« 9/11 | Main | You Forgot Poland! »
Congratulations Teabaggers!
By Jeff Fecke | September 14, 2009
Wow! You drew 2 million people to Washington on Saturday! I mean, someone said ABC News said you did, and clearly that’s totally accurate, just as accurate as the thing I heard where Fox News is reporting that Barack Obama currently has an 193% approval rating. Also, you’ve got really convincing pictures, like this one, that show a totally full mall from a rally that occurred over a decade ago, thus proving that Al Gore once grew his beard out.
I mean, hey, it’s a pretty nice picture. But frankly, it’s a bit of a wide shot. I, for one, would use a more intimate one, one that shows some of the joy of the moment. Here’s one that is at least as accurate as the one you used, and I, for one, like it:
You’re welcome. Oh, and just to show I’m fair and balanced, here, via ODub, is an image of one of the actual teabaggers, with a message that sums up the right-wing view of the world as coherently as anything I’ve ever seen:
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Topics: General Wingnuttery, National GOP | 13 Comments »
September 14th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
OMG, that sign! Barf!
“Don’t steal from medicare”…well, it just goes to show someone isn’t getting the message. The sign should read: “Goodbye, medicare, unless we fix health care!”
Hey, news flash: WE ASKED for health care reform. To leave the for-profit insurance companies as they are, without change, would be terrible. And most of us get that. So, what to do.. regulate the crap out of those companies? Better the system become like a non-profit and better we work on putting the money back into care. There’s a lot of money in the system right now, enough to cover the newly covered and even improve Medicare. That’s what HR3200 is trying to do…
September 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Medicare is socialist. That’s why the second picture is a bit mind-boggling. I’m also baffled that possible 2012 Republican presidential candidates — and the RNC itself — use this logic in order to attack the Democrats’ health care proposals.
It’s the same logic that is used when people say that illegal aliens will turn us into a socialist country by using up all the “free” medical services, which should of course be available only to citizens. The point is not to scale back the size and scope of government services, but rather to make such services exclusive.
As a libertarian, I often deal with such zaniness in the following way:
1. Draw target on paper.
2. Add caption to target: “Bang head here.”
3. Affix paper to wall.
4. Utilize.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Interesting take, John Diaz. Where do you live, BTW?
We’ve got good government here in Minnesota. We ask for roads we can drive on, schools which teach our kids things, and services which make society a good place. For the most part we get those things here.
Our roads are a little bunk, lately, since we’ve had “no new taxes”… and our schools are struggling because of “no new taxes”… but we have a government which doesn’t need “scaling back” because it works for us. And IS us (WE are in the government jobs). Okay okay, it never hurts to ask for more efficiency, I’m all for that. But cutting essential services is not a good move in my book.
So what exactly does being a libertarian do for your society?
September 14th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Holly Cairns wrote:
It makes us a freer society. All these government projects and services seem great, but they require heavier taxation. The more services the government provides, the greater its need to borrow money and raise more taxes. When you elect a government that spends more with each passing year, pretty soon the government is either awash in debt, fixated on tinkering with the economy so that it can get its tax revenues up, or both. That’s actually what we have today, with hundreds of billions spent on bailouts and stimulus just in the past 1 year!
Whether the economy is revived is not the issue to a guy like me. Economies boom and bust, regardless of whether the government “stimulates” them. When you have a health care system that leans toward edging out private sector insurance providers, the result is that everyone becomes dependent upon the government sooner or later. That means that everyone becomes dependent on the amount of tax revenue that the government receives in order to pay for it. And if the government relies on tax revenue, the whole system hangs in the balance in case tax revenues slump, which has unintended effects like delays in medical services, lower quality medical services, and even a lower value on the national currency (since we have to devalue it in order to pay off all our debt).
I wish that people could just opt out of the rat race and stop running around like mice on a treadmill, doing their level best to elevate or maintain their income and social status by work – work – working! We’re all just getting poorer, and like lemmings, we blame our participation in the rat race on the government for not providing “basic services.”
I’m going to bang my head a little more, because someone has now trotted out the old canard that we must increase services for yet ANOTHER public need because we need roads.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
John, I’ve said before, I love libertarianism in theory. It’s a beautiful theory. In practice, though, you end up with Somalia.
And yeah, I really can’t take someone seriously who opposes on libertarian grounds Obama extending government regulation into the insurance market and — maybe — a quasipublic, USPS version of insurance…because it will hurt Medicare.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Government regulation is fine if kept to a minimum. As a libertarian I feel inclined to say, “Well, robust private contracts and a healthy court system can keep all parties in line.” But the lack of tort reform has turned contracts into a confusing mess that requires a lawyer to fully understand. Just to buy health insurance you have to wade through entire booklets of legalese that the insurance companies have to compose just to protect themselves from lawsuits. And so the government steps in with new regulations.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
A bigger problem, in my opinion, is simply that these huge corporations can afford very high quality lawyers and you cannot for the most part. Want to sue a corporation for breach of contract? Good luck.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Tiny revolution apparently likes em: http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003082.html
And well, I can understand the fusturation that they’re trying to express about being unemployed, but unfortunately they’re worshiping Glenn beck and fear actual socialism that would get the job done. Thus,I don’t think, as some leftists on the tiny revolution blog thread hope, we can totally communicate a coming together of far left and working class people with socialistphobia.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:18 am
“Whether the economy is revived is not the issue to a guy like me.”
Sorry, but it is an issue–THE issue–to many of us. The boom and bust cycle that libertarians find cleansing (good morning, Professor Mises!) has a devastating effect on the individuals who are being cleansed out of work and out of their homes. Perhaps we are all better off in the long run, but, as Harry Hopkins once pointed out, people eat in the short-term.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Hey Tom, that is a big issue. What suggestions do you have… I think you may be on to something regarding the legal system and people who have money.
John Dias, I like a freer society, and that is why I believe we need certain regulations. Predictably, I’ll suggest you watch Lord of the Flies (B&W version- 60′s?) or read Golding’s book. It seems good to have scaled back government but we need a certain amount of government. I think we’ve been doing pretty good in Minnesota.
I want efficiency and am not against looking into that… but more people = more need. Govn’t should grow according to population size, in my book. Also, govn’t should grow according to the expectations of the people. A good government is one that listens and acts. What’s nice in our govn’t is that the people have the power.
Oh, and libertarians usually have more they are pissed about than tort reform. I’m interested in hearing more of your thoughts.
Somebody fill me in on Glenn Beck. Disgustingly, we can’t afford cable or dish. PBS! Gotta cut in smart places.
And Randy that is how I feel about it… many in the middle class (some even near the top of that class) have fallen right on their asses, lately. It’s not pretty, and we need to ensure the middle class has the opportunity to prosper. IMO. It’s nice to prevent the fall instead of giving hand-ups (not handouts).
September 15th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
John Dias, speaking as a former government employee who went into private/contracting work when I immigrated to another country, it’s much, much more than simply tort reform. Going to contracting work requires one fundamental understanding and two if-and-only-if conditions in order to work: first, that the government is not working to make a profit, whereas private firms are. Then the iff conditions are that you have a group of highly skilled, highly trained employees on staff to oversee the contracts AND that you have people on hand who can write good, solid, water-tight contracts.
Right now, the US government can’t write contracts to save their lives. I say this as somebody who’s been on both sides, and it sucks equally for both sides. It’s just as obnoxious to be the contracted party in a bad contract as it is to be holding that contract. You can renegotiate it up to a point…but beyond that point, you’re stuck. The government has an out in the “termination for the convenience of government,” which is legal, but hugely expensive.
If you really, truly want to look for waste and poor management in government, looking at regulation isn’t going to cut it. Look at the practice and the execution side of things.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Clytemnestra’s Sister wrote:
Speaking AS a government employee (who happens to be libertarian — hey, I gotta eat too) you wouldn’t believe some of the stories that my friends from other public agencies tell about how government actually works. You’re right that government does not exist to make a profit; in fact, it exists to perpetuate itself.
For example, a friend of mine works for a public agency that employs one person to scan documents to microfiche. Then the microfiche gets forwarded to another employee who is paid to hand-deliver it to another department. Then other paid employees at that department archive and index the microfiche. They then fill out a paper form which records their work, and still another employee manually types in the data from that form into a database. This, of course, lasts several weeks. I asked my friend why they don’t just scan documents into an electronic file, like a PDF, and then archive them electronically. He told me the reason is because a lot of people’s jobs would be eliminated if they did that.
That’s government for you. It exists to perpetuate itself. It’s one of the reasons why California — where I live — is in such a budgetary mess this year.
What does all this have to do with tort reform? Not much, except you interpreted my criticism of our litigious and over-regulated health care system as some sort of commentary on the way government works, and you attempted to establish your unique perspective and expertise by mentioning that you were a former government employee.
Again, my point is that the legislature often regulates so much that it reduces the efficiency of health care providers and diminishes the service options and quality that they can provide to their customers. At the same time, lawyers and entitled litigious people attack the insurance companies from another angle, saddling them with lawsuits. The lawsuits force the insurance companies to produce massive legal agreements that customers must sign in order to become ensured, and this reduces transparency of the products that insurance companies provide (reducing value to the consumer, i.e. the patient). Not only that, but litigation increases the costs of insurance itself, driving up medical premiums for all patients, whether they’re litigious or not. Tort reform reduces this litigious pressure. Regulatory reform (i.e. less burdensome regulations) improve efficiency.
Everybody who keeps demanding legislative solutions to economic problems only reduce the efficiency of service providers, drive up the price of services, and reduce the quantity of affordable options for patients. The ballot box and the legislature is no place for improving health care, unless you’re talking about reducing excessive and burdensome regulations and disincentivising people from suing their doctors and insurance companies. To me, THAT would be reform.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I figured the tort discussion was an effort to paint government a certain way. Isn’t that fun?
He told me the reason is because a lot of people’s jobs would be eliminated if they did that. And as to new efficiency costing jobs, well that does happen. It’s too bad you didn’t say “But I can see where we can expand and meet the people’s needs HERE, and suggest more, new work to go along with the efficiency.
Thank you, now we’re seeing true colors: …burdensome regulations and disincentivising people from suing their doctors and insurance companies… Too much regulation in the health care industry? I’m just stunned. That industry is obviously a broken cog, one that needed regulating so the for-profit situation wouldn’t bleed people dry. Could you tell me what regulations, specifically, you don’t like about health insurance industries?