Friday, October 2, 2009
Economic Programming Note
Unemployment is one of the last metrics to change in economic recovery. Stop freaking out. You're only making it worse.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Somewhere in the middle is the truth
The majority of the legitimate disagreement over the health care reform plan boils down to whether or not you believe Government has a vital role in your everyday life.
The purest liberals think that it does. The purest conservatives think that it does not.
Somewhere in the middle is the truth. Somewhere in the middle is where our President stands, waiting for us to join him in the work that needs to be done. This idea is obvious to those who pay attention to what the man says and does. It is not subtext. This has been part of his platform from day one. He is a centrist. He gave a spirited defense of this principle during his speech to Congress last week:
"You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves."
I want a single-payer option, you want the free market unmolested by Government regulation. Both desires are, given the political, economic and social realities of the world we live in, radical. President Obama understands that. Again, from his speech:
"There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own."
"I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months."
There it is, in black and white. Straight from the horses mouth, as they say. President Obama doesn't want to pull the plug on your grandmother. President Obama doesn't want to turn America into Venezuela. He wants to find the best elements and choices left to us and put them together to create something that a majority of American's would approve of. He has shown enormous restraint and patience in letting the elected representatives of the People of the United States of America write a plan that best embodies their constituents. You and me.
Sadly, radicals have hijacked the debate.
Neither side is working in good faith because they want to believe the worst of the other side and because they have, ultimately, radical agendas.
Shouldn't health care be affordable and readily available to all citizens of the greatest Nation on Earth? Set aside whether or not you think it should be an inalienable human right in today's modern world (spoiler alert: it should be). Shouldn't health care be affordable and readily available to all citizens of the greatest Nation on Earth? It should be. Can we agree on that?
Let's start there.
Let's eliminate and make illegal prejudice based on preexisting conditions? Can't we demand that everyone has, at the very least, coverage for catastrophic injury or illness? Can that be something Government helps out with? Can the days of Cancer patients fighting with their insurance provider over coverage become a thing of the past?
Can we agree that health care costs too much in America? We spend more than twice the average of other developed countries around the world and our coverage is not appreciably better. In many areas, it is worse. If we can agree on that, could we agree that the Government should not be able to tax your benefits? Can we agree that a cap should be placed on health care coverage? Why should somebody who had acne as a child pay more for their basic level of coverage than someone who was blessed with clear skin through adolescence? Can we agree that profit and capitalism are important, but that this is an industry where it isn't entirely appropriate? Why should someone be able to make money off of my misfortune or bad luck?
Can we agree that is not fair?
I hope that we can.
I hope that we can agree on the vast majority of this issue and meet somewhere in the middle and create real reform that, on balance, is good for the American People.
The irony is that the President, so vocally and angrily demonized by some fringe elements as a radical leftist is really not radical at all. He's a quintessential centrist. What his election meant and what his Presidency stands for is the idea of seeking common ground with our fellow citizens. He is fond of saying that "we can disagree without being disagreeable." For all of his missteps and failings - and they (like all men's) are considerable - he has always simply and eloquently and, yes, nobly asked us to meet in the middle. To regain our civility and regain something essential about ourselves. The time for teaparties and violence and anger, hate and fear and derision has passed.
This is a time to come together and meet where we can meet and agree when we can agree and heal this Nation.
Somewhere in the middle is the truth.
The purest liberals think that it does. The purest conservatives think that it does not.
Somewhere in the middle is the truth. Somewhere in the middle is where our President stands, waiting for us to join him in the work that needs to be done. This idea is obvious to those who pay attention to what the man says and does. It is not subtext. This has been part of his platform from day one. He is a centrist. He gave a spirited defense of this principle during his speech to Congress last week:
"You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves."
I want a single-payer option, you want the free market unmolested by Government regulation. Both desires are, given the political, economic and social realities of the world we live in, radical. President Obama understands that. Again, from his speech:
"There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own."
"I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months."
There it is, in black and white. Straight from the horses mouth, as they say. President Obama doesn't want to pull the plug on your grandmother. President Obama doesn't want to turn America into Venezuela. He wants to find the best elements and choices left to us and put them together to create something that a majority of American's would approve of. He has shown enormous restraint and patience in letting the elected representatives of the People of the United States of America write a plan that best embodies their constituents. You and me.
Sadly, radicals have hijacked the debate.
Neither side is working in good faith because they want to believe the worst of the other side and because they have, ultimately, radical agendas.
Shouldn't health care be affordable and readily available to all citizens of the greatest Nation on Earth? Set aside whether or not you think it should be an inalienable human right in today's modern world (spoiler alert: it should be). Shouldn't health care be affordable and readily available to all citizens of the greatest Nation on Earth? It should be. Can we agree on that?
Let's start there.
Let's eliminate and make illegal prejudice based on preexisting conditions? Can't we demand that everyone has, at the very least, coverage for catastrophic injury or illness? Can that be something Government helps out with? Can the days of Cancer patients fighting with their insurance provider over coverage become a thing of the past?
Can we agree that health care costs too much in America? We spend more than twice the average of other developed countries around the world and our coverage is not appreciably better. In many areas, it is worse. If we can agree on that, could we agree that the Government should not be able to tax your benefits? Can we agree that a cap should be placed on health care coverage? Why should somebody who had acne as a child pay more for their basic level of coverage than someone who was blessed with clear skin through adolescence? Can we agree that profit and capitalism are important, but that this is an industry where it isn't entirely appropriate? Why should someone be able to make money off of my misfortune or bad luck?
Can we agree that is not fair?
I hope that we can.
I hope that we can agree on the vast majority of this issue and meet somewhere in the middle and create real reform that, on balance, is good for the American People.
The irony is that the President, so vocally and angrily demonized by some fringe elements as a radical leftist is really not radical at all. He's a quintessential centrist. What his election meant and what his Presidency stands for is the idea of seeking common ground with our fellow citizens. He is fond of saying that "we can disagree without being disagreeable." For all of his missteps and failings - and they (like all men's) are considerable - he has always simply and eloquently and, yes, nobly asked us to meet in the middle. To regain our civility and regain something essential about ourselves. The time for teaparties and violence and anger, hate and fear and derision has passed.
This is a time to come together and meet where we can meet and agree when we can agree and heal this Nation.
Somewhere in the middle is the truth.
The amount of ignorance on display here...
...is simply staggering.
I'll write something about this once I pick my jaw up off the ground.
I'll write something about this once I pick my jaw up off the ground.
Substantive Debate Welcome
Don't mistake my previous post for an outright dismissal of so-called conservative principles. If you aren't a looney-tunes Teabagger, let's talk. But don't run around crying about Obama's secret Kenyan birth and socialist sleeper status and then accuse me of not wanting to have a serious conversation about the (numerous) issues with the proposed health care plans being legislated right now.
Here's the bill. Catch you on the flip-side.
Here's the bill. Catch you on the flip-side.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Where were you and your outrage...
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush was racking up the biggest deficits in U.S history?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush invaded Iraq at a cost of - to date - nearly $700,000,000,000?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush passed the highway bill at a cost of $295,000,000,000?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush passed the Medicare prescription drug benefit package which will cost $700,000,000,000 over ten years?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush bailed out the US Banks at a cost of $700,000,000,000?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when discretionary spending (not even accounting for "evil socialist" programs like Medicare or Social Security) increased 5.3% - a full percentage point higher than Liberal Devil LBJ in the sixties and a full four percentage points higher than Reagan (and he was fighting the Russians)?!
You were sitting at home with a shit-eating grin on your face, you Culture-Warrior, you. You were standing by idle as your country went down the drain. You weren't concerned with the Executive Branch then. But now. Now it's different for you. Now that a Democrat is in the office, now that he is trying desperately to save this country, NOW you decide to show up with your outrage. NOW it's OK to show up at rallies with signs of opposition. Heck, you're raising the ante and showing up with loaded assault rifles!
You have nothing against spending and long as the person doing it has a little (R) next to their name. You have nothing but contempt for the Constitution you profess to love but I'm pretty sure you haven't read. You spent the last eight year's watching it get pissed on without batting an eye. You don't hate the game, you hate the player. And it is nothing but that hate - simple, transparent and disgusting - that the rest of the country is seeing now.
We had a referendum on your way of thinking in November. You voted for Sarah Palin, we voted for Barack Obama.
Guess what?
We won.
Now sit down and shut the hell up.
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush invaded Iraq at a cost of - to date - nearly $700,000,000,000?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush passed the highway bill at a cost of $295,000,000,000?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush passed the Medicare prescription drug benefit package which will cost $700,000,000,000 over ten years?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when George W. Bush bailed out the US Banks at a cost of $700,000,000,000?
Where were you and your outrage, dear loyal Teabagger, when discretionary spending (not even accounting for "evil socialist" programs like Medicare or Social Security) increased 5.3% - a full percentage point higher than Liberal Devil LBJ in the sixties and a full four percentage points higher than Reagan (and he was fighting the Russians)?!
You were sitting at home with a shit-eating grin on your face, you Culture-Warrior, you. You were standing by idle as your country went down the drain. You weren't concerned with the Executive Branch then. But now. Now it's different for you. Now that a Democrat is in the office, now that he is trying desperately to save this country, NOW you decide to show up with your outrage. NOW it's OK to show up at rallies with signs of opposition. Heck, you're raising the ante and showing up with loaded assault rifles!
You have nothing against spending and long as the person doing it has a little (R) next to their name. You have nothing but contempt for the Constitution you profess to love but I'm pretty sure you haven't read. You spent the last eight year's watching it get pissed on without batting an eye. You don't hate the game, you hate the player. And it is nothing but that hate - simple, transparent and disgusting - that the rest of the country is seeing now.
We had a referendum on your way of thinking in November. You voted for Sarah Palin, we voted for Barack Obama.
Guess what?
We won.
Now sit down and shut the hell up.
Jimmy Carter gets it right
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Jimmy Carter is on the record as saying that much of the animosity toward President Obama is because of his race - because of the simple fact of his skin color. A former President saying this is a BIG DEAL and this may have just blown the doors off of Obama's tiptoeing around the issue of race.
Lawrence O'Donnell is on Olbermann now (somebody give him a show, please) and makes a smart point: there's a lot of substance in the health care bill that Republicans could take a legitimate stance against. Instead, we have ill-defined anger about socialism and marxism and Muslim sleepers and blah blah blah blah blah... Very true, Lawrence, and I'm glad you pointed it out. I wish somebody would sit one of these Teabag idiots down and ask them what about the substance of the proposals concerns them. If they can answer without any of the before-mentioned buzzwords, I say we elect them to the house of representatives, because that seems to be the only point of distinction between the two.
On the other hand - I think the left is making a critical mistake in making Joe Wilson a poster boy for this festering racism. There are plenty of examples of genuine racism in this debate (just take a look at some of the pictures from the 9/12 teabagger rally). They're going to shoot themselves in the foot if they spend a lot of time trying to cast Joe Wilson as the poster boy for the evil racists threatening our President's life.
Throw these clowns out of out country already. I am sick of acting like it's OK to humor these assholes. They're wrong and they're dangerous and they need to be treated like the racist, xenophobic children that they really are.
Credibility Gap
At this point, I think Glen Beck is really just engaging in a brilliant piece of performance art.
Inspirational to humorists everywhere...
Inspirational to humorists everywhere...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
