Democrats are afraid of violent backlash

[smokingman]

Rather dumb question?

So a few points to consider:

1) Eddie (and others) are using dissent as a tacit approval of violence, in so many words. This infers that "you should expect violence" if someone is angry about a decision you have made. I submit that this stance is morally bankrupt.

2) The "majority" of people were also against women's suffrage and integration/civil rights reform. This concept is known as the Tyranny of the Majority.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is incumbent upon the collective of our elected officials to vote their conscience and be true to their moral compass. It is a fallacy to assume that because 51% of the people in their district favor or oppose something, they are obligated to vote in that direction.

I'd be interested to hear why you disagree with this concept.

First I do not condone violence.BUT When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
They should fear the people when they do not represent them.That is the founding principal of our government.The reason we are a nation is that we had no representation.You are saying that is ok,i disagree.

I do not buy the Tyrant of the majority argument.THEY have the majority,and that is why there where enough votes.Not representing those who elected you is the opposite of what you are talking about in this situation. Here you have a majority,ignoring a majority.That has nothing to do with the concept of the "tyrant of the majority".We do not have a direct democracy either,which is where this problem largely occurs.The minority are better represented in our form of republic because we have the House and Senate. Concurrent majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So to me the problem is through using reconciliation they have bypassed the protections of the concurrent majority and passed a bill that is most likely unconstitutional.It was the only way they could pass the bill,and that is why so many are so angry.

Here, Maxine sums up the health care bill:
Let me get this straight. We’re going to be gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also hasn’t read, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.

 

[Perm]

They should fear the people when they do not represent them.That is the founding principal of our government.The reason we are a nation is that we had no representation.You are saying that is ok,i disagree.

No I'm not saying that is ok. You misunderstood the cornerstone of my post. What you are referring to here is the monarchy that we moved out from under. That is one person making decisions for a potentially limitless pool of people. We're not even talking about the same idea here.

I do not buy the Tyrant of the majority argument.

Whether or not you "buy" it does not have a bearing on the facts of the matter.

Here, Maxine sums up the health care bill:
Let me get this straight. We’re going to be gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also hasn’t read, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.

This is ad hominem, so I'll ignore it. Why don't you tell me why *you* don't like it?

 

[level.eleven]

Sounds like anarchy.

If you so choose. Some might call it "leaving other people alone". Other would simply call it freedom. Some people like to jazz it up by attaching their flavor of Econ 101 to the end of it. Anarcho-capitlist, anarcho-collectivism, and of course Monty Python's ever popular mandate, anarcho-syndicalism.

For me, I have no need to satisfy my ego by shaping society into my version of utopia, especially through violence and coercion.

 

[Perm]

If you so chose. Some might call it "leaving other people alone". Other would simply call it freedom. Some people like to jazz it up by attaching their flavor of Econ 101 to the end of it. Anarcho-capitlist, anarcho-collectivism, and of course Monty Python's ever popular mandate, anarcho-syndicalism.

For me, I have no need to satisfy my ego by shaping society into my version of utopia, especially through violence and coercion.

That was a lot of words. Did this address the assertion that no representation = anarchy?

 

[longbow]

Did they not think people would not be upset.

My words can be very effective to bring about change. My vote is very effective in bringing change.

I think they do understand how mad people are. Just look at the change a 15 dollar box of 22 ammo, 550 rounds could bring ......

I can only imagine the conversations the are having with spouses and what the kids are telling them....as in...you did this for Nancy, did you think about how this will affect us?

I will be very excited to vote in Nov!

 

[level.eleven]

That was a lot of words. Did this address the assertion that no representation = anarchy?

If one chooses to be represented by a stranger or their grandmother, I am not going to stop them. It is their decision to voluntarily contract with whom they please. So, anarchy != no representation. Being part of a group, and thus having a label, is another one of those ego boosters I mentioned. I am not on a sports team. I don't need an animal mascot, team colors, and a head coach.

 

[smokingman]

No I'm not saying that is ok. You misunderstood the cornerstone of my post. What you are referring to here is the monarchy that we moved out from under. That is one person making decisions for a potentially limitless pool of people. We're not even talking about the same idea here.



Whether or not you "buy" it does not have a bearing on the facts of the matter.

What fact? I showed clearly there was no tyrant of the majority in this case?


This is ad hominem, so I'll ignore it. Why don't you tell me why *you* don't like it?

I have posted in other threads things I do not like about the bill.I will repeat myself for your benefit.Let me start with how they are funding the bill.
This
14 ‘‘SEC. 871. FUNDING.
15 ‘‘For the purpose of carrying out parts B, C, and D
16 (subject to section 845(g)), there are authorized to be
17 appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal
18 year through fiscal year 2019.’’.

Start at 909 line 12 and you see cost per year set aside already. Then on 910 you see where they are using already existing appropriations to fund this,plus the 871 funding...a peek...
19 ‘‘(1) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
20 ‘‘(2) $122,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
21 ‘‘(3) $127,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
22 ‘‘(4) $134,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
23 ‘‘(5) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
24 ‘‘(6) $147,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
Of course this is not funding for the actual program,just to manage it.These people have gone insane.Of course no one will want to become a doctor any more so you get this...
10 ‘‘SEC. 340M. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE SCHOLARSHIP
11 PROGRAM

Sec. 441. Surcharge on high income individuals
Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
This also takes authority away from elected officials and gives all authority for the entire program(to include medicaid,and medicare)to the Secretary of Health.
....oh yea this is a disaster.Wonder if any of the ass hats voting for this realize they are voting away there right to even control the budget of this monster by accepting this bill.
Have employees ....you are going to love this part.
1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to other taxes,
2 there is hereby imposed on every nonelecting em3
ployer an excise tax, with respect to having individ4
uals in his employ, equal to 8 percent of the wages
5 (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with re6
spect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).

Those who wish to CHOOSE there health insurance can only do so if they already have the plan they want in place.Read section 102 of the bill.If you do not have the plan you want before 2014 you will be assigned a program based on your income,employer,and ability to pay.You can say no to the insurance they OFFER(force)you to choose,but will pay a penalty.Once on a plan you can not change your insurance company with out permission.

Sec 59C(1) exempt. 1 ‘‘(1) NONRESIDENT ALIEN.—In the case of a
2 nonresident alien individual, only amounts taken
3 into account in connection with the tax imposed
4 under section 871(b) shall be taken into account
5 under this section.
Rather legal or illegal a nonresident aliens need not purchase insurance or pay anything toward the program.BUT they will still visit the ER and let the rest of us foot the bill.The rest of us pay an 8% tax(section 3121A).

The entire bill is run by the secretary of Health and the IRS.The budget is determined by them,not congress.It is the first time a federal program of this magnitude does not have congressional oversight.The secretary of health is given immense power with this bill to regulate(and make any new regulations)as they see fit with no recourse to check that power.Wonder if congress sees that they have voted away there right to over see this program? I doubt it.

There are many more things wrong with the bill.And many lies being told on both sides.Such as Obama saying children could not be denied coverage(takes effect in 2014,the same time as it does for adults not today as he claimed).

There is no Tort reform in the bill.Not a single thing that would actually lower health care cost in any form.I admit to not having finished reading it yet,but I will.I am sure there are many more things I will not agree with,such as congress being exempt from participating.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm talking about crime, not legitimate protest. It's good to let your Congressman know that he won't get your vote. It's bad to call them and make death threats (stalking/harassment), throw bricks through windows (criminal mischief), or walk on their property and cut propane lines (criminal recklessness).

Protest to your heart's content, but law breaking is what the lefties do. I'm a righty because I'm better than that, and so are the people on this site.

I will not knowingly commit any criminal act (making no statement about traffic infractions... ) however, neither will I shed a single tear at the mild, minimalist reaction that our Congress-critters are now seeing. I will make no move to harm them, but neither will I stand in their defense. They crapped that bed, all that's happening now is that they're being made to lie in it.

There was a time when an overreaching, out of control government action saw 30,000 angry, armed people responding, on foot, demanding justice. There was a time seven months later when a similar action (they didn't learn the first time) resulted in government troops firing on the people... the people fired back. There was a war back then... a real, honest to goodness shooting war. Lots of people died over the eight years that it lasted. Why? Because someone in power decided to take an action without regard for the people it affected.

I obviously do not want another shooting war, and that should be well understood. I do however, wonder what's going to wake Washington up to the fact that they've abdicated their responsibilities and ignored their oaths. Time was that that alone was a horror to a man. Come to think of it, that time has not passed.... we just have more biological males than we have men.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Perm]

I have posted in other threads things I do not like about the bill.I will repeat myself for your benefit.

What I find the most interesting about your response is that you point out articles and subsections... but resorted to pasting an ad hominem about the entire legislation in your previous post.

So, in your expert opinion, there is not a *single* thing in this bill that lowers health care costs or helps the average citizen?

I respectfully disagree. Furthermore, I certainly hope none of our legislators (of any political striping) are harmed for any reason having to do with this process.

 

[thompal]

When are they going to apologize and speak out against the SEIU thugs and the Illegal Aliens that they largely support being violent at our protests?

When the ice rinks open in hell.

 

[smokingman]

What I find the most interesting about your response is that you point out articles and subsections... but resorted to pasting an ad hominem about the entire legislation in your previous post.

So, in your expert opinion, there is not a *single* thing in this bill that lowers health care costs or helps the average citizen?

I respectfully disagree. Furthermore, I certainly hope none of our legislators (of any political striping) are harmed for any reason having to do with this process.

I did not say it would not help anyone.I said it did nothing to lower the cost of health care.There is a big difference in those two statements.They are not fixing anything to do with actual costs associated with health care,just giving additional people coverage(that will help those people).True Tort reform is needed and the dems have blocked at least 6 bills with Tort reform in them.I am not a democrat or republican.I think the proper route for true reform has to start with the actual cost of health care.You cover 30 million people that had no insurance...great.No how about trying some intelligent legislation to actually work on the cost.Do you understand how much of our GDP is in health care compared to every other civilized country? Changing the burden is the only thing this bill does.Instead of private companies having to foot the bill,the tax payer now does.And those 30 million new clients will be very welcome at the rolls of the insurance companies getting paid to accept them.Did you not notice most hospital and insurance company stocks have soared 20% in the last 3 days? They know they are going to be rolling in money,and the tax payer is footing the bill.They will no longer have to write off the uninsured and will make record profits.There are a few provisions in the bill to standardize costs,but the margins are insane.Even from state to state there is already up to 78% difference in what they charge for the same procedure.
The people really making out in the health care bill are the insurance companies and medical companies.So yes I guess there is a benefit to some lol.I guess the IRS makes out as well,getting money to hire 16,000 new agents.

As far as the ad hominem in my previous post it was a quote of another person not myself.I just found it to be humorous.
Oh,and if you could point me to any article in this bill that will lower the cost of health care for the "average" person I would appreciate it.

 

[thompal]

I'm talking about crime, not legitimate protest. It's good to let your Congressman know that he won't get your vote. It's bad to call them and make death threats (stalking/harassment), throw bricks through windows (criminal mischief), or walk on their property and cut propane lines (criminal recklessness).

Protest to your heart's content, but law breaking is what the lefties do. I'm a righty because I'm better than that, and so are the people on this site.

Hold on there, Turbo. I don't think you've thought this whole thing through very well. I know a lot of hardcore Repubs who's battle cry is "law and order," and your statement reminds me a lot of that.

Consider that in Germany at one time, it was a "crime" to help a Jewish person. In this country at one time, it was a "crime" for blacks to own guns, or learn to read. In the Soviet Union it was a "crime" to engage in 'counter-revolutionary activities,' which had a definition that varied from day to day. In China, it's a "crime" to be of a certain religion. In this country, it is often a "crime" to own both a shotgun AND a hacksaw. Now it will be a "crime" to NOT give your money to an insurance agency for healthcare. In China, it's a "crime" to gather to protest totalitarian government. In India, most of what Ghandi did was a "crime." It is a "crime" to buy two packages of a totally legal over-the-counter cold medicine. EVERY SIGNER of the Constitution was a CRIMINAL!!!! EVERY one of them had committed CRIMES!!

Are any of these "crimes" JUST? Hardly. Each is a great example of INJUSTICE forced on citizens by UNJUST laws. I would think that anyone screaming "law and order" when talking about society is more concerned with the "order" part than the laws. Justice is not even in the vocabulary.

There is a HUGE difference between the concepts of "crime" and "injustice." If you believe otherwise, then you must therefore believe that every law passed by our legislators is "just."

 

[E5RANGER375]

What I find the most interesting about your response is that you point out articles and subsections... but resorted to pasting an ad hominem about the entire legislation in your previous post.

So, in your expert opinion, there is not a *single* thing in this bill that lowers health care costs or helps the average citizen?

I respectfully disagree. Furthermore, I certainly hope none of our legislators (of any political striping) are harmed for any reason having to do with this process.

KING OBAMA is that you??? trying to stick up for you and your henchman???

 

[INRanger]

I agree Perm. There are certainly plenty of other reasons to hurt them. Those people are bottom feeders. I would certainly ruin the day of anyone who tried to rob me, maybe muggers should just call it a tax. They are the needy after all.

 

[thompal]

You directly state that "compassionate" is the opposite of "fiscally conservative." That makes absolutely no sense.

It makes no sense if you only use one word of the label. But, if you use the entire phrase they coined to define themselves, you would then be talking about a specific group or a specific political tactic, rather than an adjective.

However, if you muddy things by trying to compare "liberal" to "compassionate," then of course it will make no sense.

 

[thompal]

This implies that some person/group with power must sit idle unless some undetermined number of people are in agreement with a proposed plan.

Surely you don't mean that? If you do, what % of people should be in agreement before any reform is made?

We are, or are supposed to be at any rate, a "representative republic." They are SUPPOSED to represent the will of their constituents.

Are you honestly suggesting that congress should completely IGNORE the will of the people, and are free to pass any law they feel like? I think that was called the Supreme Soviet, and it didn't work out too well.

 

[thompal]

1) Eddie (and others) are using dissent as a tacit approval of violence, in so many words. This infers that "you should expect violence" if someone is angry about a decision you have made. I submit that this stance is morally bankrupt.

I'd be interested to hear why you disagree with this concept.

Look at some examples. Let's look at mid 30's Germany: The people, for the most part, went along with the National Socialists. If the people had taken things into their own hands, would some people have been spared the concentration camps? Would perhaps, one fewer country been occupied?

Let's look at the Soviet Union. If the people had stood up to the lawful government, would some of 20 million people have been spared death by various causes all directly caused by governmental action?

Let's look at China. If the citizens had stood up to Mao's government, would some of 26 million people have lived.

Conversely, let's look at a situation where the citizens DID stand up to the lawful government: The United States.

Now, you tell US which is the morally bankrupt methodology: to stand up to injustice and at least attempt to eliminate or hinder it? Or, is it morally superior to grovel at the foot of injustice, and watch injustice imposed on the citizens?

Explain please.

 

[thompal]

If you so choose. Some might call it "leaving other people alone". Other would simply call it freedom.

Most people refer to it as Libertarianism.

 

[thompal]

So, in your expert opinion, there is not a *single* thing in this bill that lowers health care costs or helps the average citizen?

I respectfully disagree.

Care to point out a couple of sections that will directly result in LOWER health care costs?

Contrast your example to the "average citizen" in Indiana who is currently using the HIP program, who will be forced onto Medicare/Medicaid, which is a considerably worse program.

 

[thompal]

And those 30 million new clients will be very welcome at the rolls of the insurance companies getting paid to accept them.Did you not notice most hospital and insurance company stocks have soared 20% in the last 3 days? They know they are going to be rolling in money,and the tax payer is footing the bill.They will no longer have to write off the uninsured and will make record profits.

BINGO!! This is NOT a healthcare bill at all. It is an INSURANCE COMPANY BAILOUT!

I did notice that within hours of the signing, insurance stocks were up 17-19% It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why.

I foresee thousands of doctors retiring. Most doctors now have at least one full-time person whose only job is to deal with insurance companies, and Medicaid/Medicare are the worst. Most doctors I know who have retired in the past 20 years have said it was because they could no longer justify having to deal with insurance companies, and putting insurance company rules over the good of their patient.