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 (16978)	4/17/2010 4:44:44 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

And only a Republican would say that war is essential. I found this item earlier today. Thought you might find it interesting. Understanding Pro-War Republicans from Rep Liberty Caucus by Dave Nalle Many Ron Paul supporters find themselves at odds with the Republican Party over the issue of American involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Ron Paul they believe that wars of occupation and nation building are unconstitutional and they cannot understand why Republicans who claim to share their belief in the Constitution support those wars. They make the same mistake that Ron Paul himself did when he attacked Rudy Giuliani over this issue in the first presidential debate of 2008. They make themselves look anti-Republican and even anti-American because they do not understand the perspective of many traditional Republicans or the basis on which those Republicans find themselves supporting these wars. Then the battle-lines are drawn up and both sides become entrenched in their ideology without trying to understand each others' perspective. The Ron Paul supporters become convinced that traditional Republicans are a bunch of pro-war "neocons" and more mainstream Republicans get the idea that Ron Paul supporters are radical, anti-American peaceniks, when the truth is that neither perception is even close to accurate. While there are a small number of Stalinistic, pro-war expansionists in the GOP, their viewpoint is alien to the party and is not shared by most Republicans. Most Republicans who support our current wars do not do so because they are in favor of war or of imperialism, but because they are unquestioningly pro-America. They may believe in a strong national defense, but they do not believe in wars of conquest and occupation. They oppose the anti-war position, not because they like war, but because they dislike those who take issue with the actions of America as a nation no matter what the reason. They operate from the perspective that our government is good, not because government is good, but because our government is American and America is good. They therefore assume that the actions of our government, including making war, must be good and right actions because they are the actions of an American government. Despite its inherently irrational nature, this would be an understandable and even excusable position for them to take if the government of the United States were, in fact, the government which we are supposed to have under the Constitution and if the government still followed the principles of the Constitution and the founding fathers. If that were the case and the government entered into a war, then it would be impossible for that war not to be undertaken justly and it would be traitorous to oppose it. Most Republicans act on the assumption that we still live under a government which operates legitimately and constitutionally and that is the basis for their outrage with those who oppose the government's actions. They are not awakened to how far we have drifted from legitimate, American-style, constitutional government and they are still acting on the mistaken assumption that we have the government which we ought to have and that its actions are legitimate on that basis. So if you are a Ron Paul style constitutionalist, don't make the mistake of calling other Republicans "neocons" or warmongers just because they defend the nation's actions even when you believe those actions are wrong. From their perspective that makes you a traitor and an enemy of the Constitution, because all they see is that you are attacking the Republic, not the reasoning behind your actions. You can't change the perception that the government is good by attacking the government because those who still believe the government is good will turn against you. It's kind of a catch-22 situation. You need to convince them not that our government is bad, but that the government we have is effectively not our government at all. You can do this by laying out for them what government ought to be under the Constitution and then let them see for themselves the shortcomings of government as it is compared to government as it should be. The fact that the Democrats are in power also presents a valuable opportunity, because Republicans of all varieties are willing to believe that Democrats and their policies are evil. So if you go after big government and its excesses as products of Democrat policy you can get your foot in the door very easily. It's a short trip from condemning the actions of Obama and the Democrats to realizing that those actions are wrong even when they are the actions of Republicans. Patriotic Republicans who would never question the actions of their government under other circumstances will quickly change their tune when they are perceived to be the actions of Democrats or even of Republicans who are acting like Democrats. Before you can even begin to discuss the war with them you need to lay this sort of groundwork and make them aware that our government is no longer operating on Constitutional principles. That is where you really disagree and once you resolve that disagreement by educating them, then the secondary issues of war and nation building and the tyranny of the security state will become ones on which you will soon find common ground. When they understand that you are defending the Republic as it ought to be rather than attacking the Republic as it is they will understand that you are allies, not enemies. google.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (16978)	4/17/2010 4:46:54 PM
From: Sdgla	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

It's a Civil War: What We Do Now Tuesday, March 23, 2010 ShareThis A terrible thing happened to America on Sunday, March 21, 2010. The country took its biggest step ever down a road diametrically opposed to its original intent of keeping the state small so that the individual can be free and great. Therefore, in this unprecedented crisis of values, this is what needs to be done: 1. Know and teach America's core values. We got to this point solely because over the past few generations, Americans have forgotten the values that have made America distinctive and great. Even the "Greatest Generation" failed to communicate them. In a nutshell, they are what I call the American Trinity: "In God we trust," "Liberty" and "E Pluribus Unum." The left has successfully made war on all three -- substituting secularism for God and religion in as much of American life as possible; substituting equality (of result) for liberty; and multiculturalism is the opposite of "E Pluribus Unum." People who do not understand American ideals -- especially small government -- now dominate our schools, our entertainment media and our news media. (My own contribution here is a video titled, "The American Trinity" at prageru.com. Please view it and forward it.) 2. Recognize that we are fighting the left, not liberals. Conservatives and centrists are no longer fighting liberals. We are fighting the left. Liberalism believed in American exceptionalism; the left not only does not believe in it, the left opposes it. President Obama, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism, replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Liberalism believed in creating wealth; the left is interested in redistributing it. Liberalism believed in a strong defense. The left believes in cutting defense and a strong United Nations. 3. Democrats should be referred to as Social Democrats. This is not meant to be cute, let alone as a slur. But calling Democrats Social Democrats is an effective way of reminding Americans that there is no longer any difference between what is now known as the Democratic Party and the Social Democratic parties of Europe. When the Democratic Party returns to its roots as a liberal, not a left-wing, party, we will happily resume calling the party by its original name. However, since no Democrat can cite a significant difference between the Democratic Party and the SD parties, there is no good reason not to use the more accurate nomenclature. 4. Work tirelessly to repeal the bill. We must single-mindedly work to repeal the government health plan. We all know that it is difficult to repeal entitlements because they are like drugs and it is very difficult to wean people off drugs. But it is not impossible. We need to warn our fellow Americans that entitlements will do to America what drugs eventually do to addicts. All Republicans must run for office on the "repeal" issue. Even when they lose, the difference between right and left, between Republicans and Social Democrats will have been made clear; and clarity is our best friend. 5. Our motto: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." I used this phrase in addressing the Republican members of Congress. It has become widely used, including by Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., on the House floor during the Congressional debate on Sunday. It encapsulates this epic battle of American values versus leftist values. Every movement needs a motto. I nominate this. 6. Do not let other matters distract. Neither Republicans nor conservatives are united on every issue facing America. Immigration is one example. But we are united on the big government vs. free individual issue, which, more than anything else, has defined America. If we allow any other domestic issue to divide us, we will lose. And here's why: If Americans forget what America stands for, it won't help us if there is not one illegal immigrant here. And if we do remember what it means to be American, we can handle anything. 7. Acknowledge that we are in a non-violent civil war. I write the words "civil war" with an ache in my heart. But we are in one. Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America's values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses. After Sunday's vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don't fight for it, we don't deserve it. dennisprager.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (16978)	4/19/2010 8:00:58 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

After almost 10 years of war and no end in sight After almost 75 years of Social Security and no end in sight... And the end in Iraq is at least in hazy sight. Afghanistan not so much, but no war in US history and almost no war in history at all has lasted 75 years. If you count on an off wars as one war rather than several you can get a few that where longer, but Social Security will likely pass all of them. And it isn't on and off, but constant, unlike the Hundred Years War or other long conflicts. Health is a basic requirement as is food and air. Health isn't a requirement like food and air, its the aim that those things are used to achieve. Don't breathe or don't eat and you will soon be rather unhealthy. More to the point health isn't the issue. Health care is to an extent, but really its health care insurance. Health care insurance is not a basic requirement for life or health. Also look at the actual requirements. Air and food are mroe vital than health care. Air is not a scarce good so it isn't very relevant, but both food and health care are vital scarce goods. We don't have a requirement that someone get food insurance or some form of food care payment plan. We do have federal involvement in the production of food, but much less is spent than on health, and we would be better off getting rid of all or at least most of the government involvement and leaving it to the market. Only a Republican would say that health care is a luxury. In every day terms I wouldn't call it a luxury, at least not all of it. But it is a luxury good in the economic sense of the term. Increased wealth leads to increased demand for health care. Again, the wars have already cost $1 trillion. And federal spending on health care has been larger than the costs of the (current) wars for every year in which they have been active. It will probably in the not to distant future cost more per year than the entire budgetary cost of the wars. Just counting the new law, it will, unless its canceled or seriously amended to slash its cost, cost many times what the wars have cost and will cost, and that's even if you accept the CBO estimates of the programs cost, despite their record of normally grossly underestimating the costs of federal government health care programs.