Yes, It's a Mandate
With all the nonsense currently spewing from the right (and, sadly, many in the mainstream media) about how we are a still a "center-right" country, I want to take a minute to put things in perspective.
First, Obama won the popular vote by a significant margin, about the same size as George H.W. Bush's trouncing of Dukakis in 1988. He won a higher percentage of the vote (53%) than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson. And remember, what conservatives call the "Reagan Revolution" began with Ronald Reagan winning 50.7% of the popular vote in 1980. At the time, that was considered by nearly everyone to be a mandate for change.
Moreover, Obama's victory clearly wasn't a character contest. Obama ran on an unapologetically progressive and detailed policy platform. Obama's plans for universal health care, his energy proposals, and his tax proposals were featured prominently throughout the campaign. He explained them in detail over and over again. He used his commercials to promote them. Time and again, he directed voters to his website to read the plans themselves. So voters clearly knew what they were voting for. This is isn't like 2004, where Bush ran with a message of "elect me or terrorists will kill you" and then claimed a mandate to privatize social security--despite barely mentioning that proposal during the campaign.
And not only was Obama very clear about his policy proposals, but his opponents were very clear about their ideological opposition to them. Obama was labeled by his opponents throughout the campaign as "the most liberal Senator in the country." In the last month of the campaign, he was called a "socialist" over and over again.
And yet he won handily.
Moreover, Obama's election wasn't an isolated event. It was accompanied by his party making historic gains in both the Senate and the House--for the second election cycle in a row. The Democrats now have majorities in both chambers of Congress that are significantly larger than any Republican majority at any point in modern times.
And it's not as if Congressional Democrats were running on a different set of ideas. There is a broad consensus among Democrats on these issues (health care, energy, taxes, etc.) and nearly every Democratic campaign featured the same issues front and center.
And finally, poll after poll shows that Americans support Obama's positions on these issues (especially health care) by wide margins. Indeed, many people voted for his opponent despite agreeing with Obama on these major issues--for reasons totally unrelated to them, such as his lack of experience or his stance on abortion, etc.
The notion that America is a "center-right" country is laughable, especially when it's not at all clear what the "right" even stands for any more. The Republican party is as far into the wilderness right now as any major party has been in a long, long time. That can change quickly, of course, but for now there should be little doubt that we are a "center-left" country. The Democratic party, an unquestionably "center-left" party is ascendant right now. And no president (or party) has had as clear a mandate to enact his policies in quite a long time.
First, Obama won the popular vote by a significant margin, about the same size as George H.W. Bush's trouncing of Dukakis in 1988. He won a higher percentage of the vote (53%) than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson. And remember, what conservatives call the "Reagan Revolution" began with Ronald Reagan winning 50.7% of the popular vote in 1980. At the time, that was considered by nearly everyone to be a mandate for change.
Moreover, Obama's victory clearly wasn't a character contest. Obama ran on an unapologetically progressive and detailed policy platform. Obama's plans for universal health care, his energy proposals, and his tax proposals were featured prominently throughout the campaign. He explained them in detail over and over again. He used his commercials to promote them. Time and again, he directed voters to his website to read the plans themselves. So voters clearly knew what they were voting for. This is isn't like 2004, where Bush ran with a message of "elect me or terrorists will kill you" and then claimed a mandate to privatize social security--despite barely mentioning that proposal during the campaign.
And not only was Obama very clear about his policy proposals, but his opponents were very clear about their ideological opposition to them. Obama was labeled by his opponents throughout the campaign as "the most liberal Senator in the country." In the last month of the campaign, he was called a "socialist" over and over again.
And yet he won handily.
Moreover, Obama's election wasn't an isolated event. It was accompanied by his party making historic gains in both the Senate and the House--for the second election cycle in a row. The Democrats now have majorities in both chambers of Congress that are significantly larger than any Republican majority at any point in modern times.
And it's not as if Congressional Democrats were running on a different set of ideas. There is a broad consensus among Democrats on these issues (health care, energy, taxes, etc.) and nearly every Democratic campaign featured the same issues front and center.
And finally, poll after poll shows that Americans support Obama's positions on these issues (especially health care) by wide margins. Indeed, many people voted for his opponent despite agreeing with Obama on these major issues--for reasons totally unrelated to them, such as his lack of experience or his stance on abortion, etc.
The notion that America is a "center-right" country is laughable, especially when it's not at all clear what the "right" even stands for any more. The Republican party is as far into the wilderness right now as any major party has been in a long, long time. That can change quickly, of course, but for now there should be little doubt that we are a "center-left" country. The Democratic party, an unquestionably "center-left" party is ascendant right now. And no president (or party) has had as clear a mandate to enact his policies in quite a long time.
posted by A.L. at 10:03 AM
29 Comments:
Slightly off topic, the following graphic from the NYTimes (widely linked), specifically the 2nd and 3d slides, is interesting and hard not to interpret as a racism map, specifically the dark red (and arguably the dark blue, sigh) areas.
Bill,
I saw that map yesterday. It is pretty interesting. And I agree. It's hard not to interpret it as a racism map.
The notion that America is a "center-right" country is laughable, especially when it's not at all clear what the "right" even stands for any more.
Maybe you need to re-read your previous post.
The Republican party is as far into the wilderness right now as any major party has been in a long, long time.
Agreed. It needs to reintroduce itself to conservatism (fiscal, constitutional, social, etc.) and produce candidates that can make the pitch as Reagan did.
It's hard not to interpret it as a racism map.
Michael Steele was vilified in racist tones by liberals (white and black) when he ran to be a U.S. Senator. By A.L.'s logic, that means that any liberal who didn't vote for Steele is a racist. When Clarence Thomas was selected to be on the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats vilified him as well. Again by A.L.'s logic, those Senate Democrats are racists, and yet liberals keep re-electing these racists (by the standards set by A.L.). Hell, the racist constituency of John Murtha (as he called them) re-elected him again.
I didn't vote for Barack Obama because he's a socialist, and socialists are ruining this country. But not because he's an African-American. If I lived in Maryland, I would have voted for Michael Steele because he's a conservative (which is why I voted for McCain). Again, not because he's an African-American.
More geeky graphs from Andrew Gelman.
I am so sick of people like Tom Brokaw, John Meecham, and Joe Scarborough saying this is a center-right country. Did these people even watch the election on Tuesday? The voters made it pretty clear that we are not a center-right country. Maybe we're not really left either but how can any intelligent person see election results like this and still think we're center-right?
steveil said:
I didn’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s a socialist, and socialists are ruining this country.
Socialist are ruining the country? How? When have socialists ever been in charge?
Are you aware of who has been in charge for the past eight years? That’s what has been ruining the country.
Glenn Greenwald has written extensively how conservatives, even when they are in charge, portray themselves as victims.
What we need to do is stop electing people who claim that government doesn’t work, and when elected, set out to prove it.
Socialist are ruining the country? How? When have socialists ever been in charge?
Every city, county, township, and state with a majority of liberals running them.
Are you aware of who has been in charge for the past eight years?
What is it about liberals that forget what this country is all about? It is a nation of individual united states (hence the name the United States) with many levels of government.
In Illinois, liberals have been running the state for six years. The overlords of the state liberals, the liberals running the city of Chicago, have been in charge for over 70 years. Illinois and Chicago are becoming a toilet thanks to liberals, with a crooked governor who should be impeached yesterday. Neither President Bush or the Republicans are responsible for it, just the liberal Democrats running Illinois. Barack Obama is a product of that, and he did nothing to stop it.
Look at Michigan. Liberals gave them a spoiled brat to be mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick. Look how well that turned out. Yet, the same liberals get re-elected regularly there. Again, Bush and the Republicans had nothing to do with that.
Then there is New Orleans and Louisiana, both primarily run by Democrats since Huey Long's day. At least they now have a chance with a true conservative in Bobby Jindal as governor.
And that's just for starters. And now, it's been spread to the federal level.
Glenn Greenwald has written extensively how conservatives, even when they are in charge, portray themselves as victims.
Greenwald either knows nothing about conservatives, or lies about them. I've read him, so I know of what I speak. Hell, he doesn't even know or is in denial that there's a war on.
Hey, Republicans aren't perfect, as the re-election of Ted Stevens shows. But he isn't a true conservative either. But people like Stevens aren't running every major city in this country. Liberal Democrats like Blagojevich and Kilpatrick mostly are, along with their respective general assemblies and city councils.
One other thing. The Democrats have had a majority in Congress (a co-equal branch of the federal government) since 1/3/2007. Since then, gas and oil prices went up dramatically (and went down after President Bush rescinded the executive ban on new drilling), and the financial crisis came upon the country. This occurred on their watch, and they did nothing to prevent it.
Whenever I hear this center-right crap, i go to
http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html
scroll down to issues, more issues. click on each one. explain (honestly) how this country is a center right country.
seriously, look through them. on almost every issue, the people favor the liberal and moderate point of view. (good example - 2/3 oppose gay marriage, but 2/3 support either gay marriage or civil unions, as opposed to less than a 1/3 who want no legal recognition at all.)
Guns are an excellent example also. a huge number of people believe American have a right to own guns. however, the same vast majority believes in waiting periods, background checks, etc. The people overwhelmingly want strict regulation of guns, but not to limit lawful citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear.
and here's the one that most astonished me:
"Do you think the Supreme Court is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?"
7/8-13/08
Too Liberal 25%
Too Conservative 31%
About Right 33%
Unsure 10%
steveil,
Every city, county, township, and state with a majority of liberals running them.
let's see how those commie pinko bastards are doing with the economy and creation of wealth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USA_highest_income_counties.PNG
see any kind of pattern? socialists! always keeping the individual down! if only they would implement successful economic policies like in the deep red states!
for additional fun:
States ranked by median household income in order
Median Household Income by State: 2007 [1]
1. Maryland – $68,080
2. New Jersey – $67,035
3. Connecticut – $65,967
4. Alaska – $64,333
5. Hawaii – $63,746
6. New Hampshire – $62,369
7. Massachusetts – $62,365
8. California – $59,948
9. Virginia – $59,562
10. Minnesota – $55,082
11. Washington – $55,591
12. Colorado – $55,212
13. Utah – $55,109
14. Nevada – $55,062
15. Delaware – $54,610
District of Columbia – $54,317
16. Illinois – $54,124
17. Rhode Island – $53,568
18. New York – $53,514
19. Wyoming – $51,731
20. Wisconsin – $50,578
21. Vermont – $49,907
22. Arizona – $49,889
23. Georgia – $49,136
24. Oregon – $48,730
25. Pennsylvania – $48,576
26. Michigan – $47,950
27. Florida – $47,804
28. Texas – $47,548
29. Kansas – $47,451
30. Indiana – $47,448
31. Iowa – $47,292
32. Nebraska – $47,085
33. Ohio – $46,597
34. Idaho – $46,253
35. Maine – $45,888
36. Missouri – $45,114
37. North Carolina – $44,670
38. North Dakota – $43,753
39. Montana – $43,531
40. South Dakota – $43,424
41. South Carolina – $43,329
42. Tennessee – $42,367
43. Oklahoma – $41,567
44. New Mexico – $41,452
45. Louisiana – $40,926
46. Alabama – $40,554
47. Kentucky – $40,267
48. Arkansas – $38,134
49. West Virginia – $37,060
50. Mississippi – $36,338
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_by_income
One red state in the top ten (thanks to the oil royalties socialism), and three in the top twenty. Only one blue state in the bottom ten. clearly the socialist liberals are ruining this country and every state they are in control of. The other income measurements yield similar results.
nerpzillicus,
Your Wikipedia county link didn't work.
Now, find out how much in taxes those people paid, and then get back to me. Living in Illinois, I know how high the taxes are here, and the cost of living in the part of the state I live in (Chicago suburbs) is pretty high. I've also spent a lot of time in rural Arkansas; they don't have the tax burden people in my part of Illinois do, and the cost to keep a home isn't nearly as high.
And my wife's son lives in California. He earns a high income there because it costs more to live in that state than if he were to live in Illinois. He would be paid less for the same job if he were here.
Like I said, get the tax figures (income, sales, property, etc.), factor them in, and then get back to me.
Money isn't everything either. Chicago's murder has skyrocketed in the past year, to the point that more people have been killed this year in Chicago than in Baghdad. D.C., Detroit, Chicago, and New Orleans, all run by liberal Democrats, have the worst murder rates in the nation. Obviously all that money isn't really helping, is it?
tried my best, went to http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi/default.cfm?satable=summary
which gave me this table for personal disposable income:
00 United States 33,619 --
11 District of Columbia 52,526 --
09 Connecticut 45,217 1
34 New Jersey 42,081 2
25 Massachusetts 41,491 3
56 Wyoming 40,921 4
24 Maryland 39,750 5
36 New York 38,800 6
33 New Hampshire 36,775 7
53 Washington 36,557 8
02 Alaska 36,031 9
51 Virginia 35,721 10
17 Illinois 35,697 11
06 California 35,666 12
08 Colorado 35,545 13
27 Minnesota 35,454 14
10 Delaware 34,917 15
44 Rhode Island 34,894 16
32 Nevada 34,753 17
15 Hawaii 34,365 18
42 Pennsylvania 33,870 19
12 Florida 33,831 20
48 Texas 33,181 21
50 Vermont 33,156 22
38 North Dakota 32,487 23
46 South Dakota 32,451 24
22 Louisiana 32,074 25
20 Kansas 32,067 26
31 Nebraska 32,066 27
55 Wisconsin 31,719 28
40 Oklahoma 31,118 29
19 Iowa 31,020 30
26 Michigan 30,611 31
41 Oregon 30,385 32
39 Ohio 30,260 33
47 Tennessee 30,248 34
23 Maine 30,097 35
29 Missouri 30,042 36
30 Montana 29,433 37
37 North Carolina 29,423 38
18 Indiana 29,394 39
13 Georgia 29,288 40
04 Arizona 29,063 41
01 Alabama 28,960 42
16 Idaho 27,948 43
45 South Carolina 27,580 44
35 New Mexico 27,389 45
21 Kentucky 27,357 46
05 Arkansas 27,041 47
54 West Virginia 26,408 48
49 Utah 26,203 49
28 Mississippi 26,008 50
so now there are two red states in the top 10, but sadly, no additional ones in the top 20.
looks like those who tax more, make more, have more disposable income. fairly stable comparison to my previous table. I don't know if this accounts for the welfare the red states get from the blue states through redistribution of federal tax dollars.
the wiki county map worked just fine for me. try this one, i guess
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/USA_highest_income_counties.PNG
Money isn't everything either. Chicago's murder has skyrocketed in the past year, to the point that more people have been killed this year in Chicago than in Baghdad. D.C., Detroit, Chicago, and New Orleans, all run by liberal Democrats, have the worst murder rates in the nation. Obviously all that money isn't really helping, is it?
i concur - but you were complaining about socialists, so i figured this was about economics. most communist countries did not have a crime problem (not that their solution was a good one)
Further, you should be careful as to what you claim. your sentence is ambiguous. more people were killed in chicago than U.S. soldiers in Iraq for a period during this summer. I would highly doubt less than 500 Iraqis have been killed this year so far.
also, if we wanna get real interested in liberals (socialists!) vs good people, we could look to see what the really socialist! countries are doing:
Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
#26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
#27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
#28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
#29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
#30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
#31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
#32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
#33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
#34 Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
#36 Mauritius: 0.021121 per 1,000 people
#37 Hungary: 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
#38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
#39 Slovenia: 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#41 Czech Republic: 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
#42 Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#45 Chile: 0.014705 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#47 Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
#48 Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
#49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
#50 Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
#52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
#54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
#55 Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
#57 Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people
#58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
#59 Hong Kong: 0.00550804 per 1,000 people
#60 Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
#61 Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456 per 1,000 people
#62 Qatar: 0.00115868 per 1,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
shockingly, the uber socialists! in western europe have fewer murders than us. (although Finland is really kind of frisky)
Nerpzillicus, you're my new hero! There's nothing like facts that contradict right-wing illusions to destroy the positions of people like steveil. Of course, facts have a notorious liberal bias.
nerpzillicus, thanks for the numbers. Now, factor in the cost to live in those states, and tell me what's left.
Now you have to remember, there are rich and poor areas in every state, just as there is in every county and city. Dupage County Illinois was number 23 on the list of counties with the highest median incomes in 2000. I can tell you it is very conservative and always votes Republican. Cook County doesn't even show up on the list, yet that is where the "hoi poloi" live.
What's interesting is that the county I live in (no, I won't name it) is also on the list, further on down. The median income is a few thousand dollars less than that of Dupage County. But then again, I don't have to make as much money to live in my county since my property taxes and property tax rate are lower than for those who live in Dupage County (and their property tax rates are already pretty low, as are those in my county). What you'll find is that those counties that have higher tax rates contain more many more poor people who don't own their homes.
See, those are the kinds of comparisons I'm looking for.
most communist countries did not have a crime problem
Of course they didn't, provided you ignore the fact that Communist Party members of those countries are/were criminals themselves, a fact Communists wouldn't readily acknowledge to the world.
Screw socialism. We have real liberty here, real freedom, although we need more of it by getting rid of dinosaur programs (Social Security; I hate it). I don't mind reasonable regulations on guns, provided they don't violate the 2nd Amendment (Chicago, D.C., and probably every other city run by liberals). I'll take my chances with politicians who promote that, not big-government socialism.
I think European countries would describe themselves more accurately as "Social Democracies" rather than as "Socialist".
Former English Prime Minister and key Bush ally, Tony Blair, for example, would not reject the label of Social Democrat, not his successor. Blair might even own own up to the "Socialist" label. Who knew that George W. Bush was entertaining Socialists at Camp David? Palling around with them, even.
Social Democrats believe in a mixed economy: (1) a reasonably free market, but with regulation to prevent monopoly and market failure, (2) a robust safety net to smooth out periods of joblessness and illness for all citizens, and (3) all the human and civil rights that electoral democracy, property rights and the rule of law can provide.
Social Democratic parties began (c. 1900) with intellectuals and politicians who accepted Marxism, but rejected Leninism, dictatorship and violent revolution. Generally, these parties fused with older 19th century Liberal parties which had advocated wider franchises (e.g. for women), the end of child labour, health insurance, social welfare etc. Modern Social Democratic parties (like the British Labour Party, and the German SPD) are a "big tent" encompassing all these historical traditions.
Modern Social Democrats may not be Marxist. For example, in the British Labour Party, there is a strong Christian Social Democratic tradition that Tony Blair was part of.
I think generic Social Democracy is the preferred form of government of all democrats the world over, including many in the US Republican party. There are differences on where to set the various thresholds and controls can be set (the boundaries of market regulation, for example) but in the main that is what politics should be about.
The Bush crew with radical goals of privatizing Welfare, deregulating markets, showering the rich with tax breaks, and enabling corporations to back out of giving reasonable safety nets to employees, were the wild-eyed radicals of the Right, as much as dyed in the wool Socialists are on the Left.
My hope is that Obama can go and and build a coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans to make the Bush goals a total impossibility in the future. That, together with the end of Bushism in foreign policy, in executive practice and in law enforcement.
I think generic Social Democracy is the preferred form of government of all democrats the world over, including many in the US Republican party.
Crap. Any Republicans who want this, and there are a few, aren't conservatives.
Dress it up any way you want, social democracy, liberalism, progressivism, or whatever, it's still socialism and it stinks. It denies what was fought for and outlined in the Declaration of Independence, and it denies the guarantee of an individual's liberties in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even though this country hasn't always practiced the guarantee of equal political and legal rights (the only ones found in the Constitution, unlike the false concepts of economic equality and social justice), it continues moving forward, and provides greater opportunity than anywhere else. We aren't Europe or any other country. And those who immigrate from those places come here for that freedom and opportunity.
So you can keep your socialism, in any of its flowery names, to yourselves.
The conservative idea of freedom is really just another way of saying Survival of the Fittest. If civil rights are being attacked, who cares? So long as my own individuals rights aren't being threatened everyone else can fend for themselves. Children dying because they can't get proper medical care? Too bad, just don't raise my taxes! Ah yes, the fine art of screwing over your fellow man, so long as it leads to individual benefit.
Remember, these are the people who snickered when hurricane Katrina 'cleansed' all those lazy poor people out of New Orleans.
My idea of a decent society is something slightly less barbaric. If that makes me a 'socialist' so be it.
The conservative idea of freedom is really just another way of saying Survival of the Fittest.
Bull.
Remember, these are the people who snickered when hurricane Katrina 'cleansed' all those lazy poor people out of New Orleans.
Again, bull. It was the liberals who let down the people who elected them to office, especially the criminally incompetent Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin, and it took a conservative, Bobby Jindal, to show how things are done.
My idea of a decent society is something slightly less barbaric. If that makes me a 'socialist' so be it.
What you elected was someone who wants the government, the political class, to dictate how society should look, which is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted, to let the people decide with minimal government interference. It isn't always right, but it is always correctable.
Communists promised a government that would dictate a fair society, and then murdered tens of millions of their own people to make sure it was implemented. Look how well that worked.
The founding fathers feared the Federal government would step on our rights.
But what happened? Individual 'States' and individual people spit on civil rights instead, forcing the Fed to intervene. Conservatives, left up to their own devices, would still have us living in a segregated society, with science banned from public schools and the idea of social Darwinism running rampant. Hell, they're still fighting for that even now.
You can ignore reality in favor of your own little fantasy world, that does not make it truth. But perhaps I'm just wasting my time, after all...
"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows." -- Epictetus
Individual 'States' and individual people spit on civil rights instead, forcing the Fed to intervene.
Where the hell did you learn your history? Do you know anything about the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act? Did you know that a higher percentage of conservative Republicans voted for those bills than liberal Democrats? Did you know that liberal Democrats held control of both Houses of Congress from 1933 until 1981, yet it took them more than 30 years (1933 - 1964) to finally decide to take up these issues (remember also that Democrats held the White House for all but 8 years of that same period)? Did you know that Republicans implemented civil and voting rights legislation after the Civil War, only to see Democrats strip away all those laws during the Jim Crow era?
I'm not the one ignoring reality here, bub.
Conservatives, left up to their own devices, would still have us living in a segregated society,...
You don't even know what a conservative is. All you have is a false liberal view of one.
nerpzillicus, thanks for the numbers. Now, factor in the cost to live in those states, and tell me what's left.
Now you have to remember, there are rich and poor areas in every state, just as there is in every county and city.
Thanks for the news flash, I never would have though of that. Of course, since I’m the only providing “data” and “facts,” instead of spouting off about socialists!, I feel confident I know what I’m doing. I don’t think we can accurately do a cost of living analysis for an entire state (maybe some really small ones) as there is way big a gap between rural and urban places within a state. It’d be a tough one to do, as large city centers will probably skew more rural places as far as cost of living goes. I think we’d need a more localized comparison if we were to do this.
Dupage County Illinois was number 23 on the list of counties with the highest median incomes in 2000. I can tell you it is very conservative and always votes Republican. Cook County doesn't even show up on the list, yet that is where the "hoi poloi" live.
What's interesting is that the county I live in (no, I won't name it) is also on the list, further on down. The median income is a few thousand dollars less than that of Dupage County. But then again, I don't have to make as much money to live in my county since my property taxes and property tax rate are lower than for those who live in Dupage County (and their property tax rates are already pretty low, as are those in my county).
What you'll find is that those counties that have higher tax rates contain more many more poor people who don't own their homes.
See, those are the kinds of comparisons I'm looking for.
Well, why are you “looking” for them? You have asserted as fact that liberals (socialists!) are ruining the country, with absolutely no backing whatsoever. Certainly, you have these facts and statistics at hand, otherwise you would simply be pulling them out of the air, right?
Further, I don’t think you will find that to be the case. I live in southern Illinois, and we have higher tax rates on property to support schools. Unlike Chicago, where there is a great deal of renters, there are a lot more home owners, on average, here. Yet our tax rates are higher, because Illinois uses property taxes for schools, and instead has a dismally low income tax rate. For instance, the average residential property tax rate in 2005 for DuPage was 5.77, but Madison was 7.05.
See Table 8, http://tax.illinois.gov/Publications/LocalGovernment/Ptaxstats/2005/
Yet, the homeownership rate in Madison was 73.8% , and DuPage is only slightly higher at 76.4%. This is obviously because DuPage’s median household income is $66,697, with median home values of $195,000, while Madison only has a median household income of $45,326 and median home values of $77,200.
See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17119.html
DuPage has 325,601 households, and Madison 101,953. Based on the relative homeownership rate, this means there are 248,759 owner occupied households in DuPage, and 75,241 owner occupied households in Madison. Both counties take assessments at one third fair market value, so take each median home value divided by three. Thus the median assessed value in DuPage is $65,000, and in Madison it’s $27,533. Tax assesed, based on the median household value times the average tax rate is $3,750.50 per DuPage resident and $1941.08 from each Madison resident. So, even in very conservative DuPage, versus very liberal Madison, DuPage pays much higher actual taxes than MadCo. As percentage of median income, DuPagers pay 5.6% of their income in property tax, yet MadCos only pay 4.28% of their income in property tax.
So, the rich places with really high home ownership pay way more in both absolute and in percentage of income terms (although much lower in actual property tax rate) than those in more liberal and less well to do areas, even though home ownership rates are comparable. So your claim is empirically false. What you’ll really find is those places with high median home values will have fewer poor people, not because low taxes creates wealth, but because of inadequate low income housing. They will tax at lower rates for more revenue because home values are higher. Poor people will then be forced to live in cities that will tax at higher rate, but receive less revenue due to lower property values.
most communist countries did not have a crime problem
Of course they didn't, provided you ignore the fact that Communist Party members of those countries are/were criminals themselves, a fact Communists wouldn't readily acknowledge to the world.
Screw socialism. We have real liberty here, real freedom, although we need more of it by getting rid of dinosaur programs (Social Security; I hate it). I don't mind reasonable regulations on guns, provided they don't violate the 2nd Amendment (Chicago, D.C., and probably every other city run by liberals). I'll take my chances with politicians who promote that, not big-government socialism.
Uhhh, I did at the caveat “not that their solution was a good one.” And really, I was less concerned about the criminality of the party itself, but more about the oppression and fear their people had to live under. That is why there was no crime. My point was more to show how ridiculous yours is – there are no socialists or communists running this country. It is fairly insulting you would say
Communists promised a government that would dictate a fair society, and then murdered tens of millions of their own people to make sure it was implemented. Look how well that worked.
I have a number of friends who I met when I was in college, who came from former soviet socialist republics. They told me the stories, especially my one friend, who told me the first thing he ever learned was that he was never to say anything bad about the man in the picture on the wall, no matter what. (Ceausescu in Romainia) to even pretend liberals in this country are comparable to the horrors committed by those men is disgusting.
Where the hell did you learn your history? Do you know anything about the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act? Did you know that a higher percentage of conservative Republicans voted for those bills than liberal Democrats?
I suggest a refresher course, since this is a brutal lie. From Wikipedia:
Voting By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Conservative democrats voted against the bill. Liberals (both Repub and Dem) voted for.
Did you know that liberal Democrats held control of both Houses of Congress from 1933 until 1981, yet it took them more than 30 years (1933 - 1964)
“liberal” democrats did not. While many southerners were economic populists, they were also socially conservative and believed in segregation and Jim Crow. They were against the Civil Rights Act. When it passed, they became republicans. The northern and the southern dems did control the Congress but only because of this unholy alliance (much like how the republican party today – or at least as of three days ago – has been held together by an unholy alliance of libertarians and social conservatives). This was the coalition that broke apart in ’64. Jesse Helms, democrat, became a republican. Strom Thurmond, democrat, became a republican. This lead to Nixon's southern strategy, and the dominance of the republican party in the south and the electoral college, for, as LBJ predicted, a generation. That time is thankfully over.
Did you know that Republicans implemented civil and voting rights legislation after the Civil War, only to see Democrats strip away all those laws during the Jim Crow era?
I'm not the one ignoring reality here, bub.
But who were the liberals? Lincoln freed the slaves, and then his party became the party for disgruntled southern segregationist dems a hundred years later. Lincoln’s republican party were liberals, the dems were the conservatives then. That changed when Taft and Teddy split the party, big business jumped into the republican coalition, and the dems became the party of economic populism. That flipped as the dem economic populist coalition of the 30’s fell apart in ’64.
The party names are meaningless nowadays. After all, the republicans are the party of Lincoln, and the dems of Jefferson. But the dems were the conservative, states-rights party in the first half of the 19th century, and the federalists were the federal powers types.
If you really knew history, you would know your simple platitudes are not accurate.
You should really do a modicum of research before making such claims.
toby -
i agree. no european country is socialist. that's why i use my scare exclamation mark "socialists!" whenever i say it. its sarcasm, or satire or something, from me at least.
"Since then, gas and oil prices went up dramatically (and went down after President Bush rescinded the executive ban on new drilling), and the financial crisis came upon the country. This occurred on their watch, and they did nothing to prevent it."
when I see that, I know the person typing it is a liar, a moron, and a republican.
It seemed the perfect wedge issue. Drill baby Drill! but, in realitty-land, it had no and will have no, efect on oil prices.
It can't because first the reserves are so small compared to the world's needs. secondly it will take a long time to bring to market and lastly, the main producers can easily adjust production to offset the new supply, since its so small.
In fact, the program was more a Lease Baby Lease program to allow the oil companies to lock up the rights at low prices and add the known reserves to their balance sheets. There aren't even enough deep-water drilling rigs around to even get started.
I always hated the McCainics saying Obama didn't want to drill for oil. Its so stupid. We are drilling for oil now, there are plans for more wells and in some places it makes sense.
But it makes no sense to drill in wilderness areas or next to our national parks, which is what Bush is starting to lease now.
nerpzillicus, very interesting discussion.
My point was more to show how ridiculous yours is – there are no socialists or communists running this country. It is fairly insulting you would say
to even pretend liberals in this country are comparable to the horrors committed by those men is disgusting.
Conservatives, including myself, been insulted worse than that, having been compared to Hitler and Nazis, and we get over it. Get over it.
Lincoln freed the slaves, and then his party became the party for disgruntled southern segregationist dems a hundred years later. Lincoln’s republican party were liberals, the dems were the conservatives then.
Lincoln was no liberal, at least not in the modern sense of the word. Read the Emancipation Proclamation again and then dare to tell me it was "liberal". It was very much in line with the Constitution, very much like a true conservative of today.
You are still using false liberal/socialist definitions of conservatives and conservatism. I don't accept those definitions. And I do know my history.
Now on to Illinois.
I said earlier: What you'll find is that those counties that have higher tax rates contain more many more poor people who don't own their homes.
Then you said: So, the rich places with really high home ownership pay way more in both absolute and in percentage of income terms (although much lower in actual property tax rate) than those in more liberal and less well to do areas, even though home ownership rates are comparable. So your claim is empirically false.
You actually confirmed my claim at least about tax rates, although you do know better than I about the numbers of people who own their own homes, even in poor areas.
So the problem then is one of tax rates, where the higher property tax rate is tacked on to poorer people while a lower property tax rate is charged to wealthier areas, and the amount taxed is based on fair market value, which is why Dupage homeowners pay more in total property taxes. Whose fault is that? While nobody wants to pay more in taxes, it seems to be less of a complaint in Dupage County since the money is there for schools and other things. And they still vote conservative. It sounds like the people that vote for the liberal politicians in Madison County are screwing themselves since those politicians can't find a way to pay for the services they offer but can't afford. Obviously, higher property tax rates aren't the answer. So, they have to find a way to increase the fair market values of the area by lowering the tax rates. It doesn't mean raising the costs of the homeowners that live there now, but it will provide incentive to get more businesses in, which will provide more good paying jobs, etc., etc., etc. Plus, homeowners in the area will get more money if they sell their homes if and when the market value for them increases. Which makes this statement false:
What you’ll really find is those places with high median home values will have fewer poor people, not because low taxes creates wealth, but because of inadequate low income housing.
Good paying jobs help create wealth, provided people are looking for them and politicians are willing to bring in businesses that do this.
instead has a dismally low income tax rate.
Yes, and the liberals in the Illinois state government have said they would address this in regards to the income tax and property tax over the last six years. And what have they done about it? Nothing.
Again, you keep saying conservatives did this and that, including in Illinois. Your liberal county government doesn't bring in enough money to support the schools even though the property tax rates are higher than in wealthier Illinois counties like Dupage. The liberal Democrats in Springfield promised to do something about property tax relief for six years, yet they have done nothing.
It doesn't seem to me that the liberal politicians in this state are doing anybody any good. Yet, they keep getting re-elected (not by me).
nerpzillicus, very interesting discussion.
My point was more to show how ridiculous yours is – there are no socialists or communists running this country. It is fairly insulting you would say
to even pretend liberals in this country are comparable to the horrors committed by those men is disgusting.
Conservatives, including myself, been insulted worse than that, having been compared to Hitler and Nazis, and we get over it. Get over it.
If you want to be taken as seriously as those who would call you a nazi, be my guest. If you would like to engage in substantive discussion, perhaps you should tone down the rhetoric. I don’t think the nazi historical reference is useful, save a very important caveat – through excessive nationalism and warmongering, Hitler was able to, through mostly legal means, take control of a democratic society and turn it into a bloodthirsty dictatorship. Liberals and conservatives should always been on guard against the breakdown of the separation of powers and authoritarian inroads into our government for that reason alone.
Lincoln freed the slaves, and then his party became the party for disgruntled southern segregationist dems a hundred years later. Lincoln’s republican party were liberals, the dems were the conservatives then.
Lincoln was no liberal, at least not in the modern sense of the word. Read the Emancipation Proclamation again and then dare to tell me it was "liberal". It was very much in line with the Constitution, very much like a true conservative of today.
You are still using false liberal/socialist definitions of conservatives and conservatism. I don't accept those definitions. And I do know my history.
Then explain your misstatement about “conservative republicans” voting for the Civil Rights Act, and “liberal democrats” voting against it. I have conclusively proven the falsity of this claim. Please respond with more than “I know my history.” If I’m guilty of using a false definition of “conservative,” then you are equally guilty of using a false definition of liberal. What is your definition of conservative? We are going to need a baseline. My definition of a liberal is the one from Russell on the top of this blog.
Traditionally, a conservative was someone who sought to hold to tradition. Slavery was a tradition. Lincoln wasn’t in that camp, and he used the federal government to effect his goals. Lincoln was a lawyer, and very cleverly crafted a solid argument for why he had to engage the south in the war, and then for why he could declare the slaves in the rebel states free. Now, originally, he was going to simply try and reinstitute the Missouri Compromise, and try to kill slavery through attrition, so the method changed. Although his initial course of action was less than radical, his goals were a clear departure from the traditional norms. I also didn't exactly say Lincoln was a liberal, just that his party was the liberal party then. Lincoln was extremely cautious in implementing their desires. The party was strictly abolitionist prior to Lincoln's nomination, and pushed him throughout his administration to go the whole nine yards, which he did with the 13th amendment. Now, the emancipation proclamation is many things, but I don't know if I could classify it as liberal or conservative. It was a rather extreme (but justified and strategically sound) act of the executive in a time of war pursuant to statute.
If you have a different definition, I’m all ears.
Now on to Illinois.
I said earlier: What you'll find is that those counties that have higher tax rates contain more many more poor people who don't own their homes.
Then you said: So, the rich places with really high home ownership pay way more in both absolute and in percentage of income terms (although much lower in actual property tax rate) than those in more liberal and less well to do areas, even though home ownership rates are comparable. So your claim is empirically false.
You actually confirmed my claim at least about tax rates, although you do know better than I about the numbers of people who own their own homes, even in poor areas.
Huh? I just demonstrated a place with a higher tax rate (Madison) has almost the same homeownership rate as DePage. And Madison isn't "poor." Your claim, that higher tax rates = more poor people who do not own a home, is completely wrong.
So the problem then is one of tax rates, where the higher property tax rate is tacked on to poorer people while a lower property tax rate is charged to wealthier areas, and the amount taxed is based on fair market value, which is why Dupage homeowners pay more in total property taxes. Whose fault is that? While nobody wants to pay more in taxes, it seems to be less of a complaint in Dupage County since the money is there for schools and other things. And they still vote conservative.
I really don’t understand this. DuPage can charge a lesser rate because the people there are richer, with more expensive homes, so they can take in greater revenue at a lower rate than Madison. I do not know the reasons for the conservative vote there, except that wealthy people tend to vote to keep taxes low. But DuPage went for Obama and Durbin. I don’t know if you understood what I said. In liberal Madison county, the people pay less in property tax than the people in DuPage, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of income. The “problem” has nothing to do with tax rates – in fact, I don’t even know what the “problem” you are talking about is. Your assertion was that one would find less people owning homes where taxes were higher. But that isn’t true, as Madison proves. The tax rate is higher, but the homeownership rate is almost even with DuPage.
It sounds like the people that vote for the liberal politicians in Madison County are screwing themselves since those politicians can't find a way to pay for the services they offer but can't afford.
A school book costs whatever a book costs, in DuPage or Madison. DuPage people aren’t paying a 50% surcharge because they have a 50% higher median income. So the $50 history book costs $50 in Madison and it costs $50 in DuPage, not $75. Madison has to collect about the same amount in per student taxes to provide the same quality schools as DuPage. But they have a less wealthy tax base to provide it. So the property tax rate is higher.
Obviously, higher property tax rates aren't the answer.
I don’t see how its obvious, nor what it is supposed to answer.
So, they have to find a way to increase the fair market values of the area by lowering the tax rates. It doesn't mean raising the costs of the homeowners that live there now, but it will provide incentive to get more businesses in, which will provide more good paying jobs, etc., etc., etc. Plus, homeowners in the area will get more money if they sell their homes if and when the market value for them increases.
How will they pay for the services if the government doesn’t take in enough to pay for them? This isn’t Reaganomics, where you can just borrow and spend.
Which makes this statement false:
What you’ll really find is those places with high median home values will have fewer poor people, not because low taxes creates wealth, but because of inadequate low income housing.
Good paying jobs help create wealth, provided people are looking for them and politicians are willing to bring in businesses that do this.
No, if you have a good paying job, you aren’t poor. So by definition, places with good paying jobs will not have poor people. Like I said, Madison isn’t “poor.” That was the whole point. The tax rate is high, but there are plenty of people with good jobs and steady incomes, and high homeownership.
instead has a dismally low income tax rate.
Yes, and the liberals in the Illinois state government have said they would address this in regards to the income tax and property tax over the last six years. And what have they done about it? Nothing.
So you support a progressive income tax system in Illinois?
Again, you keep saying conservatives did this and that, including in Illinois.
When did I say anything about conservatives doing this and that? I sought to prove your claims that the socialists! were ruining the country were horribly off-base. (which, I must pat myself on the back for) I haven’t accused conservatives of anything… yet.
Your liberal county government doesn't bring in enough money to support the schools even though the property tax rates are higher than in wealthier Illinois counties like Dupage.
Where are you getting this? The schools are just fine, thank you. Do you bother to even look up anything up before you assert it?
Now, the emancipation proclamation is many things, but I don't know if I could classify it as liberal or conservative. It was a rather extreme (but justified and strategically sound) act of the executive in a time of war pursuant to statute.
I agree. It was liberal in its thinking, but conservative in its execution in that he followed the Constitution in that it wasn't overreaching.
Traditionally, a conservative was someone who sought to hold to tradition.
That's partially true, but not entirely. We hold to many traditions, but most aren't so dogmatic except when it comes to the role of government in our lives as the Founding Fathers saw it (small). For example, I'm against what is called "gay marriage" or "marriage equality"; I don't believe in them. However, I'm not about to criminalize homosexual behavior, and neither are the vast majority of conservatives. However, if let's say Proposition 8 had failed, a true conservative wouldn't have gone to the courts to get it overturned, and anyone claiming to be a conservative who would do that is not a conservative. Because the people would have made their choice (the Bush administration filed suit against Oregon to overturn their assisted suicide law, and rightly lost that case; but Bush isn't considered a real conservative either). Now with Proposition 8 passing, like with Proposition 22 before it, the liberals are going to the courts to overturn those laws for invented rights that have never existed anywhere since the dawn of history. It isn't a court's job to pass laws, that is the job of the legislature. And it definitely isn't the court's job to invent a right that never existed before, especially when it overturns a democratic mandate.
My definition of a liberal is the one from Russell on the top of this blog.
That's a good definition. It's probably one that should be applied to me however. Neither myself or most conservatives are adverse to changing things, but not by judicial fiat or with government social engineering. That's what we have "We The People" for. People who call themselves liberals today are, to me, more leftist than liberal, but I use the term liberal for the purposes of convention. And I don't think leftists are liberal according to the Russell definition one bit. They are too stuck in this class warfare gig for the last 40 years (and in some cases, more than 70) that sets American upon American in a dangerous way, nearly as bad as prior to the Civil War. It's almost as if liberals are actually conservative since their approach hasn't changed (more taxes on the rich, more government, blah, blah, blah).
And Madison isn't "poor."
That's the way you made it sound in the prior comment. If you like paying a higher tax rate, then go for it.
How will they pay for the services if the government doesn’t take in enough to pay for them? This isn’t Reaganomics, where you can just borrow and spend.
You know, I've never talked about borrowing and spending. How about less spending? And I don't mean less spending for schoolbooks, but for things that maybe aren't needed? You would know better what those are in Madison County since you live there. I'm sure there are those who could find stuff that can be cut.
So you support a progressive income tax system in Illinois?
No, I do not support a progressive tax system in Illinois. What I do support are levels of government that don't believe they can do something better than private industry can, because they can't, and they've been proven that they can't. Like Blago's All Kids Health Insurance plan. Like everything else the government does, it will become a boondoggle. And it is very much socialist. So I'm not at all off-base here. No, I'm not for depriving children of going to the doctor. How about lowering doctors' costs through tort reform? How about changing regulations so that unnecessary medical tests aren't needed to be done? How about changing the regulations to allow for insurance to provide cost-effective health insurance for doctor's visits instead of lumping it in with catastrophic care like comprehensive health insurance does now?
As far as Dupage voting for Obama and Durbin, everybody has got a right to be a sucker once.
Interesting extended civil discussion here, thanks steveil and nerpzillicus. From another Russell (Russell Kirk), "A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers." I have a lot of sympathy for the Kirk Principles sort of conservatism.
It's my belief that Obama has a lot of small-c conservative in his outlook. We will all be closely watching his cabinet and staff picks over the next months.
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
cheapest wow gold
warhammer gold
warhammer powerleveling
war gold
war powerleveling
war power leveling
rose online zulie
steveil,
it took me a while to respond, and i don’t know if you are still looking at this thread, but since this discussion is more productive than the typical internet comment thread:
Now, the emancipation proclamation is many things, but I don't know if I could classify it as liberal or conservative. It was a rather extreme (but justified and strategically sound) act of the executive in a time of war pursuant to statute.
I agree. It was liberal in its thinking, but conservative in its execution in that he followed the Constitution in that it wasn't overreaching.
I am kinda confused on your feelings re: emancipation proclimation. You say it is conservative since it followed the Constitution in that it wasn’t overreaching. Do you claim that any liberal position necessarily does not follow the constitution? Does every conservative position follow the Constitution? I would have to disagree on these generalizations. If not, please clarify why you think it was conservative. As i said before, i don’t really feel comfortable classifying it as either.
Traditionally, a conservative was someone who sought to hold to tradition.
That's partially true, but not entirely. We hold to many traditions, but most aren't so dogmatic except when it comes to the role of government in our lives as the Founding Fathers saw it (small). For example, I'm against what is called "gay marriage" or "marriage equality"; I don't believe in them. However, I'm not about to criminalize homosexual behavior, and neither are the vast majority of conservatives. However, if let's say Proposition 8 had failed, a true conservative wouldn't have gone to the courts to get it overturned, and anyone claiming to be a conservative who would do that is not a conservative. Because the people would have made their choice (the Bush administration filed suit against Oregon to overturn their assisted suicide law, and rightly lost that case; but Bush isn't considered a real conservative either). Now with Proposition 8 passing, like with Proposition 22 before it, the liberals are going to the courts to overturn those laws for invented rights that have never existed anywhere since the dawn of history. It isn't a court's job to pass laws, that is the job of the legislature. And it definitely isn't the court's job to invent a right that never existed before, especially when it overturns a democratic mandate.
Gay Marriage. See, i would call regulating what is and is not a valid association between citizens a serious governmental interference with personal liberty. You say you basically defer to the will of the majority, but (to my mind) this is not necessarily a “conservative” principle. You do not like social security, but the majority of the people support it. So, under this line of reasoning, is social security a “conservative” principle, at least until it falls out of favor with the majority? Again, I am not trying to be a dick - i am trying to establish what your “conservative”framework entails. (And the quotes are not meant to be derogatory, just to emphasize i have not been satisfied as to just what “conservative” means).
While it may not be the courts’ role to “invent” rights, would you agree it is the courts’ job to prevent infringement of Constitutional rights and limitations by the elected branches, through the power of judicial review? If so, we are discussing particular issues on a case by case basis. If not, then you and i have a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of the branches in the federal government. Further, I believe the courts do have the power to create law, derived from the founder’s adoption of the English common law system. Do you believe the courts have the ability to create law? Is your objection to court abuse of lawmaking powers, or do you reject this inherent power altogether?
How will they pay for the services if the government doesn’t take in enough to pay for them? This isn’t Reaganomics, where you can just borrow and spend.
You know, I've never talked about borrowing and spending. How about less spending? And I don't mean less spending for schoolbooks, but for things that maybe aren't needed? You would know better what those are in Madison County since you live there. I'm sure there are those who could find stuff that can be cut.
I apologize if it sounded like an accusation that you had put forth the idea of borrowing and spending. However my point was you seem to assume the tax revenue is wasted or unnecessary. And while there is undoubtedly efficiencies that can be found, you seem to assume there is a sufficient amount to reduce taxes without a loss of services, which i think is a little presumptuous. My point is more that assuming both DuPage and Madison have similarly efficient governments, DuPage can always have a lower tax rate because of its natural advantage of higher property values and bring the proportionately same amount. My broader point was that your general claim that high tax rates = poor and less homeownership is not empirically true. The dynamics of the situations are vastly more complicated than that.
So you support a progressive income tax system in Illinois?
No, I do not support a progressive tax system in Illinois. What I do support are levels of government that don't believe they can do something better than private industry can, because they can't, and they've been proven that they can't. Like Blago's All Kids Health Insurance plan. Like everything else the government does, it will become a boondoggle. And it is very much socialist. So I'm not at all off-base here. No, I'm not for depriving children of going to the doctor. How about lowering doctors' costs through tort reform? How about changing regulations so that unnecessary medical tests aren't needed to be done? How about changing the regulations to allow for insurance to provide cost-effective health insurance for doctor's visits instead of lumping it in with catastrophic care like comprehensive health insurance does now?
As far as Dupage voting for Obama and Durbin, everybody has got a right to be a sucker once.
I think health insurance is where we have a genuine disagreement. I see the situation the exact opposite. I think health insurance situation in this country demonstrates that the free market is unable to efficiently allocate resources in that particular market. Quite the opposite of what you are saying, I think government has shown it is the more efficient operator in that market, and should take it over. I’ll give you an overview of my theory
1) the basic purpose of the free market is to allow for an efficient distribution of goods and services from suppliers to those who demand the goods or services.
2) in the run-of-the-mill situation, consumers demand widgets. Widget makers compete to provide various widgets of various quality, in order to meet the demands of the consumers. Consumers are willing to pay for the widgets because they want them. The key here, to me, is the widget makers and the consumers interests are aligned - widget makers want to sell to consumers, consumers want to buy.
3) in the health care context, the consumers who have the highest demand are the ones the suppliers DO NOT want to supply with insurance. The consumers who have the least desire for insurance are the ones whom the health insurers want to provide. Heath insurers do not want to provide preventative care, because they fear people will use it often, thus reducing their profit margins. They do not want to provide coverage for catastrophic care, since it is expensive, but they can try to use policy language to get out of it when it does happen. They don’t want to cover the preventative care because of the repetitive costs, even though that kind of care may prevent the catastrophic coverage later. Basically, the suppliers and the consumers interests are not aligned - they are actually in opposition. This, imho, does not make for an effective and efficient market.
4) also, in a broader sense health insurance has a huge effect on the economy and on individuals. Here are a few effects i can think of off the top of my head:
a) those with insurance are billed less than those without, making health care more expensive for those who can less afford it, and cheaper for those who can.
b) insurance benefits through employers plays havoc on the labor market, by distorting and deincetivizing employee movement to more efficient jobs. If a person must always fear the change in health insurance from a new job - less benefits, wrong doctors in plan, higher premiums - it prevents the worker from taking a job that would be a better use of his or her skills and would create a higher GDP through efficient reallocation of labor. It makes it harder for small business to compete. It also makes entrepreneurship more risky.
c) it puts the US at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the rest of the world, as nationalized health care in other countries keeps labor costs cheaper than here. Ask the auto companies if they would like nationalized health insurance right about now.
d) it creates an inefficient incentive for those without insurance to either put off care until it is extremely serious and expensive, or come into the extraordinarily expensive emergency room for every minor issue. Then these huge bills don’t get paid, and the hospitals have to increase fees in other areas to make up the shortfall. The only other option is to deny emergency care to human beings, something which is morally and politically repugnant.
Therefore, from a purely efficientarian (my word, tm) standpoint, government monopoly is the best device for efficient provision of medical care in society. It will also improve efficiencies in other markets, making it that much more desirable.
As far as your points, both Illinois and Missouri have implemented medical malpractice tort reform (though I’ll bet you the Illinois Supreme Court strikes it down). I don’t know how effective these policies really are, but it is kinda ironic that tort reformers are actually attempting to redistribute money from injured people to doctors and insurance companies. Sounds sorta socialist. I honestly think the caps have the effect of preventing injured persons from having their day in court, because the defense knows it can drive up costs to a point where a plaintiff’s attorney cannot get a decent return on his or her investment, since the contingency fee would be most effective out of the non-economic damages portion of the award. Further it takes a lot of the leverage in settlement negotiations from the plaintiff’s side. A more interesting scenario would be non-economic med mal damages caps proportionate to economic damages (not a fixed cap) with statutory plaintiff’s atty fees and an offer of judgment system cutting off gold digging attorneys, with punies always available for outrageous conduct. Still, I’m not against the concept if interests are properly balanced, and it does actually result in a more efficient system.
I think one cannot approach a problem with the presumption that the government will fail in doing implementing a solution. To me, that is the great lie from Reagan, and the one that has hurt this country more than any other. There is no inherent reason why the government cannot implement policies and plans as well as a private company. Certainly politics has gotten in the way and caused problems, but one can just look at wall street to see sometimes the private markets make mistakes and are corrupt.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home