Look. I don't like Obama. Speaking as someone who has been studying economics, law, and economic history for close to three decades now, his economics is insane. I don't know any other way to put it.

But the problem isn't Obama. Obama is simply a symptom of the disease. A disease that has become particularly virulent in the last couple decades. The disease that has reduced presidential elections to "lesser of two evils" voting. The disease that sees every problem as needing "political" solution.

Because the essence of political solutions is the coercion of others. We go to politics and the law because we don't trust each other to do "the right thing." Because we want people to do something else than they are doing, and, goddamn it, "there oughta be a law." The only difference between the "more-or-less majority vision" that elected Dubya and the "more-or-less majority vision" that elected Barack Obama is what they think oughta be a law.

The genius of Madison, et al, was that they realized this temptation would be there. They saw a need for government, but they realized we'd be tempted to use it to change people's behavior. That majorities were no less tempted to coercion than kings.

"America" isn't dead. Because "America" isn't a government; it isn't even a "people". "America" is an idea.

We all know our country's stories of immigration. And we're justly proud of those stories. But what we have forgotten -- not what Obama has forgotten or Palin has forgotten, but the "we" that Pogo talks about in his famous dictum -- is that those people who came here because they saw this part of the planet as offering the greatest potential for improvement. Improvement in freedom to choose. Improvement in economic opportunity and wealth. Improvement in being able to do things another way than the way "everyone has to do them".

We all know our country's stories of independence. And we're justly proud of them. But what we have forgotten -- not what Pelosi has forgotten or what Dubya has forgotten, but the the we in "we have met the enemy and he is us" -- is that these "United States" were formed upon objections to "a long train of abuses and usurpations after a period of "patient sufferance." We've forgotten that there is a difference between said "patient sufferance" and the "consent of the governed." We've forgotten that the purpose of government is NOT the provision of our every need for control of our neighbor's decisionmaking.

A few months before the election I blogged  to an audience of, I dunno, 5 readers, about what I consider the single best document ever penned by the hand of men. And wept.

Because, no, the idea of America isn't dead.

But when we have reduced ninety-plus percent of our political conversation and action to choices between the Dubyas and the Baracks, between the Pelosis and the Palins, when we have reduced every public (and most private) choices to simplistic calculations in the utilitarian manners of Jeremy Bentham, then the realization of that idea has gone on life support.

Oh, sure, we all know the Declaration's bit about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And we know the bit in the Constitution about promoting the "general Welfare." But we have forgotten, or, because so many of our teachers have been so forgetful, never learned in our soul the more important bits.

And that forgetfulness, that never-having-learned?

*That* is a disease from which America is in danger of dying.

Because with that forgetfulness, with that never-having-learned, our shared immune system may have become too weak to overcome the twin temptations of "other people's money" and "there oughta be a law."

We're not dead. But we are on verge of becoming a giant hospice.

---

Health savings accounts, further regulations on denying coverage based on medical history... Democrats didn't want any of that. Do you consider that meaningful, or do you need to completely change the landscape of our healthcare system in order for it to be considered meaningful? Is it better to do too much or too little? Which changes are easier to reverse if they don't help? Is it easier to add more changes or remove changes that have already been made?

wow.
awesome.
+1 for wade.

ok since you asked, i'll be happy to respond to a post of yours. 😉
yes people have a fundamental right to healthcare. i think it's deplorable that our country - strike that - WE have allowed ourselves to become a nation of fools. whatever happened to making enough money to be comfortable in life, leave a little for the kids, & enjoy your golden years? now it's "i want this, i want that, i deserve everything my parents have but i'm only 18" mentality that's ruined our country. WE have done it, nobody else is to blame but US! until we as a nation get down off our high horses, & do the hard work that's necessary to turn around the warped mentality that greed has created, we're sunk. kinda reminiscent of the romans, eh?

Ok, now I'm probably going to piss everyone off that hasn't already put me on /ignore in this thread.

I'm going to give an example of the disease that corrupts all of our public discussion of issues like health care.

Let me preface the example with a detail that I think virtually everyone here and in the larger American electorate agrees with.....Everyone agrees that there are millions of people in the current system don't have health care, right?


No, not right.

That "detail" that everyone agrees on is not just wrong. It is profoundly wrong. What all those people lack is not health care. It's access to the medical system.

Oh, to be sure, that medical system offers lots of really valuable stuff and I'm really, really glad that I'm one of those that has access to it because of my income level and my employer and my insurance company.

But that "medical system" of prescription drugs, doctors, hospitals, and all the other people we now call "providers" -- that is but a fraction of the health care system.

What else is there? Well, lets start a list:
1. Vitamins and supplement. Okay. How many people in America can't afford a basic "one a day" vitamin or over-the-counter calcium pills.
2. Aspirin, acetominaphen, ibuprofen. How many work days would we lose without these?
3. Zinc, cough drops, patent medicines of a dozen sorts. Again, what would our productivity look like in cold or H1N1 season without these?
4. Childhood diagnosis of vision problems, speech, hearing problems. How many kids in this country "without health insurance" can't go to school because they lack the eyeglasses that allow them to read.
5. Diet and nutrition. Okay, we complain about obesity and all that. I'm a poster child). But if our diet is so profoundly bad, how come the average population height (which is a function of childhood nutrition) is so much taller than it was even two generations ago.)
6. Life expectancy. How does that great "uninsured" population of ours manage to life half again as long as their ancestors did even a century ago if our average "health care" is so damn bad?
7. Education. The Victorians thought being obese was a sign of health. We know better. While some of us fail in our choices, we strive toward healthy practices in dozens of ways that we didn't use to.
8. Indoor plumbing. One of my favorite coffee mugs is one I inherited from my late father; it reads "The plumber protects the health of the nation." I'm guessing, but I'm pretty sure the great majority of uninsured Americans enjoy flush toilets and urban sewage disposal and storm sewers.
9. Cooking and refrigeration thermostats. Amazing how much one's health increases when one can not only boil water, but enjoy the benefits of consistent heat or cooling.
10. Air conditioning and heating. Yes, there are people in south Texas without AC. Yes, there are people in Chicago right now without heating. But by virtually any historical standard I can think of, a damn small percentage of our population of 300 million go without basic heat and cooling.
11. The utter obsolescence of the Hobbesian vision. We don't live more solitary lives (though we do hang out with people we would never have been able to hang out with 25 or 50 or 100 years ago). We don't live more brutish lives (though we have our share of brutes, video game brutishness has nothing on the real brutishness of serfdom). We don't live nasty lives (no matter how fucked up our jobs, we get to go home to a television and sex for pleasure instead of just procreation). And it surely isnt short. We live a lot longer than people did even 50-75 years ago.

Look, I was damn glad a few years ago that when my potassium and magnesium got out of whack that I was fortunate enough to have insurance that covered the several thousand dollars that my eight hours in ER/ ICU cost. And that my income is high enough that had my asshole insurance company not paid the bills, I would have been able to cover them. And I'll be seriously pissed personally, if I don't get the same quality care if such a thing happens again under the "new" system.

But the fact of the matter is that even if I lost all access to my local hospital, even if my GP and his nurses were all swallowed up by some escaping horror movie character, even if all our local pharmacists were kidnapped by aliens or the CIA, I would still enjoy a health care system that has been enjoyed by a only for a generation or so, and even then, by a relatively small fraction of the human population.

Because all of those things those things we're whining about the high cost of? Those things that we complain about our insurance not covering? Those things we think the government now ought to be guaranteeing? Those things are the icing of our health care system. They're not the cake.

And with apologies to Bill Murray, there's no more of a basic human right to cake icing than there is to cable TV.

---

I agree with your last statement, but as far as the rich goes.

They did bust their ass, but so does the guy in the mine who makes 50K a year or a guy working at the plant or someone in construction and so on and so on.

The rich will still be rich once their taxes are raised, but nine out of ten people don't want to pay more than a dollar. Right now "rich or wealthy" pay 36% and Obama wants to and will raise it to just under 40%. He may even raise it more who knows? Nobody wants to pay taxes, but some people have too. The rich paid like 50% under President Eisenhower. Their taxes have actually dropped 14% give or take in the last 50 years which is a lot.

The last two presidents to balanced the budget were Eisenhower and Clinton.

To be fair, Clinton only balanced the budged because the first George Bush raised taxes. Without that, Clinton doesn't balance the budget.

IF America is ever going to balance their budget again, taxes will have to go up and yes you start with people who have the most money because, they'll still have a ton of money after you tax them.

Reagan raised taxes for the record even if he did do it modestly, he did do it, and he by all accounts is the conservative icon. He did so of course after the recession, so the concern with taxes going up next year due to the tax cuts expiring isn't whether or not they should (they should eventually IMO) it's whether or not they should if we're still in the recession and unemployment continues to rise.

To me, that's a fair question.

For the record, I don't think they should go up to what they were under Eisenhower, but I do think raising them is the right call because the budget needs to be balanced. I think Obama is doing the right thing there, but I wouldn't raise them until after the recession though and he probably is going to do so sooner to please his liberal base.

That's terrible because it won't help the unemployment lower.

---

These people can also afford health insurance if they spend within their means. If health insurance is more important to you than cable TV and going to to the movies twice a month, prove it with your wallet. Otherwise, don't expect the government to GIVE it to you. If you can't afford a second car, or go out to eat a lot, or spend 1200 a year on cable TV because you're spending that money on health insurance instead, would you expect the government to buy you a car, give you cable TV, and buy you fast food?

The people that are by far most likely to be unable to provide themselves with health insurance either through their company or on their own are the unemployed and single parents. The government already helps these groups.



What you forget is that the majority of the "rich" are the people that own businesses, thus provide jobs, thus provide income to the lower-income people. If you don't think the rich should be able to cut wages or jobs, or raise prices if their taxes and thus expenses are increased, do you agree with straight-up redistribution of wealth?



See above point. How about instead of spending like a drunken sailor and keep taking more and more money from other people, you spend less? How do you balance YOUR checkbook? Do you take a look at how much money you have and then decide what to do with it, or do you take a look at all the things you want (Yes, want not need) to do and then spend what you have, and borrow the rest?

ok - i think you & porky both made excellent points - wade as well. i find it amazing that the vast majority of us agree on one fundamental premise...we should all take care of ourselves, if at all possible. when it isn't, either cut back on spending (if possible) or yes, get the help from the gov't that you NEED - not that you WANT - but what you NEED - not what you think you're ENTITLED to - but what you NEED.

the days of asking for a hand-out from the gov't for every little want we have should be over. there are generations of welfare families now - some with every right to be so - but i bet each of us knows people who are doing little but taking advantage of the system. the gov't CANNOT help EVERYBODY - we have to take care of ourselves.

Basically, sacrifice to get insurance. Wealthy people work hard to get where they are, but why should a middle class citizen have to sacrifice more in his life because his job pays less even though his job might be much harder to do.

You say don't get cable tv as an example and I say to the rich, don't buy your fancy cars or give out vacations as bonuses and instead use the money properly in your business. Play time can wait.

Obviously, people are living in houses they can't afford and people spend to much (tv as your example) but so does the rich. They waste as much money if not more than anyone else. Well, logically, they do waste more money because they have more of it to waste. Yes, they can create jobs, but they can also be careless with their expenses. No doubt that has occurred over the last decade.

There is no one sided victory. Everyone is responsible starting at the top and working it's way down.

The government will always spend money as well. It's easy to bring up the stupid programs that they're spending on, but America is never going to stop trying to advance it's self whether they do it through the means of research or military, which costs money. Every President has some sort of program.

You tax people who can afford to pay em. It's common sense. Obama isn't Robin Hood or not the extent that some claim he is. He's a tax and spend liberal which is by no means a good thing either. He has a ton of programs, but take out all those programs, and the end result is still bad because no matter what, as I said above, America will be America and they'll attempt to continue to evolve. Nothing today is free. A spending freeze would be nice, but in reality, it'll never happen. Even Thomas Jefferson, who could be considered the father of small government, spent money specifically the Louisiana Purchase. He did succeed in reducing debt, but he did so because he halted the army and navy or that's one way to put it.

That will never happen in today's time.

My point is you don't want to raise taxes too high, but you don't want to lower them too low. Right now, they're a little low, but again, you have to pick your spots when to raise em. Obviously, right now is not the time.

---

I don't hate you, it sounds like your Dad did a fine job raising you, giving you great reasonability. What I hate are silver spooned kids walking around spouting off about welfare and a free ride when they don't recognize the free ride they were given. They are as far from righteousness as it gets. They owe something back but are too clouded in their thinking to ever realize it.

---