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."
quote

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 http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/24/bush-clinton-wipe/ 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

Another Word That Bothers Me in Its Present Usage

While checking some of the blogs I follow this morning, I stopped to read the blog of Southern Beale The Business of Dehumanization
Just click on the link in Blogs I Follow or here
The blog post this time has much on our educational system in its present state. The word "product" popped into my head. I remember not too many years ago when some in the US began to speak of our students as products. I hated it then and I still do. You may want to read the post from the foundation-wallace and really think about it. I also remember about the same time schools started "working with" corporations and businesses to find out what kinds of "products" they needed.
In the Southern Beale post there is a lament about civics no longer being taught. True. Several of my many old books are on teaching civics. I mean real civics, things like how your government works and how a voter has a duty to be educated. In fact some of the books teach how it is a "civic duty" to be educated and follow the government activities so you can vote.
Also along the educational trail I saw a report somewhere about a great school. They were getting the "products" physically moving because they realized that obesity is a problem. Why they were even exercising and had recess.
Let me tell you this little tale. One of my nieces' schools decided to drop recess because they just couldn't afford to pay someone to be on the playground with the little "products". Folks this was before the Recession hit.
I also remember President Kennedy's physical fitness program.link here

Back to the "corporate product" idea. My memory fails me. When did the big drive happen to turn out "products" for the use of corporate America? Hereis an interesting, very interesting, article on the state of the business of education. It is called The 500-Pound Gorilla. You will find paragraphs on a Business Task Force and how the needs of business must be used in the school curricula as a way to bolster the economy among other issues. I strongly recommend you read it.

With thanks to my spouse for the photo here.

Obama's Waterloo?

History is repeating itself. I refer to my previous blog. But the Republicans are making it even worse.
Now it is not just “Socialism or the Big Bad Government take-over. It is not even “growing huge deficits” or “tax and spend Democrats”. Now they are attacking a very personally popular President.
How smart is that?

(Let me again state I, lefty that I am, do not care for the Obama pragmatism before I go on here.)

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, gave Mr. Obama an opening to do just that the other day, and the president took it. Mr. DeMint called health care a “Waterloo moment” that could break Mr. Obama. The president struck back, declaring, “This isn’t about me.” But if Mr. Obama extends that line of attack to Republicans more broadly, and rams a bill through without their support, any claim he may have to bipartisanship will quickly evaporate.

(NYTimes, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23obama.html?hp )

Maybe he should let go of that claim. They aren't really going to allow much bipartisanship anyway.
They are the party of “NO” too often.

Right-wing writer Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told Republicans on his blog Monday that they need to resist the temptation to work with Democrats to find a solution to our health Care crisis. “This is no time to pull punches,” he wrote “Go for the kill.”

(from dscc.org email)

And a more direct quotation of DeMint from the same dscc.org email:

On Friday, Republican Sen. Jim DeMInt of South Carolina ginned up his troops with this line: “If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

I also read somewhere that “Newt the Scoot” was another instigator of this stuff.

Now several questions occur to me.
Do I want the support of these guys on any bill? I will wonder why they support anything.
Do they understand that this President is still very popular personally? Do they understand how many American's will support an underdog or a perceived personal attack on a popular President? Duh!
Many of us were stupid enough to support G.W., and still do. Because we don't like personal attacks on our Presidents even when they are true.

The same holds true for Blue Dog Democrats. Not to mention if all these so-called Democrats are worried about is getting reelected, they might consider how even I am thinking about donating to get rid of them. Just because they irritate me. See even a lefty can have selfish moments without saying, “Well, maybe they have a point.”

I know it is nice to have Democrats control two branches of the Government at once but the Blue Dogs are not true Democrats to me. I voted for one here but I am wondering why I did. Yes, I do really know -lessor of the evils. Also, Supreme Court Judges are what the long-term is really about here so their votes are needed for that. Let's just hope they don't start pulling stuff with that too.

It is this. There is a blog I follow and on which I sometimes comment where the same person just comments that all who disagree are stupid idiots and the like. Except it is “STUPID IDIOTS!!!”. It ends the conversations basically for a few hours but many just go elsewhere to research-so it backfires.

So here I will resist calling the “Waterloo” Republicans stupid idiots or worse because it backfires.