'Tea party' movement: Who are they and what do they want?

[Plane]

That's what you think.  The GOP wasn't just fighting the plan, they were fighting Obama.  His failure = their triumph.  Ask Limbaugh.  Ask Glenn Beck. 

Obama's failure is the triumph of the common man, the nation , humanbeings everywhere , good and right will enjoy their advantage in endurance and win eventually in spite of all.

Obamas evil plan to enrich insurance companys failed to the chagrin of his pet  Companys and Unions , and the huge christmas tree known euphamisticly as "health care" withered on the vine leaveing a trillion dollors worth of earmarks ungiven.

[Michael Tee]

<<Obama's failure is the triumph of the common man, the nation , humanbeings everywhere , good and right will enjoy their advantage in endurance and win eventually in spite of all.>>

plane, why don't you buy a ticket to Greece, visit Delphi, and see if there are any jobs there for English-speaking oracles?
In the meantime, please try to help me out a little here - - HOW is Obama's failure "the triumph of the common man?"

<<Obamas evil plan to enrich insurance companys failed to the chagrin of his pet  Companys and Unions . . . >>

Uhh, I don't think "chagrin" is exactly what any corporations felt about this.  And BTW, which companys are his "pet" companys?

<<and the huge christmas tree known euphamisticly as "health care" withered on the vine leaveing a trillion dollors worth of earmarks ungiven.>>

Can a tree, any tree, "wither on the vine?"  Just askin.  Block that metaphor!!!  Yeah, I am sure that the paralysis of the health care reform efforts, being the great "triumph of the common man," caused great joy in the insurance industry, not because of the failed effort to enrich them, but because of the great triumph of the common man, whose well-being is their sole reason for existing.

[Plane]

How was a plan whose main feature was to force everyone (almost) to buy insurance, going to be bad for insurance companys?

Or how was it going to be good for those who were forced to buy Insurance that they didn't need or buy insurance at higher expense or lessor coverage than they already had?

Or was it supposed to be good for the people who were going to be taxed against their health care benefits , if they were pretty good "Cadalac" plans?

Obama was allowing Congress to fill the insurance companys feed bowl at the expense of the common man , and the benifit was a marginal increase in the raw number of persons covered , yet still not everyone.

And the whole thing was going to require a giant new tax package as boot.


So yes , good and light and the common man won when Obama and the corporations lost , which of these memos didn't you get?

[sirs]

*standing O*         

[Michael Tee]

<<How was a plan whose main feature was to force everyone (almost) to buy insurance, going to be bad for insurance companys?>>

For one thing, it was going to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, something they often tried before as a means of weaseling out of their obligations.  It posed tremendous risks for them.  Secondly, as a compulsory purchase forced upon the population by government, government now had powerful reasons for dictating premium ceilings, which, if it didn't come with the original plan, couldn't be far behind it.  Third, as a corollary to forced purchase, the plan would either provide, or would soon be followed by, legislation enabling the government to dictate statutory policy conditions that would be fair to the purchasers of the policies.  Fourth, in principle it established a l government role in the health insurance business, which in its initial form, might be weakened and diluted enough so as not to offend the industry, but nevertheless was a "foot in the door," which in its subsequent revisions and amendments could exert ever more power over the industry.  The less government regulation, the better from their POV.  Much easier for the unregulated to screw the consumer than for the regulated industry subject to government oversight.

<<Or how was it going to be good for those who were forced to buy Insurance that they didn't need or buy insurance at higher expense or lessor coverage than they already had.>>

The issue with the plan isn't whether it's going to be good for this wealthy minority or that wealthy minority, but whether its overall benefits for the greatest number of citizens is going to justify the worsening of the position of a few members of a wealthy elite.  Everything's a trade-off, nothing is going to please everyone, and so what if a few are left worse off if the vast majority are better off.  Right now the system works fine for the rich.  Maybe the rich have to come down one or two rungs of the ladder so that everyone else can move six or seven rungs up on the same ladder.

<<Or was it supposed to be good for the people who were going to be taxed against their health care benefits , if they were pretty good "Cadalac" plans?>>

Like I said before, no plan is best for everyone.  If the Cadillac owners have to suffer for the pedestrians, the cyclists and the 12-yr-old Chevy owners, too fucking bad.  Cry me a river.

<<Obama was allowing Congress to fill the insurance companys feed bowl at the expense of the common man , and the benifit was a marginal increase in the raw number of persons covered , yet still not everyone.>>

Obama's plan sucked, but only because it wasn't "Canadian" enough.

<<And the whole thing was going to require a giant new tax package as boot.>>

Tax the rich.  NBD.

<<So yes , good and light and the common man won when Obama and the corporations lost , which of these memos didn't you get?>>

I didn't get the memo that "the common man" was rich.

[Universe Prince]

If they advocated such Prince, you would consider that racist??  or simply, not to start an arguement, "anti-immigrant"??  You'd have no problem with folks who had no clue how to read or write in English, voting in American elections??

Just curious

If the Tea Party folks advocated literacy as requirement for voting, would I consider that racist and/or anti-immigrant?

I've thought about the idea of literacy as a requirement for voting before. Let's ignore the immigrant issue for a moment. There are plenty of people who are citizens and illiterate. Some of them are stuck in poverty. A few have managed to find ways to work around the system. My father used to know a man (via a job at the time), a natural born citizen not an immigrant or even a son of immigrants, who was illiterate yet ran a successful small business. Should that man be punished, treated as a second class citizen (and yes, a law requiring literacy to vote would do just that), because he cannot read or write in English? I do not believe he should.

Should immigrants who do not know how to read and write in English be allowed to vote? No. But that has nothing to do with their ability or lack of ability to read and write in English. People who are not citizens should not be allowed to vote. I think that is actually the law already.

Would a law requiring literacy to vote be racist? Maybe. The people who note that such laws existed in the past specifically to keep poor, uneducated minoritys from voting are correct. And a lot of the people who are currently graduating from school and are illiterate or functionally illiterate are predominately from poor minorities.

Would I have a problem with people who cannot read or write in English voting in U.S. elections? Not as such. Being a citizen gives one (not a right but) the privilege to vote. And that is as it should be. I do have a problem with a school system that passes students to the next grade and/or hands a diploma to someone who cannot read. And while you may want to complain about illegal immigrants with fake IDs voting, my problem is with the laws that have allowed and encouraged the black market in labor and fake identities to flourish. (I know on that issue you and I disagree, Sirs, so let us leave it at that.) But no, I do not think literacy should be requirement for voting, and I think it would be wrong to push for such to be made law.

And for the record, I do not like Tom Tancredo, and I am disappointed that the Tea Party folks invited him to the convention to talk. He seems to me to be authoritarian and a man of the "yes government should be smaller, but only in the things I don't want government to do more of" school of thought, which makes him decidedly not the sort of person the Tea Party should be supporting, imo.

[Universe Prince]

Of course it alters my position.

First was they are all fascists; now it's some are fascists by choice and the rest are fascists because they're too stupid to know better. If it could be called a change at all, it is not really a change of any substance.

Were they shocked - - SHOCKED? at Tancredo's racist proposals?

I have no idea. I wasn't there. I didn't even know Tancredo had spoken there until today.

[Michael Tee]

<<First was they are all fascists; now it's some are fascists by choice and the rest are fascists because they're too stupid to know better. If it could be called a change at all, it is not really a change of any substance.>>

So now according to you, someone who's intimidated by fascism into taking a fascist position is also a fascist?  The victims of the fascists become fascists?  Nonsense.

[sirs]

Thanks for the response, Prince

[Universe Prince]

So now according to you, someone who's intimidated by fascism into taking a fascist position is also a fascist?  The victims of the fascists become fascists?  Nonsense.

According to me? No. But as I recall you basically said the Tea Party was fascists and people who were going along with and supporting fascism because they are idiots.

[Michael Tee]

<<According to me? No. But as I recall you basically said the Tea Party was fascists and people who were going along with and supporting fascism because they are idiots.>>

They're fascists with some idiots on board.  The idiots are intimidated by the fear-mongering fascists, but I think it's a stretch to call them fascists.  They don't buy into the entire fascist agenda, but they ARE scared enough to oppose health-care reform, which fits into the fascist agenda.

[Plane]

<<Obama was allowing Congress to fill the insurance companys feed bowl at the expense of the common man , and the benifit was a marginal increase in the raw number of persons covered , yet still not everyone.>>

Obama's plan sucked, but only because it wasn't "Canadian" enough.

From your point of view , this is true, there was little resemblence to the Canadian system as far as I can tell.

<<And the whole thing was going to require a giant new tax package as boot.>>

Tax the rich.  NBD.

<<So yes , good and light and the common man won when Obama and the corporations lost , which of these memos didn't you get?>>

I didn't get the memo that "the common man" was rich.

And for all that this enormous and complex plan would have increased the coverage of Americans less than 10%.

As a strong majority of Americans meet your definition of "rich" you really should have been reading the memos, most Americans were satisfied with the insurance coverage they had when asked last year, and the Obama plan cuts all of these, for the sake of a PART of the minority that was poorly covered or uncovered, still leaveing a significant number uncovered.

The Government is rich ,and is like a landlord that will never die, thinking of the government as a hero or as a parent is unamerican. Taxing the Rich is a big deal if the only result is that the richest and least human of the rich gets richer and less manageable.

[BT]

They don't buy into the entire fascist agenda, but they ARE scared enough to oppose health-care reform, which fits into the fascist agenda.

Then there are the others, perhaps the majority of those who oppose the bill on the table, oppose the bill because it is crap. Single payer was never on the table. It is crap because the only way to get it out of the Senate was to bribe swing state Senators. It is crap because it reforms nothing, saves nothing and insures only a handful more.

This is not the best we can do.

Reboot.

[Michael Tee]

<<And for all that this enormous and complex plan would have increased the coverage of Americans less than 10%.>>

The plan sucks because nobody had the balls to bring forward anything that would make a real difference.  I agree with you.  But a tenth of a loaf is better than no bread at all.

<<As a strong majority of Americans meet your definition of "rich" >>

Bullshit.  First of all, I don't have a definition of "rich" but I generally refer to the criterion originally set by Obama for tax increases, that is, earning $250K per year.  That's a good rule-of-thumb definition.

<<you really should have been reading the memos, most Americans were satisfied with the insurance coverage they had when asked last year . . .>>

Totally beside the point when there are 47 million Americans without any insurance coverage and the Physicians for a National Health Plan calculates 22,000 needless deaths per year due to lack of coverage.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/make_that_22000_uni.php

<<  and the Obama plan cuts all of these, for the sake of a PART of the minority that was poorly covered or uncovered, still leaveing a significant number uncovered.>>

Well think of it as saving 22,000 American lives a year.  Sure it should cover more.  Because of Blue Dog opposition, this was the best they could come up with before they lost their super-majority.  Sure they are a bunch of schmucks.  Sure it it were left up to the liberals and progressives, the plan would be a thousand per cent better.  But on the theory that a tenth of a loaf is better than none . . .

<<The Government is rich ,and is like a landlord that will never die, thinking of the government as a hero or as a parent is unamerican. >>

Thinking of THIS government as a hero or parent is just plain stupid.  That's because they're a bunch of rich ass-holes or the errand boys of a bunch of rich ass-holes and they're totally unconcerned about anything except their own individual well-being.  

<<Taxing the Rich is a big deal if the only result is that the richest and least human of the rich gets richer and less manageable.>>

Well of course that's not the ONLY result.  One other result is that a shitload of new money will pour into the government's coffers once the bastards are forced to cough up.  The richest of the rich are ALREADY unmanageable.  They OWN the fucking government, have for years, so who exactly is going to manage them?  Tax their asses off, cut 'em down to size and THEN they will be more manageable.

[Plane]

And which of the rich is richer or more of a bastard than the government itself?

 Government is a landlord second to none in cruelty , and our government is not any more trustworthy with greater ritches or power than any other.

The best feature our government has is a collar and a leash that the people can shorten, as you have just been dismayed to observe, we did.

Your contempt for the wisdom of the common man fits you well in the group that Kruthamner was criticiseing in the article we were reading a cupple of days ago, I think that every victory of the common man will leave you gasping in indignation.