Cruzing & Obamacaring
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Ted Cruz undertook an almost marathon talking session against Obamacare. Not surprisingly, he does not have any need of Obamacare. As a senator, he already has access to government funded healthcare. However, he also does not need this coverage as, apparently, he falls under his wife’s Goldman Sachs’ coverage. Interestingly, while one of the anti-Obamacare talking points is that the cost of providing insurance will destroy business, the top executives at Goldman Sachs have their $40,500+ family premiums paid for by the company. As a point of comparison, the median household income in the United States is $50,000.
Naturally, to attack Cruz’s claims by pointing out his health care situation would be a mere ad homimem. However, his situation does serve to illustrate the incredible health care gap between the wealthy pundits and politicians attacking Obamacare and average Americans. It is certainly a thing of beauty to see a man with incredible coverage provided for by his wife’s employer rail against a law that would require almost many employers to provide lesser coverage to their employees.
It also illustrates an interesting inconsistency, namely that he seems to hold to the position that his wife should receive health care benefits from her employer but that the same is not true for other Americans. Of course, it is consistent with the view that the wealthy should be treated differently from everyone else.
It might, however, be objected that Cruz is right. After all, Goldman Sachs is incredibly profitable and can easily afford such premiums as part of the very generous (some might say excessive) compensation packages they offer to their “top talent.” Lesser businesses, those run by and employing the little people, cannot afford to provide even the minimum health care benefits required by Obamacare and, apparently, the employees do not deserve such coverage. As such, health care benefits from employers are for the wealthy but not for the little people.
While this approach has some merit when it comes to small businesses, the obvious counter is that the smaller businesses are exempt from this requirement. However, the potential economic impact of Obamacare is worth considering. As is the potential economic damage of the threatened government shut down.
It has been claimed that the cost of implementing Obamacare will cause businesses to fire people and to cut employee hours so that they are not full time employees. Presumably this will not impact the wealthy—Cruz did not seem worried that Goldman Sachs would fire his wife or cut her hours so they would not need to provide healthcare benefits.
While cost is a point of concern, there is the obvious question of whether businesses actually need to fire people and reduce hours or not as a rational response to Obamacare. That is, would the increased cost be so onerous that the firing and cutting would be a matter of survival? Or would it merely be a matter of slightly less profits? After all, some businesses obviously believe they can afford to provide extremely generous health care benefits to some people, so perhaps those affected can afford to provide lesser benefits to their workers.
This does, of course, raise some interesting questions about what benefits employees should receive and what constitutes economic necessity. However, these matters go beyond the scope of this essay. However, I will note that I do agree that health care should not be linked to employment and that I do agree that it should not be the responsibility of businesses to provide health care coverage. Unfortunately, the structure of health care benefits in the United States is such that having businesses as the provider is the main viable option. The other is, of course, having it provided by the state. Unless, of course, health care could be reformed to the point where average individuals could afford quality health care on their average incomes.
Oddly enough, Cruz and others have spoken of all the terrible damage that Obamacare has done and is doing. While this might be merely a slip of tenses, Obamacare cannot be doing any damage yet—it has not gone into effect. As such, it is an error to speak of the damage it has done—at least until it starts doing damage.
Cruz also made use of hyperbole and a rhetorical analogy by trotting out the absurd comparison of Obamacare to the Nazis. In the past, I have advocated a bi-partisan ban on this (Democrats use it, too) and I still support this proposal. As a general rule, only things that are comparable in badness to the Nazis should be compared to the Nazis. Even if Obamacare does all the awful things that certain Republicans claim it will do, it will obviously fall far short of starting a world war and engaging in genocide. Making the Nazi comparsion seems to show that a person has nothing substantial to say or that he has an impaired grasp of reality.
While Obamacare will certainly have problems, Cruz and his fellows have not offered any alternative plan of any substance. For the most part they make vague claims about market reforms and some even advance the absurd idea that people can just rely on the emergency room. While it is fair to be critical of a law when one does not have an alternative, the Republicans need to offer something other than threats to shut down the government. This makes these Republicans seem rather crazy.
A Philosopher's Blog 
Everything in Washington is political theater.
It’s all political optics and style points.
There is no substance to anything they say or do.
It’s all media imagery produced for media consumption.
The unjust, destructive of liberty, destructive of the economy, destructive of people, destructive of land, for-profit, self-serving agenda of the Washington politicos marches on…
“In order that justice may be retained in government, it is of the highest importance that those who rule states should understand that political power was not created for their particular advantage; and that the administration of the state must be carried on for the benefit of those who have been committed to their care, not for the benefit of those to whom it has been committed.” ~ Pope Leo XIII (Encyclical on Civil Government).
There is so much sloppy reasoning in this post it is difficult to know where to begin. Here are 3 places to start.
1) “..the top executives at Goldman Sachs have their $40,500+ family premiums paid for by the company. As a point of comparison, the median household income in the United States is $50,000.”
It makes no sense to compare an insurance premium with median income, especially since benefits like health insurance are not counted as income. What is the cost of the average family premium in Manhattan?
2) Obamacare cannot be doing any damage yet—it has not gone into effect.
Of course it can. People make decisions today based on future expectations.
3) “Cruz also made use of hyperbole and a rhetorical analogy by trotting out the absurd comparison of Obamacare to the Nazis.”
Cruz never compared Obamacare to the Nazis. You are not allowed to just make stuff up, Mike.
People make decisions today based on future expectations.
In Mike’s book, that’s a fallacy. Besides, Nancy Pelosi thinks it’s wonderful that the 40-hour work week is at risk. Just think what people can do with those extra 10 hours. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Of course, such is not for her but really. Think of the human potential.
You are not allowed to just make stuff up, Mike.
Who’s gonna stop him?
France shortened the work week and had to up the hours again.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the plan isn’t such that once a large number of employers cut people back to 30 hour weeks to avoid the Obamacare restrictions, the Dems will come back in and whine that employers NEED to pay a living wage on a 30 hour week and thus bump the minimum wage up by 33%.
The basic problem here is that Mike and his fellow travelers believe that jobs exist for the benefit of the employees. They simply don’t grasp, or in Mike’s case it’s a flat-out refusal to acknowledge, the concept that jobs exist for the benefit of those who want work done. Hence Mike constantly using the irony-quotes around the phrase ‘job creators’.
“Obamacare cannot be doing any damage yet—it has not gone into effect.”
I was thinking about this this morning, before I saw this post. Of course it already hurts. People have less opportunity to work because of it.
Funny, unions hurt employment, too.
Unless you believe in backwards causation, Obamacare itself cannot be doing any harm yet. You could claim that people are taking action because of what they think will happen under Obamacare, but that is another matter.
So tell me boys…Given that it is well known to anyone who is paying attention that several corporations have said that they will be cutting back on full time employees and making other adjustments based on what is both plainly and not plainly stated in the ACA. Given that anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that it is entirely possible, and in business absolutely necessary, to make decisions today based on laws that have been passed and will take effect barring any drastic action. Is Mike stupid, being willfully stupid, pretending to be stupid, thinks we’re stupid enough to buy his “reasoning”, or some combination of the above? Seriously, I’m looking for an answer here. This is not the thinking of someone who should be teaching thinking.
Why not? Cruz is going after Obamacare on the grounds that forcing employers to pay or pay a fine will destroy jobs. Yet his wife gets her $40,000+ premium paid by her employer. This would seem to suggest that some employers can afford to pay out benefits that are close to what the median income is in the United States. Obamacare requires far less.
This is not Obamacare itself doing damage. It is the reaction of people to what they claim will happen under Obamacare. Assigning blame to a law based on what people do because of what they think might happen is rather problematic. It is fair to say that people are doing things now because of what they claim will happen later under Obamacare. To use an analogy, if a student interprets my ban on using smartphones during tests as meaning I will confiscate his phone and he destroys it thinking he will spite me by doing so, then that is not my responsibility.
McCain must be making up the same thing: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/mccain-rips-cruz-for-nazi-comment-in-obamacare-speech/
“This would seem to suggest that some employers can afford to pay out benefits that are close to what the median income is in the United States. Obamacare requires far less.”
It is a meaningless comparison. How it compares to other family premiums in Manhattan is the only relevant comparison.
Don’t quote McCain. Quote the relevant passage from Cruz.
Is McCain some sort of authority for you?
“Unless you believe in backwards causation, Obamacare itself cannot be doing any harm yet.”
Mike, human beings are not subject to the same laws of causation as billiard balls. Human beings are able to anticipate the future to some extent. For example, when capital gains taxes are slated to rise on January 1, a lot of people will sell in December to avoid the higher tax. Do you really want to argue that the tax increase in January has no causal relationship to higher volumes of selling in December?
Holding your breath waiting for Mike to admit he was wrong? Never gonna happen.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but this is real. Soviet Active Measures still impact Americans today.
Just a thought. I think Obama may have switched sides. I think we now may be part of the Russia, Iran, Syria axis.
A coworker of mine was nervous about applying for his security clearance. I told him it was no big deal except, unlike when I applied, when he came to the following question:
ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, MOVEMENT, GROUP, OR COMBINATION OF PERSONS WHICH ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY ORGANIZATION
ASSOCIATION, MOVEMENT, GROUP OR COMBINATION OF PERSONS WHICH HAS ADOPTED A POLICY OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OR FORCE OR VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHER PERSONS THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
OR OF SEEKING TO ALTER THE FOR OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTI- TUTIONAL MEANS?
The correct answer is now “yes”.
Perhaps I am stating the obvious to some, but I am convinced that Obama is a Marxist at heart. There are simply too many involvements with extreme Leftists and a history of Marxist thought to believe otherwise. Mike has dismissed this idea with a hand wave, Ayers, Bell, Reverend Wright, all Marxists. Him mother, an avowed Marxist. He went to live with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii; both of them were Marxists. Did I mention Frank Marshall Davis? Obama termed him a “mentor”. Marxist. Investigated by Congress and the FBI. And of course, Obama’s favorite, Saul Alinski. That Obama could have been elected with his background is astounding. With those affiliations, I’m not sure I could have gotten a security clearance. In “Dreams from my father”, he states:
” I chose my friends carefully….The Marxist Communists, the structured feminists.”
In 1996, Obama joined the Democratic Socialists of America. Noam Chomsky was also a member. I went to the DSA website and used the oganic search engine with search term “Marx”. There are dozens of articles at the sire advocating for Marxist ideology. I admit the DSA seems unhappy with Obama, but I submit that Obama is much more a realist than most of the organization’s members. He knows real change takes decades, unless you’re purging massive portions of the population. Which isn’t easy if the population is the most well armed in the world.
Notice that Wright uses the same psychological ploy that Mike does, conjuring Christian ethic as a way to convince that socialism is the way to go.
I’ve studied some history of Soviet active measures and as I’ve stated elsewhere before, I am astounded at how mush more advanced the Soviets were than we now are at this sort of thing. Some would say that it speaks well of us that we are not so good at lying and deception, but at the same time, we are more vulnerable to taking candy from the stranger.
Marxists don’t do million dollar book deals.
Are you that naive or do you think we are?
What about Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore?
A robust fitness program would help that angry fat man a great deal.
Bill Ayers is a communist. He sold a book, too.
If he is making profits in the capitalist system, then he is a communist in the same sense that someone who doesn’t believe in God is a theist. That is, he is not.
If he is making profits in the capitalist system, then he is a communist in the same sense that someone who doesn’t believe in God is a theist. That is, he is not.
So what does that say about a philosopher who has ever indulged in sophistry? Who often has used twisted logic and twisted reason to undermine the foundation of rational inquiry? Who values personal ideology above truth? Who refuses to admit an error? Who mocks the wisdom of others?
I think you are correct. Were he not a government official but someone trying to get work in the defense arena, while I’m sure BO could get a secret clearance TS would take substantial explanation. Without some powerful, and consequently suspect, endorsement he could never get it on his own. Though I do have some third-hand knowledge of someone who from what I could tell was pretty much a man-child acquiring TS because of influence. I don’t think the guy was politically suspect, I just would not have trust him to keep his stupid mouth shut.
The clearance system has a lot of problems, as we found out from Chelsea Manning and Snowden. The army finally changed the rules on who can get my MOS and thus a TS.
No one has been able to adequately explain this. Mike used the hand wave again. Did Obama have a shoulder injury?
I thought it was because he hates America and wanted the world to know it.
There’s that hand wave thing again. Predictable, ain’t it?
“I thought it was because he hates America and wanted the world to know it.”
Finally. You admit the possibility.
Yesterday I did not think there would be a government shutdown.
Then the word went out that Dems were supposed to call the GOP “terrorists” and “suicide bombers” and “hostage takers” and “extremists.” And of course you are never supposed to negotiate with a terrorist.
Today I now think there will be a government shutdown.
But how dare you ever question the patriotism of Obama or any other Dem.
If a person places his own private good over the good of a just nation and acts to the detriment of his fellows, his patriotism should be question. The patriot serves his country with his conscience. A rogue merely serves himself.
So we are justified in questioning the left’s, and by inclusion your, patriotism. Got it.
Peter Morici predicts the future of Obamacare:
Minimum coverage requirements and the ban on factoring pre-existing conditions into rates are driving up premiums. Large businesses, such as Trader Joe’s and Home Depot, are dropping coverage for part-time employees.
Smaller businesses and healthy young people are seeing premiums jump — sometimes by 300 percent. The former are finding it cheaper to drop plans for full-time employees and pay a penalty starting in 2015.
Many healthy young people will calculate it is better to forego coverage and pay a modest penalty — after all a 30-year-old earning $50,000 really can’t easily afford $4,000 for insurance, making a $500 penalty appear modest. Even some middle-income families will find similar math compelling.
This will leave health insurance exchanges with too many sick people and too few healthy ones. This will drive up premiums further, compel more businesses and individuals to forgo insurance and create enormous political pressure to increase federal insurance subsidies for low- and middle-income individuals and families.
Medicare’s actuaries expect health costs per person, across the entire population, to rise from about $9,200 in 2013 to about $14,700 in 2022. That’s about 20 percent of gross domestic product, whereas Germany spends about 12 and Britain even less.
Large U.S. multinationals will find providing most employees with insurance too expensive if they are to compete in global markets, and dump their employees into subsidized public exchanges.
It will still be impossible for the GOP to win 60 Senate seats on a platform to repeal Obamacare. Although many folks will be without coverage, too many voters will depend on federal subsidies or Medicaid and simply won’t vote to give up those entitlements.
The burden to find solutions will take Congress to places that Republicans are very reluctant to go.
The German and other European systems accomplish lower costs and universal coverage by imposing tight controls on prices for services, drugs and devices. Britain’s National Health Service doesn’t bother with insurance companies and claims forms — by eliminating insurance company overhead it accomplishes much lower costs than even the German system.
Even before Obamacare, federal and state governments, through Medicare, Medicaid and other programs, paid more than 50 percent of U.S. healthcare bills. That was more than the 9 percent of GDP and the amount Britain spends to accomplish universal coverage — without the additional $4,600 per person U.S. businesses and individuals pony up.
Reducing U.S. doctors’ fees and drug and device prices down to German levels won’t be easy or likely possible but politicians, providers and businesses still providing health insurance will need a solution — likely a scapegoat.
Enter the insurance companies that have been screwing down doctor’s fees, hassling everyone with mindless paperwork and paying executives like royalty.
The federal government could probably pay doctors, drug companies and device manufactures pretty reasonably directly and without the insurance company middle-men, through an American National Health Service.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2013/09/27/Outside-View-First-Obamacare-then-a-single-payer-system/UPI-92041380281260/
Great Reagan quote I’ve never heard before: “The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”
Barack Obama: Marxist. This should make yo like him more, Mike.
Marxism is just another religion, only with an even more problematic metaphysics than most.
Obama is a Marxist. Just because he makes money from books does not mean he is not. After all, he is ensconced in a mostly capitalist system, and has no choice but to take part in it. His actions fit perfectly with Program Minimum, from Marxist doctrine; that is you only make changes and demands that you know are easily achieved. The intent of Minimum Program is to advance capitalism in order to move it closer to its own demise. As you know, Marx believed capitalism grows, then collapses on itself. The Maximum Program is a direct attempt to foment revolution. Obama is utilizing Program Minimum. Crony Capitalism, skyrocketing debt, it seems to be coming together quite well for him.
How many times does Marxism/communism/socialism/progressivism have to fail before people accept it is a hollow ideology filled with false promises?
But it’s never really been tried. All those other countries just did it wrong. Duh.
An ideology shapes a person’s perception in a way that distorts reality. So, the objective failure of an ideology or the falseness of a beloved belief rarely results in a change of mind.
Most ideologies are false promises, lies and distortions. Okay, all.
If he is a Marxist, then we need new terms for the actual Marxists.
Reading this book now. It’s amazing how the Bolshevik’s thinking almost exactly mirrors the thinking of the Left, as it is now. In another life, I’d probably be a Marxist; I understand it’s draw and understand the problems that workers had in the past. I understand why people wanted unions. I just have no faith 1) In a distant centralized system to know what colored underwear or what flavor ice cream I may prefer 2) No faith that the workers are any more heroic than any other class.
“Communists cared little for detailed prognostication. They dealt in visions and slogans, in promises and threats and commitments. They talked about “class struggle” and “class war” and even “civil war”. They paid no attention to the details of governance….The Bolsheviks cheerfully smashed institutions to smithereens…They had no concern about the disruption they were bound to cause.”
Sound familiar?
http://www.amazon.com/Spies-Commissars-Russian-Revolution-ebook/dp/B007UPGPDO/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1380631424&sr=1-1&keywords=spies+and+commisars
You don’t want to be a Bolshevik even in a possible past.
Wow, that sounds like the Tea Party Republicans:
“The Tea Party Republicans cared little for detailed prognostication. They dealt in visions and slogans, in promises and threats and commitments. They talked about “class struggle” and “class war” and even “civil war”. They paid no attention to the details of governance….The Tea Party Republicans cheerfully smashed institutions to smithereens…They had no concern about the disruption they were bound to cause.”
Think about it: who talks about class warfare? Who is willing to shut down the government without concern about the consequences? The more moderate Republicans see how crazy this is.
I thought the Tea Party was dead?
What institutions did the Tea Party smash? Do tell.
Who talks about class warfare? The Tea Party talks about it when the Democrats wage it. You talk about class warfare. Virtually every article is about how the rich are trying to make it over on the poor. What do you call that?
ohferchrissakes, you’re so full of it. Seriously, have you no shame? The insults and misinformation that you hurl at your opposition becomes the proof of your point? The “class struggle” and “class war” that TP’s talk about are quotes of the BS coming from you and your cohorts. “The Tea Party Republicans cheerfully smashed institutions to smithereens”, bull.fucking.shit. They have done no such thing. They peacefully assemble and protest the institutions of which they disapprove. And you have the unmitigated gall to say this is the equivalent to what your occupy heroes do? To what the Bolsheviks did? “They had no concern about the disruption they were bound to cause.” Yeah, a little self-awareness buddy. You have no concern about upsetting a very successful society. You equate dissent with violence. Much worse than what you leftist bastards accuse those of us who question your patriotism. The constant demonizing and threats of actual physical violence flow more from the left than the right. The left has to hoax violence against itself to satisfy its own delusional thinking.
Damn near everything you write here is nothing but sophistry. What a disgrace to philosophy, OSU (no big loss there, actually), and FAMU. Stop attacking the values that have made this country successful. Give rational and respectful answers to your critics and admit when you’re wrong once in a while.
Yes, unlike you polite peaceful lefties. Like those at The New Republic. Is this a call for violence and civil war?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114945/two-russians-walk-parliamentary-crisis
The real Democrat end state:
“Handouts have unintended consequences”. Many other things have unintended consequences.
But theses are all lies. Unlike what Mike tells us…and his students.
Only the most stubborn would refuse to admit that many of these have already occured in America, and that the remaining few are pushed for by the Obama administration:
Karl Marx’s 10 Planks to a socialist state:
Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.
A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.
Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.
Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.
Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.
Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.
Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.
Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.
Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children’s Factory Labor in it’s Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.
Yet another example of the weirdness within this administration: In Obama’s book, “Dreams of my Father”, Obama references a man named Frank 22 times. Apparently Obama did not think people would be smart enough to figure out that Frank was Frank Marshall Davis, a full-blown Communist, even by Mike’s definition; be cause in the audio version of the book, all references to Frank have been removed. Frank is not referenced at all. In the original print, Obama praises Frank and says that he mentored him. Do we think Frank was telling Obama what a great country is America?
Awaiting the hand wave.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/18/How-Obama-Media-Concealed-Influence-of-His-Communist-Mentor
What did the original references say? Also, being influenced by a person need not entail that one accept that person’s beliefs. Gopal was an influence on me, but I did not accept his views on communism.
1) Why were those specific references deleted in the audio?
2) Obama says in his book that he chose his friends carefully; he looked for Marxists and Feminists to be his friends in college.
3) Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s “mentor” (in Obama’s own words) before Obama went to college. This probably had something to do with why Obama looked for those types of friends.
4) This is not the only reason someone may believe that Obama is a Communist.
5) A whole book has been written about FMD and his influence on Obama. “The Communist”, by Paul Kengor; he’s in the vid above.
1) Image polishing?
2) To be fair, who doesn’t have some crazy/problematic friends and/or exes? 🙂
3) Could be.
4) Well, people believe a lot of unsupported claims on the basis of poor evidence. So this could be a reason why in the sense of a psychological explanation. However, if Obama is a Communist, how does one explain the alleged buddy-buddy relationship he has with big business and the claim he is for big government? A real communist would be pushing class warfare and endeavoring to destroy the state.
5) Sure, but there are also whole books written about the earth being hollow. Why accept this work as being credible?
I think there are adequate grounds to offer real criticisms of Obama’s policies without engaging in what amounts to making up witch tales. Calling him a communist and picking through things looking for tiny shreds and scraps seems a waste of time when there are real issues that can be engaged without weird conspiracy theories.
Just nail him on the real stuff. You don’t need to invoke the ghost of McCarthyism to spook people.
I don’t think Obama is a very deep thinker. Here is how Obamacare was created.
The most important red line of Barack Obama’s presidency was scrawled hastily in January 2007, a few weeks before he even announced he was running for president.
Soon-to-be-candidate Obama, then an Illinois senator, was thinking about turning down an invitation to speak at a big health care conference sponsored by the progressive group Families USA, when two aides, Robert Gibbs and Jon Favreau, hit on an idea that would make him appear more prepared and committed than he actually was at the moment.
Why not just announce his intention to pass universal health care by the end of his first term?
Thus was born Obamacare, a check-the-box, news-cycle expedient that would ultimately define a president.
“We needed something to say,” recalled one of the advisers involved in the discussion. “I can’t tell you how little thought was given to that thought other than it sounded good. So they just kind of hatched it on their own. It just happened. It wasn’t like a deep strategic conversation.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-health-care-conversion-obamacare-97185.html#ixzz2hLZh0kji
2) Obama says in his book that he chose his friends carefully; he looked for Marxists and Feminists to be his friends in college.
clownNosePositionOn=true
To be fair, who doesn’t have some crazy/problematic friends and/or exes?
clownNosePositionOn=false
People who choose their friends carefully
Go ahead. Ignore the pertinent aspects of questions put to you. Why not?
As for the McCarthyism accusation, why should we take YOU seriously? You’re the one making things up here. You do it constantly in regard to CEOs, capitalism, etc. things you know nothing about. Magus presented evidence here and asked valid questions. You play the clown when it suits you and then get all grown-uppy about “conspiracy theories”. Mike buys into many conspiracy theories himself in regard to free markets being unfair, etc. and offers far less evidence than Magus does here.
Actually, Dr. Paul Kengor wrote another book, Dupes, which meticulously outlines exactly how the Communist went after the Progressives of the 20s and 30s. Someone who’s a Communist sympathizer does not have to use the rhetoric of Lenin. Indeed, he should not. He should be much more subtle.
“Why accept this work as being credible?” First, the title “The Communist” refers to Frank Marshall David, not Obama. Kengor’s thesis is that mentors are very important. FMD’s kernel of ethics was in his Communism. For Obama to call FMD a mentor, state that he looked for Marxists to befriend in college, calls Alinski an idol and had parents and grandparents who were Communists, seems like a bit of evidence.
But there’s much more evidence. Obama is not Stalin. You conveniently fit Communists into a narrow mold, so that Obama cannot fit into that mold. But when we look at the Progressives of the 20s and 30s, like Professor John Dewey, a man you’re quite familiar with I’m sure, we can see how Obama could easily be that sort of Communist. All of the things here and in the other posts on the subject do not even dent your iron-clad confidence in what Obama really is about?
I invite people to read Kengor’s stuff and make the decision for themselves. His works are complete and convincing.
Mike, what do you think Obama meant when he said he wanted to “fundamentally transform” the U.S.? What counts as a fundamental transformation?
Kengor makes a great point. The mainstream media was too busy to research any of this; they were too busy delving into the dark and murky world of Mitt Romney’s high school bullying. Truly earth shattering stuff.
By the way. McCarthy was right. Many historians admit that now. Your “McCathyism” accusation is an old Communist tactic. Don’t be a Communist Mike.
“Whatever impact our encounter might have had on him, I know something about what Barack Obama believed in 1980. At that time, the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps — for the first time — considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism. Knowing this, I think I have a responsibility to place on the public record my account of this incident from our president’s past.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/meeting_young_obama.html