That's Meredith Vieira beaming at Hillary Clinton on this morning's Today. Someone might suggest to Meredith that when trying to ingratiate oneself with Hillary, it's advisable to avoid words bringing "imperious" to mind. But if the execution was flawed, no one can deny the fervor with which Vieira endorsed Hillary's paean to big-government, 'It Takes A Village'. Here's how Vieira opened the interview:
"I want to start with 'It Takes a Village' '07 because this book came out ten years ago, and a lot has happened in the past ten years that makes it I think even more imperative that we will need a village to raise healthy, secure children."
In some ways, the very end of the interview was even more telling. Have a look at this clip. Meredith starts with a traditional closing handshake. But that's just not enough to express the depth of her affection. Meredith moves to the edge of her seat, leans over and touches Hillary's hand.
Kind of reminds you of the last time Katie Couric interviewed Dick Cheney, doesn't it?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Vieira is disgusting with he
December 18, 2006 - 08:53 ET by rimskyVieira is disgusting with her gushing affection for Clinton. And of course Clinton is like a vacumn for this kind of affection, not that she craves it, but instead because she uses every ounce of it, knowing that it goes right to the heart for about half of the voters in this country. It Takes A Village.. sorry, Hil, not buyin' it!
Just a thought
December 18, 2006 - 08:57 ET by dagdaIf it takes a village to raise a child, if the child fails, is it the fault of the village? How can we condemn a criminal since the fault clearly belongs to the village they came from. Shouldn't one or more of the village elders go to jail in their place? And what about children who move a lot. Which village takes the blame or gets the credit?
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
You're forgetting blaming the
December 18, 2006 - 10:16 ET by Nathan R MIYou're forgetting blaming the village is already the accepted practice in liberal America. Look at the school shootings, they don't blame the little punks for shooting up the school, they blame the parents and the music and the movies for what the kids did. From what I can remember this has been going on since the '90's, I wouldn't be surprised though if it had started in the eighties with the "I hate my parents" Grunge Music.
Are you allowed to be that fat and gay? - Random TV Quote
dagda...Well.....if your vill
December 18, 2006 - 10:58 ET by Clear thinkerdagda...
Well.....if your village is the one that gave the world Borat, I would think the village refuses any and all responsibility.
You understand Borat is a fic
December 18, 2006 - 12:17 ET by bk1955You understand Borat is a fictional character, right?
bk1955
December 18, 2006 - 12:21 ET by misterbillI know you are, but what am I????
Spartacus.But aren't we all S
December 18, 2006 - 12:26 ET by Jack BauerSpartacus.
But aren't we all Spartacus really?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
bk1955...You do understand th
December 18, 2006 - 15:27 ET by Clear thinkerbk1955...
You do understand that I was joking, right?
Actually, dagda, parents can
December 18, 2006 - 12:16 ET by bk1955Actually, dagda, parents can be jailed in some states for the crimes committed by their children.
In this case the village is a metaphor. If you live in a community, you need support from and need to give support to that community. Rugged individualism only works in the wilderness. All communities may not be as supportive as your own.
In posts you've made about abortion in the past, you've indicated a willingness for the community to assume responibilty for the rights of the unborn. Is it your position that once they are born, they're on their own?
"In this case the villag
December 18, 2006 - 12:27 ET by contrary"In this case the village is a metaphor. If you live in a community, you need support from and need to give support to that community. Rugged individualism only works in the wilderness. All communities may not be as supportive as your own."
This is an interesting statement. Where do you believe the line in drawn between the community's interests and that of the individual? That is probably one of the toughest questions to answer. I believe the family is the bedrock of communities, and without strong, homogenous families, communities will die from infighting.
I believe an individuals inte
December 18, 2006 - 16:48 ET by bk1955I believe an individuals interests can come into conflict with the rest of the community's. I believe that is why the Constitution provides for eminant domain.
Should I conclude from your statement that you believe strong homogenous families never come into conflict? Would that be among themselves or between each other? What do you mean by homogenous? How does a family achieve this required homogeneity? Are you saying it takes a Village to raise a family and keep it cohesive?
How does your belief apply to our national community? Will our lack of homogeneity result in death by infighting?
Eminent Domain
December 18, 2006 - 17:38 ET by BlondeEminent domain?
You cannot be serious. Eminent domain, as it is now being construed by the courts (and hence legislated against by various states around the country) has come to mean seizing private property by the government for the benefit of private developers. (Google Riveria Beach, or Hollywood, Florida if you'd like to see some particularly loathesome examples).
How does seizing private property, in order to put it into the hands of private developers, serve the needs of the community? Please explain. And no propaganda about expanding the tax base please, that's a non-starter.
Read the opinions, kelo v. Ne
December 19, 2006 - 12:44 ET by bk1955Read the opinions, kelo v. New London. The majority opinion held that eminant domain is being used the way it always has been. They used the example of the precident set by Railroads. They conced that Railroad owners benefited much more than the population at large, yet land was picked up byt Railroad companies for a song and the Railroads were built. the communities benefited from the enhanced transportation system.
The other expample was an urban renewal project, I think in DC. One successful business in the middle of a blighted community. The Community at large benefited with renewal from jobs and an improved environment.
The courts found that some members of the community always benefit more than others when real estate is developed, but that shouldn't impede development. The precident of case law for eminant domain allows communities to determine what benefit means.
As I recall, Clarence Thomas argued a minority opinion based on International, in this case British Common Law, mans home is his castle, that sort of stuff. Justice O'Connor, the most activist in this case, argued that it is time to reject the case law precidents, eminant domain has gone far enough, and no should go no farther. Of course she retired to a very large Ranch in her home state.
The Elected Representatives of a community are impowered to decide what action is in the best interest of the community as a whole. You and I may not agree with their decisions, but that's the way it works.
Good questions there.Should I
December 18, 2006 - 18:19 ET by contraryGood questions there.
Should I conclude from your statement that you believe strong homogenous families never come into conflict?
No. Human nature being what it is prevents that, but communites that are culturally similar will have fewer conflict than those that are not.
What do you mean by homogenous?
Culturally similar.
How does a family achieve this required homogeneity?
It starts with two parents who believe in the same things who then pass their morals and values on to their children.
Are you saying it takes a Village to raise a family and keep it cohesive?
Quite the opposite. It takes cohesive families to raise a village.
How does your belief apply to our national community?
Not sure what you're getting at with that question.
Will our lack of homogeneity result in death by infighting?
Possibly. Without faith in your fellow man to make similar choices and have similar wants (home, family, God, etc...) then the US as we know it could split apart. Do you have siblings? Do you get along and talk with them? If you don't is it because you can't see each other's perspectives? Just imagine that on a national scale.
Thanks for your thoughtful re
December 19, 2006 - 13:02 ET by bk1955Thanks for your thoughtful replies. You and I agree on human nature. It is natural for families and communities to come into conflict. Different families and different communities create traditions and institutions to manage the inevitable conflict without dissolution.
Should families in our Village help one another when need arises? Does government have a role in supporting that help?
I believe most healthy people have the wants you list, but sometimes we can make bad choices. Does the village of families have an obligation to help when a dissimilar family with the same wants is injured by a bad choice?
I do have siblings. I get along with them, but we are geographically seperated and don't talk much. We get together at Holidays, Weddings, births, Funerals, etc. We see each others perspectives, but we are not obligated to agree because we are not economically dependent on each other. Can you imagine how that scales up?
Rugged individualism only wor
December 18, 2006 - 12:36 ET by UnsaneRugged individualism only works in the wilderness? Tell THAT to an entrepreneur.
Am I to take it that YOU want a coddling, babying Nanny State?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Hi Unsane, Entrepreneur
December 18, 2006 - 13:44 ET by bk1955Hi Unsane, Entrepreneur; a person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture. My understanding of entrepreurship is, raise capital, create a product, market the product, collect the money, pay the investors. From my perspective these are all group activities, conducted in an economic ecosystem.
In the history of man, has a "coddling, babying Nanny state" ever existed? All human organizations have winners and losers. Every state coddles and baby Nanny's some group. Are European princes and aristocrats not coddled? Are the children of the billionaires in the US not baby Nanny'd?
I believe all children should be nurtured, educated and provided an opportunity to thrive. Can a state exist that allows for the success of entrepreneurs and also provides opportunity for its most at risk?
Raised By A Village = Totalitarianism
December 18, 2006 - 14:51 ET by PSPCplSee below.
Raised By A Village = Totalitarianism
December 18, 2006 - 14:52 ET by PSPCplAny government or society that demands that the individual to give up his/her individuality and attendant rights in order to produce a more manageable society is nothing more than a totalitarian government or society. Any request to do so should be answered with a resounding "NO". The idea that a village should raise a child is nothing more than asking the traditional family to give up its rights and responsibilities in raising its children. Again, it is asking the individuals involved to give up their individuality to the group. It allows whoever is in control of the group to raise those children in any manner it sees fit: ever hear of the the Hitler Jugen or the KOMSOMOL?
The traditional family is the bedrock to a free society. Any attempt to reduce or destroy it should be viewed as an attack on that society by its enemies.
I disagree with your interpre
December 18, 2006 - 17:16 ET by bk1955I disagree with your interpretation of the proverb. An alternate iterpretation is that along with responsibility for your own children, you accept responsibility for all children.
You are arguing against an extreme position that I don't hold. I believe more of us can accept responsibility for the health, safety and education of all American children. I believe the government can fulfill a role in this. Is this necessarily a slippery slope to totalitarianism?
I am interested in your opinion on the bedrock of a free society. Our nation was founded by men without traditional families. In Ben Franklin's biography I learned he was not married to the mother of his children. Abigail Adams fulfilled a role outside of the one defined by traditional motherhood. George Washington had no children, not very traditional. Jefferson was the most traditional for his own time, he kept a second family in the slave quarters. By your definition, are we a free society?
BTW Traditional families are most at risk from the ability of the individual to function as an economic unit. What are you doing to defend your values against this attack?
bk ugghhh
December 18, 2006 - 17:28 ET by misterbillYour arguments and rebuttals are sooooo clever and insightful.Clearly you are a force to be reckoned with..................... a BLOWHARD!
Go pick on another site for a while.
I am sorry that you feel pick
December 18, 2006 - 17:35 ET by bk1955I am sorry that you feel picked on. Your sarcasm and name calling are childish. Why don't you give the issues more thought and offer reasonble opposing views? The Mister Bill on SNL was the ultimate victim. You can do better.
BK
December 18, 2006 - 17:39 ET by misterbill"You can do better."
No, I can't. But I suppose in your ideal world, somehow , someway you would force me too! Oh wait, if I was raised by a village--I could be their idiot!!!
It is fascinating that someon
December 18, 2006 - 21:56 ET by UnsaneIt is fascinating that someone like yourself who enjoys insulting the intelligence of others is crying about other posters being "childish".
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Hi Unsane, I apologize if I h
December 19, 2006 - 13:49 ET by bk1955Hi Unsane, I apologize if I have insulted your intelligence.
"Crying" is a strong description, I thought of it more as a declaration. misterbill has identified himself as an idiot. I don't agree that he is. The meanest or toughest person shouldn't win in the competition of ideas . The one who expresses their ideas clearly and supports their opinions logically should. I like to be challenged to do both. We won't agree on many issues, but we don't have to. Plato is quoted as saying,"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Outside of military actions, do you agree there is wisdom in this.
Hi bk1955, no you are not sor
December 19, 2006 - 14:50 ET by UnsaneHi bk1955, no you are not sorry for I expect you to repeat that behavior repeatedly in the future.
"The meanest or toughest person shoudn't win the competition of ideas." Why not go to Carthage and spread that wisdom around? I'll pay for your plane ticket. (Hat tip to Heinlein)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
The Socialist bk1955
December 18, 2006 - 21:54 ET by Unsanebk1955 - You constantly fail to understand because you do not want to understand. You seem to think it is a great idea for every taxpayer in American to pay for you to be coddled and babysat cradle to grave. You seem to think thatthe government shouild be there as your (and everyone's) goodie dispenser.
The government provides opportunity to those most at risk by NOT SUBSIDIZING THEM. The economist Milton Friedman put it best, though I see the logic of this sentence escaping you: "Government would have fewer poor people if it stopped paying them to be poor". If we give the poor everything for free, then where is there incentive to improve their lives on their own.
I'd stop whining about getting insulted, if I were you. I know what words mean just fine, so you needn't insult my intelligence or anyone elses. Oh, wait, you are a Leftist, and you do that without thinking. Not only a Leftist, but a true Socialist, from everything I can gather from your posts on this one thread alone.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
I'm not sure what you believe
December 19, 2006 - 14:19 ET by bk1955I'm not sure what you believe I don't understand. I think it is a great idea for the American taxpayer to get some return on the government we support. I see taxspending benefiting some groups and not others. I believe governement can and should be a positive force in confronting social issues. Why is it OK for wealth to be redistributed in one direction, but not the other? Why is it OK with you that taxes paid by the middle and lowest earners in this country subsidizes the wealthiest as well as foreigners in the form of interest paid to bond holders? Why is it OK with you that defense contractors earn high profits? Shouldn't they take the resposibiltiy for keeping America safe as their patriotic duty?
Your Friedman quote is pithy and logical, but it is not a solution. People can be poor and working. Investments also need to be made, training and education subsidized. People need to see the personal benefits from working. Should government have a role in this?
What does Friedman say about people suffering from mental illness? Should society require families to provide support for them? Does government have a role in their support? What about families that can't earn enough to support themselves? What about children without parents or family? Should the government take a role in their support?
I wish you could imagine what it would be like if you were me. You'd understand that I ask to reduce the insults so that I can better understand where you are coming from and why you believe what you believe.
It is not my intention to insult your intelligence. I was disagreeing with your perception of an entrepeneur and meant to use the definition to demonstrate where I thought you had gotten it wrong. I don't agree entrepreneurs are rugged individualsts. You are free to support your arguement they are.
I'm guessing Leftists and Socialist are the worst insults you can think of. In my opinion, you have demonized these labels to the point where they lack any definition other than; "a really bad person who is different from me". Like I said, I'm a working stiff and a family man.
Why do you insist on slamming
December 19, 2006 - 15:03 ET by UnsaneWhy do you insist on slamming my former and soon-to-be part time profession?
You know what I think? Government is not your personal nanny. Government is not there to punish people for being successful and to feel sorry for people who fail and WANT to fail. Why do you think it is fair that the bottom 60% of the population doesn't pay federal income taxes? Why is your solution to EVERYTHING involve turning government into a babysitter and punishing the successful even more?
You have yet to name a society that has done all of that and succeeded. If you are TRULY after fairness, perhaps you will join me in demanding the government toss the entire tax code - the whole damn thing - and tax everyone at 17% across the board, regardless of income?
Understanding where I am coming from is not that hard. I believe that people should be left to there own devices, and that if people want to be poor (I know plenty who seriously want to be poor), let them, and leave me the hell alone. The government should punish those who break the law, deliver my mail (though these days even FedEx and UPS are doing that better than the USPS does), defend my country (for some reason you have a very serious problem understanding that the United States isn't here out of the kindness of other nation's hearts and that this has ALWAYS been so) and leave me the hell alone. If I want to fulfill my sense of "cummunity repsonsibility", I'll peel off another check to my volunteer fire department and ask to be deployed someplace so that I may support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Leftist and Socialist are HARDLY insults...they are accurate descriptors of your thinking and I came to these conclusions over reading your posts. Should I also be insulted if Christian posters called me an atheist? No, because that is an accurate description. If you ARE insulted by accurate protrayal, then that means you are deeply ashamed of your own principles and beliefs.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Takes a Licking...
December 18, 2006 - 10:21 ET by BBallleaperCome on, Meredith's just getting her licks in............
BBall, WHY? The Horor, The Horror
December 18, 2006 - 14:35 ET by PSPCplYou had to go there, didn't you??
I was going to stay out of it but
December 18, 2006 - 17:41 ET by misterbillI was going to stay out of it but-- she really cracked me up!
Can you imagine Newt getting
December 18, 2006 - 10:37 ET by NoMoreClintonsCan you imagine Newt getting the same kind of reception from this fawning hag?
BLEEEEAH . . ., I think I'm going to go vomit now.
NO MORE CLINTONS!!
Vieira
December 18, 2006 - 10:41 ET by iveseenitallVieira,Clinton and the rest of the liberals live in the lap of luxury while preaching this crap. But sadly, millions will fall for it. Animal Farm is alive and well.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I'm assuming that Vieira is r
December 18, 2006 - 10:57 ET by GalvanicI'm assuming that Vieira is rather naive about the ultimate destination of "It Takes A Village" --- when Big Government completely takes over the parenting responsibilities.
Vieria
December 18, 2006 - 11:13 ET by iveseenitall"Guarantying" that our children are safe and secure? That says it all about M. Vieria. She truly is naive-- while, at the same time, being a vicious socialist liberal.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I'm not following your headli
December 18, 2006 - 12:05 ET by bk1955I'm not following your headline here. Meredith Vieira supports the concept of a village or community taking responsibility for raising all of its children and you conclude that Hillary Clinton has "big-government" plans?
Don't let pre neo-conservative rhetoric confuse you. Have you forgotten Hillary's husband decreased the size of the federal government? The current occupant of the Whitehouse increased it. It's larger now than its ever been. On borrowed money.
Your double standard is showing. In this case it seems like; If it's a Republican, you believe what they say and excuse what they do, when a Democrat, you ignore what they do and misinterpret what is said to them.
I agree with you Ms Vieira is socially liberal. Don't conservatives value responsibility, both individual and community, anymore? Is this the best you can do to demonstrate Ms Vieira's bias? Rather than disagreeing with anything proposed by a Democrat, why not find some common basis for agreement? If you are unwilling or unable to do that, why not criticise the Republicans when they miss the mark too. Haven't you noticed, big government is not a policy of the democrats, it is a policy of whoever holds power.
If your goal is to keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse, fear of big government won't hold much water as an issue. You can do better.
In Hillary's book, the &quo
December 18, 2006 - 12:10 ET by Mark FinkelsteinIn Hillary's book, the "village" is a metaphor for big government. And yes, I'm strongly opposed to the expansion of government when Republicans propose it too.
I'm not sure all critics agre
December 18, 2006 - 13:04 ET by bk1955I'm not sure all critics agree on the meaning of the metaphor, but I didn't read her book. I'm assuming you did. You might consider Ms Veira interprets the metaphor differently.
Glad to hear you are consistent in your opposition to Republican big government. So, I should expect to see a post expressing that opposition, in the next week? the next month? six months? before the 2008 election?
Umm, are you new here? Did
December 18, 2006 - 13:44 ET by TexasOptimistUmm, are you new here?
Did you see what the reaction of most of us Newsbusters was in the wake of the November elections? We condemned the GOP for ABANDONING the conservative philosophies we believe in so heartily. One of these key principles being FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
We are mad as hell at the Republicans (Bush included) that have allowed the deficit to balloon, allowed government spending to balloon. Many of us still voted Republican, I'll admit, but we did so holding our noses, since the Republicans still were a better alternative overall versus the Democrats. But we were disheartened with the GOP, and we will always be disheartened until the GOP returns to the principles of conservatism. When the GOP defends a genuine conservative platform, it wins.
The Reagan conservative formerly known as Texaswolf77.
I am not a Trot, that was an act.
What I remember seeing here a
December 18, 2006 - 17:26 ET by bk1955What I remember seeing here at the time was criticism of the media for releasing stories that were not helpful to the GOP cause. I agree with you that many of the comment writers are true conservatives. The site itself is Republican.
The GOP desn't care what you do with hand you aren't using to vote for them. They may run and win on genuine conservative platforms in the future, but it is unlikely they will govern with one. The Democrats demonstrate the same gap between talk and action. As long as you allow both parties to demonize the other side and not vote for your personal best interest and values I wouldn't expect too much of a change.
Of course this site is Republ
December 18, 2006 - 17:31 ET by BlondeOf course this site is Republican. Because you say so, bk1955.
Doesn't matter what the rest of us think now, does it?
Nice of you to let us in on the secret, we really appreciate it.
What I remember seeing here a
December 18, 2006 - 17:28 ET by bk1955What I remember seeing here at the time was criticism of the media for releasing stories that were not helpful to the GOP cause. I agree with you that many of the comment writers are true conservatives. The site itself is Republican.
The GOP desn't care what you do with hand you aren't using to vote for them. They may run and win on genuine conservative platforms in the future, but it is unlikely they will govern with one. The Democrats demonstrate the same gap between talk and action. As long as you allow both parties to demonize the other side and not vote for your personal best interest and values I wouldn't expect too much of a change.
liars
December 18, 2006 - 17:32 ET by misterbillliars tend to repeat their lies!!!
Primaries
December 18, 2006 - 18:09 ET by UnsanePerhaps you have heard of primary elections?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Please do tell us all...Every
December 18, 2006 - 12:12 ET by Jack BauerPlease do tell us all...
Everything you do and say and propose and think:
Does everyone assume that you speak for your wife, girlfriend, boyfriend or "life partner."
That what you think goes for the poor soul lumbered with YOU.
Because I cannot for the life of me understand why what BILL CLINTON did when HE was President has one frackin' thing to do with a possible (and God forbid) a President HILLARY Clinton.
Though I do believe he appointed her to jimmy up some massive Government run Health bureacracy, till she was slapped down.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I'm not sure you understood m
December 18, 2006 - 12:32 ET by bk1955I'm not sure you understood my point. However, most couples I know share common values and feel free to speak for each other in certain circumstances. Does your wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, or "life partner speak for you?
My point is that Mr Finkelstein's criticism is misplaced. Whether Hillary and Bill are aligned on the enlargement of the federal government is beside the point. The fact that Mr Bush increased the size of government so much will reduce the "big Government" scare as an effective issue for Republican candidates. Hillary's position on the issue is irrelevent.
You aren't clear the Health Care proposal submitted my Mrs Clinton. The proposal allowed small businesses to combine themselves geographically to reduce the cost of their Health Care Insurance. Insurance Companies, who would lose income as a result of this change, launched a massive publicity campaign that resulted in the impression you demonstrate. Remember the couple at the dinner table? In fact, President Bush spoke of proposing a similar solution before the 2004 election.
How is it you are comfortable referring to a woman as being "slapped down" and jimmying up? Do you take thoughtful objection to Hillary Clinton's actions and ideas, or do you need to see crafty woman beaten down?
I'm not sure you understood m
December 18, 2006 - 12:37 ET by Jack BauerI'm not sure you understood my point.
Your point was that Hillary Clinton ain't some Big government socialist because her husband wasn't one.
Well, (apart from the fact that the Clintons have had a sham marriage for many years any way), you're simply incorrect.
And a tad sexist.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
No, that wasn't my point.
December 18, 2006 - 13:10 ET by bk1955No, that wasn't my point. My point is that Rebublicans are proponents of big government too.
The spending proposed by a Republican President and approved by a Republican Congress demonstrates that I am quite correct.
I don't believe my comments are even partisan, let alone sexist. Can you point to the statement you feel is "a tad sexist"
1. YOU: "you conclude th
December 18, 2006 - 13:27 ET by Jack Bauer1. YOU: "you conclude that Hillary Clinton has "big-government" plans? Have you forgotten Hillary's husband decreased the size of the federal government?
Apart from being a non-sequitor, it's also a brazen sexist assertion that a woman simply stands by her man and does what he does.
Now I can also prove that H. Clinton actually said she wasn't that type of woman on national TV back in '92. So your assumption that she would follow your claims about her husband's political actions are incorrect based on her own utterances.
2. This is a "conservative" site. Conservatives believe in a smaller, less intrusive government than do socialists like Hillary Clinton, who believe in massive wealth redistribuion via an enlarged nanny state.
Why you seek to hide that, I have no idea.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Best Republican
December 18, 2006 - 13:46 ET by dagdaBill Clinton was probably the best Republican in the USA during his presidency. He co-opted the Republican platform and made it his own. He took credit for things he was against but the Republicans passed.
How is Hillary going to be different? If Hillary does not have a very strong team of advisors, she is going to do what she really wants and she is such a socialist there is no end of trouble she will make for the country.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
We have to "out" Hi
December 18, 2006 - 14:00 ET by Jack BauerWe have to "out" Hillary Clinton as a closet socialist at all times.
She won't be truthful about her socialist leanings because (unlike shameless Europe) socialism is a dirty word for all right thinking folk.
In France, Germany, the UK, Italy, etc, she'd be out of the closet as Red Hillary.
A socialist by any other name would smell just as sour.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
1.My comment was not a non se
December 18, 2006 - 14:05 ET by bk19551.My comment was not a non sequitor, it followed logically from the posting headline. Please keep context.
My statement may be a tad sexist. Thank you for pointing it out. In my haste to point out the contradiction in criticizing Democrats for a big government philosophy when Republicans have been pursuing the same result I may have given you the impression that I believe married couples are aligned on all issues. I do not hold that opinion. I do believe that the Clintons are pretty well aligned when it comes to federal policy, so perhaps you can cut me some slack on this.
Your logic is self defeating. Based on Mrs Clinton's 92 comments you conclude that she opposes her husband on all issues. This contradicts much of the Republican rhetoric for the last fouteen years.
2. I don't gree that this is a conservative site. It is a Republican site. By your definition, the current President and the outgoing Republican Congress are not conservative. I say this because the size of the government has increased under their stewardship. I say this because census figures show that wealth has been redistributed under their watch, and the watches of the previous three adminstration from the middle and working classes to the wealthiest class.
1.My comment was not a non se
December 18, 2006 - 14:10 ET by Jack Bauer1.My comment was not a non sequitor
Yes it is.
2. I don't agree that this is a conservative site.
Yes it is.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Wait, this is a conservativ
December 18, 2006 - 15:02 ET by Uncle JohnWait, this is a conservative site???
And I thought it took a Village Idiot... my bad.
Answers.com defines not sequi
December 18, 2006 - 17:54 ET by bk1955Answers.com defines not sequitor as;
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
My statement on Mrs Clinton and her husband follows from the evidence of the Republicans being a big governement party.
I am using Jack Bauer's(above) definition of conservative. That is;
Conservatives believe in a smaller, less intrusive government…
By this definition, this site, demonstrating strong support for republican office holders and their big government policies is not conservative.
Please offer support for your opposing views.
NON SEQUITUR
December 18, 2006 - 17:57 ET by misterbillBK since you went to answer.com to back your position up, the least you could do is spell the expression correctly. The mispelling casts doubt on the fact that you went to a valid source to verify your definition.
Geez!!!!
In regard to the size of the
December 18, 2006 - 17:15 ET by AmericaNeedsRealMuckrakersIn regard to the size of the government since George H.W. Bush was president there are a few things you should take into consideration.
A huge portion of the size of our government was directly tied to the fight to win the Cold War. This included all of our overt military spending in addition to large numbers of covert operations such as those conducted by the CIA. So during George H.W. Bush's presidency our government still maintained many of the programs used to win the Cold War and that can explain the large government budget to a degree.
When Clinton took office it's my impression that America as a whole became very relaxed because of the recent victory of the Cold War. Like many events in history have shown often after winning a war a society will let its guard down. So the administration proceeded to cut funding for all sorts of military projects under the assumption that a large military was not necessary any more. Additionally many of the CIA contacts and operations established during the Cold War were cut off from funds which further limited the ability to monitor events outside of our nation that were important to national security.
I am not one to point the finger at anyone for why 9-11 happened but will say that as a society America was very naive to how easily we could get hit. We definitely let our guard down. So after 9-11 most Americans woke up and wanted our own security more than anything else. So what needed to be done? We needed to reestablish our intelligence network and go after our enemies so they can't come here and kill our people.
The war in Iraq is where so much of our government's growth has come from over the last 5 years. That and the additional funding and resources dedicated to upgrading security on the home front. As much as I believe in fiscal responsibility some times the county must do what is necessary to insure our future and worry about the cost later. It’s definitely not the ideal situation but it is better than the alternative, the costs of which are astronomical.
Thanks for your thoughts. I
December 18, 2006 - 18:13 ET by bk1955Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with your assessment. It seems we agree that big government is acceptable in some circumstances.
Do you agree with others on this post that big government is necessarily socialist and totalitarian?
In both cases you cite, the Cold War and 9/11, the spending was justified to reduce the fear of US citizens. Is it possible that this fear was manipulated for the profit of the Defense Industry?
I'm thinking the Cold War was ended by the collapse of the Soviet Union in response to our escalated spending. Is it possible Communism would have collapsed without our indebtedness.
By now most agree that Iraq and its subsequent invasion had nothing to do with the perpetrators of 9/11. Wasn't fear manipulated to involve us in a war with other motivations?
Very clever, bk1955, very clever.
December 18, 2006 - 18:36 ET by acaiguanaVery clever, bk1955, very clever.
By now most agree that Iraq and its subsequent invasion had nothing to do with the perpetrators of 9/11.
Well, gee, there is a consensus. I can quit thinking about it now.
This statement reflects a rather shallow view of the War in Iraq, wouldn't you think? If the War in Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism which you cleverly disguise as referring to the 'perpetrators of 9/11' as if these idiots were a separate and distinct entity from radical islamo-fascist Muslim Terrorists; then the War in Iraq is of course unjustifiable from the War on Terrorism point of view, isn't it?
So, I think you are trying to reasonably argue that the War on Terror as being played out in the Middle East has nothing to do with 9/11 because that would in fact make Bush a Liar. Right?
So, aside from Bush Lied, People Died ----
Did you have anything else to say on this site? I've read your drivel about how big government isn't always bad and Hillary's book is some sort of deep philosophical tome about the healthy 'village' approach to children (after all who would go against the children?).
Socialism as tried in the former USSR where their collectives failed not only to raise well educated free market economy children (much as Democrat dominated Oakland, CA schools) but also ended up with a significant percentage of drunks in the streets before, during and after the collapse of the Soviet Evil Empire.
In Hillary's World Communist view, the Village consists of people who rat out their neighbors (shades of China); are insanely happy with the idea of government intrusion into self-determination and parential rights; giddy over the redistribution of wealth (from each according to his ability to each according to his need).
And if Republicans are Small Government failures I would truly hate to see what would happen after Democrat control for 12 years. And that number 12 years is important. The Republicans controlled Congress for 6 of Clinton's eight years. That kept the Arkansas Ridge Runner from spending us into oblivion. Unfortunately this did not extend to blunting his real hate toward the military which is one of the problems we had to overcome after 9/11. We not only had to rebuild the economy he left Bush, but we had to rebuild the military he left the country.
The former USSR collapsed because it was a true Empire. The flow of hard currency out of the USSR necessary to prop up the vassel states coupled with their military spending ended up bankrupting the country because their economy was not Capitalist but Communist.
I'm not a Communist. I'm not particulary a Republican either. Thanks for the lump sum gob of goo you smeared me with here anyway. But one thing is for sure, I'm not a Democrat. Why don't you take your Bush bash and your America bash to Daily Kos - I'm sure they will think you are clever too.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
You are arguing against a pos
December 19, 2006 - 16:40 ET by bk1955You are arguing against a position I don't hold. Please see Vali Nasr's "The Shia Revival" if you are interested in depth causes and impacts of wars in the Gulf.
You are correct. The war in Iraq is unjustifiable from a War on Terror point of view. The motivation and opportunities for enlistment for terrorism has increased. From the point of view of the war on terror, the Iraq War is counter productive. Yes, Bush lied.
I don't support Soviet style communism, and frankly, I think you are hard put to find evidence that Hillary Clinton supports it either.
No one is calling for intrusion into parental rights. Some parents need help with their responsibilities. While reproduction comes pretty naturally, parenting is learned behavior. People who want to change negative or unproductive behaviors generally need support. Why shouldn't government play a role in providing that support? Don't we already with Headstart and federal and subsidies for Universities and Colleges?
You assume I think the Democrat Party are more capable of solving problems than Republicans. The Democrats controlled the Congress for thirty years, we still have the problems. You should check your facts. If the Arkansas Ridge Runner you refer to is former President Clinton, you will find his budgets reduced spending. Primarily on Social Programs. Your letting your patisan bias interfere with your critical thinking.
Republican partisans seem to blame Clinton for Bush's failures. The military Clinton left was stronger than the one Rumsfeld sent to war. Remember how Rummie faced off against the Joint Chiefs to bring the US military into the 21st Century? I don't believe Presidents deserve all the credit and blame they take for the economy. The economy started to decline after 9/11. Of course Bush takes no responsibility for that, he only reacted to events. He reacted wrongly, but he reacted.
What is your definition of a "true empire"? My definition is a nation that invades and occupies other nations to exploit the resources of the invaded country for its own benefit. This would cover the Akkadians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, different European countries at different times, the Soviet Union and the United States. Please identify the factors that determine false empire. The causes of collapse of the Soviet Union are complex. I agree that one cause is the massive resources committed to defense spending instead of what Adam Smith calls productive elements of the economy.
Thanks for the definition of what you are not. I have no intention of smearing you with anything. It seems to me you brought up the Bush bashing. At this point I feel sorry for him. I am not bashing America or anyone. I believe America can do better job of living up to its ideals. America is strong enough to take any criticism I can offer. You seem sensitive to someone questioning you opinions. I don't need someone to think I'm clever for validation of my beliefs.
"In both cases you cite,
December 19, 2006 - 09:56 ET by AmericaNeedsRealMuckrakers"In both cases you cite, the Cold War and 9/11, the spending was justified to reduce the fear of US citizens. Is it possible that this fear was manipulated for the profit of the Defense Industry?"
I totally disagree with that statement. I do not feel the spending was done to simply reduce the fear of US citizens. That would imply that the USSR did not pose a dire threat to our way of life. Similarly that would imply that what happened on 9/11 was not a threat to our country and that we had no need to be concerned about additional attacks. In both cases the threat to our country was and in terms of terrorism still is very real and I would seriously question the judgment of anyone who thinks otherwise.
"Is it possible Communism would have collapsed without our indebtedness."
Possibly but consider the fact that China still exists as a communist nation. The major difference between them is that China's government worked economically with the USA and other democracies while the USSR and it's communist ideology was in direct competition with the USA and our allies. So to me that would say that our efforts to topple the USSR throughout the entire Cold War were the primary reasons.
"By now most agree that Iraq and its subsequent invasion had nothing to do with the perpetrators of 9/11."
First of all that is a very presumptuous statement. I'd really like to know what qualifications you have to speak for "most" people. I definitely feel that success in Iraq is essential to the fight on terrorism. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam was looking the other way as terrorist groups were training in Iraq. He was definitely a part of the problem. Successful establishment of a democracy in the heart of the Middle East will be the biggest blow to the terrorists. That is why they are fighting so frantically in Iraq and doing everything in their power to create a Civil War. Did you happen to hear the report about how well Iraq's economy is doing? What are your comments on that if Iraq is going so horribly wrong?
I respect a true believer.
December 19, 2006 - 17:17 ET by bk1955I respect a true believer. Doesn't the collapse of Soviet Union indicate the threat posed to the American Way of Life was perhaps a bit overstated?
China is one of our major trading partners. We are shipping dollars over there by the ton. They buy US bonds with them. China's economy is managed, but so is ours, FTC, FCC, SEC, Federal Reserve. China learned from the experience of the USSR. I agree with you that the Cold War was justified as a competition of ideologies. My understanding is both sides used the anti-other rhetoric, except during World War II, of course. I question whether the rhetoric of both idealogies didn't understate the actual threat. Chinese and Cuban communism still exist, Capitalism reigns supreme.-
There may be no doubt in your mind that Saddam was allowing military training not under his control in his country, but there is no evidence that it happened either. Saddam is a Sunni Muslim, Al Queda is a Shiite organization. Read The "Shia Revival" for a clear understanding of what this difference means in the Middle East.
What makes you think a successful democracy in the Middle East will lead to anything but the election of anti-American parties. The current group in power in Bagdad has connections to the Shiite paramilitary orgainzations in Sadr City. They need to for self defense. Why do your think the terrorists supporters won't run a fairly elected government? Look at the last Palistinian election. Hizballah won. If elections were fair in Lebanon, what makes you think they wouldn't win there too? If fair democratic elections were held in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE do you think "Support Uncle Sam" would be a winning slogun? It is unlikely that the principle of democracy is compatible with American interests in the region. In my opinion, our best bet is to reduce American interests by investing as a nation in alternatives to petroleum based products. This solution has been discussed since the oil crisis in the 70's. Why is there such opposition to such an obvious solution? Where does it come from?
Where can I fnd your report on the Iraqi economy? It is hard for me to imagine that a country experiencing such violence is enjoying an economic boom. Even if it is, does that really justify the violence and loss of innocent life?
Idealism
December 19, 2006 - 22:50 ET by UnsaneNot only is there an NB thread on the Iraqi economy, there are foreign news sources available. Watch the 14 March 2006 edition of CBC's The National for more evidence.
And yes, bk1955, it DOES justify violence, unless you like dictators that nerve-gas their own people and invades his neighbors. You see, violence solves LOTS and LOTS of problems. It is time-tested and true. Hitler didn't just go away because we said "please stop invading your neighbors and be nice to your own citizens". Along the way we had to firebomb Hamburg and Dresden at the dreadful cost of life. Now, I wouldn't suggest that ordinarily be done...but would you have been comfortable with the alternative?
Stalin, Khruschev, Brezhnev/Kosygin, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev didn't leave Western Europe alone because we promised to be super-nice to them. They left Western Europe alone because they all feared the consequences of what would happen if they DID try to force Berlin or Paris to capitulate to a land invasion. The consequences were the threat of violence on an unprecedented scale if they were to try it. And guess what? It worked.
Kim Il-Sung didn't leave the South Koreans alone because we asked him to be nice. In fact, I spent 13 months there to help make the point that the United States would not tolerate the South Koreans being messed with again. I slept for those thirteen months on the slope of a hill where the last fixed bayonet charge in the United States Army happened...another example of violence being used to preserve and defend freedom and democracy.
South Vietnam would still be a political entity had the military been permitted to use violent force against the communist North full throttle. Did you know that the United States never lost a tactical engagement in Vietnam? We could have won, if it weren't for some mealy-mouthed individuals out there...
And we can win here...if we want to. I for one like the idea of an Iraq that is at least given a shot to make a representative democracy for themselves...and they CAN pull it off. Is that worth the violence? Absolutely. Would I prefer that freedom and liberty here and throughout the world be won without the loss of life. Of course. But you seem to be living extremely idealistically to think that freedom is somehow free. Freedom in NOT free, and MUST be fought for, here and everywhere else.
(Of course, I don't see you objecting to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or asking about how THAT act justified the violence and loss of innocent life...and that's just for starters.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane: You definitely struc
December 20, 2006 - 10:59 ET by AmericaNeedsRealMuckrakersUnsane: You definitely struct true with the point I was trying to make so much that I will not beat a dead horse by repeating similar comments to bk1955. I also want to thank you for service in South Korea because I truely appreciate what you did to provide freedom to this country. I hope you get some comfort in knowing that there are many younger people like myself (I'm 30) who understand and appreciate values and morals that our modern society often snuffs out by lack of guidance to our youth.
Have YOU forgotten that Hilla
December 18, 2006 - 12:19 ET by UnsaneHave YOU forgotten that Hillary Clinton was handed responsibility for the proposal to nationalize health care back in 1993-1994? Now, the Republicans have been (especially over the last few years) spending like mad, and, I suspect that they have been using the federal government as something like a patronage machine, but they wouldn't support the madness of nationalizing health care. (That is one of the reasons they won the House back in 1994 in the first place.)
Conservatives DO vaule responsibility by the individual, but as for community responsibility, that is up to the individual's freewill (a confusing word for Leftists) whether or not to feel a sense of community responsibility. In spite of government not demanding a sense of "community responsibility" from everyone, people volunteer their time, money or both in various ways, all on their own initiative. I don't know about you, but I think that is much better than forcing everyone to have some sense of "social/community responsibility".
Finally, why must the Right find common basis for agreement with Leftists when what they say is so diametrically opposed to what the Right says? It is the Leftists with an orthodoxy that cannot be challenged at any cost whatsoever. At least the Rightists debate among themselves what the details and policies of the Right should be.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Republicans
December 18, 2006 - 12:41 ET by iveseenitallI've seen plenty of criticism concerning Republican spending. That issue is one of the many reasons they lost the election. But if anyone is so naive to believe that Socialism/Communism is the answer, all they have to do is open a history book. The liberals initated the P.C. that is ruining this nation and causing the great divide from which we suffer. Socialism/Communism is a Robin Hood approach which stiffles initiative and causes bitter resentment. That is not to mention the few who never suffer from socialism while preaching its merits. The Clintons have gone from rags to riches on the Federal dole. Wake up!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Republicans
December 18, 2006 - 12:42 ET by iveseenitallMERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Hi Unsane, did you know the b
December 18, 2006 - 12:57 ET by bk1955Hi Unsane, did you know the big three American automobile manufacurers met with the President within the last month or so? Did you know one of the topics was the high cost of health insurance? Did you know American automobile manufacturers think they can't compete with Japanese, Korean and European manufacturers because in those places health care is nationalized? That's right, a national health care system may be good for business!
From your post, I am comfortable saying we share the value of community responsibility. I agree with you that a sense of community cannot be forced. I have not read Mrs Clinton's book. As I understand it, the title is an African proverb. If it was'nt the title of a book written by someone from, "the other side" would you agree these is some truth in the proverb?
Do your agree that Americans pay taxes voluntarily? Do you agree that the collected taxes should be used for the greater benefit of the most citizens? Do you agree the Congress is our institution for determining that benefit? Is it acceptable to you that the outgoing Republican congress determined that the best use for those taxes was as interest payments to American and foreign investers who bought bonds? Would more people benefit if the tax money was used to improve educational opportunities for young children and preventative health measures to minimize catastrophic health care costs?
I am not asking Rightists and Leftists to find common ground, although I believe we have a shared humanity. I am asking Republicans and Democrats to find common ground. I am asking them to give and take in the process of balancing competing interests.
Having communicated with you in the past, I am somewhat aware of your personal history. Does your military training require you to divide American citizens into good guys and bad guys? Who are yor Leftists and Rightist? Orthodoxy and debate compete for attention on both sides of the aisle. There are problems with both positions. The debate should be between both sides. I don't believe it takes much courage to side with the rich and powerful.
This year, I enjoyed Thanksgiving with a new family member. My niece is engaged to a young man who intends to pursue the career of a Christian minister. We discussed many issues and found agreement on education, environment and peace. I expressed surprise at his liberality. He said, "Don't pidgeon hole me because I am Christian." I won't pidgeon hole you because you are Conservative. I ask you not to pidgeon hole me because I'm not
bk
December 18, 2006 - 13:10 ET by iveseenitallBK,1955 I, for one, don't appreciate your implication that people who don't agree with you don't share or understand "the value of community reposnsibility". This is the typical liberal reponse which divides the nation. You don't have all the anwers and should open your mind without impying that others are somehow ignorant about kindness or ignore "community reponsibilty".
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
"I want to start with
December 18, 2006 - 13:16 ET by ckc1227"I want to start with 'It Takes a Village' '07 because this book came out ten years ago, and a lot has happened in the past ten years that makes it I think even more imperative that we will need a village to raise healthy, secure children."
What's interesting is Hillary got this concept from Africa. It's an African saying. Anyone want to send their child to be raised in Africa?
Anyone want to send their child to be raised in Africa?
December 18, 2006 - 13:23 ET by misterbillAnyone want to send their child to be raised in Africa? No, and furthermore why, in the name of all that's holy, would one even want to adopt the culture of a nation that largely lives in poverty and brutality? I believe, in spite of my dislike for her, that Billary is an intelligent woman. I cannot understand using an African comparison unless she expects us all to move into kraals and forsake all the social and physical improvements we have made in our modern society.
Shrillary may be an intel
December 18, 2006 - 23:03 ET by Uncle JohnShrillary may be an intelligent woman, but here are two things she's not:
1) The most intelligent woman in the world,
2) The most intelligent woman in the room (unless she's the only woman in the room)
I am firmly convinced that my wife is more intelligent than Hillary Ramrod Clinton, and she'd definitely make a better president. Heck, I bet a lot of folks here know women who are smarter than Hillary...
The world
December 18, 2006 - 13:31 ET by iveseenitallRight CK. And the world has become so much closer because of Hillary's book. Riiight! It's funny how, in the liberal canon, what goes on in other countries is always so much better than in the most accomplished country in the world. Ralph Waldo Emerson warned about this in his essay "Self-Reliance". Vieria and Hillary probably have never read it and probably never will because it's contrary to their socialist mindset.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Maybe I wasn't clear on my p
December 18, 2006 - 13:21 ET by bk1955Maybe I wasn't clear on my point. I was responding to Unsane's post. You infered the idea that I want everyone to agree with me. I don't. I agree I don't have all the answers, that's why I post questions. My questions are not intended to be rhetorical. I am curious to learn your opinion.
I would argue that it's generalizations about what a typical response for a vaguely defined group that divides the nation.
Community responsiblity is a shared value. Where people seperate is on what the extent of that responsibility and what the role of government should be in demonstrating the value. We all need to be able to keep an open mind. We might also consider that thoughtless writing is intended to be insulting.
Thoughtless
December 18, 2006 - 13:38 ET by iveseenitallBK1955. Read my bio. I am far from a "thoughtless" writer and have given more than my share of "community service". And if you can't see that the nation is divided, it is you who needs to open your eyes and your mind. It's amazing how people can't admit to the insults of which they, themselves, are guilty.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
bk1955
December 18, 2006 - 13:56 ET by misterbill"You infered(sic) the idea that I want everyone to agree with me. I don't."
OK, you win. I don't agree with you.
Irony
December 18, 2006 - 14:08 ET by Unsane"We all need to keep an open mind"
I find it amusing that most of the time, the people who say that are themselves the most closed minded people on the planet.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
American car companies are
December 18, 2006 - 13:27 ET by AnubisBlackAmerican car companies are having trouble because of the import tuning culture that has been the biggest thing to hit the automobile industry in the last couple of years. This has nothing to do with any national policies, people are buying foreign cars.
I am just curious; why do you
December 18, 2006 - 13:48 ET by UnsaneI am just curious; why do you think the laws of economics not apply to helath care? Just for that silly sentence "national health care may be good for business!", it is time for you to read a tad bit of economics.
Oh, I am sure the Canadians are very happy their health care is "free". Never mind they are put on waiting lists for very basic procedures...and many times they head south to the United States and pay up front for procedures because they know they will get it done on demand and that competition among doctors and hospitals ensures a high quality of care. The same applies for Britain and other nations.
Did you know that in spite of all of these "savings" you say happens because of "free" health care, that BMWs and manufactured in SC, Japanese cars are manufactured all over the southern United States (a region without a tradition of crying to unions for everything, the REAL culprit behind the U.S. auto industry troubles), and that there is a new, massive plant in Montgomery, AL, built by Hyundai for the production of their vehicles? Did you also know that soon Airbuses will be getting built in Mobile, AL? Why, if all of these countries are saving gobs and gobs of money due to the Nanny States in which they are based, why are they outsourcing TO the United States?
Universal health care violates a very simple principle: "There is no such thing as a free lunch." It will merely delude people into thinking there is one. To illustrate: why are we all striving to drive less right about now? Because the price of gasoline is rather high right now. If the government subsidized the price so that it always cost, say, 25 cents a gallon, would you be so keen on restricting your driving? No, because there would be no incentive to. But in the meantime, the cost to the government of the subsidy would continually shoot through the roof, causing them to spend more and more money to keep the price at 25 cents.
The same thing will happen when you remove the price mechanism from health care, which universal health care plans seek to do. Right now people don't visit the doctor nearly as often for things they can easily treat at home, because who wants to spend the money on something they can easily take care of themselves? Once the price mechanism is removed, because health care is "free" at that point, people will hit the emergency room for paper cuts. This is human nature, and indeed happened (and is happening) in nations with "universal health coverage".
The idea of universal health care is indeed a good idea - on paper only. In practice it is a raging disaster that governments are loathe to get rid of because the electorate will scream at the proposal to re-introduce economic realities (i.e., prices) to the system. (And if you think the debt is bad now, just wait until the government nationalizes health care. France and Germany cannot meet the strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact they signed to join the euro; in fact, I don't think they've done it a single time! This due to the deficits they run to fund their nanny states, to include health care.) Take a look at the history of Britain's NHS for an example. Currently, the NHS’s budget is LARGER than the GDPs of every nation on earth except the top ten!
That dispensed with, let’s take a look at those north of the 49th.
One thing to bear in mind is that one of the biggest motivating factors to a Canadian is to be different from the Americans, for their biggest fear is being like their neighbors to the south. Canada owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence as much as we do, for they represent the reaction against it.
I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons they love their health care system so much is that Americans do not have such a program. (And if we adopt such a system, they will say with much snootiness that they inspired the Americans into getting such a system.) But in reality, their socialistic approaches to many problems is only hurting them. While the Canadian economy has expanded, it has not expanded NEARLY as fast as the U.S. economy. And the Canadian economy has expanded due to their blessings of natural resources, not due to what even the governments prefer the driving engine to be - namely, manufacturing and industrial activity. The gap between the U.S. and Canada continues to grow and expand, in the U.S.'s favor. The Economist reports in their survey of Canada published in December 2005 that Americans made C$1800 more per person than Canadians back in 1981; but in 2003, this gap widened to C$7200. The British publication further reports that Canadians are happy to be poorer if it means keeping their social model, for they see it is better than the heartless version of capitalism to the south. I contend again that this points to the issue of national identity that Canadians continually struggle with.
Here's an admittedly unscientific measure of progression in health care: a listing of the nationalities of those who won the Nobel Prizes in Medicine from 1977 to 2004 in reverse order.
2004: U.S.
2003: U.S. /U.K.
2002: U.S. /U.K.
2001: U.K.
2000: Sweden/U.S.
1999: U.S.
1998: U.S.
1997: U.S.
1996: Australia/Switzerland (no socialized health care in Switzerland)
1995: U.S./Germany
1994: U.S.
1993: U.S./U.K.
1992: U.S.
1991: Germany
1990: U.S.
1989: U.S.
1988: U.S./U.K.
1987: Japan
1986: Italy/U.S.
1985: U.S.
1984: U.K./Argentina/Denmark
1983: U.S.
1982: Sweden/U.K.
1981: U.S.
1980: France/U.S.
1979: U.S./U.K.
1978: U.S/ Switzerland
1977: U.S.
Between 1977 and 2004, U.S. doctors won 22 Nobel Prizes in Medicine - more than the other countries shown combined. To save server space I did not list ALL the recipients, but I noticed that the Nobel prize winners in the early going were from many assorted European countries. This began to change in the 1960s, when the listing of winners trended sharply American.
I wonder what motivated all of these doctors. Pure altruism? The commitment to doing work for free? Did any of these doctors give away their prize money or refuse it?
And why are all of these Nobel prize winners hailing from the United States? Could it be that the system of health care here favors innovation and different approaches, due to the market-oriented system that exists here? (And rewards such innovation?) Why do I not see any Canadians listed here? Why did the last French recipient get his or her prize in 1980?
Yet more evidence that gives me pause to wonder why there are so many in the United States dedicated to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
bk1955, apparently you think the government is a massive chairty; a Big Nanny. (Correct me if I am wrong.) The government needn't pay for health care...have you LIVED in any of these socialist utopias? I have. And why should the federal government pay for "educational opportunities"? I would sharply argue that schools need LESS money. If what you said about education was true, then perhaps you can explain why the DC school system isn't cranking out a vast army of Salks, Barnaards, Shakespeares, Mozarts, and Einsteins year in and year out. I say that because they spend more money on education per student than anyone else, yet they cry - all school districts and educators do - for more money.
Unsane: please avoid commen
December 18, 2006 - 14:06 ET by Mark FinkelsteinUnsane: please avoid comments that are several times longer than the original post. Pithiness rules!
Apologies
December 18, 2006 - 14:13 ET by UnsaneMr. Finkelstein - My apologies. I try to keep my posts as concise as possible...but I couldn't let that sentence go by without in-depth explanation. I will bear your comment in mind henceforth.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Buy a Pith Helmet off ebay. T
December 18, 2006 - 14:15 ET by Jack BauerBuy a Pith Helmet off ebay. Wearing it'll help maintain pith. Churchill had one.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
nice thing about Jack Bauer
December 18, 2006 - 14:22 ET by tumbler_2007He can shift gears with the finest and be pithy and brief! Bravo, Jock!
Muchios gracias senor tumbler
December 18, 2006 - 14:25 ET by Jack BauerMuchios gracias senor tumbler!
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Sorry, but this thread has tu
December 18, 2006 - 14:34 ET by FastEdSorry, but this thread has turned into a pithyful argument and has become a little too diverse. Anin't we mericans here?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
FastEd -- Now you're just tak
December 18, 2006 - 14:40 ET by Jack BauerFastEd -- Now you're just taking the pith.
I shall now pith off.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Mark, I've seen profanity, na
December 19, 2006 - 11:19 ET by bk1955Mark, I've seen profanity, name calling, personal attacks, verbal attacks on family members and childish nonsense posted on this site with no comment from you. Why does pithiness deserve a correction from you, but meanness, rudeness and incivility go seemingly unnoticed?
bk1955 - you must not come
December 19, 2006 - 11:31 ET by Dee Bunkbk1955 - you must not come here very often. Mark constantly tells people to stop personal attacks. He can't be on NB 24/7 to notice every attack.
BK, DB: I appreciate Dee's
December 19, 2006 - 18:41 ET by Mark FinkelsteinBK, DB: I appreciate Dee's response. As mentioned I do try to police my sites for the kind of thing you described. Run-on posts are another one of my pet peeves. If you notice, or are subject to, abuse or profanity, please use the private message feature to alert me.
Hi Unsane, I have visited C
December 18, 2006 - 14:34 ET by bk1955Hi Unsane, I have visited Canada. Those I spoke with have compalints about it, but wouldn't exchange it for ours.
I'm not the one saying American Automakers pay more for healthcare under our current system than they would under a tax based system. They are. I believe they are in a better position to determine cost savings opportuinities than you or I. The direct costs of benefits American workers is offset by the lower beneifits costs in the company's base country, allowing for the manugacturers to offer more car at lower prices.
Universal healthcare is not a free lunch, but it may not be as costly as our current system. Americans have the most expensive health care system in the world. Healthcare is rationed to the individuals who can spend the most to have it. Costs are inflated to subsidize the uninsured. Did you know hospitals charge insurers $10 a piece for newbourn disposable diapers? This covers labor and other charges that are not included in insurance contracts. Should we create a Fire Department or Police Department on the same basis?
I believe governments should serve citizens, not the other way around. Britain is a rich country that can afford healthy citizens. One could argue that the other counties on your list pay too little.
It is interesing that you argue in favor of economy over health. I've visited Canada, its cultures thrive, its people are satified and healthy. You assume that more cash equals a better quality life. That is an American value not shared by all peoples.
Your Nobel list is counter to your argument. Nobel winners are subsidized by governement and business for their experimental investigations. The government could contiue this subsidy under a universal healthcare system and businesses could continue to profit from innovation.
No system is cranking out the geniuses you list. Is DC cranking out a graduate who is ready to join the workforce at a higher rate than before they committed this spending? Have you located a school district where spending was reduced and more students excelled? Move there. There are no utopias. I don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. I think we can do better.
I have visited Canada. Thre
December 18, 2006 - 18:41 ET by UnsaneI have visited Canada. Three times. I also follow their politics and otherwise keep tabs on them. If you think they are so superior, I don't think they would mind taking you aboard as a citizen.
The reason they don't gripe so much, as you failed to note in my attack on the government handing out things for free, is because Canadians do everything in their power to be non-American. If it means them veering towards socialism, they don't mind. If it means being less well-off than the United States, so be it. Their entire identity revolves around not being us.
That being said, if they are so happy with their system, I don't suppose you could explain how every so often there are proposals to privatize some aspects of their health system (which provokes much horrific SCREAMS from the mealy-mouthed) in the provinces, or why some Canadian "snowbirds" head south of the border to take advantage of the medical system here. Hint: because sometimes, people really don't want to wait 6-8 months for a medical procedure. They come down here, pay one bill, and they are taken care of. That is something that simply cannot be done in Canada.
Universal health care WILL be more costly and the fact that you don't see that indicates to me that you have much to learn about economics, and more importantly, human nature. You missed my entire point on what will happen if the price of fuel is subsidized to, say, 25 cents, per my example. What WILL happen, if human nature is to be believed (and no one, not even the Left, can outsmart it or outwit it), is exactly what happened and is happening to Britain's NHS. If I had my copy of The Struggle for Europe with me, I cound quote chapter and verse, but now that you have a book title, you can look it up yourself if you want. When the NHS was imposed, the British found that it cost a LOT more than estimated. Why? Because since it was "free", people were going to the doctor's office a LOT more for procedures they would once try to take care of at home.
That is what happens when you remove the incentives that the price mechanism imposes on people. As a result, the last NHS budget showed it to be more than the GDPs of every nation on earth, except the top ten. So much for it costing less: that expense covers about 60 milion people.
Unfortunately, in your idealistic line "Government should serve its citizens", you fail to factor in costs. The government is not a babysitter, it is not a charity, it is not there to serve you. Ideally, you will not come into contact with the government on a given day unless some guy power-tripping because someone handed him a gun and a badge harasses you for whatever reason (quite possibly a legitimate one). I challenge you to find for me a country that is at the forefront of civilization, past or present, that got there by coddling, babysitting, and "serving" its citizens.
Which leads me to the point that you failed to grasp about the Nobel winners. If your point was true about how a universal health care system can continue to subsidize Nobel Prize winning medical research, maybe you can explain to me why France, for example, has not produced a Nobel Prize winner since 1980. Reading the list will show you that European doctors and scientists cleaned house in the medical research category up until the 1960s or so. Then it trended sharply American.
As for education: your little demand that I move to another school district is a bit of a slap in the face and thus you coughed up for all time the right to cry to me about getting "insulted". Again, if you love 9+% unemployment, 50-60% taxation, and a goverment that "serves",spoils, coddles, babysits and spoonfeeds you, move to Western Europe or Canada; they need more taxation to support their creaking systems. How would I solve education? Well, I probably ran the acceptable length of this post, but I would begin by introducing the concept of competition into the system. Education is the only thing we have in the United States where the people treat the customers poorly and cry for MORE money, which people cheerfully give them. But from what I have seen, tha doesn't bother you at all...except for paying for things you find horrifying, like national defense.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
It Takes a Village
December 18, 2006 - 18:55 ET by BlondeWell, unlike most others here, apparently, I did read Hillary's little tome ten years ago. While I don't remember much about the detail of Hillary's village, what I do remember was that I was totally abhorred and shocked!
IIRC, Hillary basically demanded input by all levels of government employees to ensure that children were "adequately" brought up....social workers, therapists, teachers, recreational therapists, etc., etc. It was incumbent upon a group of "professionals" to determine a child's proper course, to ensure the child was sent down the "proper path" according to his or her particular abilities. The parents' wishes entered into it of course, as some sort of periphial input.
I read this garbage once, just to see what the buzz was about, but I suppose I shall have to suck it up and read it again, if only to be able to skewer Her Royal Clinton as she attempts to run toward some sort of centrist moderate position.
At the time I read the Village, I remember thinking it would be interesting to see her try to run from her own words. So I guess I could say we live in interesting times.
It Takes a Village?
December 18, 2006 - 19:00 ET by BarberianIt takes a village of women to accomodate her Husbands needs. Who else is going to look after the resulting boom in birth rates?
Actually, it probably takes a
December 18, 2006 - 19:03 ET by BlondeActually, it probably takes a village of cops to keep him in his pen.
Divorce court might suffice, but not for Hillary.
She is beyond despicible, in my opinion.
Divorce?
December 18, 2006 - 19:10 ET by BarberianNot an option. She stands to much to gain by "forgiving" his short-cumings (pardon the pun). No shame, no self-respect, what more could you ask for from a left-leaning "over the precipace" liberal Presidential candidate.
Barberian,I'll pardon the pun
December 18, 2006 - 19:20 ET by BlondeBarberian,
I'll pardon the pun. I'll even pardon the spelling!!! Did you do that on purpose or was it a typo? Either way, I am seriously laughing.
Any self respecting woman would divorce that serial philanderer to whom she's married.
Spelling!
December 18, 2006 - 19:27 ET by BarberianI need some one else to write for me. Evidently like miss hilariously. The spelling was intentional. I'm BAD.
Think of it as a trade off.
December 18, 2006 - 19:37 ET by dagdaThink of it as a trade off. If she divorces him, she is nothing. No power, no prestige, etc. She probably has not slept with him since their daughter was created (hence her heading up the "bimbo eruption" squad). So, she is giving up nothing by staying, but loses everything if she divorces him.
Staying with him, she has him by the short and curlies. She stays with him and he agrees to support her Senate bid and later Presidential bid. He agrees to play at his office and bring in money when they need it, she will go after political power. Hillary is an ambitious woman, very ambitious. Ambition creates strange bedfellows.
He can have as many women as he wants (as long as he is careful about it). She can do the same. Anything she wants, she gets.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Hillary's secret crush
December 18, 2006 - 20:28 ET by misterbillHillary's secret crush Rosie O'Funnell
misterbill..I have always w
December 19, 2006 - 02:14 ET by ww thumpermisterbill..I have always wondered: If bill & hillary got a divorce ... would they still be cousins??? Inquiring minds want to know.... :^} .....Political correctness when dealing with Islam will kill america....ww .....
I am nastybill tonight
December 19, 2006 - 02:20 ET by misterbillThe real question is would they still be both men????
Sorry I am on a nasty binge because of our illegal immigrant apologist.
misterbill..I've always wonde
December 19, 2006 - 02:31 ET by ww thumpermisterbill..I've always wondered about that too! :^} .....Political correctness when dealing with Islam will kill america....ww .....
Mark, in all this fawning blather over 'It Takes a Village'...
December 18, 2006 - 19:14 ET by acaiguanaMark, in all this fawning blather over 'It Takes a Village' did anyone mention that Hillary didn't actually write that book?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
Interesting, ACA.Says nothing
December 18, 2006 - 19:28 ET by BlondeInteresting, ACA.
Says nothing of the kind on the cover.
Why am I not surprised?
Well, what about the page wit
December 18, 2006 - 20:44 ET by UnsaneWell, what about the page with the publication information, bibliography, etc.?
(Not excusing that by any means, but...)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane,Nope, not there either
December 18, 2006 - 20:53 ET by BlondeUnsane,
Nope, not there either. I looked it up on Amazon for the "tenth anniversary edition".
Hillary's Ghost Writer...
December 18, 2006 - 22:00 ET by acaiguanaHillary's Ghost Writer...
Her name is Maryanne Vollers. Some speculation that she has collaborated with Osama (er Obama). But chances Os(er OB)ama wrote a lot of his own stuff. Don't want to take anything away from that guy.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."