[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fw: What hath got rot?

[C. G. Estabrook]

Perhaps the issue is whether the president should be praised for passing a
mildly reformist bill that transfers a large amount of money from the poor to
the rich (the He-Made-The-Trains-Run-On-Time! Society) - or condemned for doing
that (the Fig Leaf Faction).  I belong to the FLF, not the HMTTROTS.  --CGE


Damien Mathew wrote:
> I just want to make sure I understand both sides of this heated argument.
> 
> One side is saying that this health care bill is not enough, and we should 
> keep fighting until we get at least a single payer system.
> 
> The other side is ... basically saying the same thing?
> 
> oookay then.  this is really productive....
> 
> damien.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:52 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net 
> <mailto:cge at shout.net>> wrote:
> 
> Although I don't believe we've met, Melodye, I think that from what I've 
> written I wouldn't be wrong to assume that you have me in mind as "one of the
>  most outspoken nay-sayers on this listserv always sitting in judgment of the
>  'establishment' so-to-speak, when they themselves are sitting on full [sic] 
> and enjoying the benefits of the 'establishment'."
> 
> You can't really mean that because one is privileged one should not criticize
>  the circumstances that produce that privilege.  On the contrary, privilege 
> would seem to produce a greater obligation as well as more opportunity to 
> press for social justice.
> 
> People usually resort to ad hominems because they're defending an untenable 
> position, but that doesn't seem to be true with you - at least on the face of
>  it.  The bill that you seem to be defending is a mildly positive step, but
> of course it won't fix the dysfunctional US health system. (I'm sure you
> admit that it's a long way from "an equitable health care system for
> everyone.")
> 
> The bill is designed in no small part to funnel money into the pockets of the
>  health care industry - insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations, 
> etc. In order to make that palatable, it had to contain some elements that 
> actually helped people, and it does. The process follows the general rule of 
> American politics that, if you want to make any improvements, you have to pay
>  off the rich people first.  That's been true since James Madison observed 
> that the purpose of the Constitution was to "protect the minority of the 
> opulent against the majority."
> 
> The president understands perfectly well that that's what he's doing. He came
>  into office with three problems - war, recession, and health care -  for
> each of which there was an obvious solution, and quite consciously chose the
> wrong one in each case. And not because he was forced to do so, against his
> will, but because he knows quite clearly whom he's working for. He could for 
> example have used the his rhetorical and political skills to press for 
> Medicare for all - polls show popular support for that, even without any 
> political leadership - as Johnson did for the original Medicare bill 45 years
>  ago.  But he chose not to.
> 
> I think that's the real point of your attack - to defend Obama's 
> unconscionable polices. And those are indeed untenable (and increasingly 
> unpopular) positions.  Objections are growing against Obama's  war and 
> against his transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.  And since it's 
> vital to the administration and its supporters to conceal what they are 
> actually doing, ad hominems are about all they have left.
> 
> Regards, CGE
> 
> 
> 
> Melodye Rosales wrote:
> 
> 
> There are way too many folks on these listservs who simply come in and 
> agitate for the joy of creating a discussion and or dissension.  What I find
>  hypocritical is the complete contradiction of one of the most outspoken 
> nay-sayers on this listserv always sitting in judgment of the "establishment"
>  so-to-speak, when they themselves are sitting on full and enjoying the 
> benefits of the "establishment"?  Great pension from the University, a spouse
>  who has a great pension from the University, owners of more than a quarter 
> of a million dollars (a conservative estimate) worth of properties in C-U 
> alone----yet always seeming to speak and act and voice their protests as if 
> they are one of the proletarians or even that they have experienced such 
> hardship within the last 30 years---at least.
> 
> To me, that is beyond disingenuous and detrimental to those poor and working
>  class folk who really need this help.  I, for one, don't mind giving more in
>  taxes or whatever it takes---if it can help provide an equitable health care
>  system for everyone---


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.