Thomas Sowell has some pretty legitimate concerns. Fortunately, judging by the polls, a lot of people are starting to share them.
38 thoughts on “Dismantling America”
Comments are closed.
Thomas Sowell has some pretty legitimate concerns. Fortunately, judging by the polls, a lot of people are starting to share them.
Comments are closed.
I read Sowell’s article. The only fact that he got right (“Pay czar” restricting corporate pay) neglects to point out that, at the request of the companies in question we the taxpayers bailed the companies out with cash. He who pays the piper has every right to call the tune.
The rest of the article proved to be remarkably fact-free. There are no death panels, nobody is proposing a national police force or restricting talk radio, and Obama’s speech was designed to encourage students to work hard – a non-political concept. If quoting Mao is a sign of the apocalypse, Newt Gingrich is one of the Four Horsemen
I could go on, but I won’t. Bottom line – citing an article like this with approval is exactly why the Republicans lost in 2008. It suggests conservatives have a dangerous disconnect with reality. People like their leaders to have a good handle on things like reality.
Chris,
So, does “he who pays the piper has every right to call the tune” apply when the government is paying for my healthcare after I lose my insurance coverage? I expect to lose my insurance coverage as it is not a compliant plan according to most of the proposals I have read. It does not cover pregnancy, which most proposals require.
A non-corrupt government would have responded to the request with a polite counter-request that the companies farg off and die.
No tune, no piper — and no government-ownership of major industry.
Sorry, Chris, but we remain not as stupid and uninformed as you and the president want us to be.
Good points – but i’m sure liberals will just attack Thomas Sowell as a rasist. [Hint: hes a black guy.]
đ
The only fact that he got right (âPay czarâ restricting corporate pay) neglects to point out that, at the request of the companies in question we the taxpayers bailed the companies out with cash. He who pays the piper has every right to call the tune.
I sense unwarranted entitlement here. You throw away money on failure, then you lose any “right” to call any tune.
> Chris Gerrib Says:
> October 27th, 2009 at 8:10 am
>== at the request of the companies in question we the taxpayers
> bailed the companies out with cash. ==
Some of the companies were trashed by gov action – you break it, you bought it; shouldn’t give you control. Others were ordered to take the money for PR purposes and aren’t being allowed to pay it back – seemingly just so they can be pushed around by the gov.
>= There are no death panels==
Those have been confirmed by white house folks, including Obama — though they call it something else.
>==nobody is proposing a national police force or restricting talk radio==
Again, they have proposed that (look up recent talks about reinstating the fairness doctrine.) and have tried restricting FOX News! If they will go after the biggest most popular news service in the country – talk radio is nothing.
Yeah, kinda like the way you neglected to point out how the politics was attenuated from Obama’s kiddie speech fiasco only after the conservatives made a fuss.
Chris Gerrib once again sees the truth we all miss. We’ve been misled by all the obvious stuff to believe Obama is a typical anti-American leftist, but Chris dismisses the superfcial–Obama’s biography, associates, statements, and policies–and sees the truth: that “Il Dufe” is actually a libertarian! How did we all miss that?
He who pays the piper has every right to call the tune.
Gosh, Chris, how do you square that with the present proposal to force 20% of the adult population (that portion that pays the bulk of Federal taxes) to pay for the health care needs of everyone, where they want to or not?
Or with the entire concept of “one man, one vote?” Now, me, I’d be glad to restrict the franchise to those who actually pay the bills, i.e. genuine taxpayers. But I thought your side firmly rejected such crass Neanderthal Mr. Monopoly man capitalist running dog concepts like the guy who pays the bills, Mr. CEO himself, should decide stuff.
Or…um…is this one of those post-modern post-logical-consistency liberal arguments, where we match up any random moral princple with the desired outcome of the argument, without worrying about temporal, logical, or grammatical consistency?
Of course the âpay the piperâ card gets played when the goal is to culminate power in the Federal government. When the individual tries to play it, then they whip out the âsocial justiceâ card instead.
Carl Pham Says:
Net of benefits, right? (And be sure to exclude income deriving from a government salary or a government-provided monopoly)
And elections shall be on April 15th. Please provide your receipt from the IRS as proof of eligibility…
In all seriousness though Carl, there is no inconsistency. The masses exist to be taxed, and the State by right “owns” the money it collects via taxation. Therefore it is the only payer you need worry about.
Ah yes, Brock, the old concept in English common law that all property and rights are the gift of the Crown, enjoyed on sufferance by the King’s fief holders, id est, us.
I thought we had a little…debate about that philosophy circa 1776-1789.
As for government salaries: I never saw the point in collecting taxes on salaries paid straight out of tax revenue. That kind of endless Escher loop makes no sense at all. So in my world government drones pay no taxes and, therefore, are as ineligible to vote as unemployed college students.
Gracious. Imagine the more sensible resutls if just those two demographics were eliminated! Holy moley, Californai would be back in the black in no time. O’ course, unemployment among certain demographic groups might spike a little sharply, but I trust the pangs of the unfilled belly and the rain dripping into the cardboard box would hasten their return to socially useful roles.
If nothing else, we can exchange them for some hard-working fruit pickers from Mexico, for use as Central-American drug-gang mules, lookouts, stoolies and enforcers. The SIEU has pretty much already taken care of the necessary job training.
Hal Duston – your current health care plan is grandfathered.
McGehee – whether we should have funded the companies or not is rather beside the point. We did, we own them (or part of them) so we get to call some shots.
Kelly Starks – I’d love for somebody to provide a link to somebody actually in the Obama administration calling for the fairness doctrine. Restricting Fox News’ access (which is a disputed point, not to mention that they still attend White House briefings) is not equivalent.
Titus – no, the politics wasn’t attenuated due to right-wing outcry, it was never there to start with.
Bilwick1 – never claimed Obama was a libertarian. BTW, libertarianism is not a requirement to be a patriot.
Carl Pham – the folks who have health insurance are already paying for the emergency room visits of those who don’t. Considering that the bill would require the uninsured to pay something toward their coverage, it looks like a better deal to me.
Carl Pham & Brock – if you want to argue that only people you like get to vote, fine by me. Please be prepared to explain why that doesn’t make you an “elitist.”
Yes, for about a day. As soon as a member enters or leaves the plan, they change rates, modify the plan in any way or any number of other commonplace events occur, the plan is no longer grandfathered and goes bye-bye.
Lesson plans down the memoryhole.
Demolishing the insurance industry to recoup a 2% loss doesn’t look so sweet of a deal to me.
Oh, good news today: looks like Lieberman has deep-sixed the “public opton.” No way can Harry shove this through recon-silly-ation.
“Bilwick1 – never claimed Obama was a libertarian.”
That was sarcasm, CG, directed at your denial of “Il Dufe’s” very essence.
“BTW, libertarianism is not a requirement to be a patriot.” Irrelevant to the issue, which is Obama’s whole ideological background, from Red Diaper Babyhood to the present, being part of the anti-American Left. And that crowd hates America because it was founded on libertarian ideals opposed to their Satte worship.
Bilwick1 – being a member of the Left is not being anti-American. It does not mean one hates America.
the folks who have health insurance are already paying for the emergency room visits of those who donât.
Chris, if that’s true — and I don’t actually deny it is — then what’s the rush? Why do we need a $1 trillion plan to “cover the uninsured” that totally upends the entire system if they’re already covered, albeit in some screwball informal way? Where’s the urgency if, in fact, as you just said, no one is being denied decent health care, and the whole shebang is presently being paid for without putting Joe Taxpayer on a trillion dollar hook?
Why don’t you just pass a bill extracting that $500 billion in “waste” from Medicare — I am trying not to laugh as I type this — and dump the rest of the package? Five hundred billion dollars paid down on the national debt! Wow! Liberals do understand how to budget! Yay!
Considering that the bill would require the uninsured to pay something toward their coverage, it looks like a better deal to me.
Oops, I spoke too soon. Little bit of budget arithmetic I think you’re missing here, Chris. If I give you something worth $10 but “require you to pay something toward it,” like $5, have I improved my balance sheet? Or am I actually, you know, out $5 more?
You remind me here of the advertising gimmickry where the excited salesman says Come on down today only! You can save ENORMOUS amounts of money on our super duper carpet sale! Except of course I can only really save money if I don’t spend it. Only in the fantasy land of frenzied advertising and Democratic Party shell games is it possible to “save” money by spending it, so long as what I spend is less than I would spend in some theoretical alternative Spock with a beard reality.
Mr. Gerrib – Both the two you are insulting are pointing out one of the biggest problems of a democracy – in its widest sense, rule by the people – which is that a democracy with no qualifications for voting leads inevitably to the “bread and circuses” problem. I might have this wording slightly wrong: “Democracies do not last. They last until the mass of the people realise that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, at which point the democracy becomes a tyranny,”
It is very easy and extremely attractive, if you pay no dues (financial or otherwise) to society as a whole, to vote in policies that give you freebies to the great detriment of the country. This was essentially what the Poll Tax arguments of the 80s in the UK were about; some people felt that they should not be expected to pay for the policies they had voted for.
Taxation without representation is a bad thing, sure – and the American Revolution was entirely justified if in fact that was what it was about. However, representation without taxation is many times worse; it leads eventually to the downfall of the society that allows it.
Welfare recipients should not have a vote. Neither should government employees, unless their job is dangerous – the military is obvious, but how about frontline cops and firefighters?
Carl Pham – I do not consider having no option but to go to the emergency room “decent health care.” ERs do not do preventative screenings, nor do they help manage chronic conditions. What costs more – treating a diabetic in a sugar-induced coma at the ER or getting him on insulin treatment? What’s more harmful to our economy – a diabetic with a freshly-removed leg that can’t work or a whole-bodied diabetic who can?
Every other industrialized country in the world did this calculation, and what happened is that they spend less and cover everybody. Hell, Great Britian spends less than we do on Medicare and the VA and covers everybody!
We’ve had this debate before, Carl – the facts are not on your side.
Please be prepared to explain why that doesnât make you an âelitist.â
Who says it doesn’t? I freely admit to being an elitiest, Chris. I do indeed think I’m the best person to rule the world. (Not that I want to, mind you — it’s far more work than I would like to do — but I definitely do not trust any one of you lot to do the job better.)
I’m just an equal-opportunity, fair-minded elitist, that’s all. I don’t doubt that you also think you’re the best person to rule the world, and I freely admit you probably have about as much justification for feeling that way as I do, so I have no real objective justification to offer you as to why I should rule you instead of vice versa.
The way out of the impasse, however, is the fact that I care more about not being ruled by you than about ruling you myself. And I imagine that you feel very similarly. So I propose a modus vivendi. You allow me to be Absolute Ruler and Tyrant King of myself, and of as much of my life as possible, and I will allow you the same privilege. Where our interests collide, we’ll agree to build a well-defined fence separating off your absolutely monarchy from mine (and everyone else’s), and we’ll furthermore agree that any exchanges between us of power, resources, wealth, et cetera must always be strictly voluntary, agreed to by both of us freely. No fair recruiting six of your neighbors to gang up on me, steal my land and cows, and then split the proceeds between you.
There you go. The philosophy of personal liberty in a nutshell. Cast off your sad cramped dreams of being merely the perfect shiny cog in the ultimate social machine, and join up. You’ll be happier. Also, our women have bigger boobs and brains. Fact.
Mr. Christian – disenfranchizing people comes with its own set of problems – ask Louis XVI about that.
What costs more – treating a diabetic in a sugar-induced coma at the ER or getting him on insulin treatment?
Gee duh, Chris, obviously the guy in the ER. Because he’s just going to die, which is pretty cheap. The guy getting insulin is going to live 30 more years, consuming insulin, lots of careful medical monitoring, and then almost inevitably (that being the end-game for diabetes) a whole lot of expensive cardiac care before he finally dies.
You’re partaking of the fantasy that some kind of periodic frequent oil changes keep the human machine running trouble free indefinitely. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re relying too much on an inapplicable metaphor with machines and some psychologically soothing language (“preventative” health care, the only real example of which is stuff like vaccines and public hygiene, not periodic heart disease and cancer or diabetes screenings and care — which do just about zero to prevent heart disease and cancer and so forth from killing you — have you ever heard of someone with diabetes or heart disease who didn’t ultimately die from it?)
This issue has been studied extensively and the results are crystal clear. So-called “preventative” care increases the ultimate costs of health care, because it doesn’t do squat to prevent your ultimate demise, it only allows it not to take you by surprise, so you can deploy all kinds of very expensive measures to stave it off for a while longer. (Not that that isn’t money well spent! Who doesn’t want to live longer? But it’s not cheaper.)
Just do the thought experiment yourself. Which is cheaper, the guy who doesn’t even know about his heart disease until he drops dead on the sidewalk, or the guy who has it monitored from the first tiny blip in his cholesterol, then does 15 years of Lipitor, a couple of angioplasties, and a few cardiac ICU visits (at $10,000/day each) for mild infarctions before the Big One finally carries hm off? You know the answer. Who do you think absorbed more in very expensive brain cancer treatment, Senator Ted Kennedy with his semi-annual superduper careful Congressional-level healthcare screen, or Joe Sixpack the unemployed fruit picker, who only went to the ER when the seizures started coming continuously and he had about 48 hours to live anyway? Joe didn’t even get brain surgery, there being no time for it.
Great Britian spends less than we do on Medicare and the VA and covers everybody!
Zimbabwe spends even less than Great Britain and also covers everybody! Ancient Greece spent pretty much zip on health care and covered everybody, too!
the facts are not on your side.
Chris, whatever facts you’ve got are hopelessly lost in the muddle of your theories and wishful thinking.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. Pick a health condition, any illness at all. Then find some people who have it, and ask them, if they could go anywhere at all for treatment, all expenses paid — where would they go? You’ll find the dominance of addresses in the United States is utterly overwhelming. That tells you all you need to know about where the best healthcare is.
And if all you’re interested in is more leveling — more equality of access, even if that pushes down average outcomes — then you have a much simpler solution, the Zimbabwe solution.
Carl Pham – actually, I have some experience with diabetes. I know personally people who have had diabetes for decades. They are still alive, working, paying taxes and covering their medical expenses.
For example, an automatic insulin pump costs at retail around $4,000. (A Rotary club I know is raising money to buy them for indigent people.) That device alone will keep a person alive for decades. You will find it extremely difficult to get out of an emergency room for less than that. That’s for one visit. Untreated or uncontrolled diabetes usually results in multiple visits. You can stabilize a person in a diabetic coma. Unless you control the underlying cause, you’ll be seeing them again.
Your “extensive” studies of the failure of preventative health care are either figments of your imagination or useless. (I note that you don’t provide a link to back up your claims.) It does sound like you’d agree with some critics of the Republican “health care plan” that the Republicans’ plan consists of “die quickly.”
I also personally know Canadians with chronic conditions, and they are under no urge to move to America. They are happy with their care. That’s a good thing, since the ability to pay is at the core of this debate. So magically waving it away as you just did is stupid.
Tell you what – you utterly failed to convince me of your point of view on health care the last time we had this argument. I utterly failed to convince you of mine. Let’s agree to disagree.
We did, we own them (or part of them) so we get to call some shots.
We realize you have no problem with the nationalization of property, and then having done so, running roughshod over how that property is used. The fact that you are proud of this stance doesn’t provide an argument to us that it is a good thing.
Leland, I don’t think he means to convince you that it’s a good thing — collectivists have an entirely different world-view: you are not yours. Your life does not belong to you. You are a âresourceâ to be employed at the discretion of others.
Leland – how exactly are we “running roughshod” over these companies? Or is there some sacred right to get a raise and bonus that I don’t know about?
Titus – I’m not a collectivist. Individual property and rights do matter. I’m also not willing to let people die in the streets. Since we are going to provide some health care to those that can’t afford it, why not do so in the most effective way?
how exactly are we ârunning roughshodâ over these companies? Or is there some sacred right to get a raise and bonus that I donât know about?
Hey man, I don’t think you deserve a raise either. I just prefer that your employer make that decision, not the government.
Iâm not a collectivist.
You certainly act like one, so perhaps you can forgive Titus for the confusion. Of course, I think you’re a collectivist too.
Individual property and rights do matter.
Unless of course, the government purchases the property, and then individual rights no longer matter. At least, that sure as hell seems to be what this is saying:
We did, we own them (or part of them) so we get to call some shots.
Again, the things you bring to the table don’t seem to support the argument you claim to be making.
Unless of course, the government purchases the property, and then individual rights no longer matter.
Well, then it’s the government’s property. The government can buy and sell things just like any other entity. If you work for the government, they can determine your pay scale, just like the owner of a private business can.
Or are you arguing that the government has no property rights?
Or are you arguing that the government has no property rights?
“We the people” seems to be a concept dead to you.
We the people elect people who run the government. Once these people are elected, they can then exercise our property rights. Even George Washington was okay with the government buying stuff and having property rights. Look at the Bank of the United States.
“Titus – Iâm not a collectivist.” Yeah, Titus, he’s a libertarian. He said so himself a few weeks back in connection with another topic. He’s believes in liberty, except when he doesn’t. Liberty’s fine, except when it interferes with his desires to force people to spend their money the way he wants them to. In other words, he’s a Bizarro Planet libertarian.
If there are people dying in the streets, CG should persuade deep-pocketed “liberals” to stop giving away millions to statist political causes and just donate that money to needy people. But where’s the fun in that? No opportunity to force your will on others, at all.
“Bilwick1 – being a member of the Left is not being anti-American. It does not mean one hates America.”It certainly means hating the principals on which America was founded.
Leftists love America the way some women “love” their boyfriends. They love them while constantly nagging and browbeating them to become like some other guy. They want to marry them because once they do, they’ll be in even a better position to nag and browbeat the poor schnooks twenty-four hours a day.
Well, then itâs the governmentâs property. The government can buy and sell things just like any other entity. If you work for the government, they can determine your pay scale, just like the owner of a private business can.
And the government can force you to do things like confiscate your property or conscript you to work. It’s not like any other entity.
A man and his wife had the good fortune to possess a goose which laid a golden egg every day. Lucky though they were, they soon began to think they were not getting rich fast enough, and, imagining the bird must be made of gold inside, they decided to kill it. Then, they thought, they could obtain the whole store of precious metal at once; however, upon cutting the goose open, they found its innards to be like that of any other goose.
We the people elect people who run the government. Once these people are elected, they can then exercise our property rights.
We the people were told a few lies by the elected government about how they planned to exercise our property rights. That’s why we the people are a bit upset.
In a free market, people can repay their debts when they get the funds to do so. The repayment of the debt frees them from further obligations. But our government now controls whether banks can repay their debts, such that the government can retain power over them.
But hey, keep claiming you believe in liberty. It apparently helps you sleep at night. We figured you out long ago, so your claims are pretty ineffectual here.
A special symptom of the current decline is serious favoritism to certain groups. For example, we know UAW had a special status in GM and Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings and certain lobbying groups like ACORN get significant public funding. Well, here’s another one.
The Securities Investor Protection Corporation has “advanced” more than half a billion dollars to investors in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. They apparently offer insurance of $500,000 per account (in cases like this where investor and fund manager funds are illegally commingled) and the advances are expected to be recovered from the residual assets of the company.
The unusual thing is that this advance is a little larger than the combined total of all previous advances made by the SIPC since 1970. To get an idea of the difference in the response, the Madoff firm was supposed to have about 4.4 billion dollars in assets. In comparison, the previous advances were on firms with troubled assets of around 160 billion dollars. So what’s so special about the Madoff failure that its customers should get special treatment for distribution of advances on what they had invested?