New GOP Tactic: Encourage revolution via billboard.

[Yona]

Ah, you have a newer poll than the one I had been referencing. That explains things a bit.

Well, the polls I've seen have supported the plan all along.

Well, in a competition between a CBO analysis and a GAO analysis, which one do you regard as the more credible? Because both organizations, meant to be nonpartisan, reached different conclusions on the numbers. I argue that it won't work because you look at the CBO; you argue that it will because you look at the GAO. Can you propose a way to determine which one is more credible?

Really, I think you'd better check the "CBO" again.

The Congressional Budget Office has revised its estimate of the net budgetary impact—
transmitted on November 6, 2009—of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for
America Act. In that November 6 letter, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) estimated that changes in direct spending and revenues from enacting
H.R. 3962 would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the
2010-2019 period. CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net
reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period, correcting a mistake that
CBO made in its earlier assessment of the impact of section 2581 of the legislation,
which would establish the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports
(CLASS) program.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc107 ... evised.pdf

The GAO is incorrect then. The most significant driver of health care cost increases is not litigation, greed, HMOs, insurance companies' schemes, or any of the most politically well-known causes. The biggest driver is a dearth of cost-benefit capability in the healthcare industry. Simply put, doctors presently have no access to information determining the comparative effectiveness of certain treatments and are thus forced to rely on their own judgement which inevitably results in costs increasing since one expensive treatment after another is tried when treatment #6 was the best one. As part of this problem, there is no data to assess the effectiveness of the newest and shiniest treatment option (which is always the most expensive) and the natural attractiveness of newer draws patients and doctors alike to the newest big thing when the new extremely expensive machine may be less effective than the 10-year-old one that does the job better for a fraction of the cost. Neither bill addresses this serious issue because politicians are largely ignorant of such matters and they are so esoteric that they are difficult to explain to a public that, naturally, can rarely appreciate the importance of information the way that a PHD economist (which is who identified the issue) does. But of the two, the Democratic bill attempts to do the logically impossible: reduce costs while increasing the amount of healthcare that will be bought and distributed. In other words, they propose to buy more without increasing the amount of money spent to buy more. Even the Republicans' plans cannot be discredited with such a simple application of logic.

Obviously The GAO and the CBO are in agreement. hmmmm, That statement is so wrong. Doctors are constantly bombarded by Insurance companies and HC professionals about prescribing this or that drug or treatment. Many systems pay premiums on how many procedures they prescribe or how many patients they see in a day. I know one who just left a very lucrative practice because he got tired and disgusted with their nonsense. Health Care costs are GREATLY inflated. Since when does it cost $35 to give someone a single Aspirin, or $28 for a very small box of tissues. These are minor compared to the other abuses. Costs are inflated for many reasons. One being that someone has to pay for those who have no insurance. The other is greed. Not profits, GREED and fraud. The Republicans are well aware of this. They even proposed a limit on litigation, the only good idea they've had.

I did not say that liberal = costly and unworkable. I said that of the two general camps (conservative and liberal), the liberal one has the greater tendency to propose plans that are costly and unworkable.

Based on what ? Republican propaganda ? Dems are more likely to NOT enter into prolonged conflict. The lesson of Viet Nam is still remembered.

The figures of the GAO say I'm wrong, the experts (in this case, I'm referring to economists without a financial interest) say I'm right, and the CBO says I'm right. As to option polls, as your own link shows, support for the plan depends upon the language used to describe it which sort of makes "the majority of Americans" a less reliable measure of whether the plan is a good one. If their opinion was consistent upon being given all the correct information, however, it would mean something.

Again, the figures agree, it will increase HC saturation in the US, lower HC costs and decrease the deficit. You might want to look at who is paying these "experts".

Of course it matters "how" you ask the question. If you tell someone it will "not work", "increase your cost", "create death panels", the reaction will be nasty. IF you tell the TRUTH, the reaction will be entirely different. Of course, then the Republicans will be out of jobs.

Ah shit, there goes the "unemployment rate" again !

How can ANYONE not want this legislation ? Well, for starters, because it would curtail the fraud (very profitable fraud) in a very lucrative business. And, it would end the power of a major political party. Both factions are fighting for their lives.

[Serafine666]

Really, I think you'd better check the "CBO" again.

The Congressional Budget Office has revised its estimate of the net budgetary impact—
transmitted on November 6, 2009—of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for
America Act. In that November 6 letter, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) estimated that changes in direct spending and revenues from enacting
H.R. 3962 would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the
2010-2019 period. CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net
reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period, correcting a mistake that
CBO made in its earlier assessment of the impact of section 2581 of the legislation,
which would establish the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports
(CLASS) program.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc107 ... evised.pdf
Obviously The GAO and the CBO are in agreement.

Yeah, I saw that. Then I looked at their cost tables in which the CBO explains that their savings presumes a miracle: a federal program remains on-budget. They also added a little caveat, because they're honest sorts:

Does not include effects on spending subject to future appropriations.

Now, isn't it interesting that they admit that their estimates presume that this program, unlike every single other program the government has enacted, won't have its budget balloon? I have no idea what the GAO's report says but I've a sneaky suspicion that they also include the "our estimates don't work if this program is like every other government program" statement somewhere.

Hmm, That statement is so wrong. Doctors are constantly bombarded by Insurance companies and HC professionals about prescribing this or that drug or treatment. Many systems pay premiums on how many procedures they prescribe or how many patients they see in a day. I know one who just left a very lucrative practice because he got tired and disgusted with their nonsense. Health Care costs are GREATLY inflated. Since when does it cost $35 to give someone a single Aspirin, or $28 for a very small box of tissues. These are minor compared to the other abuses. Costs are inflated for many reasons. One being that someone has to pay for those who have no insurance. The other is greed. Not profits, GREED and fraud. The Republicans are well aware of this. They even proposed a limit on litigation, the only good idea they've had.

Yes and their good idea reduces healthcare costs by 10% if there is a miracle attached. But as to the statement being wrong, you are entitled to think what you want but do you seriously believe that insurance companies bombarding doctors with sunny advertisements about their product is the same thing as a doctor having access to a professional cost-benefit analysis comparing the effectiveness and costs of various treatment options? You could literally go to a PHD economist and ask him which treatment is better because unlike the doctor, collecting such data and plugging it into a model is what the economist does for a living. Obviously, the economist has no medical expertise whatsoever but you don't need to know medical details to make sense of data that says treatment A costs this much money and in this percentage of cases cured the patient with these characteristics in this amount of time and compare it against the same data for treatments B through Z. However, doctors do not have access to this degree of information so while treatment C costs a pittance but can cure their patient faster than any other treatment, they're forced to try A, F, J, Q, Z, and B before trying C at which point the money has been spent on six treatments that did not accomplish the objective. Yet in your mind, this is a minuscule cost?

Based on what? Republican propaganda ? Dems are more likely to NOT enter into prolonged conflict. The lesson of Viet Nam is still remembered.

Oh, you mean the Vietnam where the most increase in troop levels happened under Democrats? Or are you talking about some other Vietnam that no one has ever heard of? Besides, I did not say "wars"; I said "plans." The inflation-adjusted cost of the Marshall Plan, Louisianna Purchase, Race to the Moon, Savings & Loan Crisis, Korean War, New Deal, Invasion of Iraq, Vietnam War, and NASA is $3.9 trillion1. Adjusted for inflation, the cost of WW2 was $3.6 trillion2. The cost of the bailouts of banks and other institutions, an explicitly liberal (because it involved the massive expenditure of government monies, a consistent characteristic of liberal ideas) plan is over $7 trillion3, just short of the cost of eleven of the most expensive programs and expenditures in the entire history of the United States. I know it's attractive to think of this as "Republican propaganda" but it ain't the conservatives who're talking cheerfully about blowing trillions of dollars propping up private companies.
Oh, side note: if I meant "Democrats" instead of "liberals", I'd have said "Democrats." "Liberal" is not an American political party, last I checked, and therefore you do not elect Nancy Pelosi of the Liberal Party from San Francisco but, rather, Nancy Pelosi of the Democrat Party from San Francisco.

Again, the figures agree, it will increase HC saturation in the US, lower HC costs and decrease the deficit. You might want to look at who is paying these "experts".

OK, let's pretend that the phrase "economists without a financial interest" means something. Now, say again?

Of course it matters "how" you ask the question. If you tell someone it will "not work", "increase your cost", "create death panels", the reaction will be nasty.

Your cited poll disagrees.

IF you tell the TRUTH, the reaction will be entirely different. Of course, then the Republicans will be out of jobs.

As they deserve to be, usually. But in this instance, it's the Democrats who're slated for the pink slips in 2010.

Ah shit, there goes the "unemployment rate" again!

How can ANYONE not want this legislation ? Well, for starters, because it would curtail the fraud (very profitable fraud) in a very lucrative business. And, it would end the power of a major political party. Both factions are fighting for their lives.

Ah, so you haven't heard? Shucksters are already defrauding existing government programs like Social Security and Medicare to the tune of around $36 billion. I guess we're tired of them only having a couple programs to steal from and feel obligated to open another taxpayer-funded piggybank for the people who commit actual fraud (as opposed to whatever fraud you're talking about). Why does the fact that previous programs of this nature have had the exact results that opponents predicted have no meaning for you?

[Serafine666]

EDIT: Forgot to add the three footnote references.

1. Barry Ritholtz. "Big Bailouts, Bigger Bucks," The Big Picture blog, Jan 24, 2009, http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/bi ... ger-bucks/
2. Ibid.
3. David Goldman, "Bailouts: $7 trillion and rising," Cnnmoney.com, Nov. 26, 2008, http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/26/news/ec ... 2008112615

[Yona]

@Serafine666

Seems like all your information and prophesies of failure are based worst case scenarios and the idea that nothing will work unless it have been proposed by the Republicans. Even though the Republican party of today is NOT what it was a few decades ago. The party today is nothing more than a shadow of it's former self. The GOP started courting the Southern, White, Christian Right Wingers back in the late 60's to early 70's. They have now taken over the party. Unfortunately, they've moved it further to the far Right. Evidenced by the past administration, and the current crop of "teabaggers and obnoxious talk radio hosts. That includes idiots like Beck, Palin, Hannity and all the others.

BTW, the financial crisis did not happen overnight. The CAUSE of the economic problems we are climbing out of were not the fault of Democrats, Liberals or whatever you want to call them. The current Democratic President IS working to fix the problems he inherited from the Republican administration previous to his. You can thank many years of de-regulation and financial maneuvering by some very powerful Republicans for this fiasco.

Suggested reading:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/200 ... age-crisis

This will give you the names and time frame. Senator Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy were also asshole deep in the ENRON fraud scheme. He is also involved with UBS, a banking giant from Switzerland.

Suggested reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/opini ... ramms.html

UBS has also been involved in some questionable dealings. And of course,... where there's "big money", there's big Republicans.

More suggested reading:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194933/

So,... Fantasy away. These are the people of the Republican party today. Teabaggers, nuts, and crooks. It's no surprise they are no longer in power.

It's sad really, that a party that once stood for something has sunk to this level. If anyone thinks people like these are the GOP's future, they are the ones living in a "Fantasy".

Health Care will pass. It will work. And I would bet that the Republican faithful will still try to lie about it. Maybe they'll be like the fabled Russian in Star Trek. They'll claim "They" invented it !

But enough,... I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[Starglider]

Savings & Loan Crisis

This crisis was created primarily by a series of pieces of legislation passed during the Reagan administration (not to mention the general business mood it encouraged), and came to a head in the Bush administration, where most of the necessary funds were allocated to deal with it. The problem and the cost of the solution were the direct creation of neocon economic policy (as was the unprecedented peacetime budget deficit).

Invasion of Iraq

The notion that the centerpiece of the neoconservative foregin policy program, the bold implementation of the 'New American Century' manifesto so beloved of the far right, was a liberal policy is completely ludicrous. The vast majority of far-right individuals supported the invasion and the vast majority of left-wing (by US standards, i.e. centrist anywhere else) individuals opposed it. I believe the term 'statist' is popular in Libertarian circles for anyone who supports any kind of government spending at all, which seems to be what you mean, though really that term should mean anyone who supports the concept of nation states (i.e. anyone who isn't an anarchist).

[Serafine666]

The notion that the centerpiece of the neoconservative foregin policy program, the bold implementation of the 'New American Century' manifesto so beloved of the far right, was a liberal policy is completely ludicrous. The vast majority of far-right individuals supported the invasion and the vast majority of left-wing (by US standards, i.e. centrist anywhere else) individuals opposed it.

Oh, but you see, that's the entire genius of my point. I listed all the most expensive single events in American history although I did not attribute any of those to a particular political ideology. I then listed the cost of WW2, again not attributing it to any particular political ideology. The only thing I called an example of a liberal program was the bailout... which means that your point about specific things that I labeled as simply occasions of unusual expense wasn't relevant to my point.

I believe the term 'statist' is popular in Libertarian circles for anyone who supports any kind of government spending at all, which seems to be what you mean, though really that term should mean anyone who supports the concept of nation states (i.e. anyone who isn't an anarchist).

Actually, it's worth noting that Libertarians do not call any spending by the government inappropriate because by any reading of the Constitution (which they cite almost obsessively), there are specific purposes for which the government can spend money. They're more opposed to the unconstitutional concentration of both economic and other power in the federal government. At any rate, I use the world "liberal" very deliberately. I do not mean "socialist" or I would use that word (although I regard the liberal socioeconomic philosophy as being very like socialism). I do not use "Democrat" or I would use that word. In short, I'm talking about the tendency to try to achieve any particular goal by use of government power: solving poverty with spending, solving inequality with regulation, solving pollution with regulation, solving downturns with spending, solving... well, pretty much solving ANYTHING by making a law or spending money. That's why I don't use "Democrat": both parties try to fix things with government power so to accuse just Democrats would be untruthful. Since the primary movers behind the healthcare "reform" are liberals registered primarily as Democrats, however, I chose to speak specifically about them instead of just generally talking about statists or socialists or whatever.

[Serafine666]

Seems like all your information and prophesies of failure are based worst case scenarios and the idea that nothing will work unless it have been proposed by the Republicans.

If that is what it seems I am saying, I am either giving you the wrong impression or you're not reading carefully. To assume that the historical pattern of a program's budget becoming vastly more costly over time is not assuming a worst case but rather, a most likely case. Your condemnation of the Republicans is based on what they have done in the past and the assumption that they will continue to do so; why shouldn't my condemnation of this proposed program be based on what has happened with comparable programs in the past and the assumption that history will repeat itself?

Even though the Republican party of today is NOT what it was a few decades ago. The party today is nothing more than a shadow of it's former self.

Sad but true; this is not the principled energetic forward-looking party of Reagan but the cowardly anything-to-win principles-for-sale party of Bush II and McCain.

The GOP started courting the Southern, White, Christian Right Wingers back in the late 60's to early 70's. They have now taken over the party. Unfortunately, they've moved it further to the far Right.

Actually, it moved away from what you term to be the "far Right" and in doing so, has become the bloated thing that you so despise. They are working vigorously to retake the party but, unfortunately, it will be some time until they succeed and remake it into the party you seem to at least grudgingly respect.

Evidenced by the past administration, and the current crop of "teabaggers and obnoxious talk radio hosts. That includes idiots like Beck, Palin, Hannity and all the others.

I tend to prefer Levin, Limbaugh, and more principled (and sane-sounding) voices. Palin is hydrogen cyanide to the Republicans despite the bizarre drool-fest that centers around her, an "fresh young" antique of the old way that does not work.

BTW, the financial crisis did not happen overnight. The CAUSE of the economic problems we are climbing out of were not the fault of Democrats, Liberals or whatever you want to call them. The current Democratic President IS working to fix the problems he inherited from the Republican administration previous to his. You can thank many years of de-regulation and financial maneuvering by some very powerful Republicans for this fiasco.

I call them liberals because Democrats are a political party encompassing dozens of philosophies but the political philosophy that I blame for current troubles is liberalism, a philosophy that occupies both parties. Obama, however, is simply putting the failed ideas of his predecessor on warp speed instead of trying something different; spending lots of money and seizing companies was a disastrous idea that Bush started and Obama seems to have decided to accelerate.

Suggested reading:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/200 ... age-crisis

This will give you the names and time frame. Senator Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy were also asshole deep in the ENRON fraud scheme. He is also involved with UBS, a banking giant from Switzerland.

Suggested reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/opini ... ramms.html

UBS has also been involved in some questionable dealings. And of course,... where there's "big money", there's big Republicans.

More suggested reading:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194933/

So,... Fantasy away. These are the people of the Republican party today. Teabaggers, nuts, and crooks. It's no surprise they are no longer in power.

At least THAT we can agree on. The Republican tent had come to include bums, cheats, swindlers, and not a few clowns; it is in need of purging and the "far Right" intends to do just that.

It's sad really, that a party that once stood for something has sunk to this level. If anyone thinks people like these are the GOP's future, they are the ones living in a "Fantasy".

I'm glad that I don't think people like those are the future of the Republicans then.

Health Care will pass. It will work. And I would bet that the Republican faithful will still try to lie about it. Maybe they'll be like the fabled Russian in Star Trek. They'll claim "They" invented it!

But enough,... I guess we'll just have to disagree.

We will but I'm pleased that by the time we decided to agree to disagree, we could find a couple points of agreement, namely that the Republicans have fallen far, include too many corrupt clowns, and need to regain their credibility. We obviously disagree about the merits of the health care bill and disagree about the source of the Republican troubles but not even all Republicans or conservatives can come to agreement on those issues.

[Yona]

I tend to prefer Levin, Limbaugh, and more principled (and sane-sounding) voices.

I didn't specifically list Limbaugh with Beck because I figured no intelligent, thinking person would give any credence to that racist, drug brained ass. So, I kind of lumped him with "others". Well, I guess I stand corrected.

The real sad part,... is that if anyone thinks Rush is the future of the GOP, or that he's sane, the party is beyond saving as anything rational.

RIP GOP !

[Serafine666]

I didn't specifically list Limbaugh with Beck because I figured no intelligent, thinking person would give any credence to that racist, drug brained ass. So, I kind of lumped him with "others". Well, I guess I stand corrected.

The real sad part,... is that if anyone thinks Rush is the future of the GOP, or that he's sane, the party is beyond saving as anything rational.

RIP GOP!

Well, since he's not racist (even by the standard of "you're a racist if I don't like you") and by any measure is no more "drug-addled" than anyone who's completed one of those 12-step programs... well, whatever. He's a commentator and since someone who only offers their opinion but does not participate in party politics beyond casting a ballot is not any more part of the party's future than any other member of that party... he himself is not "the future", just someone who'll be observing it.

[CmdrWilkens]

I didn't specifically list Limbaugh with Beck because I figured no intelligent, thinking person would give any credence to that racist, drug brained ass. So, I kind of lumped him with "others". Well, I guess I stand corrected.

The real sad part,... is that if anyone thinks Rush is the future of the GOP, or that he's sane, the party is beyond saving as anything rational.

RIP GOP!

Well, since he's not racist (even by the standard of "you're a racist if I don't like you") and by any measure is no more "drug-addled" than anyone who's completed one of those 12-step programs... well, whatever. He's a commentator and since someone who only offers their opinion but does not participate in party politics beyond casting a ballot is not any more part of the party's future than any other member of that party... he himself is not "the future", just someone who'll be observing it.

When more than 20% of the Party electorate calls him the leader of the party in polling I think it fair to say he has far more influence than you care to attribute. Moreover he ranks higher in the "Leader of the Party" polling than the head of the RNC and the Republican Leadership in Washington. As to racist well one only needs to go back to the Sonia Sotomayor nomination to prove that he is in fact racist.

[Serafine666]

When more than 20% of the Party electorate calls him the leader of the party in polling I think it fair to say he has far more influence than you care to attribute. Moreover he ranks higher in the "Leader of the Party" polling than the head of the RNC and the Republican Leadership in Washington.

Perhaps you're right. Still, I wouldn't quite qualify someone who's highly influential in general as "the future" of a political party unless they're also a bigger part of the party than a commentator who does nothing more than offer opinions and cast his ballot like every other person.

As to racist well one only needs to go back to the Sonia Sotomayor nomination to prove that he is in fact racist.

Well, if you only need to go back to Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to prove he's a racist, I invite you to do so. I don't recall having heard a racist sentiment from him during that time period but my memory is nowhere near perfect.

[Starglider]

Actually, it's worth noting that Libertarians do not call any spending by the government inappropriate because by any reading of the Constitution (which they cite almost obsessively), there are specific purposes for which the government can spend money.

That is a ridiculous overgeneralisation; it only works if by 'Libertarian' you actually mean 'constitutionalist US libertarians'. We have plenty of libertarians in Europe (I was one once, when I was younger and more foolish), despite many countries (i.e. the UK) not even having a constitution. Plenty of libertarians in the US don't like the constitution, because they think it still grants too many powers to the federal government (note that the supreme court has ruled virtually everything the US federal government currently does as constitutional).

In short, I'm talking about the tendency to try to achieve any particular goal by use of government power: solving poverty with spending, solving inequality with regulation, solving pollution with regulation, solving downturns with spending, solving... well, pretty much solving ANYTHING by making a law or spending money.

Yes, you have simplified your entire worldview to 'GOVERNMENT = BAD', you don't have to spend thousands of words dancing around the point. Most of the world is slowly, painfully converging on a good balance of government and corporate power. The USSR was an outlier at the statist end that (inevitably) failed hard, a fate China appears to be avoiding by becoming more capitalist. The USA was an outlier at the capitalist end back in the gilded age, but has since then been steadily moving towards a mixed economy - which is frankly inevitable if it is to avoid its own USSR-style collapse. It is unfortunate that libertarians spend so much time wailing about the phantom liberties of giant corporations when individual rights are far more important.

[AMT]

As to racist well one only needs to go back to the Sonia Sotomayor nomination to prove that he is in fact racist.

Well, if you only need to go back to Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to prove he's a racist, I invite you to do so. I don't recall having heard a racist sentiment from him during that time period but my memory is nowhere near perfect.

Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

Source

. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

Source

The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

Source

Shall I continue?

[Serafine666]

That is a ridiculous overgeneralisation; it only works if by 'Libertarian' you actually mean 'constitutionalist US libertarians'. We have plenty of libertarians in Europe (I was one once, when I was younger and more foolish), despite many countries (i.e. the UK) not even having a constitution. Plenty of libertarians in the US don't like the constitution, because they think it still grants too many powers to the federal government (note that the supreme court has ruled virtually everything the US federal government currently does as constitutional).

I'm only referring to the kind of libertarians that I know which, as an American, I only am familiar with constitutionalist US libertarians. The libertarians seem to primarily come out of the anti-Federalists but also tend to be strictly constructionist (ironically, the same position taken by the founder of the Democratic-Republicans, Thomas Jefferson). As to the rulings of the Supreme Court, it is interesting that many rulings on the constitutionality of certain practices descends from the Supreme Court under FDR where he had to practically replace all the Justices to make the New Deal constitutional.

Yes, you have simplified your entire worldview to 'GOVERNMENT = BAD', you don't have to spend thousands of words dancing around the point.

If you think that that is my worldview, I obviously DO need to spend thousands of words clarifying.

Most of the world is slowly, painfully converging on a good balance of government and corporate power. The USSR was an outlier at the statist end that (inevitably) failed hard, a fate China appears to be avoiding by becoming more capitalist. The USA was an outlier at the capitalist end back in the gilded age, but has since then been steadily moving towards a mixed economy - which is frankly inevitable if it is to avoid its own USSR-style collapse. It is unfortunate that libertarians spend so much time wailing about the phantom liberties of giant corporations when individual rights are far more important.

The move you refer to is what is causing its collapse. The so-called "Guilded Age" was a much more stable economic situation than the "mixed" economy you speak of. Libertarians are somewhat overzealous but they are right to decry the government ignoring the Constitution in an effort to regulate an economy in the way that it thinks best; the US government in particular is running face-first into the "fatal conceit" fueled by the "knowledge problem" which is what will cause its downfall.

[Serafine666]

Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

Source

. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

Source

The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

Source

Shall I continue?

Please do. Next, you can include context and see if you can still paint those statements as racist when they're put in their original context. Unfortunately for your point, I've actually see the entire monologue from which the second statement was borrowed and quoted without any reference to what was around it; suffice it to say, it was not racist (nor is the statement without the context but that's only a minor point). It'd be fun to see what the context of the other two statements were.

[AMT]

Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

Source

. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

Source

The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

Source

Shall I continue?

Please do. Next, you can include context and see if you can still paint those statements as racist when they're put in their original context. Unfortunately for your point, I've actually see the entire monologue from which the second statement was borrowed and quoted without any reference to what was around it; suffice it to say, it was not racist (nor is the statement without the context but that's only a minor point). It'd be fun to see what the context of the other two statements were.

The context is obvious from the quotes, as well as the sources where the quotes came from. So yeah... keep trying to defend him.

[Civil War Man]

I'll add a few more.

Quotes compiled Here, Here, Here, Here

[To an African American female caller]: Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.

I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.

I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama’s America.”

You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering ‘yeah, right on, right on, right on.’ Of course everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he’s white.

If homosexuality being inborn is what makes it acceptable, why does racism being inborn not make racism acceptable? ... I’m sorry — I mean, this is the way my mind works. But apparently now we don’t choose racism, we just are racists. We are born that way. We don’t choose it. So shouldn’t it be acceptable, excuse — this is according to the way the left thinks about things.

Obama’s entire economic program is reparations

If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.

Look. It's one thing to say you like it. It's OK. But to try to pass this off as something that you've intellectually examined and have assigned value you to -- ah, sorry, Senator [Kerry]. And I'm not going to believe this business that you don't like heavy metal. I mean, I think heavy metal's probably your anthem. You know, from the Vietnam era and all that. But here, again, don't stand up for white music. Associate yourself with rap.

OPEC announced a cancellation of its 10 percent cutback in production so -- and there's some little strife going on in Venezuela with that wacko, Cesar Chavez, down there. Hugo. Hugo, Cesar -- whatever. A Chavez is a Chavez. We've always had problems with them. So the bottom line is that I don't think supplies are going to be interrupted.

I'll finish it up with this gem from the Young Turks:

[Samuel]

The move you refer to is what is causing its collapse. The so-called "Guilded Age" was a much more stable economic situation than the "mixed" economy you speak of. Libertarians are somewhat overzealous but they are right to decry the government ignoring the Constitution in an effort to regulate an economy in the way that it thinks best; the US government in particular is running face-first into the "fatal conceit" fueled by the "knowledge problem" which is what will cause its downfall.

The Gilded Age was not stable. It was marked by riots, labor strikes, anarchists and a whole host of other political problems which the extension of the government and attendant regulations were designed to deal with.

[Starglider]

As to the rulings of the Supreme Court, it is interesting that many rulings on the constitutionality of certain practices descends from the Supreme Court under FDR where he had to practically replace all the Justices to make the New Deal constitutional.

There is nothing sinister about that, FDR served for three terms, so it is unsurprising that five justices died or retired while his adminstration was in power. The Republicans took no action to reign in rampant speculation, which new technology allowed to reach an unprecedented height (in the 1929 crash), and they paid an appropriate price for that folly; 23 years out of office. In any case he started with a 7:2 ratio of Republican to Democrat apointed judges and most of the new deal legislation was passed late in his first term. I would note that a similar 7:2 ratio of Republican to Democrat appointments has persisted since 1976, so any claim that the Supreme Court has been favouring the Democrats is pretty ludicrous.

The move you refer to is what is causing its collapse.

Ah, so the economic liberalisation of China, Russia, Europe (particularly the East, but to a lesser extent the Wst), much of the rest of the Far East and significant parts of Africa is causing the collapse? This movement towards the free market is of course much greater in size and scope than the marginal shift of the US towards socialism. It is interesting to see you blaming a shift towards free markets for 'the collapse', I had thought you were promoting capitalism as a general principle, but you seem to be saying that the US should be Libertarian and everywhere would be better to stay socialist or communist. Of course there would be a twisted logic to that from a purely US-selfish perspective, in that economic liberalisation in the rest of the world has been a prime enabler of globalisation draining away US industry and jobs.

The so-called "Guilded Age"

Gilded, after gilt, as in gold plating. I thought you were supposed to be studying history? It isn't 'so-called', it's the standard term for the last quarter of the 19th century in the US.

Libertarians are somewhat overzealous but they are right to decry the government ignoring the Constitution in an effort to regulate an economy in the way that it thinks best

You will get zero traction on this site with the assumption that the US constitution is some wonderful ideal of government. It is in fact very outdated and archaic, compared to the constitution of many other countries, and its laws must stand on individual merit, not because the founding fathers are your personal heroes.

[Simon_Jester]

I agree that the Democratic Party is the less likely of the two to get us involved in actual wars (although neither of the ones Republicans got us into are any more unwinnable than Vietnam) but as I pointed out, more likely to deploy the military in brushfires that are unwinnable but stay off of CNN because of their low-key nature.

So what? If very few people wind up dead, and there's a worthwhile chance that our massive military expenditures will somehow make the world better, as opposed to touching off massive clusterfucks, I'm in favor of it.

"Let's send a regiment to guard relief convoys in Destitutionstan!" is not a "foreign adventure" of anything like the same magnitude as "Let's send several army corps to invade Iraq!" It's foreign, but it's not much of an adventure, and the risk is relatively low. It's nowhere near the scale of potential damage (both to us and to the people on the other end of our guns) that comes about when we start trying to invade and overthrow whole countries by mass military intervention.

It is interesting that the two parties look at conflict in such different ways, however. In a way, I think, it's a product of Vietnam: one side saw the war as unwinnable overall and, seeing the subsequent humiliation and casualty lists, determine that the best way to avoid such a disaster would be to avoid war altogether. The other side, however, saw the war as unwinnable because it was made unwinnable by indifference and a lack of commitment. The modern manifestations are a party that avoids war to avoid possible defeat and the other that accepts war as sometimes necessary and believes in cultivating a jingoistic attitude so that no future wars can be lost by weakness. Both sides are blind to the holes in their approach: the second party doesn't recognize the limitations of gung-ho warmaking. The first party believes that no war is worth fighting and are ill-prepared to take forceful action if forceful action is needed. There is a heavier irony in the first party's position because they come from the political line that successfully prosecuted three major wars and rallied the numerical and technological strength (in the beginning) to fight a fourth.

I question the proposition that the Democratic party is so afraid of necessary wars as you think. The only honestly necessary war we've fought since Vietnam was the one in Afghanistan, where we were directly responding to a government that was sheltering a criminal organization that had just committed mass murder on our own soil. All our other wars since Vietnam were wars of choice, that we could take or leave without undue damage to our real interests... and the Democrats went along perfectly well with Afghanistan.

The Republicans' gung-hoism is far more likely to get us into large wars of choice, which usually means unnecessary loss to us, great expenses to our economy, and humiliation for the US abroad. War just isn't easy enough to be an option one should resort to casually.

In this case, bobalot understood me correctly, and you did not, because I was ambiguous. I should have spent more time going over my statements to make them airtight, and I apologize for neglecting to do so.

It's all good. As you might guess, I tend to zero in on little details like the difference between a lie and deception (surprisingly, there is no definitional difference) and between a simple deployment of the military and deployment for a full-scale war.

I submit that if you're going to do this, it's worth taking a moment to pause and reflect on whether the distinction you're drawing is intellectually honest. The difference between deploying troops and waging war is; the difference between a lie and an intentional deception probably isn't.
____________

The cost of the bailouts of banks and other institutions, an explicitly liberal (because it involved the massive expenditure of government monies, a consistent characteristic of liberal ideas) plan...

Now wait a minute. That depends heavily on a retroactive definition of "liberal": if it involves massive spending, it must be liberal. This despite the fact that the bailouts were born in the Bush administration... and a definition of "liberal" which includes both Nancy Pelosi and George W. Bush is so broad that it's meaningless. And the fact that the bailouts received considerable support from the corporatist faction of the Republican Party in Congress, which (again) cannot be called "liberal" without broadening the definition into a joke.

If you want a word that can cover such a broad range of policy and opinions on issues not related to bank bailouts, use "spendthrift," not "liberal."

[Serafine666]

The context is obvious from the quotes, as well as the sources where the quotes came from. So yeah... keep trying to defend him.

Oh yes... very obvious. An opinion columnist provides a couple quotes and this tells us all we need to know about the entire monologue (in the second instance, several paragraphs long). Conveniently enough for you, your three links don't have citations linking to the origin of the "racist" statements.

[Serafine666]

I'll add a few more.

Quotes compiled Here, Here, Here, Here

[To an African American female caller]: Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.

I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.

I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama’s America.”

You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering ‘yeah, right on, right on, right on.’ Of course everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he’s white.

If homosexuality being inborn is what makes it acceptable, why does racism being inborn not make racism acceptable? ... I’m sorry — I mean, this is the way my mind works. But apparently now we don’t choose racism, we just are racists. We are born that way. We don’t choose it. So shouldn’t it be acceptable, excuse — this is according to the way the left thinks about things.

Obama’s entire economic program is reparations

If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.

Look. It's one thing to say you like it. It's OK. But to try to pass this off as something that you've intellectually examined and have assigned value you to -- ah, sorry, Senator [Kerry]. And I'm not going to believe this business that you don't like heavy metal. I mean, I think heavy metal's probably your anthem. You know, from the Vietnam era and all that. But here, again, don't stand up for white music. Associate yourself with rap.

OPEC announced a cancellation of its 10 percent cutback in production so -- and there's some little strife going on in Venezuela with that wacko, Cesar Chavez, down there. Hugo. Hugo, Cesar -- whatever. A Chavez is a Chavez. We've always had problems with them. So the bottom line is that I don't think supplies are going to be interrupted.

OK, I'm a bit curious about something at this point: are you and AMT planning to try and bury me with statements made on websites where the only sourcing they do is back to yet another page of a website and then demand that I actually track down each and every context and try to prove a negative? CWM, when you and others were slapping me down for arguing that Psalm 109:8 could be read and understood in isolation, your method was to prove your case by whacking me over the head with the context. You even personally posted the entire Psalm for the enlightenment of the rest of the board to show what the context was and how my argument was absurd. Yet to prove that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, you give me a long series of quote, only one of which can be provably taken from Rush Limbaugh's mouth, and expect me to (I suppose) take it on faith that these websites got the context right, actually reported the quotes honestly, and didn't get it from someone claiming to have heard it without any proof? NO ONE would have tolerated that kind of behavior from me in the "veiled death threat" debate and Edi would have probably slapped me down harder than he did for trying it.

It comes down to one fundamental question: can you show that all of your quotations are valid, are unchanged in meaning by their context, and can be sourced back to Limbaugh himself? I cannot imagine that you would accept any less from me if I was attacking a figure you held in esteem.

I'll finish it up with this gem from the Young Turks:

[/quote]

The Young Turks are pretty clever folks. They take an explicitly NOT racist monologue and pretend that it is... and with you able to hear the entire thing in context, you seem to agree with them. Is it really racist to observe that immigrants, both legal and illegal, seem to have less trouble overcoming "racism" than blacks whose ancestors have been in American longer than the ancestors of most whites? Is it really racist to observe that continually preaching "the white man did us wrong and continues to do so" yields considerable clout (and financial rewards) for those who do it? And seriously... practically every single caricature of Obama in political comics exaggerate the size of his ears just like they did with Bush (have you ever seen the pictures of the guy with what looks like wings coming off of the side of his head?). Are all political comic artists racists then and if not, how is Limbaugh racist by commenting on the same thing that artists exaggerate for comic effect? This YouTube video is really a gem but not in the way you intended.

[Serafine666]

The Gilded Age was not stable. It was marked by riots, labor strikes, anarchists and a whole host of other political problems which the extension of the government and attendant regulations were designed to deal with.

All that is true. That is why I didn't say it was stable overall, just economically stable. In the period from the 1860s to the trust-busting and increased regulation of the early 1900s, there were very few economic disruptions and those that happened were very short-lived. Vast deep depressions and severe recessions did not occur even during what are called "panics."

[Starglider]

In the period from the 1860s to the trust-busting and increased regulation of the early 1900s, there were very few economic disruptions and those that happened were very short-lived.

What delusional alternate reality are you inhabiting now? I assume you believe the Long Depression and the 1882 recession, the second and third longest recessions in history after the Great Depression, are evil lies confabulated by a vast omnipotent conspiracy of liberal historians? As for the 'panics' that occured every five years or so, they weren't Great Depression scale but they were more serious than most 20th century recessions, so how can that possibly be described as a 'period of tranquility'?

[D.Turtle]

All that is true. That is why I didn't say it was stable overall, just economically stable. In the period from the 1860s to the trust-busting and increased regulation of the early 1900s, there were very few economic disruptions and those that happened were very short-lived. Vast deep depressions and severe recessions did not occur even during what are called "panics."

Are you crazy?

In the United States, economists typically refer to the Depression of 1873–79, which followed the Panic of 1873. The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879. At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction.[4] [5] Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901.[4]

...

In the United States, the Long Depression is considered to be primarily a monetary depression. Prices fell by 25%, a rather severe deflation, while production is thought to have declined by 5%.[6] The main sector of the economy in decline was railroading, as well as building construction and manufacturing that supported the construction. From 1867 to the depression's beginning in 1873, the miles of railroad in operation had grown by 50% and then plateaued. Industries outside of railroading, particularly agriculture, continued to do well during the depression. But railroading alone accounted for 15–20% of capital investment in the economy, prior to the railroading crisis and the Panic of 1873.[6]

A few indexes of economic activity measure the severity of contraction. A general index of manufacturing production compiled by economist Edwin Frickey in 1947 showed a decline of 10% from 1872 to 1876. Durable goods declined 30% and iron and steel production declined by 45%. An index of building construction by Clarence Long declined 50% and remained at this depressed level for the rest of the decade.[6]

Or look at this listing:
List if Recessions in the US

That period was anything, except stable.

[EDIT]Beat by Starglider ...