Pre-existing conditions coverage

[dnsmith35]

Good, I was hoping you would cool it today. Listening to one sermon from a preacher is enough for one day, and my priest's sermons are more interesting, and accurate than yours.

Accuracy is not your forte.

To the contrary, I am far more accurate in my comments than you.

You claim to be a JFK liberal, yet you either loathe, dismiss or deride his parents, his siblings and every one of his hand chosen advisors.

What does his drunken brother or profiteering father got to do with it? I agree with those in his administration who touted Arthur Laffer and convinced him to lower top marginal taxes for the benefit of our economy. I believe in taking care of the people, whether a politicians family is worthy or not.

You claim the Democratic Party has moved to the left, even though all the FACTS prove that today's Democratic Party is not only to the right of the New Deal, New Frontier and Great society, it is to the right of the 1956 Republican Party.

Absolute bullshit! The leadership of the Democrat Party is far to the left of Kennedy's party and you haven't even produced good rumors to suggest to the contrary. All you have done is preach and commiserate, mostly with cut and paste comments about JFK's platform, with most of which I agree.

You claim to be a liberal, yet you either loathe, dismiss or deride any liberal source, and accept as gospel anything from far right wing sources. Even Townhall.com.

Having never read town hall, that would be hard to do. I don't dismiss or deride liberal sources, I dismiss and deride extreme left wing nut sources, which you seem to adore. I am a true liberal, unlike you, who cares for all the people, not just the elite few you worship.

You claim to be a JFK liberal, yet you cite George Reisman, an Ayn Rand disciple that is as FAR from John F. Kennedy as one can get. Rand's social Darwinism is the antithesis of the Kennedy family's dedication to the public good and serving the great republic.

I cite George Reisman about economics, not political correctness, and he was exactly that, because his philosophy of economics was fare more likely to give us the prosperity to help the needy than that idiot Galbraith.

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

I haven't read that book, but I agree with that quote, which does not denigrate anything I have said.

You claim Ronald Reagan was a JFK Democrat, yet he endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, 1956 and Richard Nixon in 1960. And Reagan was a paid spokesman for the AMA, an organization that actively tries to limit the amount of doctors to protect their ELITE status, using the red scare against Kennedy's most important legacy...Medicare.

Endorsing a better Candidate in Eisenhower does not make one less of a JFK Democrat, and recognizing that the Democrat party was the wrong way to go in supporting Nixon does not change his like and respect for JFK.

You claim Ronald Reagan was an FDR Democrat. The very man who dismantled much of the New Deal.

ROTHFLMAO! None of the new deal or great society was dismantled. Why lie?

You claim the Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan. A nice rhetorical soundbite. But the FACT is Reagan left the party, not the other way around.

The Democrat party moved to the left of Reagan who ultimately became a GOP, because the left wing leaders of the party were moving our country in the wrong direction such that we would lose prosperity needed to take care of all the needs of our poor and disabled.

And that leads us to the same fact about you...the Democratic Party has not moved to the left, YOU have moved to the right.

Wrong answer! Again your ignorance is the predominant part of your comment.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

Yep, you are a quack, a left wing nut quack who only cares for your elite few instead of all of the poor humans of the world. Your problem is, you believe JFK liberalism was left wing extremism; its not. Liberalism is caring about the people but also DOING WHAT IT TAKES to be in a position to do something about caring for the people. More the shame for it. I feel sorry for you in your little bubble on a pedestal.

Your rhetoric stinks to high heaven because you don't practice what you preach, I DO. You said something about beating my chest in an earlier post, YES, I do, 3 times during the consecration of Christ, every Sunday. You should maybe try to live as Christ would want instead of blowing your horn about left wing fanaticism.If it was not for the comedy act you put on here this thread would be so boring it wouldn't be worth reading.

My signature was written with people like you in mind, all mouth and no action, preach but don't do, think but come up empty, cut and paste and copy with out a real thought in the head.

 

[Bfgrn]

Good, I was hoping you would cool it today. Listening to one sermon from a preacher is enough for one day, and my priest's sermons are more interesting, and accurate than yours.

Accuracy is not your forte.

You claim to be a JFK liberal, yet you either loathe, dismiss or deride his parents, his siblings and every one of his hand chosen advisors.

You claim the Democratic Party has moved to the left, even though all the FACTS prove that today's Democratic Party is not only to the right of the New Deal, New Frontier and Great society, it is to the right of the 1956 Republican Party.

You claim to be a liberal, yet you either loathe, dismiss or deride any liberal source, and accept as gospel anything from far right wing sources. Even Townhall.com.

You claim to be a JFK liberal, yet you cite George Reisman, an Ayn Rand disciple that is as FAR from John F. Kennedy as one can get. Rand's social Darwinism is the antithesis of the Kennedy family's dedication to the public good and serving the great republic.

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

You claim Ronald Reagan was a JFK Democrat, yet he endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, 1956 and Richard Nixon in 1960. And Reagan was a paid spokesman for the AMA, an organization that actively tries to limit the amount of doctors to protect their ELITE status, using the red scare against Kennedy's most important legacy...Medicare.

You claim Ronald Reagan was an FDR Democrat. The very man who dismantled much of the New Deal.

You claim the Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan. A nice rhetorical soundbite. But the FACT is Reagan left the party, not the other way around.

And that leads us to the same fact about you...the Democratic Party has not moved to the left, YOU have moved to the right.

Wrong answer! Again your ignorance is the predominant part of your comment.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

Yep, you are a quack, a left wing nut quack who only cares for your elite few instead of all of the poor humans of the world. Your problem is, you believe JFK liberalism was left wing extremism; its not. Liberalism is caring about the people but also DOING WHAT IT TAKES to be in a position to do something about caring for the people. More the shame for it. I feel sorry for you in your little bubble on a pedestal.

Your rhetoric stinks to high heaven because you don't practice what you preach, I DO. You said something about beating my chest in an earlier post, YES, I do, 3 times during the consecration of Christ, every Sunday. You should maybe try to live as Christ would want instead of blowing your horn about left wing fanaticism.If it was not for the comedy act you put on here this thread would be so boring it wouldn't be worth reading.

My signature was written with people like you in mind, all mouth and no action, preach but don't do, think but come up empty, cut and paste and copy with out a real thought in the head.

A huge pile of denial, obfuscation and lies. I provide FACTS, you emote, whine and beat your chest. And then you have the nerve to tell me how to live, and accuse me of preaching? Holy shit you are an asshole!

ALL you have done is run down the left, and not a PEEP about the right.

So tell me GOD, what does the extreme on the right look like? What dangers do they pose to America?? Especially on a economic level, because I haven't heard anything that would not put YOU on the far right economically.

So let's hear about the dangers of the right

 

[dnsmith35]

Accuracy is not your forte.

You claim to be a JFK liberal, yet you either loathe, dismiss or deride his parents, his siblings and every one of his hand chosen advisors.

You claim the Democratic Party has moved to the left, even though all the FACTS prove that today's Democratic Party is not only to the right of the New Deal, New Frontier and Great society, it is to the right of the 1956 Republican Party.

You claim to be a liberal, yet you either loathe, dismiss or deride any liberal source, and accept as gospel anything from far right wing sources. Even Townhall.com.

You claim to be a JFK liberal, yet you cite George Reisman, an Ayn Rand disciple that is as FAR from John F. Kennedy as one can get. Rand's social Darwinism is the antithesis of the Kennedy family's dedication to the public good and serving the great republic.

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

You claim Ronald Reagan was a JFK Democrat, yet he endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, 1956 and Richard Nixon in 1960. And Reagan was a paid spokesman for the AMA, an organization that actively tries to limit the amount of doctors to protect their ELITE status, using the red scare against Kennedy's most important legacy...Medicare.

You claim Ronald Reagan was an FDR Democrat. The very man who dismantled much of the New Deal.

You claim the Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan. A nice rhetorical soundbite. But the FACT is Reagan left the party, not the other way around.

And that leads us to the same fact about you...the Democratic Party has not moved to the left, YOU have moved to the right.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

Yep, you are a quack, a left wing nut quack who only cares for your elite few instead of all of the poor humans of the world. Your problem is, you believe JFK liberalism was left wing extremism; its not. Liberalism is caring about the people but also DOING WHAT IT TAKES to be in a position to do something about caring for the people. More the shame for it. I feel sorry for you in your little bubble on a pedestal.

Your rhetoric stinks to high heaven because you don't practice what you preach, I DO. You said something about beating my chest in an earlier post, YES, I do, 3 times during the consecration of Christ, every Sunday. You should maybe try to live as Christ would want instead of blowing your horn about left wing fanaticism.If it was not for the comedy act you put on here this thread would be so boring it wouldn't be worth reading.

My signature was written with people like you in mind, all mouth and no action, preach but don't do, think but come up empty, cut and paste and copy with out a real thought in the head.

A huge pile of denial, obfuscation and lies.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Exactly what you post on a regular basis.

I provide FACTS, you emote, whine and beat your chest.

When? Where? Like I said, I like your stand up comedy.

And then you have the nerve to tell me how to live, and accuse me of preaching?

I didn't tell you how to live. I just said live it, you may like it; and yes, you are constantly preaching, like some holy roller.

Holy shit you are an asshole!

ROTFLMAO!

ALL you have done is run down the left, and not a PEEP about the right.

I No body from the right has been as obnoxious as you and the extreme left wing nut fanatics. When they do, I will.

So tell me GOD, what does the extreme on the right look like? What dangers do they pose to America?? Especially on a economic level, because I haven't heard anything that would not put YOU on the far right economically.

OH? So my being for universal medical care, good public schools, help with dignity for the poor and the disabled makes me right wing? ROTFLMAO Again! Like I said, you crack me up with your comedy act.

So let's hear about the dangers of the right

I will be happy to discuss the dangers of the right when one pops up for discussion. So far all I have seen is you, the left wing extremist nut and a moderate; me. If and when someone comes on proposing we lower the marginal tax rate on the rich, raise the lower rates a notch, make everyone pay tax no matter how little they make, eliminate unemployment insurance, remove all regulation from industry and let them police themselves, get rid of WIC, FOOD STAMPS, ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN, SSI, STOP SOCIAL SECURITY, KILL MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, SEGREGATE THE SCHOOLS AGAIN, DEPORT ALL THE ALIENS WHO CAME HERE ILLEGALLY, TO INCLUDE THOSE GIVEN AMNESTY A FEW YEARS AGO, LOWER MINIMUM WAGE BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING THE DEADBEATS TOO MUCH. WHEN AND IF THAT HAPPENS, I'll tell them how wrong they are to be right wing extremists.The problem BF, what ever you are, you are so extremist to the left of we moderate democrats you see us as right wing. You are an imbecile who really doesn't realize he has gone so far to the left you are coming full circle and you want to support isolationism to keep jobs in the US and to hell with the poor people in the rest of the world. You are a left wing anachronism bent on destroying our country and the world so as to mold it into your little bubbly mind's eye. Other people in this world count beyond your 12% of the American labor force and deserve better standards of living; especially before your precious 12% continue to increase the luxury of their lives. As your hero Gallbreath says, you are SELFISH.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yep, you are a quack, a left wing nut quack who only cares for your elite few instead of all of the poor humans of the world. Your problem is, you believe JFK liberalism was left wing extremism; its not. Liberalism is caring about the people but also DOING WHAT IT TAKES to be in a position to do something about caring for the people. More the shame for it. I feel sorry for you in your little bubble on a pedestal.

Your rhetoric stinks to high heaven because you don't practice what you preach, I DO. You said something about beating my chest in an earlier post, YES, I do, 3 times during the consecration of Christ, every Sunday. You should maybe try to live as Christ would want instead of blowing your horn about left wing fanaticism.If it was not for the comedy act you put on here this thread would be so boring it wouldn't be worth reading.

My signature was written with people like you in mind, all mouth and no action, preach but don't do, think but come up empty, cut and paste and copy with out a real thought in the head.

A huge pile of denial, obfuscation and lies. I provide FACTS, you emote, whine and beat your chest.

When? Where? Like I said, I like your stand up comedy.I will be happy to discuss the dangers of the right when one pops up for discussion. So far all I have seen is you, the left wing extremist nut and a moderate; me. If and when someone comes on proposing we lower the marginal tax rate on the rich, raise the lower rates a notch, make everyone pay tax no matter how little they make, eliminate unemployment insurance, remove all regulation from industry and let them police themselves, get rid of WIC, FOOD STAMPS, ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN, SSI, STOP SOCIAL SECURITY, KILL MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, SEGREGATE THE SCHOOLS AGAIN, DEPORT ALL THE ALIENS WHO CAME HERE ILLEGALLY, TO INCLUDE THOSE GIVEN AMNESTY A FEW YEARS AGO, LOWER MINIMUM WAGE BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING THE DEADBEATS TOO MUCH. WHEN AND IF THAT HAPPENS, I'll tell them how wrong they are to be right wing extremists.The problem BF, what ever you are, you are so extremist to the left of we moderate democrats you see us as right wing. You are an imbecile who really doesn't realize he has gone so far to the left you are coming full circle and you want to support isolationism to keep jobs in the US and to hell with the poor people in the rest of the world. You are a left wing anachronism bent on destroying our country and the world so as to mold it into your little bubbly mind's eye.[b/] Other people in this world count beyond your 12% of the American labor force and deserve better standards of living; especially before your precious 12% continue to increase the luxury of their lives. As your hero Gallbreath says, you are SELFISH.

You have crossed over into the absurd.

SO, let's recap...

To be considered a 'moderate' liberal, I must believe the biggest economic failure in American history, voodoo economics, was really good for the middle class and poor, that purging jobs from America is the least we can do for the rest of the world, that union busting turned out good for workers, and that the real 'elite' in America are union workers.

Did I miss anything? Are there any other FAR right wing views I must assimilate to be able to shed an extremist label? Maybe that bloodletting saves lives??

 

[dnsmith35]

A huge pile of denial, obfuscation and lies.

I agree, you have spouted a huge pile of denial, obfuscation and you lie almost continuously

I provide FACTS, you emote, whine and beat your chest.

ROTFLMAO!

You have crossed over into the absurd.

Absurdity is your forte.

SO, let's recap...

Yep! lets do recap. I am against RW preferences, to wit: "eliminate unemployment insurance, remove all regulation from industry and let them police themselves, get rid of WIC, FOOD STAMPS, ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN, SSI, STOP SOCIAL SECURITY, KILL MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, SEGREGATE THE SCHOOLS AGAIN, DEPORT ALL THE ALIENS WHO CAME HERE ILLEGALLY, TO INCLUDE THOSE GIVEN AMNESTY A FEW YEARS AGO, LOWER MINIMUM WAGE" which puts me squarely on the liberal side of the coin.

You want to protect the highly paid union workers of American at the expense of the workers in the 3rd world, leaving them in abject poverty, proving once again, you are not a true liberal. To be a true liberal one must care for all of the poor people, no matter where they live.

To be considered a 'moderate' liberal,

You have to believe that we must build prosperity such that we can assist the needy and pay for social programs to help all people, not just the elite.

I must believe the biggest economic failure in American history, voodoo economics, was really good for the middle class and poor, that purging jobs from America is the least we can do for the rest of the world, that union busting turned out good for workers, and that the real 'elite' in America are union workers.

Nope! That tirade only shows your ignorance of reality.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, you missed a lot.

Are there any other FAR right wing views I must assimilate to be able to shed an extremist label?

So far you haven't listed far right wing views. All you have done is make accusations, most of which are bullshit. I listed RW views and stipulated they were wrong.

Maybe that bloodletting saves lives??

It seems you are the only one interested in blood letting as you would let the poverty stricken people of the world starve rather than forgo a raise for your elitist American Unionist. Unions were great when they were needed, before we insisted our government regulate corporations requiring safe working conditions, reasonable pay and eliminate exploitations. Now Unions are nothing more than the 12% of America's labor force and money grubbing elitists. True liberals would not have accepted ACA. They would have been like me, demanding we use government programs to cover the uninsured. There are 40 or 50 million people who were not insured. In spite of the publicity that 8 million signed up for ACA, we still have no idea how many actually BOUGHT the insurance they signed up for, and even if they did that leaves 32 to 42 million people without insurance. Estimates suggest that at least half of those can afford to pay for insurance but choose not to buy it. The right thing to have done is automatically enroll everyone without insurance in Medicaid, then to bill their employer for the premiums unless the business was not profitable or the individual was unemployed, leaving the premiums to be government paid. Those who could afford to pay would quickly decide that Medicaid was a poor system and up grade to reasonable coverage. Now that would be a decent Universal Medical care program.

If you are a liberal, I sure am glad I am not a poor person relying on your help to get assistance. You aren't a liberal, you are a left wing extremist only looking for more power for your socialistic preferences.

That is a big difference between you and me, I want to help the exploited, downtrodden people of the world, while you want to enrich your elitist friends.

You know Bfgrn, it is fun watching you grasp for straws to explain that your left wing extremism is good. If it was not for that bit of comedy I would have left you to stew in your own juices days ago.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dnsmith35 has smacked bfgrn from hither to yon.

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith35 has smacked bfgrn from hither to yon.

I really don't understand what that looneytune wants. I have consistently told him I support all the basic goals of liberalism. I also told him I believed Reagan was an FDR and JFK democrat, even if he wasn't as left wing as JFK and he calls me a RWr because Reagan backed someone he thought was a better candidate to keep the left wing extremism out of the White House. He seems to believe that to be a liberal one must believe all of his left wing extremist nut opinions. After all I am a moderate/liberal, not a left winger and I am absolutely not RW in any of my opinions.

Like I said, I can only assume his left wing extremism has warped his mind in some way or another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bfgrn is a communist, which he believes is liberal, while Stalinism is far right wing, because of its authoritarian rulertariat.

He won't understand communism, whether using socialist or proto-capitalist economics, requires an authoritarian structure.

 

[dnsmith35]

bfgrn is a communist, which he believes is liberal, while Stalinism is far right wing, because of its authoritarian rulertariat.

He won't understand communism, whether using socialist or proto-capitalist economics, requires an authoritarian structure.

You are quite accurate when you say that Communism/Socialism requires an authoritarian rulertariat; the reason being both of those extremist systems require the highly motivated high achievers to work to their capacity such that the less highly motivated and less high achievers can live off of the labor of the former. As time goes on the high achievers see the futility of their labor going to care for the lazy and inept as well as the genuinely incapable, and they lose their motivation because they cannot advance in stature or wealth. Only an economic system which rewards motivation and high achievement will produce sufficient prosperity to care for the genuine needy.

Nothing is more evil that Communism/Socialism or any Authoritarian Dictatorship, left or right.

The entire "from each according to his capability and to each according to his needs" promotes mediocrity and causes failure in the very idea to which it purports. Great generosity is a wonderful thing, so long as it is generosity from ones own heart and means whereas generosity from that of others is always a formula for failure. BF(what ever he is) is too ignorant to understand that.

 

[Bfgrn]

bfgrn is a communist, which he believes is liberal, while Stalinism is far right wing, because of its authoritarian rulertariat.

He won't understand communism, whether using socialist or proto-capitalist economics, requires an authoritarian structure.

You know I am no communist. That is a really cheap shot. Jake.

 

[Bfgrn]

bfgrn is a communist, which he believes is liberal, while Stalinism is far right wing, because of its authoritarian rulertariat.

He won't understand communism, whether using socialist or proto-capitalist economics, requires an authoritarian structure.

Jake, If you are going to try to trash me, at least be accurate as what I said...

I said:

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

And I said:

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[Bfgrn]

dnsmith35 has smacked bfgrn from hither to yon.

I really don't understand what that looneytune wants. I have consistently told him I support all the basic goals of liberalism. I also told him I believed Reagan was an FDR and JFK democrat, even if he wasn't as left wing as JFK and he calls me a RWr because Reagan backed someone he thought was a better candidate to keep the left wing extremism out of the White House. He seems to believe that to be a liberal one must believe all of his left wing extremist nut opinions. After all I am a moderate/liberal, not a left winger and I am absolutely not RW in any of my opinions.

Like I said, I can only assume his left wing extremism has warped his mind in some way or another.

Which is not to say I supported John Kennedy when he ran for president, because I didn't. I was for the other fellow.
Ronald Reagan

Some JFK liberal...

 

[konradv]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

We ALL have a pre-existing condition, MORTALITY. IMO, it's rather specious to consider one form less coverable than another. Are we a country of equal opportunity or aren't we? I don't see why insurance companies should be allowed to practice discrimination of the sort that ensures that some people will die earlier, when it needn't be that way.

 

[dnsmith35]

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" . That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

You have just described how you sound, giving lip service to what you say you believe. You say you are liberal, yet you would allow millions to starve to give your elitist labor raises.

BTW, Communism is socialist, and there is nothing conservative about socialism except its need for a dictatorial government. Wake up looneytune.

 

[dnsmith35]

Which is not to say I supported John Kennedy when he ran for president, because I didn't. I was for the other fellow.

I don't really care who you voted for, I personally voted for Kennedy BF fraud.

 

[Bfgrn]

bfgrn is a communist, which he believes is liberal, while Stalinism is far right wing, because of its authoritarian rulertariat.

He won't understand communism, whether using socialist or proto-capitalist economics, requires an authoritarian structure.

You are quite accurate when you say that Communism/Socialism requires an authoritarian rulertariat; the reason being both of those extremist systems require the highly motivated high achievers to work to their capacity such that the less highly motivated and less high achievers can live off of the labor of the former. As time goes on the high achievers see the futility of their labor going to care for the lazy and inept as well as the genuinely incapable, and they lose their motivation because they cannot advance in stature or wealth. Only an economic system which rewards motivation and high achievement will produce sufficient prosperity to care for the genuine needy.

Nothing is more evil that Communism/Socialism or any Authoritarian Dictatorship, left or right.

The entire "from each according to his capability and to each according to his needs" promotes mediocrity and causes failure in the very idea to which it purports. Great generosity is a wonderful thing, so long as it is generosity from ones own heart and means whereas generosity from that of others is always a formula for failure. BF(what ever he is) is too ignorant to understand that.

What you fail to understand or see is any danger from the right. As a matter of fact you worship Ayn Rand corporate shill George Reisman.

The biggest danger from the right is the 'Marketist', people like George Reisman who have turned 'laissez-faire' into a religion. And Supreme Courts Justices like Roberts, Scalia, and Alito who in Citizens United v. FEC rule that money is free speech and have redefined democracy on the basis of a dogmatic, free market form of economic theory

This is not a scathing critique of Reisman from the left, it is from libertarians...and the interview with Goldwater aide Karl Hess really hits the nail on the head.


Saturday, April 15, 2006

reisman revealed

There are plenty of wonderful thinkers affiliated with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. However, there have been occasions where I have read things from there that disappointed me, or worse. More often than not, those bad apples from an otherwise healthy tree were written by the same person - George Reisman.

The one disappointment to go alongside the great news of the mutualist symposium issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies was finding out that Reisman had written one of the critiques of Kevin Carson's mutualist ideas. I thought that his essay would represent the token example of "vulgar libertarianism", the plague within the libertarian movement that serves to exacerbate the false notions of libertarianism held by various non-libertarians.

His essay is indeed pretty bad. With people like Reisman identifying themselves with free enterprise and libertarianism, it's no wonder that many leftists view libertarians as being fascists in disguise. To read Kevin's thorough rebuttal, click here. (pdf file)

As thorough and satisfying as Kevin's own rebuttal is, I found a much much smaller one tonight that reveals a rather unlibertarian side to Reisman. Adam B. Ricketson left the following comment behind in response to Sheldon Richman's post titled "Capitalism versus Capitalism:

I read George Reisman's essay in Journal of Libertarian Studies and was surprised and kinda disgusted by his (Randist) definition of "individualism"

He writes:
"Here Carson, the “individualist” anarchist shows himself to be
quite the collectivist, attributing to the average person qualities of
independent thought and judgment that are found only in exceptional
individuals."

I side with Carson's definition of individualism, and can only see Reisman's view as socialism or collectivism. Individualism means that, as a rule, each individual is capable of directing his own life. If most individuals are incapable of directing their own lives and must be subsumed into an unthinking mass (for their own good), then we have collectivism...whether it is run by a benevolent dictatorship of market selected (meaning "self-selected") "meritocrats" or by an elected aristocracy.


Yep, I cringed when I read that remark by Reisman. All those leftists who view libertarians as corporate apologists who wish to have tyrannical megacorp executives rule the world actually have a point, at least if and when they're referring to people such as Reisman. In Reisman's world, we're only a tiny hop, skip, and jump away from "free market" paradise, complete with Wal-Mart type enterprises in charge of every human endeavor, and including bureaucratic managerialism and top-down orders from those "exceptional individuals" who know how to be responsible and successful, unlike all the common peons who must be disciplined by the iron fist...er, invisible hand of the "free market". In other words, it seems as if many aspects of statism are just fine in Reisman's mind, as long as they're "privatized" and run only by wealthy businessmen who actually have the ability to engage in independent thought and judgment.

Adam is correct - Reisman does indeed appear to be a collectivist. How can one so consistently defend an institution (the modern corporation) that is so thoroughly hostile to individualism and not be collectivist? I'm reminded of the following portion of the classic 1976 Karl Hess Plowboy interview that elaborates a bit on all this:

PLOWBOY: Is there any similarity between this pressure being exerted by America's big businesses and, say, the collectivism of Soviet Russia?

HESS: Certainly. They're much the same. In the Soviet Union, the economy is developed under the ownership of a bureaucracy which shot its way to power, while in the United States exactly the same pattern exists except that our collectivists just buy their way to power. In either instance, the final result is the same: You owe your loyalty to the collective unit the corporation or the state, as the case may be. You're subordinated to its plans and processes.

There's no essential difference in the kind of world that either the large corporations of the U.S. or the collectives of the U.S.S.R. would impose on us. Back in the thirties, in fact, Jim Burnham wrote a book, The Managerial Revolution, in which he said that a DuPont bureaucrat could join a planning commission in the Soviet Union and never even know he'd changed jobs!

 

[Bfgrn]

Which is not to say I supported John Kennedy when he ran for president, because I didn't. I was for the other fellow.

I don't really care who you voted for, I personally voted for Kennedy BF fraud.

Now you are resorting to blatant deception. Taking Ronald Reagan's words and making them my words instead. You are dishonest and childish.

 

[Bfgrn]

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" . That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

You have just described how you sound, giving lip service to what you say you believe. You say you are liberal, yet you would allow millions to starve to give your elitist labor raises.

BTW, Communism is socialist, and there is nothing conservative about socialism except its need for a dictatorial government. Wake up looneytune.

Try to pay attention...

Socialism is liberal. Communism is conservative. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering.

 

[dnsmith35]

What you fail to understand or see is any danger from the right.

Why do you lie?

As a matter of fact you worship Ayn Rand corporate shill George Reisman.

No I don't. But I do believe Reisman is right about Galbraith and I do believe he knows more about how to achieve prosperity than any of the left wing pseudo "economists" who are really not economists but politically correct bloviators.

The biggest danger from the right is the 'Marketist', people like George Reisman who have turned 'laissez-faire' into a religion. And Supreme Courts Justices like Roberts, Scalia, and Alito who in Citizens United v. FEC rule that money is free speech and have redefined democracy on the basis of a dogmatic, free market form of economic theory.

Yet I have never supported laissez-faire capitalism nor do I worship anyone but God.

This is not a scathing critique of Reisman from the left, it is from libertarians...and the interview with Goldwater aide Karl Hess really hits the nail on the head.

I could really care less about how your goons describe Reisman, but not a one has refuted his basic capitalistic themes. Once you remove the laissez-faire from Reisman he makes a lot of sense.

BTW, I stop reading when you post pure opinions from other people. I read your opinions. I could give a crap for strict opinions from others, most of whom don't understand the first thing about economics. Economics was my major when I got my MBA and because human behavior is so important to economics I got my EdS in Psychology. I make up my own mind, not allowing other stooges to try to convince me. Grow some balls, think for yourself.

 

[Bfgrn]

What you fail to understand or see is any danger from the right.

Why do you lie?

As a matter of fact you worship Ayn Rand corporate shill George Reisman.

No I don't. But I do believe Reisman is right about Galbraith and I do believe he knows more about how to achieve prosperity than any of the left wing pseudo "economists" who are really not economists but politically correct bloviators.Yet I have never supported laissez-faire capitalism nor do I worship anyone but God.I could really care less about how your goons describe Reisman, but not a one has refuted his basic capitalistic themes. Once you remove the laissez-faire from Reisman he makes a lot of sense.

BTW, I stop reading when you post pure opinions from other people. I read your opinions. I could give a crap for strict opinions from others, most of whom don't understand the first thing about economics. Economics was my major when I got my MBA and because human behavior is so important to economics I got my EdS in Psychology. I make up my own mind, not allowing other stooges to try to convince me. Grow some balls, think for yourself.

Ironic, you accuse me of preaching...talk about being blind...

Your education has failed you miserably. You don't even understand the most essential elements of human foible and how they destroy any semblance of a fair market.

The danger to this country is not just big government, it is BIG...period.

In a free market, it is paramount that everyone has a stake in the outcome and conditions that are created. In the olden days we had localized markets. The farmer, blacksmith and the grocer all had to live in the environment they created. None of them would pollute the water supply they all drank from or the soil they relied on for survival. And if one of them did break the rules, the pressure from their neighbors would handle that malfeasance.

But in the world of BIG, absenteeism makes major stakeholders immune to any of their malfeasance. They don't have to live in the squalor their slave wages create. They don't have to drink from the water supply they pollute, or eat food from the tainted soil their toxins permeate.

You are one trying to make exploitation a utopia.