Was Nixon a Socialist?

[Rich]

Len, I'm for certain that I remember correctly that the exit polling at the time showed that health care was the largest single issue in wether someone did or did not vote for Scott Brown.

While I think you are correct that this issue propelled him over the top, I think the bigger overall factor was a dissatisfaction with Washington and the lack of bipartisanship in general:

Nearly two-thirds of Brown's supporters say their vote was intended at least in part to express opposition to the Democratic agenda in Washington, but few say the senator-elect should simply work to stop it. Three-quarters of those who voted for Brown say they would like him to work with Democrats to get Republican ideas into legislation in general; nearly half say so specifically about health-care legislation.

. . .

Health care topped jobs and the economy as the most important issue driving Massachusetts voters, but among voters for Brown, it was closely followed by the economy and jobs, and "the way Washington is working."

Source

Reading this article, it appears they were most upset by the way the democrats railroaded the healthcare law through (instead of engaging in bipartisan negotiations), rather than a dislike of the health care law itself. The polling doesn't really support your thesis that they were voting for him to stop the health care law from passing.

While I agree that they railroaded this law through, it was clear at the time, as it is today, that the republicans were dead set against any bipartisan negotiations to pass a reasonable plan. They have made clear that they will not negotiate anything in good faith with this President. Given the way they did the same thing with Clinton when he tried to get a health care plan passed, I can't say I blame the democrats for acting as they did this time around. If you aren't willing to negotiate as the minority, then you get railroaded, plain and simple.

I have a feeling that the people in Massachusetts will show their displeasure with republican obstinance when Brown defends his seat against Elizabeth Warren.

 

[Kevin]

While I agree that they railroaded this law through, it was clear at the time, as it is today, that the republicans were dead set against any bipartisan negotiations to pass a reasonable plan. They have made clear that they will not negotiate anything in good faith with this President. Given the way they did the same thing with Clinton when he tried to get a health care plan passed, I can't say I blame the democrats for acting as they did this time around. If you aren't willing to negotiate as the minority, then you get railroaded, plain and simple.

The democrats had both houses of Congress including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. I can't really remember the republicans being offered too much of a chance at the table during that time. As concerns the health care bill, even some the democrats weren't privy to all of the backroom deals and discussions. But as Obama would later say, "Elections have consequences", and I actually agree with him on that.

 

[Len44]

Len, I'm for certain that I remember correctly that the exit polling at the time showed that health care was the largest single issue in wether someone did or did not vote for Scott Brown. Almost his entire campaign was premised around the fact that he would be the deciding vote, and that he would vote to stop it. Certainly other factors might have been at play for a few votes, but I think he actually ended up winning by a fairly comfortable margin, particularily running as a republican in a very liberal state. If you think that increased spending is what got Scott Brown elected, then would that be the reason why Obama beat McCain? I think he outspent him by over 2-1, but I think McCain could have outspent Obama 5-1 and he would have still lost.

Well...if you're really certain...but did you even bother to take my suggestion and Google "Scott Brown Campaign Money in 2010"? Just wondering... BTW, I thought the article: Wall Street Investors Lavish Scott Brown's Campaign With Money, Get Out The Vote Operations was enlightening.

Now, as to why John McCain lost to Obama in 2008: I think most of us now recognize that Sarah Palin really hurt McCain's campaign. Personally, I've liked John McCain and a lot what he has stood for and tried to do. Except his craziness in sucking up to G. Bush. And a few other policy things he had to sign up to get the nomination. I think he wanted pick Joe Lieberman as his vice, but the powers that be in the Republican party vetoed that idea.

 

[Rich]

Rich- I think I there are a couple of differences between what the Mormon church does in its 'socialistic strategy', for lack of a better term, and a socialistic type of government such as Cuba. For one, a person gets to chose wether or not to become a member of the Mormon church. One only escapes Cuba by dinghy.

Kevin, choosing Cuba as your example of a socialist government is quite misleading, to put it mildly. Cuba is basically a communist dictatorship. That is their problem, not socialism. Why choose Cuba as your example instead of one of the many socialist governments of western Europe that aren't dictatorships? That is really the kind of scare tactics I am railing against in this thread. Uneducated people equate the concept of Socialism with Communist Dictatorships, like Red China, pre-cold war Russia, etc. So they label Obama as a Socialist to try to take advantage of people's inherent fears of a dictatorial regime, the antipathy of our democracy. All the while ignoring that there are plenty of socialist governments in the world that are run democratically. I think you are better than to stoop to those kinds of comparisons. How about France or England or one of the scandinavian countries as a comparison, rather than Cuba? How about Canada? Doesn't sound near as evil, does it?

My point about the Mormon church is that they aren't just doing charity work for the poor in general. They are specifically using their money to help the underprivileged within their church community. It is a closed community that runs on a completely socialist economic system. I'm just saying if that is Mitt's background (and he was a Bishop in this church and lifelong member), then he may not be so opposed to the basic idea of socialism as conservatives would like to believe. He was raised in a socialist system.

I'm not against government helping those in need of a helping hand, but I have personally seen way too much abuse of the system and it's only getting worse with time, and that is what really concerns me. I worked today, but some of my clients with 'disabilities' were probably in the river fishing, as least they will sometimes tell me they do. I wish I were there to join them, but someone has to work, right?

That argument supports the idea of working to reform the socialist aspects of our government (social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, and so on), rather than abolish them all and have a strictly capitalist system (which seems to be what most conservatives want). I would agree with you on that. We should always work to improve the systems we have in place to avoid fraud and malfeasance. Just as we should reform our military's defense procurement systems to prevent fraud and malfeasance. Just like we should reform our banking and Wall Street laws in order to prevent fraud and malfeasance in our nations financial institutions. We still need a system in place to insure that all of our poorest citizens have access to reasonable medical care, just as Nixon stated when he tried to pass his national health care plan. We just need a system designed to prevent fraud. But there is fraud in all aspects of our government and private sector. There is tons of fraud in the insurance industry, the banking and financial services industry, and on and on. So, fraud really isn't a reason to avoid socialist institutions in government. It is a reason to reform those institutions to better prevent fraud. I also agree with your point that we should design those systems with incentives to get people off the dole, as it were, with regards to welfare. But what does any of that have to do with Obama's "Socialist" health care plan? It simply requires everyone to have health insurance (which seems totally reasonable) and provides an insurance pool for those who can't afford to purchase insurance. And for that, the most fear-mongering conservatives scream that Obama is taking us down the path of Socialist Cuba and Soviet Russia! Pure hyperbole with no basis in reality.

 

[Rich]

The democrats had both houses of Congress including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. I can't really remember the republicans being offered too much of a chance at the table during that time.

Oh, they were offered a seat at the table. They just weren't willing to negotiate on the majority's terms.

On Tuesday, Obama will meet with Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate for bipartisan talks that the president promised in his State of the Union address last month. Tuesday's meeting now will help prepare for the February 25 health care talks.

Republican leaders in Congress said they would welcome an opportunity to take part in drafting health care legislation, but they repeated their past calls for Obama and Democratic leaders to throw out separate health care bills already passed by the House and Senate in order to start over in a bipartisan effort. Source

 

[Rich]

Since we have veered a bit into the Affordable Care Act, let's examine some of the myths promulgated by the republican propaganda machine to try to scare people about this law:

Five Obamacare Myths

This kind of political fear-mongering is part of what is destroying our faith in government, in my opinion.

 

[Kevin]

Oh, they were offered a seat at the table. They just weren't willing to negotiate on the majority's terms.

And when you read the article, you see that basically by 'negotiations' they essentially mean, here is what we have, so agree with it. But as I said, they had the majority to pass what they wanted to pass and that is what they did.

 

[Rich]

And when you read the article, you see that basically by 'negotiations' they essentially mean, here is what we have, so agree with it.

No, they tried to get them to work with what had been passed as a framework, not just ram it down their throats. The problem was that the republicans never wanted any part of comprehensive reform, preferring to put a band-aid on the problem, if you will excuse the pun.

The Senate Democrats’ plan, which Mr. Obama largely has endorsed, would cover an additional 30 million Americans. The House Republican plan would add 3 million people to the healthcare rolls.

That's a tenfold difference in the number of people to be covered.

If you read this article, discussing the actual meeting, it seems clear Obama truly tried to work on areas of common agreement. But ultimately, the republicans didn't want to play ball.

Healthcare summit ends: GOP scores, but both sides still far apart

 

[Len44]

No, they tried to get them to work with what had been passed as a framework, not just ram it down their throats. The problem was that the republicans never wanted any part of comprehensive reform, preferring to put a band-aid on the problem, if you will excuse the pun.

That's a tenfold difference in the number of people to be covered.

If you read this article, discussing the actual meeting, it seems clear Obama truly tried to work on areas of common agreement. But ultimately, the republicans didn't want to play ball.

Healthcare summit ends: GOP scores, but both sides still far apart

Which brings us back to:

Mitch McConnell's stating that his "Number One Priority was to ensure President Obama was a one-term President." Nothing about what is needed to help the economy, and the citizens of these United States, but rather a cheap partisan political attack right from the git-go, and he has been unrelenting in his total opposition to just about everything President Obama has done and/or tried to accomplish to help make things better for the Country.

And Rush: "I Hope You Fail!" Really? Again, never mind what is good for the Country. But I guess that's what one can expect from someone who seems so consumed with hatred toward so many of his fellow citizens.

And Joe Wilson, who so artfully screeched "You Lie!" at President Obama while The President of The United States was addressing Congress. How shameful! Probably needs to take a few of the drugs Rush takes.

It is NOT my imagination that this level of disgusting insults is a new low, and did not occur while G. Bush was President. Heck, if one DARED to say ANYTHING the least bit critical of Saint George, why, they were immediately labeled as un-American, and disloyal to the Country.

What a bunch of Crap!

 

[Kevin]

Kevin, choosing Cuba as your example of a socialist government is quite misleading, to put it mildly. Cuba is basically a communist dictatorship. That is their problem, not socialism. Why choose Cuba as your example instead of one of the many socialist governments of western Europe that aren't dictatorships?

Ok Rich, well here is why I said in an earlier reply that I wasn't into labels. Ten people could have ten different examples of what being a socialistic country means to them. In the purest sense of the word, I don't view Canada, as you mentioned as an example of a country that perhaps I should have used, as a socialist country. Perhaps you are closer to the people who hang the "socialist" label on Obama than I am? As far as I know, Canada still believes in free enterprise and private ownership over their economy. On servicing needs for welfare, I guess they lean more towards socialism. On health care, I guess they are close to pure socialism, but there is now a push for that to change somewhat. I simply used Cuba as I view them as being a socialist country and they were our closest example. Now, however, I see why you might view a good portion of what you hear as being racist, as you were pretty quick to accuse me of scare tatics and stooping low. But no problem, I have been accused of worse.

You were bemoaning the fact that republicans, not myself mind you, are calling Obama a socialist. And yet, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe socialism, at least to a certain degree, is a good thing. So you are tired of republicans hanging a label on Obama that you think is good thing?? Should republicans start taking offense at the left should they call Romney a free market capitalist? I wouldn't.

So lets replace my example of Cuba with Canada, since they are our closest neighbor that you deem as a socialist country. They seem to have taken a turn more towards the right over the past couple of years for their economy as a whole. As far as health care goes, they have such long waiting lines that they have started to rely once again on private industry for some of their testing. Hmmmm. Turning to private industry to become more efficient. Of course, if you have the money in Canada you just fly to the US for your treatment. I'll grant you that there is plenty that can be fixed about US health care, some of which wasn't at all addressed in the ACA. However, I wouldn't use Canada as a shining example of what our health care could become if only it were more "socialistic". One thing for sure when it comes to our current health care bill. The democrats own it, and I don't exactly see too many of them holding it up as a great accomplishment.

As far as government improving the lack of efficiency and the fraud that is present in welfare, I don't give it much of a chance. When the money you spend isn't really your own, there is no reason for that to be a top priority, and it never has been. The answer would have been to have never started some of those programs from the start, and to have had better control of the others right from the beginning. Do you really think we have that many more people now disabled, and hence collecting SS disability, as compared to a decade ago? Do you think anyone will change it now?

 

[Len44]

As far as I know, Canada still believes in free enterprise and private ownership over their economy.

Yeah, just like in the United States. However, most people, in the United States as well as Canada, realize that certain needs are best met through a group effort, which usually means a government effort, else the likelihood of too many "free riders" (you know, those who say "I' can take care of myself, and the hell with everyone else."

On servicing needs for welfare, I guess they lean more towards socialism. On health care, I guess they are close to pure socialism,

Interesting juxtaposition with your above comment: "As far as I know, Canada still believes in free enterprise and private ownership over their economy."

So lets replace my example of Cuba with Canada, since they are our closest neighbor that you deem as a socialist country. They seem to have taken a turn more towards the right over the past couple of years for their economy as a whole. As far as health care goes, they have such long waiting lines that they have started to rely once again on private industry for some of their testing. Hmmmm. Turning to private industry to become more efficient. Of course, if you have the money in Canada you just fly to the US for your treatment.

There is so much Bull-$hit propaganda put out by the crazed right-wing extremists (Rush, Hannity, Fox "News," etc.) that it is understandable that many might be duped by this extensive disinformation campaign. Hmmmm, might want to do some FACT CHECKING before tossing out this kind of tripe in such a cavalier manner. Just a few examples:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/canada.asp

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13342585

http://medicare.ca/main/the-facts/9-sustainability-of-health-care

I'll grant you that there is plenty that can be fixed about US health care, some of which wasn't at all addressed in the ACA. However, I wouldn't use Canada as a shining example of what our health care could become if only it were more "socialistic".

I would (use Canada as an example). Just remember to turn on your BS detector when Rush starts another one of his senseless, inaccurate rants dissing "ObamaCare."

And yes, the ACA certainly could have been a LOT better, had President Obama been less gracious and not invited Republican input. If I had had my way, (I'll play the radical for a moment) the health insurance companies would have been gone, inasmuch as near as some can figure, all they seem to do is take $$$$$$$ OUT of the US Health Care System.

One thing for sure when it comes to our current health care bill. The democrats own it, and I don't exactly see too many of them holding it up as a great accomplishment.

Mitch and Company did a quite successful hatchet job, as mentioned above with all the Big Bucks they spent on their disinformation campaign, so many folks don't have an accurate picture regarding how the ACA will actually impact them.

As far as government improving the lack of efficiency and the fraud that is present in welfare, I don't give it much of a chance. When the money you spend isn't really your own, there is no reason for that to be a top priority, and it never has been.

One of the problems has been the PRIVATE insurance companies treating the money like it was their own, instead of to insure great health care for the policy holders. At least the ACA makes a start at helping these PRIVATE companies understand their responsibilities (since it is obvious THEY didn't).

The answer would have been to have never started some of those programs from the start, and to have had better control of the others right from the beginning.

So, which programs should have never started? Social Security? Medicare? "Socialistic" community police forces? Fire Departments? Schools?

Heck, some probably want to get rid of the FBI and CIA as well...

 

[Rich]

I simply used Cuba as I view them as being a socialist country and they were our closest example. Now, however, I see why you might view a good portion of what you hear as being racist, as you were pretty quick to accuse me of scare tatics and stooping low.

Kevin, Socialism is an economic model, not a system of government. A dictatorship is a system of government. You referenced Cuba as an example of "a socialist type of government" and then referenced the effects of the government's dictatorship to bolster your argument ("One only escapes Cuba by dinghy.") This may have been an honest mistake on your part, but it really shows the type of thinking that has been ingrained in people by the types of republican rhetoric and fear-mongering that I have been talking about. You equate socialism with a dictatorship, which is inherently false. Again, socialism is an economic system, not a system of government. Few countries actually practice pure socialism. Most combine a market economy with strong socialist safety nets for their people. Which is exactly what we do, albeit to a much lesser extent than Canada, Germany, France, England, and so on. Republicans don't reference these countries as examples of what we "could become" if we travel down the road of socialism, because they don't instill fear in people. Cuba, Soviet Russia, and Red China are used instead, although their oppressive governments have little to do with the fact that they have a socialist economic system.

As for my being quick to see racism, take a look at Cocobob's comments quoted in my post above and tell me I am wrong. I see those kinds of comments all the time from tea-party conservatives.

So you are tired of republicans hanging a label on Obama that you think is good thing??

I am tired of republicans using labels as slurs instead of discussing actual policy differences. Spreading misinformation in the hopes of scaring voters instead of trying to come up with solutions to complex problems. Go back to my first post in this thread and read Nixon's explanation for pushing a National Health Care plan linked there and then tell me how the conservative republican Nixon fits into today's republican mantra that Obama is a socialist for pushing the ACA.

As far as health care goes, they have such long waiting lines that they have started to rely once again on private industry for some of their testing.

Again you are repeating outright falsehoods from the republican propaganda machine. Do a little research before you post this stuff. Len has already debunked your claims pretty well, but you may also want to read this article, written by a Canadian:

Lies About Canadian Healthcare

The democrats own it, and I don't exactly see too many of them holding it up as a great accomplishment.

That is because in part of the effectiveness of the republican propaganda machine and in part because the people of our country won't be seeing the full benefits until 2014. I expect after that they will take a little more pride in their accomplishment. But with the economy going nowhere fast, they are certainly gunshy right now.

The answer would have been to have never started some of those programs from the start, and to have had better control of the others right from the beginning.

So, by that logic, we never should have established a banking system in this country because of all the fraud in the financial sector these days. We never should have started a military, because of all the fraud in military procurement. That answer has no basis in reason or logic. As Len asked, which programs would you not have started? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? Schools, police, fire? The military? Unemployment benefits? Each program was started to address a specific need that was burdening the country, and each has done a good job of addressing that need. Of course there is corruption. There is always corruption and fraud in both government and the private sector. But that isn't a valid reason to ignore society's problems.

 

[Rich]

I am tired of republicans using labels as slurs instead of discussing actual policy differences. Spreading misinformation in the hopes of scaring voters instead of trying to come up with solutions to complex problems.

And now they are at it again. Taking a page from the Bush years of calling every dissenter un-American, and also playing off the ridiculous birther myth, John Sununu, a Mitt Romney surrogate, just stated to reporters: "I wish the president would learn how to be an American."

Why do they resort to fear-based rhetoric? Because engaging strong negative emotions is a lot more effective than trying to come up with actual policy solutions and using reason and logic to support your positions. Do we really want to return to the Bush years? I certainly don't.

*edit* The real irony in this story is that Sununu was born in Havana, Cuba, of a Palestinian father and a Salvadoran mother. But he thinks he is somehow an authority on how to be a real American.

 

[Rich]

We are really headed straight back to the McCarthy era. First, Sununu gives the birthers a rallying cry. And now, Michele "batsht crazy" Bachman wants to start a muslim brotherhood witch hunt, starting at the top, of course. Tell me, Kevin, given this sort of rhetoric coming from a U.S. Senator (and considering the completely reasonable response from none other than John McCain), do you really think I am just imagining racism and prejudice against this administration where none exists in reality? I think you are intentionally putting your head in the sand if you don't see this as a concerted effort by the tea party radicals to inflame people's baser prejudices in order to score cheap political points. Look no further than:

"In a statement, Bachmann did not back down, saying she would "not be silent as this administration appeases our enemies."" Source

 

[Kevin]

Hi Rich, I have been really busy here at work, so have not had a much of a chance to respond lately, but I'll reply back here before heading home.

Concerning Canada's health care and the waiting lines. I stand behind my statement. Canada's own government formed a plan in 2004 to address the issue of wait times. In 2005, the supreme court of Canada ruled that Quebec couldn't ban private heathcare if they couldn't perform medical treatment within a safe time limit. Currently there is a lawsuit taking place in Alberta over private individuals seeking treatment in the US for health care when they couldn't get back surgery performed in a timely manner. This followed a similiar lawsuit in Vancouver. So are these lawsuits just a plan by rightwingers to undermine Canada's public healthcare? In 2010, Danny Williams, a Canadian Premier and defender of their public health care, snuck into the US to have heart surgery performed in Florida. When asked later why he didn't have the surgery done in Canada he claimed, "I would've been criticized if I had stayed in Canada and had been perceived as jumping a line or a wait list .… I accept that. That's public life." Len didn't debunk my statement of wait lines in Canada by linking to a couple of websites. I can provide links to hundreds of websites letting you know that indeed Bigfoot is real. Does that make it so?

On Michele Bachmann, I don't really like her. I have some differences with her politically, but it probably has more to do with her style. I'm laid back and tend to like laid back people, and she is anything but. I'm here at work, but as I ate my lunch I glanced over the letter she had helped write. To me it sounded as though she and others are worried that the Muslim Brotherhood might by trying to infilitrate the government, or perhaps have already done so. I don't think they should have called out peoples name, and while perhaps it sounds a bit kooky, I don't think I would call her a racist because of it.

Some years back my nephew, probably at the time about 14 years in age, went with some friends to play paintball at a local facility here in Northern Virginia. When his parents asked him how it went he said that there were some foreigners shooting at them, like it was a military exercise, and it wasn't fun at all. He said he thought he was fighting the Taliban. All of us in my family just laughed about it thinking that there must have just been some older adults that were there playing that day. A couple of months later, it was all over the local papers and news that some people in Northern Virginia had been arrested for visiting terror camps (can't remember in which country) and that they would train at a local paintball facility to keep up their shooting skills. I don't discount too much about terrorist or radical Muslims in this country anymore after that happened. You never know.

On fear mongering rhetoric. Do you seriously think that democrats don't do any of that? From the top of my head I can remember Alan Grayson and his comments on republicans wanting people to die quickly. How about the commercial showing grandma in the wheelchair getting pushed off the cliff? Are those statements not supposed to feed off of fears??

I can bet that if Michele Bachmann or any other republicans had made a joke about Indians working at 7/11 like Joe Biden did, or Howard Dean's joke about the only way the republicans could get colored people to fill a room is if they had the hotel staff come into it, you would have seen a bigger case made about it being examples of racist statements. I don't go there. I don't pretend to be able to see into a persons heart just because of a poorly made quip. It isn't racist to point out that people are illegally crossing our border or that some might be planning jihad within our country. I just see too many times where the only reason a statement is or isn't construed as being racist, has nothing to do with the words of the person, but rather, wether there is a 'd' or 'r' following their name. I understand you don't see it that way. So like you said, we'll just need to agree to disagree on this.

 

[twich54]

You know gents ....on a lighter note, Margret Thatcher once said, "Socialism is great....until you run out of other people's money" !

 

[Rich]

I don't pretend to be able to see into a persons heart just because of a poorly made quip. It isn't racist to point out that people are illegally crossing our border or that some might be planning jihad within our country. I just see too many times where the only reason a statement is or isn't construed as being racist, has nothing to do with the words of the person, but rather, wether there is a 'd' or 'r' following their name.

Michele Bachman called out a United States Citizen, who was born, raised and educated here, who has been Hillary Clinton's aide for fifteen years, and who happens to be Muslim (and married to a Jewish man, no less), called her out as a terrorist that has infiltrated our government. She did so while presenting no actual evidence whatsoever, just making sly insinuations that the girl's father (who has been dead twenty years), mother, and brother have "alleged ties" to the Muslim Brotherhood. She has been called on the carpet for those remarks by both John McCain and John Boehner, a highly unusual break with Party loyalty to chastise one of their own for making highly inappropriate remarks. But you don't really see anything racist in Bachman's pronouncement, or anything wrong with it at all? Ok then. Silence like that is deafening, and is what allowed McCarthyism to flourish.

 

[jmschnur]

It is coming back again. Be very careful what you say and where you say it. These are very dangerous times for critical thinkers.


J

 

[Len44]

You know gents ....on a lighter note, Margret Thatcher once said, "Socialism is great....until you run out of other people's money" !

I like that quote; very clever!

But I must add that many of us see the extraordinary hypocrisy in all the wailing and hand-wringing now going on by the Republican leaders (Mitch, especially) regarding the need for fiscal restraint, when they were totally AWOL on this issue while Bush was President. I just wish everyone (in particular, our "wonderful" Congress, with their 11% approval rating) would take a minute to look in the mirror so they could see who it is that's screwing things up for our Country.

 

[Len44]

She has been called on the carpet for those remarks by both John McCain and John Boehner, a highly unusual break with Party loyalty to chastise one of their own for making highly inappropriate remarks.

I'm proud of both of them for this. They did the right thing. I hope others will join them.