Wednesday, March 24, 2010

We Have Socialism and other Repub Things

My definition of Socialism is not too technical. Basically I call socialism the step before communism.
Both of them just have the individual basically working for the good of the whole population. Here is a partial definition of socialism: "Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources" link While here is a short one for Comunism: "Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.[1]" link.

So now we have a Health Care Law. Socialistic Law? Here is an interesting link, video embedded from an investment guide.

I don't think that is how Socialism is supposed to work is it? I don't see the direct worker parts of this new law.
I admit I am not the brightest bulb so maybe I am wrong about this one.

Now let's talk about the grand old party. The Senate is "working on, debating" the next step. Not really.But the Grand Old Party is holding up any "work" the committees and subcommittees can do. John McCain, the brilliant one that gave us the "pox upon your head" Palin, said nothing else would get done this year. You thought he was blowin' hot air didn't you. Aw you know better. These guys are good.
video and text 

"In another move to block action by Democrats, Republicans invoked obscure Senate rules that prevent hearings from taking place without unanimous consent, resulting in the cancellation of a number of routine hearings Tuesday and Wednesday. " quote

Not quite as good as the 1995 shut down but let's not get to complacent. Who knows what else they will do. Don't remember the 1995 Shutdown? Here are a few things the Grand Old Party wanted to cut in the budget:

“That final provision, Mr. Clinton said in his veto message, "obligates the Government, Congress and the President to pass the Republican Congressional budget plan with its huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, education and technology, the environment, and its tax increases on working families." “ BATTLE OVER THE BUDGET: THE OVERVIEW;PRESIDENT VETOES STOPGAP BUDGET; SHUTDOWN LOOMS By ADAM CLYMER Published: NY Times, November 14, 1995

I guess the Grand Old Party has changed its collective mind about Medicare. here

Just on Prescription Drug law, Medicare part D:

“And unlike the Democratic bills, which won't add to the deficit, the bill George W. Bush signed was financed entirely through deficit spending. While Grassley and his colleagues accuse Democrats of harming Medicare through cost cuts, it is their bill that has done the most to hasten Medicare's coming insolvency. Between now and 2083, Medicare D's unfunded obligations amount to $7.2 trillion according to the trustees. Numbers like these prompted former Comptroller General David M. Walker to call it "... probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."
Grassley is not alone in his incoherence. Of 28 current Republican senators who were in the Senate back in 2003, 24 voted for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Of 122 Republicans still in the House, 108 voted for it. There is not space here to fully review this hall of shame, which includes Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Orrin Hatch of Utah, among many others. Here is Kansas Republican Sam Brownback in 2003: "The passage of the Medicare bill fulfills a promise that we made to my parents' generation and keeps a promise to my kids' generation." Here is Brownback in 2009: "This hugely expensive bill will not lower costs and will not cover all uninsured." Here is Jon Kyl of Arizona: "As a member of the bipartisan team that crafted the Part D legislation, I am committed to ensuring its successful implementation. I will fight attempts to erode Part D coverage."* Kyl now calls Harry Reid's legislation: "a trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, increases taxes, and raids Medicare." “ Slate

“Michael Steele racheted up the rhetoric in a last minute email urging supporters to help defeat healthcare, calling it a "headlong rush into socialism."

So there we have it Socialism and newly found GOP love of Medicare. Maybe as the grand old party gets older it appreciates the wisdom that comes with old age?

Then we have this Sneaky \little devil isn't he.

I was young and foolish then; now I am old an foolisher.

- Mark Twain, a Biography

And see this video: Bloggingheads NY Times


  1. Kanna,

    I enjoy the Mark Twain quotes that you use and the video was funny. The Republicans are amazing creatures; all I can do sometimes is shake my head in wonder. A lot of the Rep's are getting death threats and some of the Republicans have finally spoken out against this tactic, but a little late, I would say. I have learned some important and interesting things on this post, thank you.

  2. Hi thomas,
    Thanks for the comment.
    G.W. wiping his hands on someone else, someone whose health is not as good as his, sweet guy.
    I never realized his fear of germs was that bad.
    More nut case stuff.
    I heard about the threats and now against family members too.
    What kind of world is this.

  3. I just added an interesting video link on the Repubs framing of the Health Care Law.

  4. Thanks rrgaines,
    All comments are appreciated; especially those that praise.

  5. Kanna, I'd add a slight modification to the definition of socialism/communism:
    Where every individual is OSTENSIBLY working for the good of society/the commune/the collective.
    Channeling all that good "working for the greater good" karma hasn't happened yet, in any country, in any time.
    Instead, the good ol' human traits of greed, corruption, and venality always tend to show up and ruin the vibe.
    Just sayin'...

  6. Kanna: It is really hard to define "socialism" because it is a term that's been around for nearly 200 years and like anything that old, the way people use the word has changed with time. And, even more important, words aren't "things". They aren't tidy concepts. The philosophy Wittgenstein built a whole new philosophy around the fact that words like "chair" can mean many things. Chairs can be simple four legged wooden chair, or a folding chair, of a plump stuffed chair, or a stool, or a stump. Socialism is like that as well. The problem is that the US has been impoverished when it comes to political parties. You did have a US socialist party in the first half of the 20th century.

    Most industrialized countries have a panorama of parties. In Canada our major parties are: Conservatives (currently in power), Liberals (who are traditional liberals that favour business but have a left-of-centre social policy), New Democrats (who are a social democratic party), and the Bloc Quebecois (a French nationalist party fighting for separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of the country). Most European counties have four or five major parties. The US is peculiar in having two parties but none that truly represents progressive and populist interests.

  7. Boss Mongo,
    I apologize for not checking the comments on this post in a while.
    I really agree with you.
    My spouse once wrote a paper on Utopias. He entitled it Good Place, No Place. A shame that we humans can't figure it out or even come close.
    Thank you for commenting.
    Again my apologies.

  8. RY,
    Thanks for commenting.
    I appreciate your research links. I love links. I have an old book from the 20's promoting Socialism for the US and another entitled "Democracy's Answer to Communism" from the same period of time.
    Personally, I have evolved, some may not think so, into a modern version of a Social Democrat.
    Partly as a pragmatic approach to our US society, no dramatic changes here.
    I had forgotten about the Quebec separatists.
    Do they still try in a large way or have they decided to be pragmatic also?

  9. Kanna: The Bloc Quebecois (federal party) and Parti Quebecois (provincial party) are still hard-line separatists but they are losing the demographic war as well as losing the language war. They aren't showing much pragmatism other than a reluctance to put us through a third referendum.

    The birthrate in Quebec is low so a large portion of the new population are immigrants and they usually see English as the way to better jobs.

    On the language front the Quebecois are turning English from a shunned language into one that shows that you are a rebellious "modern" youth. It is disappointing the adults. So the chance of the Parti Quebecois ever winning a referendum and separating has gone from "almost a sure thing" fifteen years ago to "not likely" and will probably become a "long shot" in another decade or so.

    Personally I love the French language and enjoy the fact that I get five TV channels in French despite the number of French speakers in my province is less than 2% of the total. I'm not proficient enough to follow everything, so I usually watch the movies with subtitles on so that I can catch all of the dialog. The other funny thing is that the government French channels have a proper Parisian French dialect while the channels coming out of Quebec have the patois dialect of Quebec. I'm pretty good on the Parisian dialect, it's the patois that is hard for me to follow.

    I just wish I could get some of those Spanish language TV channels up here. I loved to visit in the US and turn on El Sabado Gigante with Don Francisco and I loved some of the soap operas coming out of Mexico.

  10. RY,
    Thanks for the information. I used to follow Canadian politics more but sorry to admit, not so much anymore.
    I don't watch the Spanish soaps much.
    Just once in a great while but then I can't stand any soaps for more than about 5 minutes.
    Don't know why just not my thing.
    Thank you again for the updates.