they had not gone to school and had worked instead from a young age. Similar stories involved a man who had never seen a bathroom with running water, as outhouses were still the norm in rural areas of the US at that time, and he had never seen a running water toilet before reporting to that camp. Others saw men reporting without proper shoes or no shoes at all, depending on the area. 100% true.

This was happening 10 years or so into the "New Deal" programs, along with the myriad of other programs in place to fight poverty on that level.

These men eventually received an education, through the military, and were assigned and stationed according to their abilities and skill set. My dad, who I've asked numerous times about this because I find it fascinating, probably would not have left his hometown area had it not been for the navy. Especially at age 18. He actually wound up for a stretch near Hollywood, of all places, and got to see live radio shows with Mel Blanc and Dinah Shore and other radio stars, got to hang out at the Hollywood Canteen where actors and actresses helped the USO serve coffee and donuts and would entertain, and he made it to places like the Brown Derby and Graumann's and the Rose Bowl which were places only seen in newsreels and photos for many kids.

Then they shipped him to Saipan after that, where he served the rest of the war and beyond. And many of those guys who came to basic training from all walks of life, often from real poverty versus what passes for poverty today, if they made it home, more of them had a skill set and access to an official "thank you" through the GI Bill, which also opened up academia and access to a college education to the "regular folks" who would have had those same doors slammed in their face if it were 1938 rather than 1947. And some went on to do incredible things, and change a lot of lives because of it. Much of the aerospace and automotive innovation that surrounded places like Hawthorne CA when Brian Wilson was a kid was due to ex-military men getting jobs and innovating in those fields. And that's just one area, not even mentioning medicine and the interstate highway system (which was Dwight Eisenhauer's brainchild) - the boom was simply incredible in what was produced and how much was innovated post-war, and how many people became mobile after the war.

And it was due not to the New Deal, but to the terrible necessities of a war which saw guys from the farms and factories and everywhere in between suddenly being thrown together and scattered around the country, then around the world, and in the process gaining knowledge and skills which never would have been accessible to many of them had it not been for the war.

So it's a terrible necessity, but consider what came afterward. It was not a New Deal plan which brought about that kind of result.

And FYI, my dad also saw the New Deal plans and actually was involved in one of the WPA projects as a teenager. His memory was seeing those who were previously wealthy residents of town working on road crews and doing manual labor outdoors on various WPA projects, and CCC projects for different folks, where they once were rarely seen without a suit and necktie. And many of those men also had come looking for a meal, too, and someone generous enough to share one with them.

Bottom line: There are historians on all sides who can make a case pro or con on the success or failure of the New Deal. Ultimately I side with those who say it was not as successful as advertised, and the historical record of job growth numbers and the like might show that to be true. But whatever the case on those areas, let me emphasize this:

The New Deal had far less to do with the claims made and credit given in rockandroll's initial post than the events surrounding World War 2 which were the real catalyst, and the cultural and economic shift which happened as a result, and manifested itself in what many call the "Post War Boom" of the late 40's and 1950's.

I hope to have cleared up any misunderstandings.

Just to add to my last post - A bit of trivia many already know. The computers we're using to type and send and read all this stuff have a direct ancestry going back to the military effort in WW2.

The ENIAC was the first electronic computer, and started as a wartime military contract in 1943, and was developed under a top secret project at the University of Pennsylvania. The project was for improving artillery calculations for the US Army. The project started in '43 but wasn't completed until after the war, '46 and beyond.

That's one prominent example of the necessities of that war identifying a need, developing a technology and a project to address that need, producing that product as a workable tool, and seeing it go on to literally break all barriers of communication and change the world and everyday life as it evolved into what we know today. If there is some positive to look back on what was the ultimate tragedy of the modern era and find something good which came out of the ashes, the ENIAC computer would be on the list for sure...not for what it did but for how it eventually developed.

Well, to say the war ended the Depression is sort of inaccurate. Sure, shipping five million guys over seas will get rid of the unemployment problem, but it was not until after wwII when the military spending (and government in general) was slashed that folks started seeing new jobs and opportunities arise. I just don't want people thinking that war is good for an economy, even though it seems to be the only part of the economy still functioning in the US.

Okay, One last try...
Words have meanings. I have tried to define the words I am using. If you do not think people can have justly aquired property then yes, you are naive in the extreme. Do you also believe people do not own their actions and the effects of their actions? If so I feel it is pointless to continue as your definition of freedom is what is best for most, when that is patently false. Mob rule, I'm sorry, socialism (the forced transfer of wealth) has failed catastrophically everytime it has been tried because it is based on non-reality. Humans desire things. There is an unlimited number of desires and only a finite number of things. So people work and trade to acquire that which they desire. They enter into voluntary relationships with each other for the betterment of both parties. If I want your watermelon (which you have twenty of) and you want my frisbee, then it is mutually beneficial for us to trade. This is the free market. If you have fifty plastic pigs and you want my frisbee but I do not want your pigs, do you feel you have the right to my frisbee anyway?
The state has destroyed almost every vestige of the free market (humans acting voluntarily to serve their own rational best interest) by imposing and inserting itself between individuals. Freedom isn't "everyone has the same stuff", but everyone has the same rules applied to them, from the  street-sweeper to governor, protecting them from, as well as barring them from coercion and violence. Leftist Anarchism they way you define it is simply impossible. Things must be created. Some people are better at using resources than others. Those people will gain advantages and items because they earned it, and just because you (or someone else) is not as good at using your resources doesn't mean you get to have the other guy's stuff. I think of anarcho-socialists as people who forever want mommy to give them the things they want, especially if mommy didn't do that in real life. (not meant as a personal attack, just my metaphor)
   If you really do not believe in property rights you should feel free to send me your computer and, if you have one, your car. Or I can just swing by and pick them up. If you won't do that then you are defending your right to property. It appears to me you do not understand economics (12 years of government education will do that to a guy) but you have internalized the socialist indoctrination of the state to the point where you hold two opposing views; (1) People should do as they see fit so long as none are harmed, and (2) I deserve as much as the next guy. Please understand that violence, in the guise of the state or whatever authority comes to bear in your socialist world, is always unjust, even if everybody says otherwise. Peace does not include the forced transfer of wealth.

It is not what I said, first, and "ending the depression" was not the main point but rather trying to correct what I believe is a mistaken view that the New Deal accomplished things it did not. Reread my post, I put a lot of time into it: the credit being given to the New Deal is misplaced credit, and I've already spelled out some of the reasons why, and can go on for pages with personal anecdotes and family histories if that's needed.

Just like you'd rather not see people thinking war is good for an economy, I'd rather not see the New Deal and various government projects which comprised it receiving credit where the credit is not due.

As far as the whole issue of thinking war is good for an economy, this was never my assertion. At the same time, you must put aside whatever opinions you may have and look at some of the aftereffects, particularly in the decade or so after the war ended.

I'm very much invested in the history of this era, so forgive in advance any ramblings, but just consider these points:

1. Housing. There was no concept of "suburbia" or the suburban neighborhood before the war. Immediately after the war, there was a housing shortage bordering on a housing crisis, where millions of returning GI's were discharged and found a lack of available housing. That led to families opening up boarding houses, renting spare rooms, doubling up on accommodations where a house for 4 became a house for 7 with cots opened in the middle of the living room, etc. It's true, it happened in my own family where my grandparents took in family members this way.

And what it led to was the housing boom that saw "Levittown" and the concept of cookie-cutter suburban single-family homes start dotting the landscape in previously undeveloped land which surrounded the cities. It was a revolution in the way people lived, and the way people commuted to and from various activities...where before the war, communities in general especially rural ones were sort of entities that existed in their own bubble, where most everything the residents needed for daily life existed inside that radius.

Suburbia happened in large part because of the housing assistance given to ex-servicemen who had been honorably discharged, much like the GI Bill. So these men who had often married during the war could find affordable housing, living among families and other ex-servicemen of similar ages and interests, and they could raise a family in what were brand new houses designed to alleviate the "housing crisis" and st.art communities where a commute and a car were the necessary tools to live and work. Then those kids became the "baby boomer" generation.

Suburbia changed the US, plain and simple. And a lot of it was started in finding housing solutions for returning GI's who were starting a family.

2. Education. Pre-war, college was for the wealthy, the influential, and the "elite" class. It was far from common to have someone who did not come from some means, wealth, or influence to attend college unless it came from athletics. Then post-war, the GI Bill opened the doors, literally, to thousands of returning servicemen who could apply for these schools under the GI Bill, and receive assistance as well as the opportunity itself to even be considered for admission to these campuses which had been all but closed in earlier times unless you had some wealth.

Then there were all of those people who had come back from the war, had gained an education through the GI Bill, and who through learning a skill or a trade or even improving skills and knowledge they had gained while in service, they hit the workforce like a lightning bolt, and stop to think about the sheer volume of innovation and discovery which happened in the second half of the 20th century. It is simply mind-boggling to realize how much and how fast things changed, and a catalyst in that was the opportunity for many more people to get that higher education than had existed previously - or if it existed, it was not made available by the elite class in some cases.

My own father took the opportunity to open his own business on GI loans and the like, instead of using it to fund college. He took skills he had been taught in the Navy for and during the war, and used them to start his own shop after the war. This would not have been possible under the pre-war condition of business and the economy in the US.

3. The workforce. How about "Rosie The Riveter"? That poster and image became an icon, but it was a reality that women during the war had a newly opened access to work and jobs which had not been available to them before the war. These were manufacturing jobs, factory jobs, repair jobs, truck-driving and delivery jobs...far from what was available to women before the war, and even far from the kind of work a woman would have been expected to do in any situation.

But the fact that a majority of men who had filled those jobs had gone to war necessitated a larger pool of workers be mustered to fill those needed positions, and the doors were open to women. And they excelled in many cases at those jobs, and not only filled the immediate need for workers but also learned trades and skills, and saw a different way of life than was shown to many of them before.

This is all true, again, and beyond personal stories I know there are many historical accounts of how this played out in reality.

These jobs would not have been open had it not been for the necessities of that war.

4. I could go into medicine - where doctors, surgeons, and corpsmen who had been treating the frontline casualties brought the techniques and skills they had developed in those situations back to their own communities, back to their own hospitals, and back to the US in general and revolutionized the way emergency situations are handled. And how many lives and limbs were saved because of those techniques? Before the war, the ambulance service mainly consisted of someone being put into a vehicle and taken to the nearest hospital, which could have been miles and miles away. It was primitive - and the concept of having trained medics and paramedics rendering emergency care on the spot as part of the first aid lifesaving procedure rather than having what amounted to ambulance drivers picking up the injured was improved dramatically by former military medics teaching their techniques to those at home, and those hospitals and emergency systems adapting them.

And there is also the whole development of penicillin, which saved millions.

There could be many more, but there isn't enough time to list.

I see Grillo's point here, and in no way have I or would try to argue that war is necessary to boost the economy, or however else that sentiment can be twisted or misapplied.

But it is crucial to telling the accurate version of history to point out what did happen in the post-war years of the US and to trace how and why some of what happened in the latter half of the 20th century actually happened. And I think it is inaccurate to credit programs that do not deserve that credit as much as it is to try to make a blanket statement like "Well, to say the war ended the Depression is sort of inaccurate" when that was *not* what I wrote about only serves to distract from what was the reality of what happened.

And trust me, the "reality" of that era cannot be boiled down to a few paragraphs written online, and a complete overview and grasp of that era and all that surrounded it would require a lifetime of work and beyond to tell the whole story. I can say with a lot of confidence that too many people in 2012 do not have a clear understanding of the way things were at that time, and the way many people lived in the 30's and 40's. If you want to understand it, talk to and listen to those who lived it and can shed light on what everyday life really was in that era. And that will weigh much more heavily toward getting a clear picture of those events than any textbook or professor could hope to do from afar. That last sentence is my own two cents and my own opinion, nothing more.  :)

I totally agree about the New Deal, as well as all government programs, and you did make your point succinctly. I have just heard many people say(in fact I think it was even taught in my government indoctrination camp, I mean school)  that the war ended the depression, so I was only trying to clarify the point that that is not true.
Who knows what amazing things were never created due to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. It is the unseen and unknowable costs that hurt the most.

I unfortunately do not have too much time right now to answer both guitarfool and grillo's posts but I will respond to the latter's eventually.

If you read my post that guitarfool is responding to you will note that my central claim was that New Deal policies led to the emergence of a middle class, not an educated class (I discussed education insofar as it relates to a growing middle class along with the acts by the Federal Security Agency which, since you didn't discuss them, I am unclear how you believe them to be ineffective) and you will find if you look at the income distribution from the end of the 1920s up until the beginning of America's involvement in WWII, that this is exactly true. By 1938, several years before America's participation in the war, there began an overwhelming compression of income. The income share of the top one-tenth of households in the United States had dropped from 43 percent to roughly 32 percent and that remained consistent throughout the war and stayed that way until New Deal progams began being dismantled, at which point the gap between the rich and poor grew more steadily once again especially under Reagan who viciously cut these progams and allowed for the diminished role of the middle class in American society and essentially the power structure predictably reverted back to a 1920s model. What guitarfool does say has an element of truth - namely that the war was instrumental in continuing the trend and, in fact, acceletating the policies that the New Deal had begun as there were even more government controls on the economy which worked to maintain the equalizing of incomes that had been put into effect in the 1930s.

Aetna CEO Sees Obama Health Law Doubling Some Premiums
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/aetna-ceo-sees-obama-health-law-doubling-some-premiums.html

While this falls under the "predictions" category -- coming from a CEO in the industry who's job it is to deal with this stuff (as opposed to a professor, media head, politician or Beach Boy fan  ;D) -- I'm not opposed to mentioning it in here.

Perhaps even more interesting, however is the potential that Washington may delay portions of the 2014 rollout of Obamacare, to help limit said shock.  This too a prediction, but something I think could happen.  Obama and the DemoRats will still be in control 2014 -- with mid-term elections -- I'd say this is likely.  I see them passing this off to the next Administration and Congress.

The one thing Americans agree on is the DemoRats ability to blame Republicans (or Re-"thug"-licans  :lol  as they call them).  So...I can totally see the 'Rats kicking this turd down the road.  And when they do...we'll know why, as predicted.  Regardless of what they and the media try to sell all them "low-information" voters out there.

Your friend,
Bean Bag.  Keepin' you one step ahead... ;)

Did someone mention something about low information voters??

http://youtu.be/nY0M7IdNl7U

Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes up to 20%
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blue-shield-rates-20121213,0,6546740.story

Well... a 20% increase is certainly not "doubling" ...but it's not headed in the right direction -- we can all agree on that.  Of course, nothing in the article gets to the "why," so this could have little to do with ObamaCare.  We simply don't know, because the LATimes doesn't do journalism.  As expected the LATimes provides Communist Opinion and very little facts for those who want to learn and understand an issue.  Instead they offer a bait and switch directly from their Communist Manifesto.

This article spend it's entire saggy length "thugging" readers as to why the insurance company has the audacity to raise rates when it has all them evil "reserves."  Ok...that's helpful.  All we need is a photo of a union thug with a lead pipe standing next to a Blue Shield of CA sign, and this story would be a keeper.  All that an inquisitive, "high-information" voter can thus deduce from this "article" is this:  Communists and Socialists and the LATimes thugs have little compassion for financial reserves.  Perhaps they need a new headline writer!

Well, this is what happens when the "newspapers" and ownership of is consolidated down to just a few controllers and private equity firms. When there is no viable competition doing real journalism, why bother? This has nothing to do with (and is the polar opposite of) any communist leanings. That's just right-wing paranoia talking. Same as left wing paranoia.

Who reads the LA times anymore anyway other than to scour for coupons on sunday?

I just love how hardcore right wingers are just absolutely certain they are nothing like those "liberals" or "libtards" .... We're all exactly the same. Sorry to break it to you. Falling for one line of bullshit over another is simply not enough to differentiate.

That video is very funny and very sad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448

Kill the Bill
 :lol :lol

Like so-called "conservatives" who wanted Romney for president just because "he's not Obama"...when really the two are indistinguishable as far as policies are concerned. BRING ON THE FISCAL CLIFF!

+ 1

Kinda like how, when you have a monopoly on violence (the government), there is no need to provide any anything ever.

Honestly, many Democrats AND Republicans fall into the "liberal" crowd. I say "liberal" because liberals of the last hundred years of so have pushed for and passed policies based on control, force, and the bloating of the state. This is in line with American progressives, the Eastern bloc socialists, the Nazi Party, the Communist Parties of China and Cuba, the Workers' Party of Korea, Hamas, Fatah, Likud, most so-called "parlimentary democracies" and "constitutional monarchies"...

True conservatives do not push for any kind of state control and do not believe in force. They believe in self-defense, not preemptive war. They also believe in "live and let live". Of course, during the colonial period of the United States, these folks were called "liberal". Make of that what you will.

Very well put. And I thank you for making these distinctions clear.

There is such a thing as corporate violence as well though....

Of course I agree that “words have meanings” and I would say that adhering to the accepted definition of terms is crucial if we are going to approach anything resembling a coherent line of thinking or rational discussion. This is why I don’t particularly think your approach has been at all helpful. I agree that you have “tried to define the words” that you are using and this may very well be the source of the problem since the definitions that you come up with have no real connection to actual definitions but are rather entirely constructed by you based on whatever you have chosen to believe about them, and these beliefs have been very much shaped by an ideological worldview. Take for example the definition you give of socialism in this post, which you suggest more than once to be “the forced transfer of wealth.” Now, of course, on the surface this bears no real resemblance to any common definition of the term but if you look deeper what you find is that one can come to an even more striking conclusion – that this definition is neither in the documentary record (for example, the philosophical tradition, such as Marx) nor the historical record (any genuine example of a socialist community). In fact, what you find is quite the opposite of what you claim – that a properly functioning socialist society would see the eradication of all political power (see Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto). Simply defining words is meaningless if you are merely spinning your own personal definitions out of your head. What's more problematic is that it is ultimately  disingenuous to concoct definitions based on no real historical understanding of these terms and I am certainly under no obligation of defending your personal definition, especially when it bears no real resemblance to reality. A similar case could be made for your definition of government throughout this thread, but I am afraid I do not have the time or energy to untangle all of your concoctions.


And here you have entirely overlooked my point (as you do quite strikingly when you offer to take my computer and car) which means that you outright ignored the distinction that I made between personal property and productive property. See, here is where definitions are important and I think that it is telling that you entirely ignored this crucial point. Recall that before the industrial revolution private property was not a term that denoted personal property but rather land ownership. Once industrialization went into effect it became crucial to confuse the population who were to be obedient participants in the capitalist system and so the long-standing definition was altered and to great success, as your own posts indicate. But in the 19th century, it became obvious to some that the distinction between the two was still crucial and held that if one were talking about private property, it would not make sense to talk about personal possessions but rather to talk about ownership of productive property that, at this point, produced profit for those in the ownership class.

Note my inclusion of “at this point” and that is a significant inclusion which reaffirms the point I was making which fostered the above response – namely that the idea of private property in the capitalist sense is and always will be bound with actions that fundamentally robbed the vast majority of the English population from their means of subsistence. Therefore, the preservation of private property in the capitalist sense is simply the maintenance of force over the population. It seems to me that this point is not “naïve in the extreme” as you put it but, rather, historically accurate.

Recall that the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism in England and throughout the general region was part of a long process that essentially began with actions carried out first by landowners than by landowners with the backing authority of British Parliament to dispossess people of commonly shared land, often by force, seizing their land and placing under private ownership. Thus private property as we understand it comes into being specifically with an act of violent force that actively works to undermine and delegitimize the common rights of the population. Thus private property simply doesn’t exist without force. And, of course, this whole system which is now considered mostly by the fringe Libertarian movement as being “natural” and some sort of metaphor for a real and genuine human experience was resisted by large movements that simply had to be put down by the ownership class. Thus, you have movements such as Kett’s Rebellion of 1549, the Midland Revolt and Newton Rebellion of 1607 which was mostly peasant-based activist movements to try to reclaim the commonly shared land from which they were forcefully uprooted and dispossessed. The very beginnings of the industrial revolution are typically credited to this shift away from an agrarian-based economy which was operated commonly under an open field system to a machine-based manufacturing system. This could only, happen, though, once the common system had been destroyed and following that, once the active resistance to this destruction by those who were dispossessed, had been put down.

The inevitable consequence of the land being conquered by the wealthy elite and the creation of private property was, of course, the criminalization of the peasant class (since vagrancy was considered criminal) and therefore the rise of crime and pauperism as villagers lost their means of subsistence. But furthermore, it also provided a necessary labour class for the manufacturing industry to exploit in their need for profit. This is why the age-old argument by the right that “no one is forcing you, you can always find another job” is always painfully hollow and remarkably ignorant since this version of “freedom” is only a freedom that has been created for us on behalf of the ownership class, once they actually historically eliminated the kind of society that allowed people to have real genuine control over what they do and how they live their lives. Historically, then, capitalism (or, a system based on the private ownership of the means of production) simply could not have existed or lasted without the elite class forcefully and violently seizing land of the peasantry, actively suppressing resistance to this movement by force, turning their common productive space into privately owned land in order to make profit, and sending the peasant society into the city because they had no other option for their survival as legitimate citizens. And a similar story is true within the United States, with the history of the seizure of Native land. And furthermore, this is why the Libertarian argument in favour of freedom is so laughable since it so often refers to a freedom for property or a freedom for full control over property which was only achieved because of a history of depriving people from their traditional rights and dispossessing them of their own property. This is akin to murdering a King, taking over the Kingdom and then decrying the moral legitimacy of those who might likewise try to take over the Kingdom through murder. It is this long history of private property that I refer to and thus your quips about my computer and car have no relevance.


I’m not sure what you mean by “own their actions” but I do find your suggestion that we treat actions like property to be confusing the very idea of what an action is. If you mean do people have full control over their actions, I would say that they do to an extent. Let’s take an example though: there are people now who devote their entire working lives to evolutionary biology. Of course, before the 19th century, there was no one devoting their lives to this pursuit. This had nothing to do with choice. Rather, because of when they were born, those people simply didn’t have the options available to them. So, I hope then, that this very obvious example shows that context to a large degree shapes people’s actions but more than that it also shapes belief systems and belief systems, to a large degree, shape our actions. So, yes, people control their actions but the actions people take are largely the results of choices that are made available to them by the contexts in which they live. Take your own point of view, for example. It shouldn’t be surprising that a faux-Libertarian belief like the one that you espouse should be mostly contained to a cultural group within the United States. Take a look, for example, at the readership of Ayn Rand. She’s virtually unheard of outside of North America but in the US she’s a major cult figure. Well that should tell you something about how much people are in “control over their actions.” In the United States there’s not only a history of major rebellion against government force but there’s also a ruling ideology which suggests that it’s a bad thing to help other people since independence and self-sustainability are the supreme virtues. It’s no surprise that in this environment where such beliefs are entrenched and thus are indoctrinally reinforced constantly in media, images, education, etc. that a Ayn Rand-style Libertarian movement would have some degree of popularity amongst a sector of the population. Now, again, people have a degree of choice in that – their choice, in the United States, is to either accept it or not accept it but that’s a choice that is made for you by the context in which you live and it is a choice that others don’t necessarily have to face to the same degree.


I don’t understand how a definition of freedom could possibly be “what is best for most.” I highly doubt that I said that since I don’t understand it. That would be like saying that your definition of toast is “what is tastiest for most.” I mean it makes absolutely no sense. But again, this is a problem because if we can’t have a rational discussion when you make up definitions for yourself, we certainly can’t have one if you are making up definitions for me. To be honest, this is a fairly shameful rhetorical tactic and is one of the reasons why I was not particularly motivated to quickly respond to you.


Perhaps you can give me an example of this and explain how it was “based on non-reality.”


I’m not entirely certain what that has to do with either socialism or capitalism but perhaps that is because “Humans desire things” is such a fundamentally vague statement – though I imagine that that’s by design. What do you mean by “things”? Well, let’s take your own words to give us an example:


First of all, what you describe may be “the free market” (and that would be a fiction - the usual imaginary exercise that you present rather than a reality) but it’s not the capitalist free market since your description does not take into account the ownership of the tools used to make the product nor does it take into account the profit model since (if I’m the guy with the watermelon in this scenario, though not necessarily the watermelon grower, a distinction that you really do have to make clear when talking about free markets) my goal is not to get another product but to make a profit. Thus, under a free market capitalist model, I would want to ensure that a Frisbee had more value than my watermelons. But, of course, if that were the case, then you probably wouldn’t want to trade it which is why if a free market system like the one you describe is going to work, it can’t really work along capitalist lines unless one of the traders is always going to be dim.

Furthermore, you note that humans “desire things” but I am curious, to use your example (though there are endless others), if there is a record of people desiring a Frisbee before it went on the market. I ask this because it seems to me that capitalism does not operate on the grounds of giving people things that they desire. Rather, it operates on the need for profit and thus must create desires in people. I have no doubt that there are things that humans desire but under capitalism those very real desires must be channelled towards items on the market created by manufacturers for the sole purpose of turning a profit. The fact that people buy things now is no evidence that capitalism fulfils basic human needs better than other economic systems – it simply proves that it has been effective at channeling people’s desire in a way that allows for its own survival.  


At which point did this “free market” exist?


Applied to them by whom? Who determines these rules?


You mean the way you define it? Or are you actually referring to the definition that I've given several times on this board? If so, please explain how it is impossible and how do you account for the cases where it has been successful?


Must they? Which things? And what is the historical evidence to suggest that they must be created? Are you referring to babies, which must be created for the survival of the species? Or do you just mean products? Must a Frisbee be created in the same way that a baby must be created? If so, explain how. If not, what do you mean by "must"?


I realize how it must seem that way now, now that people have had their genuine freedom for the most part taken away. People with a better historical vantage point have understood this. This is why I ultimately agree with Adam Smith who argued that the division of labour essentially de-humanized people and made them "ignorant and stupid" because in such a system, people are reduced to performing "a few very simple operations" and even then, those operations are basically dictated by a dominant force. Smith was acutely aware that when one’s “whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same” then one “has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur” and therefore “naturally loses…the habit of such exertion.” It is for this reason that Smith suggested the inevitable need for government intervention in a capitalist society and it reflects the fact that he witnessed how the division of labor created a system wherein “some people” became “better at using resources than others” as the “great body of the people” had come “to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently one or two.”

You see, you happen to be writing from a period where all of the victories carried out by the capitalist ruling class have been won so that our way of life begins to appear “natural” when in fact it was bitterly arrived at through extreme force and the eventual bludgeoning of the population. Therefore you can say that “Some people are better at using resources than others” as if this is just the way life is, when in fact, life is like this and people are like this because they have been actively shaped this way by the economic system. But there’s absolutely nothing natural or realistic about it. This, by the way, is also why I find videos like the one Billy posted where he repeatedly referred to people as a-holes to be unconvincing (no offense to Billy - I still like the video for its humour and I believe we came to some common ground on this...)

There were a few more statements you made but they were based on the same fabricated definitions that I have already dealt with or restated points that I think I already addressed with the exception of your point that I “do not understand economics” as a consequence of my “12 years of government education" which, to be honest, doesn't merit a response. If you feel there was something legitimate I did not address please let me know but I’m afraid I will be unable to respond further to fabrications.

It's important to note though that these distinctions are not entirely clear, as TRBB states it. There is more than one kind of state intervention - there is the kind that Adam Smith outlined which suggested that an intervention that can help people and there are other kinds which are constructed to harm people. To conflate all state intervention together (lumping in the Nazis with parliamentary democracies for example) is ludicrous but necessary if we are to see a society where corporate power dominates above all else.

It's not ObamaCare, but...
Belgium looks at euthanasia for minors, Alzheimer's sufferers
http://www.france24.com/en/20121218-belgium-looks-euthanasia-minors-alzheimers-sufferers

"Belgium is considering a significant change to its decade-old euthanasia law that would allow minors and Alzheimer's sufferers to seek permission to die.  The proposed changes to the law were submitted to parliament Tuesday by the Socialist party... 'The idea is to update the law to take better account of dramatic situations and extremely harrowing cases we must find a response to,' party leader Thierry Giet said."

You know, they're just looking for solutions.  Yeah.  I have to say... these are also quite effective cost cutting measures, you know.  I'm just saying...  ;)

Well, kiss my grits!  Socialist France is gettin' in too!
France takes first step toward medically-assisted suicide
http://www.france24.com/en/20121219-france-medically-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-healthcare-reform-hollande?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=reseaux_sociaux&ns_fee=0&ns_linkname=20121219_france_medically_assisted_suicide_euthanasia_healthcare

The Socialists know how to do it!  They must have been hanging out with our beloved U.S. Democrats, because they know how to sell this turd...

"Doctors criticised.  The new report ...was scathing of doctors’ reluctance to apply existing laws.  ...accusing them of having a “cure at all costs” culture that was “deaf to the psychological distress of patients and of their wishes”.  He said he favoured amending the 2005 law to broaden the circumstances in which doctors can help the terminally ill die..."

Attack the medical profession.  That's where you start.  You must de-legitimize the doctor's opinions, you see.  They can't move the football if them doctors are in the way...trust me.  Them doctors with their archaic need to "cure at all costs."  Whoops... did you catch that?  Costs.  Yeah, yeah... I saw it.  It was in there.  Did you see it?

Braces for the Kids Just Got More Expensive: Obamacare Tax Hike Case Study
http://atr.org/braces-kids-more-expensive-obamacare-tax-a7407#ixzz2Hjfusahx

In 2013, the tax increases in Obamacare will increasingly conspire against kitchen-table family healthcare decisions.

Southwestern Pa. hospital to stop baby deliveries
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20603065/southwestern-pa-hospital-to-stop-baby-deliveries

"hospital officials believe they can't afford it based on projected reimbursements under looming federal health care reforms... the number of births the hospital would be called upon to perform isn't enough for it to provide the service in the face of lower reimbursements under the federal Affordable Care Act.  Officials aren't sure how many jobs will be lost."

Well, that stinks. :spin

Exclusive - Wal-Mart's everyday hiring strategy: Add more temps
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-walmart-hires-temps-idUSBRE95C05820130613

"It also could set an example for some other companies as they look for ways to cushion themselves from a potential rise in healthcare costs next year as a result of President Barack Obama's health care reforms, according industry experts and retail executives."

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/13/news/economy/obamacare-affordable/index.html?

"States are starting to roll out details about the exchanges, providing a look at just how affordable coverage under the Affordable Care Act will be. Some potential participants may be surprised at the figures: $2,000 deductibles, $45 primary care visit co-pays, and $250 emergency room tabs."

Obamacare "A Massive Transfer Of Wealth From The Young To The Old"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/02/krauthammer_obama_a_massive_transfer_of_wealth_from_the_young_to_the_old.html

"Young people are going to be paying double and triple what [they] would ordinarily be paying in health insurance if the premium were linked to the risk, which is the way that would be for the last 600 years in insurance. But it's not..."

Wegmans cuts health benefits for part-time workers
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130710/BUSINESS/130719892/1003
The Rochester-based grocer that has been continually lauded for providing health insurance to its part-time workers will no longer offer that benefit.

Until recently, the company voluntarily offered health insurance to employees who worked 20 hours per week or more. Companies are required by law to offer health insurance only to full-time employees who work 30 hours or more per week.

Several Wegmans employees confirmed part-time health benefits had been cut and said the company said the decision was related to changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act.

Looks like it's time for the workers to unionize.

Check the recent updates on several prominent unions and union leaders like James Hoffa Jr. from the Teamsters and the union representing IRS government workers - In short, they're not happy and they don't support the Affordable Care Act and the effects they think it will have on their workers. The signatures on the letter:  UFCW stands for United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE-HERE represents certain areas of the hospitality industry including casino workers.

The head of the union which would represent Wegman's employees, the UFCW, signed this letter. Which means even if those workers did join, their union seems to have serious concerns if not outright objections to the Affordable Care Act as it stands to be implemented.

This is a letter sent by three union leaders including Hoffa to Sen. Reid (D) and Rep. Pelosi (D), the actual letter is in italics.

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.


Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

James P. Hoffa
General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Joseph Hansen
International President
UFCW

D. Taylor
President
UNITE-HERE


Interesting.

You know your law is f***ed when even the unions who lobbied for it are now against it.

If I could relate this to something The Beach Boys sing about, I wanted to mention drag racing. It's a stretch, I know, but please hear me out.

I don't know how many people know the sport or what's involved, but in competition drag racing there is a difference between what they call a "heads up" race and a "handicap" race.

In a heads up race, both cars start nose-to-nose at the starting line, and race each other flat out. In a handicap race, those terms and others are negotiated so that cars with different strengths or weaknesses can still race each other and have the results be more indicative of a fair contest versus having the clearly more well-equipped car blow the other car away every time.

In the handicap race, the two crews negotiate the terms of the race, including who is running nitrous bottles for increased speed boosts, who runs in, say, a 9 second class (average amount of time to reach the finish line) versus 12 second class, and other points of each car. So the "handicap" may be negotiated in terms of the slower 12-second class car being given a three car-length advantage over the faster car, who would have that much more track to cover after the other driver got the head start. It seems like a scattershot thing, but in competition racing all of those factors are carefully measured and considered so both drivers get what they would agree is a fair shot at winning despite the handicap.

And if they don't want to give the other driver such an advantage, they would instead race heads-up in a different class with cars whose features more closely match up with the competition, such as having 12-second class cars without nitrous bottles race only other 12-second class cars without bottles. It's an even race, and no handicaps are given either way.

With this health care bill, what those unions, both public and private (the difference between the IRS workers union and the teamsters, for example) and other businesses are facing is the prospect of not being given that same race which others are getting. They're being handicapped in a way by being forced to accept concessions which would have their plans being compromised or diminished, short of needing to completely rethink and revise what they currently have in order to accommodate the demands of this new law.

Consider how many other interests besides these specific unions mentioned above have been asking for exemptions so they would not fall under the same requirements.

When you have those unions like the Teamsters asking for changes, and others asking for outright exemptions from the plan, what kind of atmosphere would that create if exemptions are then granted to certain groups like these unions who would not have to comply or change to fit this new plan, while other individuals are still required to comply?

It's hard to get beyond the fact that those elected officials will *NOT* need to comply with the Affordable Care Act and their current plans will not be affected, while the majority of them voted to impose the changes *they themselves did not need to comply with* on the general public, and thousands of businesses both small and large.

I just want people to see this outside the realm of left-vs-right politics and listen to what those who are and who will be affected by these changes are saying, and as the case with the unions expressing concerns AND seeking exemptions from the ACA, are concerned with how it will affect their situations.

What they're asking for is a heads-up competition.

Let us eat cake...


Yeah, it's disgusting that something as personal as your body be politicized -- which is why healthcare is no where in the Constitution and should have nothing to do with politics.  If this was really about caring for people -- the so called 40 million "uninsured" could have been given plans for a fraction of what this nightmare will cost.  A tiny, tiny immeasurable fraction.  This bill has nothing to do with caring for people.

Congress Gets ObamaCare Waiver:  As Negotiated By Obama
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/usa-health-congress-idUSL1N0G820F20130807?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssHealthcareNews&rpc=22

"The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended ( :lol) loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.

When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program"

This is why I always say -- LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY.  They said it was gonna lower the deficit, solve the "healthcare crisis."  But what do they do?  The delay the bill from taking affect.  They opt themselves and their "peeps" out of it.  Look at what they DO.  Fck what they SAY.

Again... it's...
SAY   :whatever
DO :thumbsup

Hopefully this example will serve all us well, by freeing us from the need to get into the weeds and discuss anything in any great detail with a Statest/Leftist/Marxist/Communist/Liberal.  What they say is just not important.  

Ain't that right Rn'R?  ;)

Two words: Single payer.

obama 2012

liberal 4 life

But first we try a FREE MARKET, Vader!.   :jedi

Almost 80 million with employer health care plans could have coverage canceled, experts predict
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/26/evidence-shows-obama-administration-predicted-tens-millions-would-lose-plans/

"The reason behind the losses is that current plans don't meet the requirements of ObamaCare, which dictate that each plan must cover a list of essential benefits, whether people want them or not.

"Things like maternity care or acupuncture or extensive drug coverage," said Veuger. "And so now the law is going to force them to buy policies that they could have gotten in the past if they wanted to but they chose not to."


Sht.  Meet fan.