Palin Denounces Violence, But Gun Imagery Will Stay

[tekla]

We're going to be way past this in a decade or so, this is not the end, it's only the beginning.  By the end we're going to wind up where EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATION is, a single payer system, largely because that's the best business/commercial solution.

The end interest here is not socialism, or fairness, or compassion, or even public health (even though there are compelling reasons for each) but a matter of international competitiveness for American business.  And since the business of America is business, they will, in the end, get what they want.

[justmeinoz]

From my perspective this whole situation is getting more bizarre the more it is discussed, along with US politics in general.
I find it incomprehensible that people are making death threats over a Health System. The abolition of slavery or a similar question I can understand, but a Health System?

[Julie Marie]

From my perspective this whole situation is getting more bizarre the more it is discussed, along with US politics in general.
I find it incomprehensible that people are making death threats over a Health System. The abolition of slavery or a similar question I can understand, but a Health System?

When your political figureheads use gun imagery to "target" the opposition, it doesn't take much to get some people heading in that direction.

Imagine, instead of an image with crosshairs on it, a message with plain text naming the people and a link of how to contact them.  Would that stir up the same emotions as the crosshair image?  Of course not!  But it would accomplish the same thing the GOP is claiming they want to do.  But since it's easier to get people to follow you when they are emotionally stirred up, why not use that tactic?  Who cares if some kook takes it too far?  That's his problem, not ours!

[Dana Lane]

I realize I can be a bit hard headed when it comes to trying to have discussions with conservatives. If they would drop their incredible pro-discrimination and anti-choice and anti-science (pro god in schools) stances I might be more receptive. Those stances alone shut me right out. Anyone who votes for a Republican is essentially voting against brothers and sisters on this very site. I am sure they aren't thinking "I am going to go vote against the civil rights of my siblings" but it is what happens.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Sexual Orientation. Exit polls conducted in 2000, 2004 and 2006 indicate that about one quarter of gay and lesbian Americans voted for the GOP. In recent years, many in the party have opposed same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, inclusion of sexual orientation in federal hate crimes laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while supporting the use of the don't ask, don't tell policy within the military. Some members of the party, particularly in the Northeast and Pacific coast support Civil Unions and adoption rights for same-sex couples.[68] The opposition to some gay rights found in the Republican Party largely comes from the socially conservative wing of the party.

This is why I use the phrase "termite working for a pest control company".

The longer Republicans have some kind of significant power the longer we will have to wait to simply be ourselves and FREE in our country. I am currently NOT free. I can't just move to any state or city due to it being legal to discriminate against me.

Every single time I think of this I just can't help but get angry. I am an American taxpayer and deserve to be free.

[Tammy Hope]

From my perspective this whole situation is getting more bizarre the more it is discussed, along with US politics in general.
I find it incomprehensible that people are making death threats over a Health System. The abolition of slavery or a similar question I can understand, but a Health System?

Because those who are upset are not upset about health care reform, they are upset about deeper issues.

For a person living in another nation, it might seem unclear because you can only know what your press tells you (or ours).

The angry response from the left comes (as far as i can tell) because the mythology is affot that the right cares nothing for those in need - when all the right really wants to do is find the BEST way to help them rather than just throwing money at it.

the anger from the right comes because they precieve that the recent bill achives the goals it achieves at too high a cost, both in terms of money and lost liberty. A lot of people don't realize that the U.S. is well past the point of financial solovancy, if it were any private sector institution.

Between the already existing unfunded mandates of medicare and Social Security, and the cost of the recent sending, and the projections for this bill*, many believe that the financial collapse of our country is inevitable. That in itself creates a lot of stress.

Add to that the fact that the bill establishes an individual mandate from the government to the citizen to engage in a private business contract which goes WILDLY beyond it's previous reach into private affairs, and many on the right feel we've reached a tipping point in terms of the precedent this action would set for government power.

so ultimately, the anger doesn't arise from "health care" at all but from over-reaching government athority and the implications for future power grabs.

*Yes I know about the CBO scoring, but the CBO didn't have the full bill and it's a matter of historical record that previous such programs always cost hundreds of times what the intial projections were (Medicare, for instance, cost in it's first 25 years over 700% more than the projections at the time of passage in adjusted dollars)

Post Merge: April 03, 2010, 12:58:22 PM

Anyone who votes for a Republican is essentially voting against brothers and sisters on this very site. I am sure they aren't thinking "I am going to go vote against the civil rights of my siblings" but it is what happens.

I don't disagree.

However, from my perspective, (almost) every time one votes Democrat, one is voting for the financial destruction of this nation and for more intrusive government across the board. We are ALL less free when the government takes a heavy hand in our private lives.

I simply have chosen the point of view that the country, as we know it, has to EXIST in order to protect our freedoms. Give me a Democrat Party that has sane financial policies that protect the economic future existence of this country and I'll be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Even if i still have other disagreements with them.

Does this mean i think the Republicans have it right on every issue regarding spending or the size of government or economic choices - absolutely not. but they at least give some consideration to the matter and I'm not seeing that at all from the Democrats.

Does this mean I'll be slower about getting full equality in matters related to my condition? Yeah. And that sucks. But again, a country which can't pay it's bills is in a poor position to protect my liberties.

[lisagurl]

"I am going to go vote against the civil rights of my siblings" but it is what happens.

Rights come with responsibility. If you are not responsible the Government will do it for you and you lose those rights. Morals and ethics are not the responsibility of the Government they are yours. If you do not want to respect other peoples freedoms and liberties then how do you expect them to respect yours?, by laws which are not enforced or selectively enforced? Then who is going to pay for all those people that are going to be in prison. It seems that very few understand the cost and results of adding more laws.

[Kaelin]

It's not necessarily wise to vote for a party just because of one issue, but I would suspect that GLBT rights would be a fairly crucial one for people who participate in this site.  Of course, if you are somewhere where the Republicans on the ballot will support these rights (or at least do so up to a threshold you can live with), or the Democrats are opposed to these rights, then your vote can become largely about other issues.  Even when they are the same on GLBT, I usually pick the Dem lizard anyway, but that's a whole other issue.

when all the right really wants to do is find the BEST way to help them rather than just throwing money at it.

If the right seriously cared about not wasting money, we wouldn't have a death penalty (which costs more than life in prison) that sometimes executes innocent people.

from my perspective, (almost) every time one votes Democrat, one is voting for the financial destruction of this nation and for more intrusive government across the board. We are ALL less free when the government takes a heavy hand in our private lives.

I like the idea of government "intruding" by giving children medical care, offering people education, building roads, and being able to run a draft in a time of war.  I like meat inspections and infrastructure that supports better energy acquisition/use (wind is more sustainable than coal).  I also like the government enforcing laws that keep people safe -- including anti-discrimination and anti-hate laws that keep the majority from forcing the minority to live as pariahs or second-class citizens.  All of these policies support the public good, and in the case of care and education for children, ensures basic services for people who cannot provide it for themselves.  These lists are not comprehensive, but they have important bits listed.  Beyond a list of whatever things a government should do, you would rather it not be involved, because it begins to establish advantages that interfere with free will.

On my scorecoard, the Republicans are doing a poor job.  Child health care, GLBT rights/protection, education funding, the Dems do better (although far from perfect).  The Republicans also have the nasty habit of favoring the interests of certain religions (worse than the Dems).  Also, they gave us the second Iraq War.

EDIT: And yeah, the lying.

[tekla]

Nor would we have two wars going on, both pretty much unwinable, and unfinanced.

All I've seen out of the 'Pubs is they are trying to stop the Dems at any cost.  They are the party of no.  No ideas, No values, No morality.

And, a lot of the people who are upset about this bill, are mad because it did not go far enough, nor take the obvious route to solve the problem.

[Dana Lane]

Nor would we have two wars going on, both pretty much unwinable, and unfinanced.

All I've seen out of the 'Pubs is they are trying to stop the Dems at any cost.  They are the party of no.  No ideas, No values, No morality.

And, a lot of the people who are upset about this bill, are mad because it did not go far enough, nor take the obvious route to solve the problem.

Not to mention that Bush was in charge when the economy totally collapsed. We are still seeing the HUGE COST of this. This is what I don't get. Save the country from the Democrats? LOL okay

[Julie Marie]

The angry response from the left comes (as far as i can tell) because the mythology is affot that the right cares nothing for those in need - when all the right really wants to do is find the BEST way to help them rather than just throwing money at it.

the anger from the right comes because they precieve that the recent bill achives the goals it achieves at too high a cost, both in terms of money and lost liberty. A lot of people don't realize that the U.S. is well past the point of financial solovancy, if it were any private sector institution.

Health care a problem because of cost?  Our politicians had no problem handing over trillions to Wall Street, the banks, car companies, and we didn't see anything near the fervor generated from the health care bill passage.  This wasn't cost or fiscal responsibility, this was politics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the US, we have Democrats and Republicans that, presently, seem to be vehemently opposed to anything the other does, wants or stands for.   What I see is, it is more important to stand in opposition to the other party than it is to take the time to evaluate what the impact one's actions have on the nation and its citizens.

Any good politician knows if you can get the voters whipped up into an emotional frenzy, you can pretty much control them.  And fear and anger are two of the most common emotions politicians try to instill in the voters.  Typically, women respond with fear, men with anger.  Together they can become a boiling cauldron.

When you look at the Health Care cauldron the Republicans stirred up, you see how easily they worked the voters up, so much so that there were reported death threats!  Over health care reform!  Did any of these people who were so angry or fearful take the time to look at the process that took place to come up with a passable bill?  Did any of them review the bill themselves and decide for themselves if it is as bad as the Republican spin?  If any did, I'm sure it was only a small fraction and odds are none of those people made death threats or lost any sleep over the bill's passing.

What upsets me is what politics has become in the US.  Voters are more apt to vote for you because of how you look or what single issue you support than what positive effect your time in office will have for the nation or its citizens.  Few voters take any time to research the politicians they are voting for or the issues that are truly important.  Most just want someone to tell them everything will be okay.

We are told the USA is the greatest country in the world.  So we believe it.  And in the process we adopt the belief it will always be that way and we don't have to work at it to keep it that way.  That's how great nations crumble.

Today we look to the former winner of the Miss Wasilla Pageant to save us from the evils of liberalism.    We elect movie stars and celebrities to represent us at all levels of government.  What they look like and how they speak is more important than their experience, their skills and their ability – and more importantly their desire – to make a positive difference for the betterment of this country. 

But instead of using logic and reason, we elect emotionally.  And in doing so we elect people with big egos who are more concerned about themselves than the people they represent.  And we make people like Sarah Palin folk heroes rather than keeping them in books and magazines where physical attractiveness has a higher value than who someone is on the inside.

[Tammy Hope]

EDIT: And yeah, the lying.

"your side lies and mine doesn't" (or at least not as much)


That bit never gets old.

Ok, it's all cool. I respectfully resign the floor. The more i argue politics online, the more I think I'd get more done nailing jello to the wall.

[tekla]

You might want to try arguing from a more mature perspective, away from politics and like the big boys and girls do, debate policy.  But that takes facts and not manufactured sound bites.  And it leads away from Republicans and Democrats, you have to forget that grade school stuff about Right and Left, and try to think instead about right and wrong.

[PanoramaIsland]

The idea that Republicans are better at responsible spending than Democrats is simply false. Reagan was a big spender. Bush Jr. is the number one candidate for largest spender of un-accounted-for, debt-increasing monies in American history. His Republican congress had similar habits. What part of "we went from the biggest surplus in American history to the biggest deficit in American history" don't Republicans understand? That does NOT qualify as responsible spending.

Responsible spending is not about how much or how little is spent - it's about accounting for the monies spent, spending monies we either have or can somehow responsibly generate, spending efficiently and on projects that are important, make sense and are designed well, and so on. Governmental size should be in proportion to the size of the projects that need to be taken on, and right now, things like healthcare reform, proper economic regulation, environmental regulation to assuage the effects of global warming and the end of the oil glut, and rights and protections for queer and trans/gender-variant people are pressing concerns.

So let's be real: the divide here is fundamentally about what people are interested in spending on. The Repubs don't seem to have any problem funding the largest military this side of the Milky Way. In fact, they don't have very good spending records themselves, by and large. I'm not denying that real, practicing "fiscal conservatives" exist, or that super-spender Democrats exist. However, denying the presence of a very large amount of super-spender Republicans is disingenuous and does not square with the hard data.

Speaking of hard data, people who see healthcare reform as a big spending bill need to look at some good, hard numbers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new healthcare law will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. I put that in bold for a reason. Many of the Republicans who uniformly opposed passage of the healthcare bill voted for Medicare Part D, which was projected by that same office to increase the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next 20 years from the date of its passage.

I wish to hammer this home, and I damned well will: healthcare reform saves money.
You know what happens when an uninsured person ends up in the emergency room? We, the taxpayers, foot most of the bill. By insuring 95% of Americans, we are saving a heap of money. Them's the facts.

-------------

As for the Tea Partiers, how am I supposed to take people who take their cues from Fox News and make it their business to call Obama a "Marxist" and a "Nazi" seriously? How am I supposed to do anything but shake my head in wonderment when these folks lionize a senator best known for shouting "YOU LIE!" at the President, or continue to spread reams of blatant falsities - ACORN engaging in fraud, "death panels," Obama not being an American citizen, et cetera...?

The simple fact is that these people are cut from the same cloth as the McCarthyites of yesteryear. It is no surprise that the John Birch Society is part of this frothing fray, and today's Tea Partiers follow many of the same patterns as yesterday's Red Scareniks: conspiracy theories, paranoia, bigotry against minorities, bubbling at the mouth about "socialists" and "Marxists" in the government, gun zealotry, and so on. To be sure, the right wing is no monolith, and these people come in shades: the general gist of the Tea Party seems to be closer to Fox Newsian cafeteria libertarianism with a strong whiff of Alex Jones than the sort of Bible-thumping, social-message right-winginess peddled by Republicans of the George W. Bush years. Nonetheless, a lot of these messages are coming from those same people.

The true hilarity in all of this lies in the fact that "Obamacare" is closest to... er... Romneycare. It very closely resembles the bill that Mitt Romney passed in his own state, and incorporates all sorts of ideas - such as the mandate - which Republicans supported or even invented in the years before they decided to oppose everything that Dems did and started screaming about how bad their own ideas were.


Regarding "Democrats are destroying the economy," please read some Keynes. It was deregulation - a Republican platform - that led to the current economic crisis. Stable economies require regulation, and solvent governments require accountable spending; these both seem to be things that Democrats are by and large better at than Republicans. In this sense, at least, it is indeed about left vs. right. Don't get me wrong: both parties are bad at being responsible. The thing is that Republicans are a lot worse.

Single-issue voting. It depends on how much that single issue effects your life, doesn't it? Trans and queer rights effect my life an awful lot, and a politician's record on that single issue can have a huge impact on how I view them. I care about far too many things to ever be a true "single-issue" voter, but I was ganged up on and beaten unconscious with two of my teeth knocked out because I'm queer and trans. I care a LOT about that issue, and I should, because experience has shown me that my physical safety is at risk. Would I vote for a right-winger who inexplicably had a solid record on trans rights? I wouldn't. I might consider it for a second, though, especially if I lived in an area where I felt myself to be at greater physical risk. Fists make for strong arguments.

I could go on and on, as many can on this subject. All I can say is that being trans and voting Republican is like being a sheep and voting for more wolves: it's, shall we say, a tad masochistic.

[Julie Marie]

I could go on and on, as many can on this subject. All I can say is that being trans and voting Republican is like being a sheep and voting for more wolves: it's, shall we say, a tad masochistic.

The analogy that came to my mind is the kid who gets beaten up by the bully, then tries to be friends with the bully.  Masochism certainly a strong element in either analogy.

Whatever one believes about the parties, neither party is going to destroy this country, not as long as it is able to milk the tax revenues.  That would be biting the hand that feeds you.

But when a politician or political party actively and openly campaigns against human rights, they can bank on zero support from me.

[lisagurl]

Speaking of hard data, people who see health care reform as a big spending bill need to look at some good, hard numbers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new health care law will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. I put that in bold for a reason. Many of the Republicans who uniformly opposed passage of the health care bill voted for Medicare Part D, which was projected by that same office to increase the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next 20 years from the date of its passage.

Propaganda is fun in fantasy land but in reality it puts us in danger. A Harvard study for the past ten years disputes savings with computers in health care. Look at the other programs in health care in states and countries that have it not one is in the black. Look at the other entitlement programs which have put us in the mess we are today. SS is in the red this year way before they predicted. The budget people never endorsed those numbers they are politically forced on the Dept's. Just wait and see it is your future.

[PanoramaIsland]

Propaganda is fun in fantasy land but in reality it puts us in danger. A Harvard study for the past ten years disputes savings with computers in health care. Look at the other programs in health care in states and countries that have it not one is in the black. Look at the other entitlement programs which have put us in the mess we are today. SS is in the red this year way before they predicted. The budget people never endorsed those numbers they are politically forced on the Dept's. Just wait and see it is your future.

And what exactly makes you think that the $1.2 trillion number was forced on the CBO? Do you have some sort of special insider privileges in the Beltway? If those numbers were somehow forced on the CBO, why didn't the Republicans simply force similar numbers on the CBO for Medicare Part D? How do you know that your Harvard study wasn't manipulated or simply poorly done? What makes you want to qualify it over the CBO's data, other than it playing into your completely unreasonable fear of the government actually doing its job?

The CBO may be a bit politically influenced, just like other supposedly non-partisan bodies (the Supreme Court, anyone?), but they are still milling hard data collected by one of the largest data-collection agencies in the world - the U.S. government. It's entirely possible that they produce biased reports now and then, but they are in the business of producing reports based on actual math, not on the fears and fantasies of Republicans sucking at the corporate nipple. One cannot simply go to the CBO and force them to completely ignore the actual numbers.

As for Social Security, do you think perhaps we would have an easier time funding these things if (a) Republicans hadn't conditioned so many Americans to expect government to do big things without taxing them to pay for it and (b) we didn't insist on having far and away the largest military in the world? We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushing into various surrounding areas, we still have bases in places like Okinawa where there hasn't been any military action for many decades, and we're still struggling to take care of the poor wounded, psychologically crippled, struggling vets who go out to fight these pointless wars for us - and you're complaining about the cost of Social Security.

Social Security and medicare are important, necessary and good. Accidentally flying drones into Arab children is unnecessary and bad, and huge waste of money. These "entitlement" programs save lives. They are a way for us as a country to take the responsibility that is ours: the responsibility to make sure that those in need, those who are struggling and cannot help themselves, are taken care of. This is not some kind of luxury. If the system is poorly or improperly funded, let us find better funding for it. If occasionally it is abused, let us find ways to close the loopholes. Let us not, however, put our own egalitarianism behind the interests of insurance companies and and generals who think Don't Ask, Don't Tell shouldn't be repealed because the Srebrenitsa Massacre was caused by openly gay Dutch soldiers.

Education, healthcare, and helping the poor and struggling to get a leg up in life are now and always will be more important than dropping bombs on people and playing to the interests of giant corporations. If it seems like I'm perhaps a bit angry, I am.

[Julie Marie]

SS is in the red this year way before they predicted.

There was an article in Reader's Digest many years ago that looked at SS and its future.  At the time there was enough money in the SS system to keep it solvent FOREVER.  Shortly after that, the politicians raided it. 

Had they left it alone and not borrowed from it, SS would be totally solvent and very healthy.  But anytime there's a big pool of cash sitting there, someone figures out a way to get their hands on it.  Then they put a spin on it and make it sound like it's the program's and not the looter's fault.

I'm sure if one digs deeply enough, one would find looters at the gates of most all government programs.

[Dana Lane]

The idea that Republicans are better at responsible spending than Democrats is simply false. Reagan was a big spender. Bush Jr. is the number one candidate for largest spender of un-accounted-for, debt-increasing monies in American history. His Republican congress had similar habits. What part of "we went from the biggest surplus in American history to the biggest deficit in American history" don't Republicans understand? That does NOT qualify as responsible spending.

Responsible spending is not about how much or how little is spent - it's about accounting for the monies spent, spending monies we either have or can somehow responsibly generate, spending efficiently and on projects that are important, make sense and are designed well, and so on. Governmental size should be in proportion to the size of the projects that need to be taken on, and right now, things like healthcare reform, proper economic regulation, environmental regulation to assuage the effects of global warming and the end of the oil glut, and rights and protections for queer and trans/gender-variant people are pressing concerns.

So let's be real: the divide here is fundamentally about what people are interested in spending on. The Repubs don't seem to have any problem funding the largest military this side of the Milky Way. In fact, they don't have very good spending records themselves, by and large. I'm not denying that real, practicing "fiscal conservatives" exist, or that super-spender Democrats exist. However, denying the presence of a very large amount of super-spender Republicans is disingenuous and does not square with the hard data.

Speaking of hard data, people who see healthcare reform as a big spending bill need to look at some good, hard numbers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new healthcare law will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. I put that in bold for a reason. Many of the Republicans who uniformly opposed passage of the healthcare bill voted for Medicare Part D, which was projected by that same office to increase the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next 20 years from the date of its passage.

I wish to hammer this home, and I damned well will: healthcare reform saves money.
You know what happens when an uninsured person ends up in the emergency room? We, the taxpayers, foot most of the bill. By insuring 95% of Americans, we are saving a heap of money. Them's the facts.

-------------

As for the Tea Partiers, how am I supposed to take people who take their cues from Fox News and make it their business to call Obama a "Marxist" and a "Nazi" seriously? How am I supposed to do anything but shake my head in wonderment when these folks lionize a senator best known for shouting "YOU LIE!" at the President, or continue to spread reams of blatant falsities - ACORN engaging in fraud, "death panels," Obama not being an American citizen, et cetera...?

The simple fact is that these people are cut from the same cloth as the McCarthyites of yesteryear. It is no surprise that the John Birch Society is part of this frothing fray, and today's Tea Partiers follow many of the same patterns as yesterday's Red Scareniks: conspiracy theories, paranoia, bigotry against minorities, bubbling at the mouth about "socialists" and "Marxists" in the government, gun zealotry, and so on. To be sure, the right wing is no monolith, and these people come in shades: the general gist of the Tea Party seems to be closer to Fox Newsian cafeteria libertarianism with a strong whiff of Alex Jones than the sort of Bible-thumping, social-message right-winginess peddled by Republicans of the George W. Bush years. Nonetheless, a lot of these messages are coming from those same people.

The true hilarity in all of this lies in the fact that "Obamacare" is closest to... er... Romneycare. It very closely resembles the bill that Mitt Romney passed in his own state, and incorporates all sorts of ideas - such as the mandate - which Republicans supported or even invented in the years before they decided to oppose everything that Dems did and started screaming about how bad their own ideas were.


Regarding "Democrats are destroying the economy," please read some Keynes. It was deregulation - a Republican platform - that led to the current economic crisis. Stable economies require regulation, and solvent governments require accountable spending; these both seem to be things that Democrats are by and large better at than Republicans. In this sense, at least, it is indeed about left vs. right. Don't get me wrong: both parties are bad at being responsible. The thing is that Republicans are a lot worse.

Single-issue voting. It depends on how much that single issue effects your life, doesn't it? Trans and queer rights effect my life an awful lot, and a politician's record on that single issue can have a huge impact on how I view them. I care about far too many things to ever be a true "single-issue" voter, but I was ganged up on and beaten unconscious with two of my teeth knocked out because I'm queer and trans. I care a LOT about that issue, and I should, because experience has shown me that my physical safety is at risk. Would I vote for a right-winger who inexplicably had a solid record on trans rights? I wouldn't. I might consider it for a second, though, especially if I lived in an area where I felt myself to be at greater physical risk. Fists make for strong arguments.

I could go on and on, as many can on this subject. All I can say is that being trans and voting Republican is like being a sheep and voting for more wolves: it's, shall we say, a tad masochistic.

COSIGN!!! Very well said!

[Laura91]

COSIGN!!! Very well said!

Indeed!!
Post Merge: April 05, 2010, 10:17:00 AM

From my perspective this whole situation is getting more bizarre the more it is discussed, along with US politics in general.
I find it incomprehensible that people are making death threats over a Health System. The abolition of slavery or a similar question I can understand, but a Health System?

Well, we DO have a lot of stupid, reactionary dimwits in this country.

[Tammy Hope]

The classic thing about these discussions is that when it costs WAY more than they say it will (which will happen, see Meedicare for an obvious example) two things will happen:

1. Both sides will insist the other side screwed it up

2. Both sides will insist only they can fix it because the other side is so sorry

and the wheel will turn over again.

Which is why every day I'm a bit more cynical about all politics and more resigned to just washing my hands of all of it and adopting an "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" philosophy (when it comes to politics)