Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (15022)	3/21/2010 8:19:06 PM
From: John Koligman	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

I used to be a Repub also, but switched before you did. Just read this thread for an excellent 'feel' on how these people think and act. Tonight will be a good night for our side.... John PS - Will we see Limbaugh taking off for Costa Rica tommorrow in his Gulfstream G5??? LOL!!!

To: RetiredNow who wrote (15022)	3/21/2010 8:32:02 PM
From: HPilot	Respond to of 42652

Frum and Bush are liberal Republicans, they hold no sway with most conservatives.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (15022)	3/21/2010 11:38:55 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 42652

your post is bullsquat the Republican party has not moved right. But the democraps have moved to the left...hard....if you cannot see that, then you are just as mindless as they.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (15022)	3/22/2010 8:22:31 AM
From: Alighieri	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

How the GOP Made It Happen Matthew Yglesias Matthew Yglesias – Mon Mar 22, 12:05 am ET NEW YORK – Many liberals were ready to compromise during health care's twisted path to passage. Matthew Yglesias on how the right's just-say-no game helped bring the left together. As health-care reform passes, I find myself in the unusual position of being enthusiastic about the bill on the merits, but disappointed that its success undermines my skills as a political prognosticator. Barack Obama’s brand of health-care reform is based on a three-legged stool that was popularized in progressive circles back in 2006 and 2007. The stools are new regulations on insurers, a mandate on individuals to buy insurance, and subsidies to low-income families to ensure they can afford to comply with the mandate. Back when this idea was becoming popularized I was, frankly, a skeptic. My guess is that the brighter minds on the right will recognize that their determination to turn health-care reform into Obama’s Waterloo sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Not because I thought it was a bad idea, but because I thought the merits of the idea were all out of proportion to its prospects for success. Proponents, noting the basically incremental and business-friendly nature of the plan, thought it could garner bipartisan support. I, noting that “subsidies to low-income families” entails “higher taxes,” was sure that it could not, especially given Mitch McConnell’s strategic calculation that unified GOP opposition can make the progressive agenda unpopular. So when Barack Obama was criticized during the primary by liberals for lacking a mandate that would make it work and this was interpreted as showing a lack of audacity on the subject, I became more enthusiastic about Obama than ever. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards seemed doomed to risk their presidencies on a likely-to-fail big bang health-care initiative. I preferred the idea of a candidate more likely to take a more modest approach to health care and to focus his energy on issues like climate change, immigration reform, or K-12 education, where I thought it might be more feasible to move legislation with support from both parties (this, recall, was back before Tea Party madness swept the nation, when John McCain was a strong cap-and-trade supporter). But Obama went a different way and, powered by happenstance that gave Democrats a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate for a little while, he’s going to succeed. It’s a historic achievement that instantly rockets him to third place on a podium alongside Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson as the key architects of the American welfare state. Nancy Pelosi, whose firm but pragmatic brand of liberal leadership was integral to the success, should perhaps go down as the greatest progressive speaker the House of Representatives has ever known. We should also, however, spare a thought for the unsung hero of comprehensive reform, McConnell and his GOP colleagues, who pushed their “no compromise” strategy to the breaking point and beyond. The theory was that non-cooperation would stress the Democratic coalition and cause the public to begin to question the enterprise. And it largely worked. But at crucial times when wavering Democrats were eager for a lifeline, the Republicans absolutely refused to throw one. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other key players at various points wanted to scale aspirations down to a few regulatory tweaks and some expansion of health care for children. This idea had a lot of appeal to many in the party. But it always suffered from a fatal flaw—the Republicans’ attitude made it seem that a smaller bill was no more feasible than a big bill. Consequently, even though Scott Brown’s victory blew the Democrats off track, the basic logic of the situation pushed them back on course to universal health care. Today, conservative anger at the Democrats is running higher than ever, and for the first time in years the GOP leadership’s blanket opposition has won them the esteem of their fanatics. But in more sober moments in the weeks and months to come, my guess is that the brighter minds on the right will recognize that their determination to turn health reform into Obama’s Waterloo sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Universal health care has been attempted many times in the past and always failed. The prospects for success were never all that bright. Many of us, myself included, at one point or another wanted to try something more moderate. But the right wing, by invariably indicating that it would settle for nothing less than total victory, inspired progressive forces to march on and win their greatest legislative victory in decades. Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (15022)	3/24/2010 5:20:40 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

I've been saying on many threads now that the GOP has changed in the last decade and gone very far right. How so? The only policy I can see that might possibly fit that claim would be the invasion of Iraq. Well maybe some of the security rules after 9/11 (but then the push to federalize airport security largely came from the left). Generally the GOP has been moving to the left not the right. It was Bush that pushed Medicare Part D, and greatly expanded federal government spending on education and other social programs. As for social conservatism, the Republicans have been mostly all talk and no policy. In terms of policy there really hasn't been any significant rightward move, more the opposite. I can see being disappointed in Bush and in many Republicans in congress, I can even see that affected your vote and figuring it was time to give the Dems a chance; but I don't see how the disappointment can rationally be based on the idea of some strong rightward move.